SilentComedyMafia.com

So... Do you believe the Indian is Buster?

Rob Farr wrote:So... Do you believe the Indian is Buster?

Not only is Buster CLEARLY the Indian, he also appears to done some stunt work (in drag no less), as well as a possible third role where somebody does a very familar looking pratfall.

DBP

Thanks chaps.
Looks like I'll be adding that one to the list then.

Well done Ben for pointing them in the correct direction...

DG

David B Pearson wrote:

Rob Farr wrote:So... Do you believe the Indian is Buster?

Not only is Buster CLEARLY the Indian, he also appears to done some stunt work (in drag no less), as well as a possible third role where somebody does a very familar looking pratfall.

DBP

Actually, after we watched the MOMA version of THE IRON MULE on the large screen at the Capitol Theater in Rome, New York last year, Eric Grayson, Paul Gierucki and I all determined definitely that it is NOT Buster playing the Indian in THE IRON MULE. Look at his legs, it is clearly someone with longer legs than Buster. He's another player in the other Tuxedo Comedies, and if I get a minute to look at them again, I'll point out who it actually is.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts wrote:

David B Pearson wrote:

Rob Farr wrote:So... Do you believe the Indian is Buster?

Not only is Buster CLEARLY the Indian, he also appears to done some stunt work (in drag no less), as well as a possible third role where somebody does a very familar looking pratfall.

DBP

Actually, after we watched the MOMA version of THE IRON MULE on the large screen at the Capitol Theater in Rome, New York last year, Eric Grayson, Paul Gierucki and I all determined definitely that it is NOT Buster playing the Indian in THE IRON MULE. Look at his legs, it is clearly someone with longer legs than Buster. He's another player in the other Tuxedo Comedies, and if I get a minute to look at them again, I'll point out who it actually is.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Well... ACTUALLY Richard... I think that you guys were looking at the WRONG Indian. He's NOT the one leading the attack.

The Indian we're looking at is the one doing Buster pratfalls, has Buster's face looking straight into the camera, and happens to be missing the first digit on the index finger of his right hand... and, on this Indian, his legs looked just fine to us.

... Which just goes to show why frame-by-frame study on Blu-Ray beats casual viewing on the large screen.

DBP

Well... ACTUALLY Richard... I think that you guys were looking at the WRONG Indian. He's NOT the one leading the attack.

The Indian we're looking at is the one doing Buster pratfalls, has Buster's face looking straight into the camera, and happens to be missing the first digit on the index finger of his right hand... and, on this Indian, his legs looked just fine to us.

... Which just goes to show why frame-by-frame study on Blu-Ray beats casual viewing on the large screen.

DBP

[/quote]

Nope, thats the one. Youre dreaming, it ain't Buster. Post the freeze frames.

RICHARD

Richard M Roberts wrote:

Well... ACTUALLY Richard... I think that you guys were looking at the WRONG Indian. He's NOT the one leading the attack.

The Indian we're looking at is the one doing Buster pratfalls, has Buster's face looking straight into the camera, and happens to be missing the first digit on the index finger of his right hand... and, on this Indian, his legs looked just fine to us.

... Which just goes to show why frame-by-frame study on Blu-Ray beats casual viewing on the large screen.

DBP

Nope, thats the one. Youre dreaming, it ain't Buster. Post the freeze frames.

RICHARD[/quote]

And there's the missing finger joint.. it can be seen in other frames too.

DBP

I have been waiting for this topic to hit SCM.

I, like most everyone here, first saw the film by way of the cut-down Blackhawk version which does not contain any footage of Buster Keaton.

Then, several years ago, a large group of Slapsticonians (or should it be Slapsticonites?) were fortunate to screen a new 35mm restoration of this short at the National Gallery. I was thrilled by the new version not only because the short in its full length was quite funny, but because there was absolutely no mistaking Buster as one of the Native Americans. He was 100% recognizable on that large screen. The rest of the audience, also recognizing his face in a medium shot, burst into wild applause. My memory of his bit is rather hazy now, I mostly recall leaving the theater with no further doubt about Keaton's involvement.

Fast forward several years. The SCM Godfathers and a few Capos were dining at Tivoli in Arlington during a Slapsticon gathering, when the topic of The Iron Mule was raised. Richard indicated that he did not think that Keaton appeared in the short. In light of what I had seen, I said that I was absolutely certain that he was. Now, as one would imagine, this lead to some vigorous debate. (Nothing physical, I'm 6'5 but Richard has 3 or 4 inches on me and no good could come from a battle of giants. One need only watch a Toho film for an example of the potential collateral damage.) Still, he stood firm in his position and I remained deeply entrenched in mine. The sole resolution? A gentleman's bet.

Leaping forward again, we attended another "full length" screening of the Iron Mule to settle the wager. We watched and waited. And waited. And waited. And waited. In spite of my constant reassurances during the show, and in the face of my unwavering commitment, there simply was no Keaton. I had to concede, Buster did NOT appear that evening. I lost the bet and ate a healthy serving of crow. Worse we were told that this was indeed the same print screened at the Gallery! Still, I was absolutely certain of what I had seen. Well, mostly certain.

Now, thanks to David's post here, and the larger scans he sent via email, I think we can effectively lay the matter to rest and say that everyone was correct in some fashion. There is a longer print than the Blackhawk version floating around which does not contain any Keaton footage, and then there is the MOMA restoration included on this release which absolutely contains the long debated Keaton appearance.

Fascinating stuff. It just goes to show that even at this late date there is still a great deal of research to be done.

Sounds as if Mr. Roberts now owes you some dough and should perhaps eat a little crow himself.

--Patty