Cagney Vs Bogart

Because this week I've been watching a lot of Cagney films, and Bogart films. They are both charismatic and very talented in there performances and they have appeared in the same films together. I'd like to point out very quickly like I mentioned on my new 'FAQ Page' whenever I do 'Vs' posts its not a case of 'he/she is crap and he/she is the best' its either all, I like them both very much there's just one I like more than the other. That's clear? Let's go!

Both of these gentlemen have played the gangsters and both are very charming and charismatic people. Bogart and Cagney have both appeared in the same films together although these films are on the same genre, where they've mainly played gangsters, who smoke and they're usually from New York like Roaring Twenties, Angels With Dirty Faces. 

With saying that the gangster-smoking New York roles haven't been the only roles they've played although they've done it with charisma and charm, with Cagney he is much less apologetic when it comes to being a gangster and particularly when he's a gangster or villain, in Pubic Enemy I mean we can all remember that scene with him shoving that grapefruit in Mae Clarke's face? But at the same time, you can't stop watching him.

Bogart was seen as to me anyway, much less harsher but he is still seen as a tough, quiet and straight talking guy. Because his acting is much less show-offy not that Cagney shows off, but when Bogart acts he doesn't have to shove a grapefruit in a girl's face, its all in the eyes, kinda like the silent treatment in a way. But Bogart was still stern and charismatic, the similarities were Bogart was bought up in New York and so was Cagney so both of them knew about being in New York and you have to stand on your own.

Although both have played light hearted characters, Cagney was an amazing tap dancer and singer, just watch Yankee Doddle Dandy or Footlight Parade. Even in all the gangster, film noir he was in whenever he had a female to act alongside he did it brilliantly, and was just irresistible. Bogart is again such a gentlemen where he is just so charming when he was in Sabrina with Audrey Hepburn (which was one of her first films) he is so charming and kinda awkward as well, not the usual Bogart you would usually see.

I adore both of these actors, as they are so unique and at the time of them they wasn't anything like them, and I don't think there's anything like them today. I'm gonna say I prefer Jimmy Cagney, as I've watched him alot more and thats usually the reason, but also Jimmy can tap dance! and he's so eyecatching. Again I don't hate Bogart, I just prefer Cagney and have watched him longer and more, but Bogart is again very talented, and both are oozing with charisma and charm in all there roles. 

Chaplin Vs Keaton

I thought for a change I'd talk about one of the loves in my life, and that is Classic Film Stars & Actors. 

These are 2 very interesting Comics, Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin where they're very similar but complete opposites, we'll start with them at the beginning.

One similarity they both have is that they both started around the same time, and they were amazing writers, directors, actors and comics. 

Chaplin was bought up in East End London, it was just him and his Brother Sydney who then went ton later to become his manager, and his mother who had a mental breakdown and got sent to a mental institute. So for him he felt he had to have money because he had no choice but to be independent for himself and family.
Whereas with Keaton he was pretty much bought up on the Vaudeville Circuit, as his parents were Performers and he was part of his Family Act. So for him he felt that not having wasn't a big issue for him.

For Chaplin in terms of Comedy and a Career he wrote and directed alot of his films, and also he used a character for pretty much most of his films, 'The Tramp'. Which is very clever but also The Tramp was a particular character where he's very silly and doesn't take himself seriously and has a way of doing things, and its an iconic character he created, because he made films around The Tramp until he made 'The Great Dictator' but I mean The Tramp was who he was.

With Keaton he did things a little bit more spontaneous where he didn't really have a set character, but he always had a particular way of playing with Comedy.He always had a very serious, deadpanned face. As he did Physical Comedy with this character persona he had, its very interesting to watch. 

Both of them do Physical Comedy, both do it very well, but also they have such a Diversity in Comedy, where they both have such a vulnerability in there films. Also both are known for the parody they bought to film, Chaplin did 'The Great Dictator' which I wouldn't say is a parody at the time, but it is a parody of Adolf Hitler, however after that film and during that time he was involved in alot of controversy. Keaton did parodies aswell but his were alot less controversial than Chaplin as he just took out of films and other creative things. 

In personal life, they are very much different. As Chaplin had wife after wife, and even then they were very young girls, so young where he had to go to Mexico just to marry them. But even then he had not very goo marriages with them as he just forgot about them, which is very upsetting. Keaton however married the sister in law of his boss, so he was quite lucky I guess, he children with her, then he couldn't see them anymore which really affected him as unlike Chaplin he wanted to have his children around him. I mean Chaplin didn't hate his kids, he just didn't have time for them thus neglecting them and his wives.  Keaton also was known for a heavy drinker, but then again it wasn't that big of a 'Oh my god I can't believe that' because at the time, everyone drank, and also as him and his character it was too shocking where it was more of a sad thing. 

A difference in the 2 but a complete similarity is that both have a massive sense of creativity but in different ways, for Chaplin he did films with a beautiful story, but in some of his films his always had this story that wanted to come across, with 'Modern Times' for instance he wanted a story to come across as he felt for the people in hard times, he really got a feel of what was happening, rather than, being in a fantasy, make believe world, of 'oh lets be funny all the time'. It was funny but sometimes with a sense of realism. Keaton did things abit more creativity and without thinking of the real world issues, but at the same time it can be more creative to do films with real world issues. Because you're breaking the mold and thats what he did. 

Although at the end of this there really isn't a competition as they're both pretty much the same I guess, I mean in terms of success, and you know I'm not a huge fan of the whole 'Who's better than who?' as I feel both of them are equally as amazing. With saying that however I prefer Chaplin as I've just liked him longer, and I've watched hundreds of Chaplin documentarys, whereas for Keaton I've only watch 1 or 2. I guess you could also say that Chaplin is much more commercially known, partly because of the controversy he lead in his life. I mean you can make up your mind of what you want out of it.