This is a
curious entry into Buster’s TV work of the ‘50s and ‘60s. It has a definite “with very special guest
star Buster Keaton” feel to it, so there’s undeniable affection for him there,
but it’s also an episode and a role that has nothing to do with Buster. In other words, there’s not really anything
for Buster to bring to this episode other than his celebrity – which, I suppose
is kind of neat in itself, to see how far Buster’s star had risen again after
the lean post-MGM years. Still, while
it’s a sizable, important role to play, there isn’t much to it (Buster-related
spoilers.)
As the
holidays approach, Donna is feeling disillusioned with Christmas, having her
own Charlie Brown-style existential crisis about the over-commercialism of a
holiday that should be more about joy and togetherness than presents. While visiting her husband at the hospital
where he works, Donna pays a visit to the children’s ward and finds, to her
surprise, that while everyone in the hospital knows there’s an annual Christmas
party for the children, no one seems to know who organizes or pays for it. Donna, determined that the kids’ holiday not
be forgotten in the shuffle, vows to get to the bottom of things and learns
that the “Christmas angel” of the children’s ward is actually Charlie (a.k.a.
Buster,) a kindly janitor.
This is
the only episode I’ve ever watched of The
Donna Reed Show, and I don’t doubt that it’s a schmaltzy program in
general, with the sweetness cranked up even more than usual for the Christmas
episode. In light of this, the whole
episode is incredibly twee, which sometimes pays off in
unintentionally-hilarious dividends.
Case in point – you wouldn’t think there’s much involving Buster where
he’s not the funniest part, but I got
a big kick out of the aggressively-terrible child actors lisping their
“adorable” lines as they played the kids in the hospital. The whole episode is packed with the
toothache sweetness of “touching” moments and lines knowingly dripping with
significance.
That’s
the backdrop against which we find Buster, and the surrounding levels of
sentiment make me think more of Charlie Chaplin (I know I shouldn’t talk; I’ve
seen very little, perhaps inexcusably
little, of Chaplin’s work, but the main distinction that gets bandied about
regarding him and Buster is sentiment, with fans slanting either comic’s
approach as good or bad depending on their allegiance. Charlie was too maudlin, Buster was too
detached – that kind of thing.) But of
course, it is Buster and not Charlie
we’re talking about, or else I wouldn’t be here.
Whether
the show intended it or not, though, I think it’s probably a good thing they
went with Buster, and maybe this is the real answer to the “why Buster?”
question in this episode. Even though
the eternally-overlooked, working-class janitor who’s been quietly organizing
the kids’ Christmas party for 30 years without help or acknowledgment is a laughably-saccharine
set-up, Buster’s performance resists leaning into that. In part, it’s his very nonchalance about his
saintly kindness toward the children that makes it all the sweeter, but I’d say
it’s only as successful as he is because he does
shrug off the notion of what a great guy he is doing this party all by himself
every year just because it’s the right thing to do. Without his unassuming attitude, the whole
thing might have reached critical levels of syrupy-ness.
No comments:
Post a Comment