Thread: Chaplin better than Keaton??

Nah.. Charlie was in my opinion not the beautiful artist like Buster Keaton. Charlie was a manipulative shark..Buster was a trusting fool. But Buster has had the last laugh..he is now known as being superior to Chaplin. Buster's films have more legacy and his innovative techniques are still breathtaking to watch....Chaplin's films are pure sentimental pap. I don't need no fancy foods like beans with ketchup!!

Buster Keaton did not survive the sound period. Chaplin still made masterpieces on the sound period. End of argument. Well, to be fair, the largely horrible output of Keaton during the 30's had mostly to do with his lack of business experience, as well as the fact that he wasn't nearly as popular as Chaplin in his heyday. When he signed the contract with MGM in 1928, he lost nearly all creative control, and for the next decade more...

I've always felt unconfortable when faced with a question like this one. How can I possibly choose between 2 people that touch me the way they both do. I feel that if I pick one, I'm undermining the other, its as if I'm weary of hurting their feelings, silly, huh? I have affection for both Buster and Charlie but I met Buster first and I inmediately fell in love. Does that mean that I prefer Buster? Perhaps. But it doesnt change...

Actually, I wonder if the scene with the chair in "A Day's Pleasure" was the inspiration for the chair scene in "The Navigator".

Buster Keaton did not survive the sound period. Chaplin still made masterpieces on the sound period. End of argument. "Charlie don't surf"

There's no doubt in my mind that Chaplin took film to a new level, and he did so in an incredibly short time, and for that in itself Chaplin is rightly lauded as one of cinema's great innovaters. Personally I think Keaton achieved this level with (at least) Sherlock Jr and The General, although it may have taken a bit longer to realise lol. I do heartily recommend most of the books about Keaton. He was a consummate professional and...

True. Have you read the "scathing reviews" on the movie in the book "Complete Films of Charlie Chaplin" (McDonald, Conway,Ricci)? The movie was (mostly) universally disliked when it first came out, in fact all his talkies were. Everyone kept looking for the "Little Tramp" who of course could never talk. Funny but sometimes genius takes a while to become evident. I feel the movie was way...

"Why do Keaton fans always think it's necessary to beat the Chaplin fans over the heads with this lame argument?" I was thinking the same thing when I stumbled on this thread. I think some 'Damifino's' still resent that Chaplin had a longer, much more successful career. That is just the way the ball bounces. I would say Chaplin's ability to pull off such sentimentality is a plus for him. But,...

But Buster has had the last laugh..he is now known as being superior to Chaplin. To whom?! I believe questions like this one are ridiculous. Chaplin and Keaton are incomparable. Both made invaluable technical contributions to film, and given the dearth of comic auteurs in film history, why act as if two of them are in opposition with each other when they clearly aren't? realculturewar.blogspot.com

bit late to the party but whatever. i think its difficult to compare the two and have one be "better" than the other. chaplin was slapstick at times and was a laugh and a tear whereas a lot of keaton films involved incredible surrealism. i love the both of them at any rate