Let's get this out of the way first: 'The General (1926)' is a pro-Confederate film. Of course, its very Southern take on its Civil War setting may have just been an ill-considered backdrop for its mainly train-based stunts and occasional grand-scale battles but Keaton made a movie supporting the Confederacy, around sixty years after the war was over and with enough hindsight to see exactly what it was that each side was fighting for (and who was on the right side of history), whether he intended to or not. It mightn't sound like a big deal - and, perhaps, for the critically-minded viewer it isn't - but realising you're watching what's essentially propaganda (even if it never mentions the specific ideologies of either battling side) and seeing that flag being waved around not only by the 'heroic' side but by our 'hero' himself is disconcerting, to say the least. I mean, there is always the possibility that it's trying to be ironic or satirical. Even on retrospection, though, this seems like a bit of a reach because there's no real criticism; if its intention is to be satire, it falls incredibly short. I will also note that the picture is based on a 'true story', fairly loosely speaking, which goes some way in explaining the choices made. It certainly doesn't excuse them, though; after all, a story from the Union's perspective is not only possible (see Disney's 'The Great Locomotive Chase (1956)') but is also seemingly just as interesting, if not more so, and definitely isn't as problematic. I don't want to get too hung up on this but it did, fundamentally, dampen my enjoyment of the piece and I don't think it's helpful to ignore it just because the flick is undeniably well-made and pioneering. Look, it's not as if the movie is impossible to appreciate, either. Some of the stunts are superb and to think that this was filmed nearly a hundred years ago is simply staggering. Still, the movie, even on face-value, isn't as good as some of its peers. I'm not going to pretend that I'm especially familiar with Keaton's work but I do get the sense that he's best suited to shorter fare. This feels fairly long and most of it is just action without any real character or, even, story behind it. The action is mostly impressive, don't get me wrong, and it's all terrifically tangible, too, but there seems to be something missing. I suppose it could be the comedy, really, as the feature isn't all that funny. I'm not sure if it is trying to be, though, as most of its gags come across more as escalating action-beats than anything else. It could also be the heart, as a paper-thin and ultimately shallow romance is all we have to keep us invested in either of our leads. Nobody is really all that likeable, not even Keaton himself. This is actually a big part of what makes these pictures work: their ability to present us with a person and have us root for them right away, without the need for complex wants or needs. Here, that seems lacking. What you're left with is a visually-impressive action movie that isn't really all that exciting - mainly because the people involved don't feel like real characters and, as such, you don't truly care about them. It's not that engaging, either. On top of that, you have the unfortunate fact that it's pro-Confederate and, apart from anything else, that just leaves a sour taste in your mouth. 5/10
Review of The General
