Harold Lloyd way better comedian then Charlie Chaplin

[msladysoul]

After last month watching Harold Lloyd movies, I have to say he was more talented and a better comedian then Charlie Chaplin. He made up his own clever comedy, he was so original. Do any of you agree with me? Harold was kind of cute also, way better looking then Charlie Chaplin.

[alix1929]

Yes, I agree. Although Chaplin receives the hoopla, I always find Lloyd's movies much more entertaining. Well, okay, some of Lloyd's talkies weren't much to write home about, but his silents were excellent.

 

Lloyd was kind of cute in the nerdy way.

[collinthib]

I agree. I think Lloyd had much more physically demanding stunts and his movies had a more subtle comedy along with slapstick. It must, and has been said, that Chaplin survived the transition to talkies much better than did Lloyd, but overall I still think Harold was more entertaining performer.

[venerados]

I'm not so sure that Lloyd failed with his talkies. Movie Crazy and Cat's Paw were great, and he embraced sound much more readily than Chaplin.

[nickdimeo]

I find that I get more belly laughs watching Lloyd than Chaplin. Some of those Chaplin at Essanay and Mutual Studios shorts aren't very funny but I can't keep my eyes off the guy because he is such an icon. I tend to think that Chaplin tries to underline more of a moral message in his comedies unlike Lloyd. With all that said, there is nobody that comes close to Buster Keaton! I rank Chaplin second, Lloyd a close third.

[pinkrockbunny]

i never heard of Lloyd till they talked about him last month, i watched some of his movies and loved him too. he was a great and original comedian. and i have to say too, he had a cuteness to him

[udprt]

Lloyd was by far the best of the three biggest silent comedians. Lloyd made so many more films than either Keaton or Chaplin, but he has fresh, original gags in every one of them. He's like Fred Astaire, he might pursue a theme, but with a few exceptions, he doesn't really repeat his same moves from film to film. Not that Keaton (his runner-up) or Chaplin did, but Lloyd kept his material fresh over a greater body of work. Also, Lloyd has a great supporting crew, especially his three main leading ladies, who add much to the enjoyment of his movies. He has a more appealing personality than Chaplin, too.

 

ud pert

[yana9s]

I do not think we have the right to compare two outright geniuses such as Lloyd and Chaplin. After all Lloyd's first character Lonesome Luke was based on Chaplin's tramp character. I have been a fan of both of them ever since I can remember. Tis true, it is because Lloyd's movies are so rare to be shown/seen that makes us appreciate them more. Chaplin is more accessible and certainly more famous. That was also the reason behind the rediscovery of Buster Keaton by the general public.

[gagman66]

This thread is over a year old. I was not even a participant in it at the time. I'm pushing it to the top not out of spite for a certain someone, but because I wanted that person to know it was here. You see I'm not the only one. Harold Lloyd has had plenty of other supporters on this site who love and admire has work and his persona. Also I know I would be taken task if I had started a thread called Keaton vs. Lloyd! So I wisely resisted doing that. Furthermore I think all the banter started because I stated that I thought Harold was funnier than Buster? I honestly don't know? However I'm not the first person to say this and I won't be the last one. In any case regarding that nameless person who doesn't like me, don't let your personal animosity for me prevent you for discovering these exceptional classic films!

 

Let me make it clear that I love all three of the great silent comedians. That being said it is Harold Lloyd who consistently get's the strongest reaction from virtually everyone I have ever been associated with. Although to be fair my mother loved Chaplin, Lloyd was a close second and Buster, I'm sad to say a distant third. I have seen both Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR and THE GENERAL with crowds of around 200 people in attendance. Neither film got anywhere near the amount of laughs nor did the audience seen to enjoy as much Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN did with less than half as many people in the building!

 

Last night myself and a few friends who had never seen either film watched Buster's SEVEN CHANCES (certainly one of Keaton's greatest and funniest films)the picture that introduced me to Silent comedy, and Lloyd's GIRL SHY back to back. I was very disappointed that by the time the Keaton feature picked up the pace a little my friends had already mostly lost interest. They watched the rest but as funny as it is, and SEVEN CHANCES is indeed very funny Buster somehow failed to connect with my friends. He just didn't get the kind of laughs I hoped for and neither did the film. It got allot of comments, but didn't draw big laughs. I sure wish it had and that's the honest truth.

