I love Keaton's 1920s films so seeing lots of great clips from them is always good. There are plenty in this "documentary" so at least my time wasn't wasted.
But the actual "script" is dreadful. I don't know whether it was "researched" extremely quickly or whether the writer or director wanted to paint a particular (and very partial) picture, or both. Either way, a viewer will be misled and come away with a very partial understanding of Keaton. Yes, being at a major studio didn't work for him, but the supporting argument....
The crux of the whole thing is that the writer wants to portray Keaton as caving in and giving away his absolute creative control (ceding to MGM) despite artistic & commercial success because of immense pressure from in-law Joe Schenk, casting Schenk as black & white bad to Keaton as black & white good. Yet Keaton was not fully independent of outside control in he period just before the switch, his commercial draw appeared to be fading and Keaton is quoted (not in this film) as saying about Schenk that he "never steered me wrong in his life until then. I do not think he meant to that time". Important context ignored, presumably by Frêne (the writer).
There are many, many more omissions that completely change the viewer's understanding of Keaton, his environment, who was and wasn't responsible for x, y and z.
On top of that the non-Keaton footage choice is frankly bizarre. Most (almost all?) of it is B&W footage of trains. No problem, ties in with the production's focus on Keaton's love of trains and with The General. But while some of the footage may well be from the USA and of period with The General etc, or even of journeys Keaton made later, a large part (I wasn't counting, but my guess is a significant majority of the time) is actually footage of railways in the UK and largely 1960s. I recognise footage in there that is taken from other documentaries and has no more relevance to Keaton than would footage you could film yourself today if you went to your nearest line in any country in the world. Is this simply sloppy, or is this misleading? I'm not going to judge. But it does feel all of one with the general approach the filmmakers have made to assembling this dreadful "documentary".
Frankly the worst "documentary" I've seen in ages.
But the actual "script" is dreadful. I don't know whether it was "researched" extremely quickly or whether the writer or director wanted to paint a particular (and very partial) picture, or both. Either way, a viewer will be misled and come away with a very partial understanding of Keaton. Yes, being at a major studio didn't work for him, but the supporting argument....
The crux of the whole thing is that the writer wants to portray Keaton as caving in and giving away his absolute creative control (ceding to MGM) despite artistic & commercial success because of immense pressure from in-law Joe Schenk, casting Schenk as black & white bad to Keaton as black & white good. Yet Keaton was not fully independent of outside control in he period just before the switch, his commercial draw appeared to be fading and Keaton is quoted (not in this film) as saying about Schenk that he "never steered me wrong in his life until then. I do not think he meant to that time". Important context ignored, presumably by Frêne (the writer).
There are many, many more omissions that completely change the viewer's understanding of Keaton, his environment, who was and wasn't responsible for x, y and z.
On top of that the non-Keaton footage choice is frankly bizarre. Most (almost all?) of it is B&W footage of trains. No problem, ties in with the production's focus on Keaton's love of trains and with The General. But while some of the footage may well be from the USA and of period with The General etc, or even of journeys Keaton made later, a large part (I wasn't counting, but my guess is a significant majority of the time) is actually footage of railways in the UK and largely 1960s. I recognise footage in there that is taken from other documentaries and has no more relevance to Keaton than would footage you could film yourself today if you went to your nearest line in any country in the world. Is this simply sloppy, or is this misleading? I'm not going to judge. But it does feel all of one with the general approach the filmmakers have made to assembling this dreadful "documentary".
Frankly the worst "documentary" I've seen in ages.
