The General (1926)

Country: USA

Released: December 31st, 1926

Genre: Comedy

Director: Clyde Bruckman & Buster Keaton

Producer: Joseph Schenck & Buster Keaton

Writer: Al Boasberg, Clyde Bruckman, & Buster Keaton

There's a story about Buster Keaton that my Dungeon Master (Yes I'm single, ladies) told me once: Apparently at the tale-end of Keaton's career, when he was pushing an age wherein most people would eye retirement, he was hired to star in a film with a script that called for him to run face first into a tree and flop onto the ground. While the film crew was discussing how best to film the sketch to avoid any injury, Keaton decided to practice by just straight up running into the tree full force, convincing the crew that he had just killed himself. As people were rushing to help him he hopped right back up as if nothing had happened and prepared to do it again.

Now I can't actually say if this story is true or not, but as far as I am concerned it is. Why? Because that's just the kind of artist Keaton was. Not until perhaps Jackie Chan would there be an actor so physical, so fearless, so willing to put themselves in harms way for the sake of their art as Keaton (not surprisingly Chan cites Keaton as one of his greatest inspiration). And that's why when someone tells me that he once ran full force into a tree for a practice take, I just nod and say, "Well what do you expect? It's Buster Motherfucking Keaton."

Surprisingly this is not the first time I've seen The General. I first had the pleasure of seeing it, oddly enough, when I was in middle school. My teacher Mrs. Oden made the entire class watch it for some bizarre reason. While Oden was a bit of a nutball and terrible teacher the film fortunately was great. I suppose it had to have been. Despite being a silent, black and white movie from the twenties it still got a bunch of cynical, whiny, puberty-afflicted teenagers from the 2000s to laugh, which I must admit is a little magical and just goes to show the man's timelessness. 

Years later as I loaded up the movie on Youtube I wondered if it would hold up. There was a lot of pressure to like this movie. It's was one of Roger Ebert's top ten favourites and is ranked eighteen on the AFI's top one hundred greatest films of all time. It was among the first movies to be selected for preservation in the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress. Orson Welles called it the greatest comedy of all time, and even Keaton himself considered it his magnum opus. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that The General is one of THE movies.

So with all this in mind one question remains: does it deserve it's praise?

Well, while I can't speak for everyone on the matter, I say yes, yes, one-thousand times yes.

Simply put The General is a phenomenal piece of art and a testament to the power of visual story-telling.

The movie stars Keaton as Johnnie Gray, a Southern train engineer who attempts to join the Confederate army to fight the Union. After the army rejects him on the grounds that he's more useful to the South as an engineer than as a soldier, his fiancée Annabelle (Marion Mack) and her family brand him a coward and refuse to speak to him. He eventually becomes embroiled in a conspiracy perpetrated by Union spies to sabotage Southern infrastructure. What follows is essentially an hour-long train-chase as Johnnie has to retrieve his train (the titular 'General'), save Annabelle (who is kidnapped, because of course she is), and make it back to Southern lines to warn the Confederacy. The film ends with Johnnie foiling the Union, being promoted as a lieutenant, and reuniting happily with Annabelle.

The issue with talking about comedies is that usually they're only as good as their jokes, and beyond saying "it's funny" or "it's not funny" one can't really discuss the content without just explaining what the jokes are. In the words of E.B White, "explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process."

Fortunately, and surprisingly, the humour is not the central conceit of the film. While jokes are certainly present in droves they play second fiddle to the action, which is fantastic. As I mentioned above Keaton did his own stunts and it's an absolute marvel to watch the guy running across moving trains and jumping over blazing fires. The man has balls so big I'm shocked NASA hasn't classified them as astronomical objects.

But what really sets this film apart, what really makes it special, what really raises it to the realm of cinematic classic, is it's raw filmmaking. Or put another way, this is some of the best camera work I have ever seen. I have yet to see anyone of this list who can stage or compose a shot as well as Keaton. The visual storytelling displayed is something else, and watching it made me feel like most filmmakers today have forgotten it's importance. 

Film is fundamentally a visual medium and Keaton understands this. As a result The General is visually efficient. Not in a perfunctory, mechanical sense, but more in a sense that every shot is designed to convey information as clearly and as interestingly as possible. Not a single shot or moment feels wasted. The characters are staged to compliment the camera and our perspective, not the other way around. The result is that not once does the movie feel boring or slow. The film flows so seamlessly that we can't help but be engaged throughout.

It's difficult to convey without in words, but if you every want to see a complete opposite to this watch the Star Wars prequels (or better yet, save yourself the trouble and watch the Redlettermedia reviews of the prequels). The dialogue is constantly filmed in shot-reverse-shot, and what we end up getting is a bland, uninteresting feature.

The General by contrast knows how to make a scene look interesting. Take a look at the following shot for example:

The gag, which is more effectively expressed in motion, is that Keaton is hiding from these Union generals, who don't manage to find him despite lifting up the table-cloth he's hiding in. Besides being difficult to stage what with Keaton actually hiding under the table, it is beautifully composed. There are so many layers of movement of display from the two generals in the front, to the two in the back, to the fellow way in the background fumbling in the kitchen. These layers breath life and depth into the scene. Furthermore both the way the generals in the foreground are sitting naturally emphasize Keaton, who is perfectly lit to make him clearly visible while still conveying that he is hiding, thus drawing the audience's eyes to him and his reaction,  masterfully delivering the punchline.

This is one sexy shot, and the whole movie is composed of moments like this.

Camera work aside Keaton is charismatic as hell, straddling the line between earnest underdog and deadpan. His deadpan alone deserves a prize to be honest. I've said this in previous reviews but I don't think any actor, before or since could deadpan as effectively or hilariously as Keaton. But another, often overlooked talent of his is his mastery of the closing kiss. Like with many movies of this time most of Keaton's films end with the guy getting the gal at the end. The trope is as old as dirt and will continue to exist for as long as movies grace the silver screen (hopefully we'll start seeing more gals getting the guy in the future). Keaton however does this better than anyone. Aside from his inherent sweetness, he manages to add that little extra something to his closing kisses that make them really stand out. In Sherlock Jr. it was him imitating a movie playing in the background to learn how to kiss his love interest properly. In The General Johnnie kisses Annabelle while simultaneously firing off a string off hasty salutes to a marching line of soldiers in a perfect mix of humour and saccharine.

Admittedly some of the joy is a little undercut by the fact that these are Confederate soldiers and Keaton basically saved the South. Hell at one point we see Johnnie valiantly waving the Confederate flag into battle (although it is subverted a bit), which in this day and age feels off, especially in light of recent events. I honestly can't fault the movie though. It's worth remembering that it was made only sixty years after the end of the civil war, less time than between today and the end of the Second World War. At the time the Confederacy didn't have the same negative connotation as it does today. The movie isn't exactly pro-Confederate either. Both sides are fairly interchangeable, and neither is especially heinous or especially noble. It honestly feels like they just had to pick a side and chose the South at the toss of a coin.

As I finish off this entry I can't help reflect on Keaton and everything he's accomplished. In just the three movies I've seen of his he's already become one of my favourite directors. His unique style and sheer fearlessness has done so much to influence film making and more importantly comedy that as a comedian can't help but feel like I owe so much to him and everything he's done. But perhaps the most amazing thing is that despite being over a century old can still teach me and comedians like me a thing or two about humour. Buster, you were one in a million, and you're still just as funny as the day you first walked on screen.

Thank you.