Customer Reviews

The Silent Clowns

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What Kerr has essentially revealed in this book is the very pulse by which the silent comedic form remaines timeless. He manages to write his book with such a love, yet such an intellectual understanding, that much like the art form he analyzes, it is a book devoid of snootiness or cynicsm. The book has many stengths, but carries such weight because it isn't only pre-occupied with Keaton and Chaplin. The chapters on Harold Lloyd -- who remains understudied -- are very insightful, yet objective. And while other silent comedians aren't given quite space that the major four American comedians are (Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon), a respectable analysis of Arbuckle, Sennett, Linder, Laurel and Hardy, and many more are presented. Valuable perspectives on "non-comedic" actors like Fairbanks, Pickford, and Gish are also hearty reading.

Kerr also give great insight into aesthetic issues, such as music composition and presentation, varying artists' cutting techniques, the roles of women in selected films, the alternate use of frame rates, and much, much, more. What makes the book so refreshing to read is how very much Kerr loves his subject, not necassarilly his subjects. Most books about the silent comedians -- Keaton and Chaplin in particular -- cannot help but devote numerous pages and even chapters to the filmmaker's vices (i.e. Chaplin's womanizing, Keaton's alcoholism). Kerr mentions such subjects when pertinent, but they do not become the book's thrust, nor are such issues presented to undercut the artist or his work in any way. Flawed men these clowns were, but their work remains relatively perfect.

This book is not only the single best volume ever written about silent film comedy, but the best about silent film, period. Only Kevin Brownlow's The Parade's Gone By even comes close. There are chapters on the mechanics and aesthetics of silent film that should be read by everyone with an interest in the form. In addition, his chains of reasoning and perceptions are put forth with an aptness and lucidity that conceals the depth of the intellectual analysis. The elegantly straightforward prose makes this book a joy to read from start to finish. Further, in addition to covering the film work of the "big four" (Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, and Langdon) Kerr also sheds welcome light on lesser-known and even forgotten figures, such as the "unexpected" Raymond Giffith. Finally, this is a book that was well-produced on every level, right down to the layout, chapter headings, and fonts. Numerous film stills of every size (inluding some generous two-page spreads) make it a feast for the eyes as well as the mind, cogently and often playfully setting off the text. The original hardback edition published by Knopf was meant as a sort of intelligent coffee-table book (most assuredly NOT an oxymoron in this case), and the present oversized-paperback edition provided by the good folks at Da Capo should be seen in the same light. Both a celebration of silent comedy and a superb investigation of the form. Also a book that you can dip into again and again over the years with undiminished pleasure and come away with reinvigorated enthusiasm for the subject. If you don't have it, get it.

Surely one of the best books ever published about any aspect of the movies, longtime NY Times theater critic Walter Kerr's paean to the comedies he grew up on in the 1920s brings both affection and an extremely discerning critical eye to the period and its figures, large and small.

Kerr had seen many of the films as a boy, but deciding not to trust his memory, he went back and viewed hundreds of silent films with-- in those pre-VCR days-- the aid of archives such as George Eastman House and collectors such as William K. Everson. The result is a particularly painstaking and well-documented account of the rise of film comedy. You might disagree with his dismissal of Mack Sennett, for instance, but there's no denying he has the ammo to make his case. He helps us see what was distinctive about such shadowy figures as Raymond Griffith (who might be the fifth great silent clown if more of his films survived), Max Linder (Chaplin's early model) and Lloyd Hamilton. And when it comes to the giants-- Keaton and Chaplin in particular-- no one has ever analyzed so well what is unique and magical about each of them.

Highly intellectual yet entirely accessible, Kerr's text would be enough for any book, but it is also a beautifully designed coffee table book with many large and unfamiliar stills from the period

If you get any book or combination of books on silent film, this one is a must have. Incredible research, great examples of each master's style, technique, and persona.

You don't have to be a film buff to enjoy this book; the author obviously loves his subject, and his enthusiasm is infectious...I find myself coming back to this book repeatedly, and each time find something new.

