In August 2002, Entertainment Weekly promoted the box sets of silent film comics Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. In the brief article, entitled "Crash Course: Keaton vs. Chaplin," the author writes,"Charlie Chaplin was perhaps the most famous person on the planet for the first half of the 20th century; since then, Buster Keaton has slowly risen in esteem, to the point where he's now regarded as Chaplin's superior in filmmaking (true) and in comic genius (endlessly arguable). What's undeniable is that Charlie's sentimental sensibility was rooted in the music hall and vaudeville of the past, while Buster was a poker-faced modernist who pointed to the future. Chaplin's warm, in other words, while Keaton's cool, but both can paralyze you with laughter and stun you with sudden, unexplained emotion."
According to EW, Chaplin is sentimental, warm, and rooted in the past while Keaton is poker-faced, cool, and points to the future. With these characteristics in mind, some viewers claim that one star is "better" than the other, but such arguments are ultimately unproductive as both men are comic geniuses, each with his own style, character, and themes. Therefore, rather than discussing whether Keaton is superior to Chaplin or vice versa, why don't we consider which actor's persona and/or comic presentation YOU favor and why. In roughly 250 words, explain why you prefer the comedy, onscreen persona, narratives, etc. of Keaton OR Chaplin--not both. You must select one. To support your stance, cite at least one of the in-class films/clips we've seen of these two stars: The Gold Rush, City Lights, Sherlock Jr., and/or The General. As always, to direct your posting you should start with a thesis of some sort (e.g., I favor the comic films of Buster Keaton because they...; I enjoy the screen persona of Chaplin's tramp because it...; etc.)
