Read about Edison, Lumiere Brothers, Melies, and Porter atEarlyCinema.com.
Watch at least 3 films from Edison, Lumiere Brothers, and Melies on your own. Go to the Internet Archive, select "Moving Images" from the drop down menu and search for each director. Be sure to use your screening sheets for each film you watch.
The films by Edison, the Lumiere Brothers, Melies, and Porter that I watched were all from the early 1900s. The screen is in black and white and not very high quality. The camera was positioned in one place to show a landscape view of the set and it never moved. The films we watch today are composed of several different camera angles and close-ups. The movies we watch today are also of much higher quality and do a better job of intriguing the viewers by cross cutting, editing, zooming in/out, shooting from different angles, etc. I feel like it is harder for the viewer to identify with the camera lens in the early cinema films because the lens does not move. The filmmaker allows us to see a landscape view of the set and not much more. It forces the viewer to imagine for themselves what is happening to the characters outside of the wide-screen view. The viewers cannot see the character's facial expressions very well because the camera doesn't zoom in. This causes the viewers to pay more attention to the film so they can really focus on the characters and follow the story. Where today, not much is left for the viewers to imagine for themselves.
Sorry I forgot to write the names of the films in my response! But I watched "Men Boxing" by Edison, "Baby's Lunch" by the Lumiere Brothers and "A Terrible Night" by Melies.
The three short films that I watched we're Annabelle's Serpentine Dance (1894), Leonard-Cushing Fight (1894), and Sioux Ghost Dance (1894), all by Thomas Alva Edison. In Annabelle's Serpentine Dance, there is just one character, most likely Annabelle, who does a strange and elegant dance in a long flowing dress. In Leonard-Cushing Fight, there is a boxing match that only shows the two people fighting. The Sioux Ghost Dance was a strange type of film that showed an Indian tribe doing a spiritual dance. In all of the films, the camera stayed in one, static position for about 40 seconds. No close-up, no low-angles, no moving of the camera at all. Movies today are definitely different. To start, they are much longer than 40 seconds. Also, they contain much of the cinematic language that is not prominent in movies during this time. It is sort of hard for me to identify with the camera lens with these types of movies. I have a hard time figuring out what the filmmaker is trying to convey and why he/she is doing so. In most of these movies, the director is trying to get the viewer to see exactly what is in front of their faces - in my case, a woman dancing, two men fighting, and a tribe doing a ghost dance. What is left to my imagination is why the director chose to film these things.
The films I watched we're A Terrible Night by Georges Melies, Men Boxing by Thomas Edison, and Baby's Lunch. A Terrible Night seems to be the only film out of the three that is a narrative rather then a recording of a random event. A Terrible Night shows a man in his bed trying to go to sleep, but can't when he finds a bug crawling around in his bed. All you can see in this scene is the small portion of the mans bedroom. We don't see anything else because the camera is static, and the film is one continuous shot instead of several shots like it is today. There Is no movement of the camera, thus no change in the screen with no close ups or changing of angles. Melies is trying to make you see what the character is going through as he attempts to fall asleep. As the camera can't zoom in, the bug that is seen crawling up the side of his bed, exaggerated in size for the viewer to see it clearly. After the man kills the bug, he still thrashes around in his bed trying to see other bugs that we can't see, and since the first bug was so clearly seen, we as the viewer must interpret that the man is being paranoid about more bugs being there, when more than likely there aren't any bugs there at all. It's left for us to imagine whether or not this man will ever get a agood night sleep tonight. In the film Men Boxing, Edison is using this film as an experimentation film to try to get this act on film in the first place, not trying to tell a story really. All we see in the cinematic space is two men getting ready to box. The camera during this time is motionless and the film itself isn't long enough even for them to move the camera forward at all, so there are no close ups on the two men. There also is no back round, as this was one of the many films done in Edison's studio. The thing that Edison wants us to concentrate on is the two men getting ready to box in the middle of their set ring. We have to imagine however whether they are fighting professionally, if it's just for the shot or not? We have to imagine these things as this short film does not tell us much. The last film I watched was Baby's Lunch. The Lumiere Brothers were famous in film, as they recorded things on there camera that were basically normal daily activities, like a train arriving at a station. In this case, it's a baby's lunch time. What we see on the screen is a baby and it's parents trying to feed it lunch at what seems to be an outside table, which is one of the major differences between this film and the other two I watched; it's outside. The camera does however remain static in one position facing the three people, but the Lumiere Brothers do provide a more zoomed in picture then the other two films I've watched. They are trying in this shot to get you to see the parents trying to feed the baby, which is the main thing to see in this shot. We are left to imagine possibly what meal if the day this is? This film is pretty straight forward, as it is just showing you something people do on a regular daily basis. These films are by different then what we watch today. Not just the obvious fact that they are in black and white and have no sound, but cinematically speaking they are very different. First off, mostly all films that are made today are narrative films, as in they tell a story. Most early cinema was just used experimentally, and only one of the three films I watched we're telling a story at all. Also the us of the camera then and now is very different. Now we use the camera I. All different ways like rotating it around zooming in and out within shots, while in all three films the camera remained static. Also a major difference between films now and early cinema, all three films I watched were one shot films. There was no editing involved or special effects to enlighten the film like we have today. We can take several shots and edit them all together to tell a story for different angles and styles. That's how early cinema differs from films today.
