Working with Keystone Theatre has taught me about specificity in acting.  When working without words,  if you are not as specific as possible with your intentions or actions, then the audience will never understand what you are trying to do.  When we use words, we can cheat: we can say what we mean.  Working in the silent genre challenges you to be specific, since you no longer have the ability to cheat with words.

Posted in Silent, Theatre | No Comments »

Buster Keaton’s was a great innovator in film.  His Film Cops had the first use of a mobile camera (up to that point the camera was stationary and things moved around it).  In The Playhouse, he comes up with one of the most spectacular special effects used to date: in the first part of the film, Keaton plays every part in the theatre, from all performers to audience members.  There’s no CGI here, in order to come up with this effect, all parts of the camera lens, except where Keaton stood for this take were blocked, and the film shot, then the film was rolled back, and keaton moved to his new position (and if needed, new costume) and the film was re-exposed with the other spaces blocked.  Time consuming, yes, but the gag is most definitely worth it.

The short, Cops contains the afore mentioned use of the moving camera.  It also displays Keaton’s acrobatic ability, which alone is worth the watch.

Chaplin’s The Pawnshop is an excellent example of the slapstick for which he was known. Also worth noting is how the Tramp goes from playful mischief to being ready to throw down in a flash, and how somehow the audience never loses the empathy they have with the character.

Posted in Film, Silent | No Comments »

Today I finally saw The Artist, that modern silent Film that had everyone buzzing about a best picture Oscar.

Considering all the work I have done with Keystone Theatre you might be shocked that it took me this long to see it. Well it wasn’t for lack of trying. I have made a few attempts to see the film and each time it had been sold out. I supppse that was a a product of the theatre I was trying to see it at; a local theatre that caters more to the film buff crowd, and one that happened to be showing all the best film nominees.

Today I woke up early and decided to take in the earliest showing. The theatre was empty when I got there, but by the time the movie started, the place was pretty full.

So, what did I think of the movie? It was good, as a film, but it didn’t blow my mind. I supppse that if I hadn’t watched as much silent film in the last seven years as I have, then The Artist would definitely have blown my mind.  I think I would have been surprised by how much can be conveyed without words, how deep a story that can be told, when the actors have to express what they are saying through non-verbal means.  As Amanda pointed out, there’s a joy in The Artist, and an engagement with the audience as they invest themselves in the creation of the story and the characters. Watching films by Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin or Mary Pickford, you realize that you’re doing some of the work, as you imagine what the character sounds like, as you pay attention to the body language and facial expressions of the characters in the film.  With silent film, you aren’t a passive audience member, like you are with most modern films: the audience is an integral part of the film experience, investing themselves in the characters on screen.  For me, when a character “has me” (ie: I empathize and root for the character), I find myself involuntarily emoting along with the character.  While watching The Artist, I did this quite a bit, as I invested in the journeys of both George Valentin and Peppy Miller.  Because of this, The Artist succeeds in the recreation of the silent film genre, both visually and in the audience experience.

I enjoyed the film, and hope that it inspires more people to take the time to watch some classic silent films.

Posted in Film | 3 Comments »