Does a film or book have to be 'modern' or relevant to be good?
Who decides if a work of art is considered 'modern'? How much do our class/gender/ethnicity play into those labels? For instance, I've never yet met a woman who finds Buster Keaton funny, though I'm sure they're out there, but I know several silent movie fans of the female persuasion who join me in stanning for Harold Lloyd as well as for early Chaplin.
And I wonder what the kind of early cinema performer who gets respect in later generations says about that generation? For instance, WC Fields got a lot of critical appreciation until the late 1960s for his purposefully transgressive style...but there came a point where audiences just couldn't relate to someone who wasn't acting his alcoholism, misogyny, or racism.
I can absolutely see why Keaton's deadpan fatalism appeals to others, but even though I agree with much of what you say about Chaplin, I'll always relate more to the perpetual hopefulness of his characters.
I've been thinking about this for a while and can't come up with a better response than, hmmm - you're probably right. I think my feelings about Chaplin were forged in childhood. If his films were ever on television I found them boring and I've never really persevered since. I came to Keaton much later and was ready for him then. I need to spend more time with Lloyd, now that you mention it.
Hmm, this provoked some thinking, thank you!
Does a film or book have to be 'modern' or relevant to be good?
Who decides if a work of art is considered 'modern'? How much do our class/gender/ethnicity play into those labels? For instance, I've never yet met a woman who finds Buster Keaton funny, though I'm sure they're out there, but I know several silent movie fans of the female persuasion who join me in stanning for Harold Lloyd as well as for early Chaplin.
And I wonder what the kind of early cinema performer who gets respect in later generations says about that generation? For instance, WC Fields got a lot of critical appreciation until the late 1960s for his purposefully transgressive style...but there came a point where audiences just couldn't relate to someone who wasn't acting his alcoholism, misogyny, or racism.
I can absolutely see why Keaton's deadpan fatalism appeals to others, but even though I agree with much of what you say about Chaplin, I'll always relate more to the perpetual hopefulness of his characters.
I've been thinking about this for a while and can't come up with a better response than, hmmm - you're probably right. I think my feelings about Chaplin were forged in childhood. If his films were ever on television I found them boring and I've never really persevered since. I came to Keaton much later and was ready for him then. I need to spend more time with Lloyd, now that you mention it.