Customer Reviews

Keaton

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Because Rudi Blesh's "Keaton" was published over 30 years ago and out of print, it's best to check the public library first, because trying to find it in a used bookstore may take till the 5th of never.

The book focuses on, in particular, his vaudeville days (1895-1917) and the silent film period that followed (1917-28). Little is written about the years after 1928. This may be because the book was written in cooperation with Buster, and it is likely that the years up to 1928 were the happiest of his career. Because it was written in cooperation with Buster, we get interviews, verbatim, straight out of his mouth. These unedited "tape recorder" parts are the best pages of the book because we get to hear his down-to-earth speaking style such as referring to his father as "the old man", his own face as "the puss", and the garbage as "the ash can" (several times), and also his abrupt incomplete-sentence style of talking.

However, there's much to be annoyed by here. The 60's began a nauseating self-awareness period that even spilled over into the subject of Buster Keaton. This era began the absurd psychoanalysis of his films and Blesh seems to endorse it ("the pale mask projected our own feelings"). These innocent films, which were only meant to make people laugh (and make a profit), are analyzed as being a study of Man's Competition with the Machine Age or blubbery about Man Against Modern Mechanisms ("the Keaton mythos is one more of being mastered than of being master"). The best way to really appreciate Buster is to ignore this hooey, and instead watch the unbelievable bravery that's proven in the deadly stunts he performed in the films made up to 1928.

Blesh also gives us descriptions of the plots to Buster's films. Almost all of them are described with errors, in fact on one of them, "The Electric House", Blesh incredibly rewrote both the characters and the plot! There's also included a photo of Buster and some others standing with their backs to the camera in front of the Keaton Studio on its opening day, which would have been in early 1920. The caption reads that it's Buster, his family members, and Fatty Arbuckle. It's actually the cast of "Neighbors", a film he made at the end of 1920.

Then Blesh continuously calls Buster's first 2-reel short "The High Sign" (1920) a "turkey", most likely because Buster kept referring to it as that in the interviews he did with Blesh. As an artist, Buster is naturally going to be more critical of his work than anyone else is. For this reason, it's out of place for the author to agree that "The High Sign" is a "turkey", especially since it's not that bad.

A relatively short section at the end is devoted to his MGM years (1928-33). Both these guys thrive on criticizing how bad the MGM pictures were, none of which were bad at all. There are so many errors in the book that I'm skeptical about how true the following is (because it's compiled by Blesh and not verbatim out of Buster's mouth), but one of the most interesting pages in the book is Buster's harrowing experience with his alcoholism and the D.T.'s he suffered (attacked by squirrels and ants) in his attempt to dry out, following his discharge from MGM, and the trip to the Arizona desert afterwards, ending with an experience with a bunch of hobos alongside some train tracks.

Since Buster was by the author's side during its composition, the book is worth reading because we get personal information that his future biographers weren't capable of gathering. One morning, I was so engrossed in something Mr. Keaton was saying that I missed a bus stop and had to walk a half mile to work because of it.

I highly recommend reading Mr Blesh's book basically because he gives us a better view of Buster's personal life. He particularly focuses on his childhood and the years prior to 1920. This I found very interesting. He does seem to completely avoid the period betweens Buster's first marriage to Natalie Talmadge and his third marriage to Eleanor. This was a bit frustrating since I am very curious about these years. Blesh skims over what I am sure would be fascinating if not depressing reading. Keep in mind that Mr. Blesh was a freind of Busters so he is more respectful of Buster than some authors have been. All in all the book is very good and comes highly recommended.

KEATON by Rudi Blesh is an outstanding book. But with flaws. Blesh provides great insight up through Buster's MGM years. He worked closely with Buster and the results are much better than "My Wonderful World of Slapstick". Blesh provides details of Buster's sad decline as MGM destroyed him.

There is not much about Buster's later years. Blesh finished the book prior to Buster's revival. Eleanor Keaton & Jeffery Vance cover Buster's final years much better in "Buster Keaton Remembered".

There are two key flaws, however. One is minor. At times Blesh's psychoanalysis of Buster's films seems foolish.

The other flaw is significant. Blesh misrepresents scenes from many films. My guess is he was relying on memory. In any event many descriptions of what transpired never happened.

Those two flaws can be forgivin- the rest of the book is great. The definitive book on Buster has yet to have been written. Read KEATON by Blesh as a companion to "Buster Keaton Remembered" (for the later years) and "Buster Keaton" by David Robinson (which accurately describes Buster's films).

This biography is a classic, and hard to find in print. Rudi Blesh has a folksy, conversational style that is fun to read. Lots of photos that aren't available elsewhere. His respect and admiration for his subject is obvious. It sounds like he was a personal friend of Keaton--so perhaps his source for the bio was personal knowledge rather than extensive research? Like most biographies of artists, the book tells the story of Keaton's life and reviews his work. Some of the details in Blesh's description of Keaton's films are inaccurate --he relied on his memory rather than viewing the films again. And, Blesh is a biographer, not a film critic, so the analysis of Keaton's films is not very deep.