3 ms·
Those reasons seem to make sense but I'd say just as much has to do with Buster Keaton himself, he had nerves of steel. During the filming of the Civil War mov
by hilbert42 2y ago
Those reasons seem to make sense but I'd say just as much has to do with Buster Keaton himself, he had nerves of steel.
During the filming of the Civil War movie The General there are images of Keaton doing things that even the bravest of stuntmen wouldn't do these days and we'd now rely on film animation and tricks to make the scenes work.
For instance, Keaton—who obviously was very fit and agile—is filmed sitting on a cowcatcher of a moving locomotive whilst removing rail ties that were placed on the line to impede the train's progress and then tossing them aside.
I read somewhere that Clyde Bruckman the film's director gave instructions to the cameraman "to keep filming the scene until finished or until Keaton is killed" or words to that effect.
I can't remember whether Bruckman was referring to this scene or another such as when he's running across the locomotive's tender (the comment could equally have applied to many other scenes I reckon). Others who are more knowledgeable could perhaps fill in the details.
I like this movie, Keaton was a
great performer and his movies are a testament to that.
- ggm 2y agoMy favourite Keaton movie is the one near his end where he goes across Canada by hand crank car on rail roads. "The railrodder" (1965) Kenton died 1966
- hilbert42 2y agoYeah, I came across that one by sheer accident some years back. It was such a surprise. Now you've reminded me of it I'll watch it again. :-)
- mkl 2y agoI found the movie interesting in that they managed to make the Confederates the good guys by simply never showing a Black person on screen or mentioning slavery. There were a few good stunts and it was worth watching as a historical curiosity, but I didn't think it was all that good as a movie. I'm not American, so may have missed some things that would have let me follow the story better.
- db48x 2y agoIt’s a comedy; the sides don’t matter. It’s a hilarious movie, in fact.
- hilbert42 2y agoI'm not an American either so I've not a patriotic fervor over the outcome of the Civil War to the extent as that most Americans have. That the movie showed the Confederates in better light than the Yankees wasn't appreciated much when it was released. Back then, there were Civil War veterans who were still alive who criticized the film which contributed to its poor ratings. Also, keep in mind the film was based on the story The Great Locomotive Chase, changing it to having the Yankees as the main subject just wouldn't have been feasible. Nevertheless, the film's stature has grown over the years and has developed a bit of a cult status: https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film/ https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film) (read 'Legacy') Oh, and I just noticed on the Wiki page there's even an image of Keaton riding the cowcatcher. I'm not a film buff so I'll let those comments/reviews stand on their own merits.
- saalweachter 2y agoSome context for non-Americans: the 1920s (when the film was released) was the hey-day of Civil War revisionism; that was when most of the statues of Confederate generals were erected and the narrative of the noble Confederates was written. "1920s film made Confederates the good guys" is one of the least surprising things ever.
- hilbert42 2y agoThanks for that, that's a perspective of which I was unaware but I've long been aware there was a reasonable level of criticism when the film was released. It's notable from this outsider's perspective that there's still levels of animosity over the War and that statues of Lee get desecrated and or damaged from time to time.