When written, Kerr proclaimed that he had a predilection for the work of Keaton, read why and check out "The General" or "The Navigator" and you'll know why he's doesn't seem as dated or quaint as Chaplin.

Buy it.

This book is absolutely fascinating, enriching, absorbing, and rewarding on any number of levels. Nobody I have read has ever explained any art form with more clarity and intelligence than Mr. Kerr in THE SILENT CLOWNS. It combines a heartfelt love of the form with meticulous research and a tough minded analysis of what exactly made people laugh at silent comedy then and what in those films could translate to modern audiences. The book is accessible, written in plain language but so astute on what makes people laugh AND what makes some laughs better than others that it sometimes seems it should be required reading for all writers, filmmakers, storytellers, et al.

I was not a silent film fan before reading Walter Kerr's masterful dissection of silent comedy, but, as a blurb on the back of the book stated, it had me laughing at routines I had never seen and made me want to track down every single Buster Keaton film I could get my hands on.

Walter Kerr was one of the premiere theater critics of his generation, but he managed as well to write beautifully, movingly, and fascinatingly about the Golden Age of screen comedy. Although he does in the course of his book write about many comedians, much of the focus of the book is on who he considers the four great silent comics or clowns: Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, and Harry Langdon.

Kerr has never quite sold me on his own evaluation of these four great figures of silent comedy. Clearly he loves Buster Keaton, and I will admit that my own high regard of Keaton comes in large part from Kerr's discussion of his comedy in this work. Chaplin I have never enjoyed quite as much, despite acknowledging his genius. His famous pathos strikes me now as a relic from another age, and while I can work myself into a point of view to appreciate it, it doesn't stick with me as a way of viewing things after moving away from the film and back into normal life. In short, the emotions in Chaplin always strike me as artificial, which wouldn't be a problem except for the enormous emphasis that Chaplin himself places on them. Despite Kerr's advocacy, I have never seen the charm of Harold Lloyd. I have now seen quite a number of his films, but despite his enthusiasm and energy, and my own admiration of his performing all those astonishing stunts in spite of having lost much of one of his hands, his films simply do not move me. Keaton and Chaplin both make me laugh, but Lloyd only makes me smile at best. Harry Langdon I still have not seen, but it was reading this book that created in me a still-unfulfilled desire to see at least his three great films. The numerous stills of Langdon create a powerful impression. I still hope someday to see his films, primarily THE STRONG MAN, TRAMP TRAMP TRAMP, and LONG PANTS.

I go into detail about this because this is the kind of excitement and interest Kerr manages to generate in his book. We tragically live in an age where many cannot abide a black and white film, let alone a silent one. Yet Kerr can get you genuinely excited about these films. Buster Keaton is one of my favorite performers, and I have to thank Kerr more than anyone for that being so. He writes so passionately and intelligently about these performers that he creates an inner need in his reader to experience these films first hand. As great as the text is, the stills chosen to illustrate the book are extraordinary.

THE SILENT CLOWNS belongs in the library of any film junkie, now merely because it is a glorious depiction of a time long past, but because it is a specimen of flat out gorgeous writing. Critics now tend to be far more scholarly in their writing. Kerr, although he certainly is not unscholarly, is also a masterful prose stylist. He doesn't merely write about memorable individuals, he writes about them memorably.

What Kerr has essentially revealed in this book is the very pulse by which the silent comedic form remaines timeless. He manages to write his book with such a love, yet such an intellectual understanding, that much like the art form he analyzes, it is a book devoid of snootiness or cynicsm. The book has many stengths, but carries such weight because it isn't only pre-occupied with Keaton and Chaplin. The chapters on Harold Lloyd -- who remains understudied -- are very insightful, yet objective. And while other silent comedians aren't given quite space that the major four American comedians are (Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon), a respectable analysis of Arbuckle, Sennett, Linder, Laurel and Hardy, and many more are presented. Valuable perspectives on "non-comedic" actors like Fairbanks, Pickford, and Gish are also hearty reading.

