Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Laileena t1_j6hujab wrote

What’s wrong with their eyes?

2

TheUmgawa t1_j6hwo3c wrote

Film stock in 1918 wasn’t the most high-quality stuff, compared to the hyperfine grain stuff you get today, and shot selection at the time was still very limited, in that … it wasn’t exactly “Set the camera for a shot and let it roll for a couple of minutes,” like it was a decade and a half before, but we’re still three decades from the first movie that looks and is edited like a modern movie (that’s why Citizen Kane is so important), so most of the movie is done in medium shots, with close-ups used only sparingly.

As a result, you have to use a lot of makeup to make sure an actor’s facial feature don’t disappear into a blur on the film. It’s very similar to why stage actors wear similar makeup, because the person in the nosebleed seats doesn’t need to be able to see what color your eyes are, but he has to be able to see you have eyes.

4

clce t1_j6jvzv2 wrote

And more importantly, see how your eyes and face move. Especially with a silent film. Granted, a lot of it was broad physical comedy because it had to be. Arbuckle was amazingly agile for his bulk and an extremely talented physical actor. But he also relied a lot on his comic facial expressions. Keaton did not, drawing much of his comedy mainly from his having no expressions which is I guess why he is pretty much plain pancake looking like Mark Zuckerberg whereas Arbuckles make up is designed to show all of his expressions .

Arbuckle was quite charismatic looking and had very nice eyes and if I'm remembering right, would be able to draw great comedy out of using his eyes like the female film stars of the era, fluttering and other typically feminine use

2