 

Now to HL and GIRL SHY produced by Harold a year before SEVEN CHANCES was released. In the first 5 minutes this one of Lloyd's greatest films got more laughs than Keaton had for the previous hour! Bare in mind that I myself had never considered the first 5 minutes of GIRL SHY to be that funny. As the film rolled on it was obvious that the Lloyd movie again got the far stronger reaction from my friends. Part of the reason I think and this is gonna be hard for those obsessed with Keaton to swallow, is my friends just didn't care about Buster's character Jimmie Shannon in SEVEN CHANCES all that much. Where as with Harold's character they became more involved quickly and did care. Also Lloyd's leading ladies are much more than just props, (again I concede that such a tag isn't indicative of the love interest in every Keaton film) but rather an essential part of the story telling. Keaton certainly never had a leading lady like Jobyna Ralston Even Harold's other two leading ladies Bebe Daniels and Mildred Davis also had more charm on screen and where given more to do in front of the camera.

 

I'm still looking for somebody who loves Keaton from the outset or at least is immediately captivated by him. I would love to meet such a person but eveyone I know who has seen a few features of both of them always like's Harold better. To most Keaton crazy people Lloyd's work is still largely unknown. So there is no basis for them to make a qualified comparison. Keaton's films are just so much easier to find. I do not recall ever insulting Buster to anyone on this forum or anywhere else. I just relate more strongly to Harold Lloyd's style of comedy. Most of Keaton's features take a little while to get going. Lloyd's start out at a much swifter pace and this gets the audience attention sooner as a result.

[KeithFromKC]

For what it's worth, I have always preferred Keaton's work to Lloyd's. I really enjoy Lloyd's films immensely, but I personally find Keaton's work to have a more 'timeless' quality. I find 'The General' to be as brilliant now, as it was when I first saw it over 20 years ago. That's just my personal opinion, but having said that, I think Harold Lloyd and Chaplin are both hilarious. All three have a well-earned legendary status and the argument over who was better is moot. It all comes down to personal taste, really.......

[gagman66]

Thank you Keith for being civil and adult about my post.

I appreciate this, and I respect your opinion highly.

That being said you speak of the "timeless quality" of Keaton's work and I have read over an over these high brow critics who elevate Keaton at the expense of Chaplin and Lloyd. They insist that Chaplin is badly dated and that Lloyd is a product of the Twenties so he can't be appreciated by modern audiences in the way that Buster can! Well all of that is utter nonsense! (I'm talking about the critics here, not you) To me Lloyd's work is at least equally timeless (as is Chaplin's) and the more and more audiences who have the opportunity to see and evaluate HL's 11 silent features of the 1920's, the more and more people will be inclined to agree with that conviction!

 

You mention your believing Keaton's THE GENERAL (1926) to be just as great now as when you first saw it 20 some years ago! I feel the same way about Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN (1925) which I first saw at a local film festival as an eight year old in September of 1979! Never to this day have I heard more laughs out of a movie audience. I would say the closet comparison was during a screening of Chaplin's masterful CITY LIGHT'S a few weeks later. THE FRESHMAN by contrast with the new Trust/TCM restoration today was probably missing about 12 minutes or more of footage back during that '79 screening. Seeing the complete film it is even much greater today than it was back than!

[mutinyetc]

Like most people I learned of Charlie Chaplin first and thought he was hilariouse. When I saw my first HL and later BK movie I thought it WAS Chaplin. What does that tell you?

[KeithFromKC]

That you need glasses? I'm kidding, of course. But I don't really know WHAT that tells me. Sure, Chaplin was an innovator, no question. But there was room for other comic stars at the time and I am glad to have discovered many of them. Again, I just think the argument over who was the best is pointless. Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton are all phenomenal. At least in my eyes.

