The movie The General set during the Civil War tells the unlikely story of a train engineer, rejected by the military with no obvious combat skills or training, winning a battle and become an officer in Confederate Army. Along the way the film pokes fun at the military and its hierarchy, values and symbols.
What is the film telling us about the armed forces, about war and about the values of the military? Is it a satire -- and if so, how biting is the criticism? What is war good for?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom the start to finish of Buster Keaton’s The General, I believe that the film reveals criticism regarding the validity of war. We see evidence of this minutes into the film: when the protagonist, train engineer Johnnie, attempts to enlist in the army. However, Johnnie doesn’t seem to be enlisting for the right reasons. To me, enlisting in war extends beyond these reasons, it means truly believing in the ideals of ones country and the motives and goals wished to accomplish in war. Johnnie certainly knows the culture of the South and how to operate culturally: for example, immediately trying to enlist in the war upon being asked by his lover and saluting to all the other soldiers and the end of the film. Yet, I don’t think Johnnie ever holds a true pride for the South, he just follows what everyone else was doing, and the movie informs us that this habit of blindly following the pack is very common. We see this in how quick the line forms and how long the line is when Johnnie goes to enlist. While this action isn’t necessarily wrong, I think Johnnie’s lack of intention in enlisting in the war is revealed when the army recruiters don’t accept Johnnie because he is an engineer, meaning that his initial occupation would benefit the South better than if he were a soldier. I think this scene established two points. The first point is that participating in war accomplishes far less than contributing more pacifist roles (such as engineering). The second, and most important, point is that Johnnie doesn’t really care about the South or the Southern cause; he only cares about enlisting to pursue the social pressure of masculinity in the South at the time, and, of course, to impress and maintain his relationship with Annabelle, his lover. I do think that Johnnie could have also enlisted simply just to declare allegiance to his country, which leads me to this concluding thought. The General aims to inspire us to reassess the idea of patriotism. Is it valid to run into battle just because we have an automatic unconditional pride and love for our country? To impress our lover? What if our morals don’t match up with the ideals of our country? Does patriotism even matter in terms of leading an army? Throughout history, we have observed how wars don’t always have the most just motives and causes, and on multiple occasions. I will admit this message is not the most prevalent message, but it’s most certainly present if you look closely. Johnnie wasn’t promoted in the army because he showed outstanding leadership or strong allegiance to the South. He was promoted because he arbitrarily won the battle for the South. Johnnie proudly announces his newfound occupation of “Soldier”, at the end of the film, met a the loving embrace from his girlfriend. While it’s a satisfying hero’s ending, I think the message of this final scene is to show that Johnnie has more pride in winning back his girl than fighting for the South.
ReplyDeleteBuster Keaton's The General, pokes fun at the concept of war and the values of the military. This is demonstrated relentlessly throughout the movie during calculated gags entertained by Buster Keaton. For example, When the opposing force invaded and stole a supply train in front of an entire army, they were pursed by one man after the rest of the army gave up: A train engineer. This demonstration implies that the drafted men have no determination or inspiration. Or, it means that their meaning of existing in the military lies elsewhere. Perhaps its a Lover at home, or simply a badge to impress their parents. This single scene questions the patriotism of those in the war and cross-examines it with selfishness. Surely, this group of imposters would be able to escape an untrained train conductor. However, the small army of spies are outwitted every time they make a defensive move.Nevermind most of Buster's success comes from unimaginable coincidence, the idea that the imposters were convinced they were being chased by an army played into the idea that army men, and the concept of military conflict, is of such low intelligence, that it can be outsmarted by a uneducated train engineer. This, along with many other examples such as, the scene in which Buster randomly kills a sniper with his broken sword, Buster hiding under the coffee table (unintentionally spying on the enemy forces, and Buster being promoted to Lieutenant, demonstrates the movies clear motive to poke fun at the concept of military.
ReplyDeleteConnor Carlson
DeleteBuster Keaton’s The General represents one of the earliest depictions of war satire on the screen, fitting much more in the vein of films like Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket than contemporary war flicks. The absurdist portrayal of combat and battle, sparse with Johnny Gray’s comedic reactions, serves to deconstruct the idea of heroism in war and inject doubt into the mind of the view on the efficacy of the military. The audience is presented with gag after gag presenting our Confederate protagonist prevailing, by the skin of his teeth, with nothing but the first idea that comes into his head and dumb luck. No long-term strategy, planning, or Napoleonic tactics go into Johnny’s supposed soldiering. Take, for example, the train chase scene, a rather unconventional proposition for a war film, where our hero leaps headfirst into the pursuit of armed soldiers with no military training of his own and somehow defeats them in battle. Or in the house scene, where Johnny lies underneath the dining table of the Union Army’s top brass and, completely by chance, hears the plans for their next big maneuver, all without being caught. These gags do not exist just to complement each other, they are purposeful, concocted by the director to send the message that there are no heroes in war, only fools. One of the most recurring images in the film is the constant humiliation of military leadership. Whether it be the water spilling onto the Union generals, or Johnny bumping his sword comically into the Confederate lieutenant, Keaton spares no expense in making the army brass seem as incompetent as possible. Perhaps the most poignant example of this is when the Confederate general raises his sword to command his soldiers to advance, and Johnny Gray, in what could almost be described as mockingly, copies him. The image of our resident idiot ordering the troops in the same fashion as the decorated general poses the viewer with the question of if military leaders really deserve to be there. If the everyman Johnny can do it, why can’t every man? It is curious to view the film from this Marxist lens, a fitting comparison as the First Red Scare was in full swing at the same time as the release of this film. From this perspective, both The General and Marxist-Leninist though line up rather fittingly, whether it be the satirical portrayal of the military, the deconstruction of hierarchy, or the rousing story of a common man. While portraying Keaton as a Marxist may be too extreme, there is no doubt that his absurdist comedy prompts the viewer to ask the same questions as a reading of Das Capital may. To conclude the film with Johnny attaining the rank of lieutenant could not possibly be more appropriate, as the fool we just followed for the past hour now is placed in charge of the lives of hundreds of men. Keaton’s portrayal of the Johnny in The General makes us laugh at not only the antics of our protagonist, but at the very concept of war itself.
ReplyDeleteJack Spiegle. In Buster Keaton’s The General, gags are constantly used to poke fun at the Civil War. Throughout the film, Buster placed many snippets of comedy making fun of the skill level and seriousness of the soldiers involved. After all, the movie is based around one man outlasting an entire army. Some say this is the greatest upset of all time, other say this is Buster’s way of mocking the war. Buster also makes it feel as if the war is more about pride instead of accomplishing a goal. The film is based around an army in the midst of pursuit of two people on a train. With the constant scenes of soldiers trying to attack the pair just to get fail due the clumsiness of the man they’re trying to chase, Buster uses the gags perfectly to demoralize the army. At the burning bridge scene, instead of doing what’s best for their army, the general commands his men to conduct a train over a burning bridge just to catch two people. This gag of a train full of idiotic soldiers falling many stories summarizes the look Buster wanted to give them. He also adds a lesson into this scene because once they fell from the bridge, the opposing army had the opposition trapped which adds onto the gag of their pride getting in the way of their goals. From what is seen in the film, war is good for nothing except battling the opposition for pride. In conclusion, this satire makes the military seam clueless though the many scenes where the soldiers seemed blind. Jack Spiegle
ReplyDelete