Has he ever looked more beautiful? Nay, I say. NAY.
Sherlock jr., 1924, is an amazing film in so many ways! First, Buster uses camera techniques that were practically unheard of at the time. He uses the dream sequence to allow for all kinds of unrealistic gags, such as walking straight into a movie, and opening a vault door out into the middle of L.A. traffic. Buster also shows off his amazing athletic and acrobatic skills. From riding on the handlebars of a driver-less motorcycle, to doing stunts for other actors! This is a must-see Buster film, and a great film in general for film lovers.
Thrilling “Throwons”: Men’s Three Piece Suits in the 1920s.
Upper left UPPER LEFT and then MIIIIIIIIIIIIIDLE
Also, I’m a bad film nerd - who’s the fellow middle right?
“Last Tango in Muskegon”
(Thanks for the title, Susan, I’m keeping it!)
Sometimes I take things too literally……..
Oh, if he played on piano like Rachmaninoff…
He could play like Pee-Wee Herman and I wouldn’t mind!
OKAY GUYS THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. Is that a framed photo of John Barrymore on the piano? I MUST KNOOOOOOOW
UPDATE!!!!!! IMPORTANT NEW FOR BUSTERPHILES!!!
As stated in the earlier post, I inquired about the plot of “Stoneface: The Rise & Fall & Rise of Buster Keaton” - a play written by Vanessa Stewart and starring French Stewart, and opening in LA at the Sacred Fools Theater on May 25th. Here is an excerpt from an email I just received from Ms. Stewart, who gave her permission for me to pass it on:
“This is a part that French has wanted to portray for the last 20 years, and believe me- I haven’t met a bigger fan. French knew and got the blessing of Eleanor Keaton before she died to take on the role of her late husband…..
Let me assure you, we have the highest regard for Mr. Keaton’s work. We are attempting to tell the story of his life by recreating some of his greatest moments of his films live on stage. As a dramatist, I do need to make sure that we visit the highs and lows of his story. Would you believe the antagonist is the younger successful version of himself. We have the younger Keaton constantly at arms with the older one, but we explain that this version of Keaton winds up in a drunk tank only after his way of life is taken away from him by the circumstances of the Hollywood system, and complicated even further by a wife who takes away everything he has, even his boys. The play is ultimately about his redemption. How he finds his way back from these circumstances, sobers up, falls in love again, and realizes that a new generation has found him to be the genius that he is. It’s a love letter to Keaton, truly, and it’s not too different from what has happened to Mr. Stewart himself in his own career. Lots of movie stars can fall under the weight of being famous. That Buster Keaton bounced back I think is the more interesting story here, and one that I fell in love with as an author. I think the play will do nothing but create even more Keaton fans. I have no doubt.”
Apparently, fellow Keatoniacs, this is NOT another “Buster Keaton Story” and may well be one of the first well-balanced portrayals we’ve seen. The Stewarts have seemingly done their homework and it looks as if they’ve put their hearts into telling Buster’s story with a measure of compassion and accuracy we’ve not seen in a while. Let’s help get the word out - reblog away and visit their FB page and show your support.
BTW, successful plays lead to biopics, so I’ll be making travel plans to go and see it!
Well they need to fire their marketing and PR people lol…but lets see…lets see the reviews and hope it’s well done…
I think the uproar is the content, or what the content could be according to the marketing material, not so much the talent. Bustermaniacs want a bio project that is well balanced not something with a bunch of inaccuracies and BS
Ooh, I hope this is good. Used to love French Stewart back in the day, too.
Louise Brooks once commented to Buster about this scene, saying
“You were so terribly beautiful in its tragic lighting, Buster, so out of key with your comic character -I can’t understand why you didn’t cut that shot out of the picture.”
Louise is so right. <3
The General is a pretty repetitive film, the music grates on you after a while, Buster Keaton’s acting on the other hand is brilliant. A comic genius.
Lol, “the music”? It wasn’t made with music in it. Pick a different soundtrack or mute that shit.
I’m not gonna touch on the repetitive part because it’s… Not.
She wasn’t ugly…just evil…
I’m feeling a little frisky this morning, (prolly the post-race/birthday hangover), so maybe I’ll venture into dangerous territory and chime in on the Natalie issue…..
I find it extremely hard to judge someone who never got a chance (or else never wanted the opportunity) to tell their side of the story. Granted, her behavior with regard to BK was puzzling, I’m sure that this is a case of the truth lying somewhere between “his side” (vague) and “her side” (non-existent) of the story. Without the benefit of hearing Natalie’s side of things, we can’t even begin to extrapolate the truth.
The “fangirl” in me always tends to jump to Buster’s immediate defense, but I have to temper my knee-jerk emotions with reason. I can’t bring myself to vilify Natalie Talmadge Keaton because all I can do is guess at what really happened in a strange relationship between two people that happened over 90 years ago.
In short, not enough facts to form an educated opinion, and I’m not inclined to err on the side of hatred.