Kerr also give great insight into aesthetic issues, such as music composition and presentation, varying artists' cutting techniques, the roles of women in selected films, the alternate use of frame rates, and much, much, more. What makes the book so refreshing to read is how very much Kerr loves his subject, not necassarilly his subjects. Most books about the silent comedians -- Keaton and Chaplin in particular -- cannot help but devote numerous pages and even chapters to the filmmaker's vices (i.e. Chaplin's womanizing, Keaton's alcoholism). Kerr mentions such subjects when pertinent, but they do not become the book's thrust, nor are such issues presented to undercut the artist or his work in any way. Flawed men these clowns were, but their work remains relatively perfect.

I first encountered this book while scanning the movie section of the Birmingham (AL) Public Library. I was literally blown away by the photographs, and the highly literate criticism was very valuable to a novice silent film fan, and spurred me from being interested to being obsessed. I believe someone once said about this book that it "had them laughing out loud at scenes from movies I HAD NEVER SEEN". This is quite literally true, and Kerr's descriptions are fluid enough to allow the imagination to complete the picture that he has verbally laid out. I had never even HEARD of Raymond Griffith, for instance, and I found myself aching to see one of his films.

I particularly enjoyed his take on Keaton - I thought he had a very good grasp on a portion of his appeal. I have since come to believe that he short changed Langdon and (particularly) Arbuckle, but I don't know how much of their work he reviewed, and in what condition. The new Kino release of "Three's A Crowd" has completely changed my estimation of THAT film, and I think that Arbuckle's work has been reassessed in light of the Laughsmith set and subsequent discussion. I think that his comments were VALID (It IS difficult to look at an Arbuckle film without thinking "that poor bastard!"), but I think they were a trifle simplistic. Langdon is a bit more than a nuanced ambiguity (although that was a pretty cool concept), and Arbuckle was hardly the Sennett hack Kerr describes.

Those faults aside, his explanation of the appeal of the three major comedians is superb, his scholarship into lesser lights is enlightening, and the photographs are eye popping (if you can find a copy of the hardback edition - get it). I consider this one of the 5-6 books that any silent film aficionado should own without question.

I can think of no better introduction to silent screen comedy than this book. Walter Kerr was born in 1913, so as a movie-crazy kid in the 1920's, he saw many of the films discussed in the book at the time of their release. However, all of his comments are based on re-viewings of each film, because, as he confesses, certain scenes and stunts and gags did not always occur in the way he remembered. But his first-hand experience does give us a whiff of the excitement that was felt when the films were released.

Some say Kerr is overly analytical. He certainly does analyze to an incredible degree, but in doing so, he makes plain the differences in approach of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd. He also explains why certain silent comedians lacked what the "Big Three" had, and why they were not as funny. He also points out when even one of the Big Three made a film that somehow violates their own principles, is therefore, not successful.

Besides the lion's share of attention to Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, he also devotes a great deal of space to Harry Langdon. Langdon was hugely popular, but his rise was meteoric, and in the space of a few short years, he was largely forgotten. He also covers the silent years of Laurel and Hardy, and explains how their basic characters were formed before their jump to even greater success in sound films.

When I first read this book, it was around 1980, and most of the films were not available on video (though some of Chaplin's were). Even still, one could feel the excitement these films must have engendered without even being able to see them. Now that pretty much all of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd's major works are available on DVD (and even Langdon's best films), the book will prove to be even more valuable (if you can find it). I read it every few years, so I have already worn out my copy of the original paperback version (the one with Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd and Landon on a white cover).

I don't know what I can add to what has been said before. The section on Buster Keaton is worth the price of the book. Walter Kerr was the premier theater critic in America. His wife, Jean Kerr, wrote funny books,too (Please Don't Eat The Daisy's.)He brought a lifetime of theatrical knowledge and critical insight to the subject of Silent Comedy with a clarity of thought and brilliance of expression that is still unequalled. If I have any quibble, it is that the book is large and difficult to hold while nestled in a recliner chair. But it's well worth the effort.