ShogunRua wrote:Haven't seen any of the silent Laurel and Hardy reels, but Chaplin and Keaton definitely aren't exceptions for me. Keaton is a little more palatable because he was essentially the first film stuntman, and some of his acrobatics are neat to this day, but both guys relied on vaudeville-style (where both guys came from) physical comedy that is slow-moving, dull, and antiquated for today's audiences.
I appreciate them as two amazing pioneers, but aside from Keaton's 15-minute shorts, I have a hard time suffering through anything either of them made.
I am not too crazy about them myself either. I have the impression though that enough people could still enjoy those works that we could say they have aged well, especially when compared to the majority of other silent era works, but without such a comparison as well. When I was growing up (80s/90s) they still got plenty of TV time and enjoyed a seemingly broad level of at least base appeal (this account is biased obviously, can't speak for every place). Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if most teenagers in the 80s/90s had only heard the name of for example Cary Grant or Henry Fonda or Kirk Douglas in passing, if at all, and if they didn't know what they look like, but I can't imagine many of them not knowing L&H and "Charlot". Today I couldn't tell you about the present teenagers, but the ones of then are still around