Cops (Buster Keaton, 1922)
What is the film about? How is the story told? Who are the main characters and what happens to them? How is the narrative structured?
The film follows Keaton’s character as he tries to start up a business to convince the upper class woman he loves to marry him. There is a quick comedic interlude where he finds a wallet, tries to return it, is accused of stealing, ends up with the money anyway and takes the taxi of the man who he took it from. With his new money, he is conned by a man pretending to sell his furniture (which actually belongs to a family simply moving house.) Keaton buys this furniture from its fake owner and a horse and cart to remove it; the family it belongs to believing he’s the person they hired to help with the move. After all the furniture is piled on the back of the cart the horse is quickly exhausted and Keaton brings it to a “gland doctor” practise to bring its energy back (which after some research is the most traumatising medical treatment I’ve ever heard about…)
The giddy horse takes Keaton to the Los Angeles Police Parade in which his love interest is watching because she’s the chiefs daughter. A bomb is thrown into the parade, which Keaton catches and unknowingly uses to light his cigarette before throwing into a swarm of marching police officers. The rest of the short is one big chase between the whole LA police force and Buster; he hides behind and umbrella, gets two police officers to hit each other and then locks them all in the city station and prison. Feeling smug, the chiefs daughter is still unimpressed so Keaton defeatedly opens the doors throws himself into the crowd of officers trapped in the station.
Does the film belong to a particular genre? How does it conform to or deviate from genre conventions? Does the film belong to a notable genre cycle?
Yet again, the film follows Keaton’s comedic American Populism two-reeler genre convention; defined by physical comedy and relatable societal issues such as dislike of the police and class.
Who made the film? Does the film exhibit auteur qualities?
Written and directed by Cline and Keaton, this 1922 short wasn’t distributed by Metro like the other three but First National Pictures which was later bought by Warner Bros.
What do you think the filmmakers wanted to say? Does the film attempt to convey a message or ideology?
The film’s negative view of police and of women refusing men is thought to relate to the rape and murder trail of Keaton’s friend and early college Roscoe ‘fatty’ Arbuckle. The first two trails were hung but the third acquitted him for the manslaughter of Virginia Rappe who died of a ruptured bladder (which they basically put down to cystitis?)
Do the filmmakers use any interesting techniques to convey information to the audience? Are the key elements of film form innovative or particularly effective? Does the film have a distinct aesthetic?
Because of the lack of sound, the slightly difficult to understand ‘con-man sees Buster with a wad of cash so pretends to be kicked out, gets Keaton to buy “his” furniture and the real family let Keaton take it as they think he’s the removal man’ is told through title cards. Keaton dislikes using exposition in the form of writing, but here it is needed to give context to the scam which is the basis of the joke.
Does the film hold a significant place in film history? How does the film reflect the social, cultural, historical, and political context in which it was produced and exhibited? How is the film representative of the institutions and technologies that made it?
The film obviously comments on the Arbuckle trail, but also shows inter-class relationships in the 1920s and the masculine “provider” stereotype which in turn negatively presents the upper class female character who will only marry a rich man.
How does Keaton create humour in the film? Think about situations (plot) as well as techniques (including the key elements of film form and aetheitcs).
Keaton uses a mix of realist and expressive techniques to create the joke of this film. Using realist societal conventions of the time to relate to the struggles of American people (unemployment, class, anti-authority) but then using expressive acting and editing for effect for comedic effect; which is ultimately is the point of all Keatons films.
What was your personal reaction to the film? Do you think your reaction is typical of most spectators? Which sequences were particularly effective or enjoyable?
I didn’t enjoy this as much as One Week or the Scarecrow, but it was still easy to watch and mildly amusing. I didn’t enjoy the defending Arbuckle element, though.