 

I hate to break out a list, but as far as Silent comic stars go, I think there was also great work being done by Harry Langdon, Fatty Arbuckle, Monte Banks, Billy Bevan, Mabel Normand, Louise Fazenda, Chester Conklin, Ford Sterling, Ben Turpin, Max Linder, Max Swain, Chester Conklin, etc. Many of these stars have been forgotten, so the fact that the 'Big 3' are still being discussed in forums like this says a great deal!

[mutinyetc]

Thank you for your post. Maybe I said more than I thought. My point was if I thought they were great when I thoght it was Chaplin, then there's no question, I'm not partial I love 'em all although I realize they all had there uniqe and sometimes very different qualitys but the outcome's the same, they make me laugh till it hurts. Okay maybe I'm a little partial. How can I turn my back to the tramp.

[kenwal34]

This is just an opinion.Both Lloyd and Keaton were into physical comedy more than Chaplin.On the DVD of the CAT AND THE CANARY, a Lloyd short titled SPOOKS is included. Its a great example of his genius.Its hard for me to choose between the three.But i'll give Keaton the edge,with Lloyd and Chaplin coming in a close second andthird.

[classicsfan1119]

I'm thinking along the same lines as Keith, who says, "The argument over who was the best is pointless." Keith also reminds us that there were dozens of other comedians from the Silent Era (and shortly thereafter) that were wonderful in their own rights. I'm just as crazy about Laurel and Hardy as I am about anyone else, and Keith didn't even think of them! So what??

 

To my way of thinking everyone is entitled to their personal preferences, or personal favorites...we all have our own personal favorites, and this most usually has nothing to do with the genius or talent of the actor we favor....we just like him/her "best". So, why can't we just say that we "like" someone without being so rude as to say that he is "better" that someone else? I have yet to meet anyone posting on these boards who has a broad enough expertise to render that opinion, and aside from that, it's just plain rude to "bash" and "flame" people just because you don't happen to relate to them in any way.

 

What has happened in a thread like this one is that some folks have has felt that it is necessary to bash one comedian in order to show their favoritism and loyalty (?) to another, something that not ANY of the most popular comedians of the Silent Era would have approved of, or engaged in themselves! Do we really need to do this? I don't think so.

 

Keith ends his post by saying that it's great that Chaplin, Lloyd, and Keaton...among so MANY others...are still extremely popular today. Now only can we discuss them (politely) here, we can see their films, even on DVD now, read their books and Biographies, find websites for them on the Internet...we have it so lucky! Please, let's not foul such a good thing with rudeness on these Boards. ML

[mutinyetc]

Didn't the Marx bros. have some silents?

[KeithFromKC]

Classicsfan1119,

 

Laurel and Hardy did make some funny silent shorts. How could I have forgotten them?? Good catch there! It's also good that you mention the period right after the silents, because the sound era did introduce us to many more talented comic stars. I will never get tired, for example, of those great early Marx Brothers films. Most of what Laurel and Hardy and W.C. Fields did in this period also brings much laughter to my life. They all have my eternal respect.......

[classicsfan1119]

No problem, Keith! To show you how much I've had to learn since TCM's Silent Sunday's has given me my first ever start on becoming familiar with Silent Movies, I offer you this:

 

I had no idea that W.C. Fields was in Silents long before he made "talkies"! Nor did I have any idea that Donald Crisp was in several excellent Silents! I had never seen Joan Crawford or Myrna Loy in a Silent! I had never seen the real Lon Chaney, and was very surprised to see that he and John Wayne looked a lot...A LOT...alike! I had no idea that visual effects could be as good as they were in 1925 in "The Lost World" with Wallace Beery! I always thought that Charlie Chaplin was cute and funny...I had no idea just how much of a genius he actually was! I never would have known who Harold Lloyd was if not for TCM featuring him earlier this year.

 

The historical significance of the transition from the flicker's to the talkies simply can't be overlooked by anyone who appreciates movies today. Everyone needs to see as much of the Silents as possible to have a clue about just how far we've come, and how wonderful those first efforts really were. ;)ML

[coffeedan1927]

Mutiny, the Marx Brothers made a short silent film called HUMOR RISK around 1920. It was shot by an independent New York company, and unfortunately no prints survive. By himself, Harpo Marx also had a small role in a 1925 Richard Dix picture, TOO MANY KISSES.