OH GOD FOR REAL i get so tired of all this ridiculous natalie loathing from buster stans and biographers. i’m done as hell in general with the ~poor put upon husband~ narratives that biographies of old hollywood men are so fucking rife with. it is so lazy and gross and i am so over being asked to believe that nearly every old hollywood dude’s marriage that ended in a divorce was unhappy due to the woman being SOOOO TERRIBLE. OH THE DUDE WAS UNHAPPY AND COMPLAINED ABOUT HER SO CLEARLY SHE SUCKED. if he cheated or behaved shittily? well jeez, she drove him to it! fuck’s sake get out with that shit. the sheer personal vitriol i’ve seen consistently directed at the ex-wives of silent hollywood dudes is disgusting.
natalie talmadge was brought up by a SUPER intense stage mother who basically raised her to believe that the only thing that mattered was getting the fuck out of poverty and as far away from it and as famous as possible. while both of her sisters became two of the HUGEST film stars in america, she was written off as the ugly and untalented duckling (and not implicitly either). she could not get a break in the movies and ended up with basically a pity job doing secretary work at smaller studios. she and buster were basically set up for marriage by her mother who did not think natalie was good for much else than marriage to someone as beneficial as possible, and neither of them seems to have been more than mildly enthusiastic about it.
then a lot of shit happened that involved both of them being less than ideal spouses; natalie behaving in a way that just strikes me as super anxious, trying to acquire the status for herself that she had been drilled for since childhood by trying her hardest to be part of hollywood’s social elite, being super fashionable and lavish, keeping up appearances at all costs. being apparently told by her sisters/mother that she should stop having sex and babies (idek wtf this story is, it has always confused me and every account of it i have read has been way too heavy on the ~poor buster ganged up on by a bunch of stonewalling harpies~, i’d like to know more about why/how even natalie’s freaking sex life was apparently her family’s decision instead of her own). then there was buster spending as recklessly as she was (and if i hear one more outraged squeak about her SPENDING HIS MONEY!!! i will scream, SHE WAS A HOUSEWIFE WHO ELSE’S MONEY DID SHE HAVE), buster being either gone or completely preoccupied with his work basically always, buster drinking a lot and then cheating on natalie all over the place, increasingly indiscreetly.
AND THEN they divorced and natalie was so fucked up by the entire marriage that she wouldn’t even allow her sons to mention buster’s name to her again as long as she LIVED. she basically spent the rest of her life being a depressed alcoholic. nobody harbours resentment that deep and is that thoroughly fucked up for the rest of their lives just for laughs, she was clearly as hurt by their marriage as buster was, not to mention the issues she got from being the insignificant factor in the talmadge clan.
but god forbid anyone do anything less than paint her as a one-dimensional antagonist to buster’s tragic innocence or wtf ever. it’s all pretty familiar sounding shit: she was a golddigger, a prude, a bitch, a cruel and petty nag, at best just a greedy bitch with a stick up her ass. god FORBID you admit that keaton wasn’t a very good spouse to her either and that they were in the end mostly just a really horrible fit as a couple - no, it’s all natalie’s fault. get out with that shit.
takes two to tango
True, true. And I mean, Buster admitted that the straw that broke the camel’s back was when Natalie found him after a drinking binge, hung over in bed with some naked woman on the yacht that he bought for HER after a fight. So… I would say that even though the blame was somewhat lopsided on Natalie’s side, it probably was more equal than anyone thinks.
wasn’t natalie the one who filed for divorce? so why would she be mad about being divorced? or am i misremembering (this is totally possible)?
like, i’m not recruiting for team talmadge and i don’t think natalie’s issues made her blameless or w/e - i just think that a lot of people who pick buster’s side unreservedly, including biographers, are & have been EXTREMELY shitty and biased about it, not to mention misogynist. buster & natalie both fucked up big time, but way too often only buster’s feelings and motivations seem to be taken into account and used to explain or (partially or entirely) excuse or rationalise his fuck-ups, whereas natalie is just point blank vilified. she had issues just as much as he did and i think that they both deserve equal consideration before anyone thinks about apportioning blame, because how are you going to judge who was ~more wrong if you only want to consider one person’s feelings and motivations and allow for the possibility that they might be valid?
so to clarify, this is not about me thinking that natalie was a wronged saint or whatever. it’s just that i have seen this narrative play out roughly a million times too many, where the official story about an old hollywood bro’s marriage that was troubled on both sides becomes all about a litany of the woman’s faults and a lament for the poor guy who had to put up with it and was then DRIVEN to do whatever shitty things he did, which she deserved/caused herself anyway, instead of people considering the idea that maybe they both fucked up of their own accord to some degree and then taking it from there. it’s just everywhere, in biographies, in fan discussions, and i’m so done with it. (mainly talking silent film people here cause that’s the bulk of my reading, btw)
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS. AMEN A HUNDRED TIMES.