Who's more "important" to film history: Fonda or Keaton?

In terms of who I think will endure longer, I'm inclined to say Keaton. Fonda's got her followers for sure, and rightly so, but I think her Vietnam notoriety and her work-out tapes have cast a shadow a lot of her film accomplishments when it comes to talking about her. Her Oscar wins are kinda obscure compared to Keaton, despite having two to Diane's one, and I don't think she has as much of a unique presence as Keaton does in the pantheon. Keaton is actually one of the more underrated legends out there. I think she's a better actress than Fonda, but that doesn't really make much of a difference when it comes to who is more "important."

Idk. I feel like Fonda was probably more of a name at the time. But Keaton has the Godfathers and that's kinda more film history than the whole of Fonda catalogue.

Well it's hard to just go away for as many years as Fonda did and think she'd get top billing over Keaton. She didn't make a movie for 15 years.

They are important in different ways - I love Diane Keaton and everyone knows why she's important and quirky and idiosyncratic - I placed her very high in that fave actress poll and just find her very presence in films wonderful. Fonda is really the first major American actress-star of her era - she sets up Streep really and Streep sets up everyone else. Prior to Fonda American actresses were mostly stars first (with some exceptions Davis, Hepburn) - in the late 50s that really changes - Laurie, Remick, Woodward, Page are actresses but they aren't stars as much per se.

Natalie Wood was but not like Fonda and Dunaway was but subsequent to her.......its a different era now, I don't think people appreciate what Fonda did or what was available to her and how she made so much out of it.

If we're going by performances, I'm inclined to go with Keaton if only because she has easily the most iconic performance (Annie Hall) and she's a rare example of a top-flight actress maintaining some of her intrigue as an actress well into old age even when the roles or projects aren't up to snuff. Speaking of roles and projects, Keaton has Fonda beat on that front as well, largely buoyed by The Godfather trilogy and Woody Allen.

Well, since you mentioned billing I would have thought Fonda was the bigger star and would have been billed over her, the lang layoff for her was probably the reason why, while Keaton still works regularly.

But in terms of "importance", Keaton's roles in those Woody Allen movies and particularly Annie Hall are so archetypal. There's actresses whose entire careers would look different, or who wouldn't have careers at all if not for those roles. The entire romantic comedy genre for the past 40 years was altered by her. I know some of that is on Allen too, but I don't think anyone can say those movies would be just the same, or as good, with someone else in the female lead.

I probably like Keaton more as a performer personally, but while the combination of The Godfather movies and Woody Allen work certainly ensures she's probably got the somewhat more famous body of work I don't think you can really compare her to Fonda, who was a bigger full on star in her own right.

She came first, she got more Oscars more publicity (good or bad) and most importantly she's got more films of note (Barefoot in the Park, Barbarella, Klute) that are Jane Fonda movies, that (again, good or bad) people watch primarily for her instead of whoever directed them.