In this article, Christopher Bishop discusses the ways in which Keaton's comedy differed from other comedians, and focuses especially on his syle of acting, and specifically, his "stone face."  The author describes how Keaton's face is what most remember from his films, and analyizes the effect vaudeville had on his comedy career.  Bishop argues that this physical training increases the effectiveness of Keaton's films, for he does not rely on editing tricks, but rather, is able to physically perform the stunt in one shot.  Furthermore, this training also leads to a keen awareness of the possibilites of facial expressions and other movements, and the author argues that Keaton is the most effective at utalizing expressions and movements for comic effect.  The author then reminds the reader of Keaton's fascination with machines, and suggests that Keaton used his own body in a mechnical fashion.  Finally, the author argues that the goals in Keaton's films are "metaphysical and implicit."  In other words, Chaplin's films are concerned with social commentary, and thus, are rooted in that historical time period.  Keaton's films, however, are more concerned with great natural obstacles, and rarely offer solutions.

      In understanding why Keaton's comedy was relativley unpopular compared to Chaplin, it is important to understand how Chaplin worked.  This article does a nice job of describing how Keaton works, or how he behaves in his films, and also compares the films of Chaplin and Keaton.  Thus, one gets gains a better understanding of how Keaton differed not only from the wildly popular Chaplin, but from other comedians of this time as well.  It also provides a great deal of Keaton's history, and providest the reader with the early activities that would shape Keaton's acting style.  In this sense, one gains a better understanding of why Keaton developed films the way he did.

Bishop, Christopher.  "The Great Stone Face."  Film Quarterly Vol 12 No 1 (1958): 10-15