Double Feature: "The Circus" and "Seven Chances."

Every film course taught at the collegiate level extolls the merits of silent comedy as a virtuosic and unparalleled art form. There are many names thrown into the mix, but the greatest of the great were Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Each of their works have highs and lows, often offset by the invention and execution of sound, as well as their own troubled personal lives. Comparing their films wouldn’t make much sense, because there is no clear winner when it comes to who was the greater visionary, and who came out on top in the next hundred or so years of study. What I want to talk about instead is the comparison between each when it comes to their more problematic and offensive films, which have not aged well in the realms of film history. There is only one film from each performer that we in the modern age really take offense with, and they only make up part of these films, but flavor them irreversibly. Though I strongly dislike the racist and sexist elements at play in these two examples, I actually think they are very strong films that have a lot of positive things going for them.

“The Circus” (1928) dir. Charlie Chaplin

There’s something so historically amazing about this film, in that it centers on circus culture. If you know anything about the entomology of the Ringling Brothers or Barnum and Bailey Circus, you are aware that this was an era of unparalleled reverence for the traveling show. To see a film about it in its heyday is fascinating, as the costumes, set, and characters are all in line with the actual time period. It also yields to some great set pieces and comedy bits for our lovable Tramp.

The story revolves around the Tramp’s infatuation with a horse rider played be Merna Kennedy, and his involvement with the circus as a funnyman, (who is only funny when he is debasing himself). He tries to court the lovely entertainer, but feels her pulling away from him after a tightrope walker named Rex enters their world. During this entire film Merna is at the mercy of her ringmaster father, who runs the circus as well as performs in it. Sadly her father repeatedly beats, starves, and emotionally abuses her, all in front of the rest of the circus. The Tramp repeatedly begins to intervene, but does nothing to stop her torment, lending to her continued servitude.

Having an abused character is not what I take issue with. Showing women who are stuck in horrible situations has lent to some beautiful, poignant films (“La Strada,” “La Belle et La Bete,” “The Color Purple.”) but there has to be some kind of strength attributed to them, some inner resolve to keep going, or at least show some agency. Merna decides in the last act of the film to run away with the Tramp and begin again, the most admirable moment of the film. The Tramp has nothing left to give her, and only wants the best for her, so instead of letting her become her own person and follow him on his zany adventures, he gets Merna and Rex together in the end. It’s admirable that the Tramp is putting his wants and needs behind Merna’s, who is in love with Rex, but that’s not how the ending looks. In modern terms the Tramp marries her off as she is a kind of property. In the ending her ringmaster father tries to strike her, but finds that he can’t because she is married to Rex. The property he once held is gone, as she is bound to her new master, marriage being a kind of contract. Immediately the ringmaster stops from hitting the daughter, and Merna and Rex stay in the circus, presumably happily married.

There were a lot of problems attributed to the making of this film including a studio fire, Chaplin being audited by the IRS, and his bitter divorce from Lita Grey. The only way I can understand this uncharacteristic change from previous Chaplin heroines were the issues with production and Chaplin’s own crazed personal problems. Otherwise, there’s very little shocking or misogynistic elements in other Chaplin films.

“Seven Chances” (1925) dir. Buster Keaton

Old Stone Face is a common moniker attributed to the comedy great Buster Keaton. He directed a lot of his own films throughout the twenties, and quickly faded from popular culture after the invention of sound. Most of his most famous films have included Keaton’s love of huge spectacle and his amazing use of stunts. In every one of Keaton’s films he tries to top himself, whether it’s a backwards motorcycle ride over a crumbling bridge and past a moving train (“Sherlock Jr.”), or having a house fall on top of him (“Steamboat Bill Jr.”) or having an entire film where he is aboard a Confederate locomotive (“The General.”)

In this film the spectacle comes from one particular scene. The set up involves a gentlemanly Keaton as the heir of a massive fortune. The one stipulation in the will, is that he be married by seven pm on his 27th birthday, which happens to be that day. Though he is deeply in love with a woman who he has been courting for months, he hasn’t popped the question. When he botches that endeavor, he tries to find someone, anyone, to take her place and marry him before the clock strikes seven. Keaton and his employees race around, at first asking total strangers, then trying to set up a willing participant, and finally taking out a city-wide ad. This lends to a penultimate scene where Keaton is seen racing down the street, running from a hoard of expectant, hopeful brides.

This film has been remade many times, including by the Three Stooges in several instances, as well as a 1999 Chris O’Donnell/Renee Zellwegger vehicle. The main reason for this is because the premise lends to some remarkable comedy bits that have remained timeless. What dates this film, however, is the blatant racism used throughout. There are two instances of racism in this film, one overt and steeped in the tradition of minstrelsy and the other a subtle and yet visibly grotesque moment. The overt is a handyman character, who works for Keaton’s love interest. It is quite obviously a white man wearing blackface, a choice that makes little to no sense. While this was a common choice in the twenties, furthered in popularity by vaudeville, theater, and minstrelsy, it needn’t have been applied, even in these times. The character, who is often shown thwarted by his own ineptitude or unseen forces, is only in blackface because blackface was in itself a form of comedy. Audiences probably saw this character and immediately found they could laugh at him.

The other moment comes when James (Keaton) runs around trying to find a bride. In his haste he comes to a black woman, and just before he is about to ask her, he veers away quickly, a look of embarrassment on his face. We as the audience are supposed to guffaw at the gaffe as interracial marriages were taboo, or even illegal, at the time. It is supposed to seem unreasonable, even comedic, that he would ever choose an African American woman. The woman is also played by a white woman, in blackface. Besides having an entire film where the hero is a Confederate soldier fighting the Union, this is the most overtly racist of Keaton's films.

Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin meet with executives of the Balboa Film Studio (courtesy of Marc Wanamaker)

Each of these films include great moments of comedy, and are remembered justly for some iconic imagery. “The Circus” is the seventh highest grossing silent film in cinematic history. As I’ve said “Seven Chances” has been remade multiple times, in multiple languages, in multiple generations. It is said that when we study and are entertained by cinema, we are also educating ourselves on the time these films were made. Each of these films not only encompasses the history of the twenties, but attitudes about women and minorities in these time periods. I’m sure you can point to larger and more important films to see these themes, such as “The Birth of a Nation,” and “The Shiek,” but it’s comedy that truly entertains, and is least likely to feature diversity in this era. Comedy reflects losing yourself to entertainment, harsh when considering that this would make people laugh. Even the comedy greats were not immune to pratfalling via prejudicial dictum.