The three motion pictures that I viewed were The Eclipse, by Melies in 1907, A Terrible Night, by Melies in 1896, and Annabelle Serpentine Dances, by Edison in 1895. The Eclipse, running around nine minutes, was a narrative, telling the audience a story about the eclipse and also explaining it at the same time. This motion picture has a similar form to A Trip To The Moon, where there are different scenes that contain different parts of the story. This motion picture is split up into somewhat chapters that are named different things. Each chapter has a title sequence that is a nondiegetic element. While watching through a telescope, he eclipse is shown to the audience as the moon and the sun each merged with a face to show he silly expressions hey make during the process of the eclipse. The next motion picture, Annabelle Serpentine Dance is a combination of two women in dresses that flow in order to mesmerize the audience. There are no other props but the women and their distracting dresses. The setting looks like it takes place on a stage which makes the scene feel more theatrical. The last motion picture is A Terrible Night, which shows only one shot of a man attempting to go to sleep but is awaken by terribly large insect in which he attempts to defeat and does but more keep coming. I found it weird that after the first bug, I could not physically see the other bugs that were disturbing the sleeping man. There is one thing that all these films have in common and that is that none of the shots move, they only change places for some of the films.
The three films I watched were Buffalo Police on Parade (1897), Electrocuting an Elephant (1903), both by Edison, and The Devil and the Statue (1901). Both of the Edison films were recordings of events as opposed to a scripted story, however one of which is anything but mundane. First, I watched Buffalo Police on Parade, a 28 second clip of, yes, the Buffalo, NY Police way back in 1897 marching through the streets of Buffalo. Basically, you're watching lines of police officers approaching the camera, walking in unified step. You can see some children in the beginning weaving in and out of the lines and a few seconds into the clip, a man smoking between two lines runs ahead and joins some other people running up and down the sidelines. Overall, the clip was somewhat prosaic - a single shot and no camera editing or different angles whatsoever. Just a simple film of a simple act.
However, the second Edison film I watched, while a recording of an event as opposed to a scripted movie, was anything but boring or familiar. Edison took us almost 'behind the scenes' as we watched the electrocution of an elephant in Electrocuting an Elephant. The clip starts off as we see an elephant being brought into an area, and then jumps to a closer shot of just the elephant as it begins to be executed. Smoke begins to appear and the elephant collapses. Perhaps Edison wanted us to see the inhumane acts that took place in that period. Perhaps this was intended as more of an expose. On the other hand, it could've been solely made as a chance for people to see an event of this caliber, something they would never have had the opportunity to see personally. Unlike some of Edison's earlier films, the clip is somewhat hazy and unclear, almost as if Edison were trying to conceal part of the horror (although this could be equally due to the age of the clip or the type of film he used to record).
Lastly, I watched Melies' The Devil and the Statue (1901). This two minute long clip tells the tale of a woman, a minstrel, the devil, and the Virgin Mary. The clip starts off with a woman in the left of the screen talking to who appears to be a minstrel, with the Virgin Mary constantly present on the far right of the screen. They appear to be very flirtatious with one another, and when he leaves the woman seems very upset, praying for his return. However, instead, the devil shows up in a cloud of smoke (a great example of early special effect). Upon the devil's arrival, in the window her lover once stood beside appears a grated barrier. The Devil begins to almost dance, and soon removes his large cloak and begins to dance enthusiastically, getting larger and larger as the woman crouches down into almost a ball, praying. I found this 20-30 minute sequence to be almost surreal and certainly terrifying. The Virgin Mary acts and she drives the Devil away, and removes the grate from the window where the minstrel enters and much thanks is given. I found the story to be very interesting, especially in the way they represent the Devil as sort of a conniving seducer as opposed to just an evil spirit. This particular lens is used so the viewer can see all the action at once, from the window which would eventually be grated, to the middle section where the Devil committed his offenses, and to the constantly present Virgin Mary, which makes a statement on religion.
All in all, these films are not that different from films we make today, besides the fact that the technology was different. We still make documentaries, although they don't necessarily involve recording events as much as the tying together of various recorded events. On top of that, The Devil and the Statue is very much like a typical film today with an initial incident, an arising problem that relates to that incident, an a solution. On top of that, special effects are visible, including the introduction of the Devil in a cloud of smoke and the enlargement of the devil as he dances, which are extremely impressive effects considering the time. Although feature films have gone from as little as 20 seconds to an hour and a half, the general format of these films hasn't changed too much.
I watched A Terrible Night by Melies, The Devil and the Statue by Melies and Workers Leaving the Factory by the Lumiere Brothers. All three had very bad quality which is understandable by the time period which they were all around the 1900. A terrible night was about a man who was about to go to bed when a giant bug crawls on him. So he wakes up immediately and kills it. Then he goes back to sleep. The camera was in one place the entire time and there was no sound. The next film was the Devil and the Statue which was about a girl who is being serenaded by a man. Then the Devil appears and starts taunting her so she prays to a statue of the Virgin Mary who defeats the devil and saves the girl. Again no sound and the camera didn’t move, but this time the actors had to over act to help display their emotion to the viewer. The last film I watched was Workers Leaving the Factory which is just that. It’s one shot of workings leaving the factory. All three films were made around the same time and you can tell by the picture quality, lack of sound, and lack of close ups or movement in the camera.
I watched two videos, but one was a compilation of multiple videos. The first video i watched was 'Buffalo Police on Parade' from 1897 by Edison, and the second one claimed to have a video from both the Lumiere brothers as well as a video from Melies. After reading up on the backgrounds of each of the cinematographers i was able to deduce that 'The (?) Motorist' from 1906 was by Melies because it was a film made for entertainment purposes, whereas 'The Derby' from 1896 was footage of a random event, which points to the fact that it was a film by the Lumiere Brothers. Buffalo Police on Parade was very straightforward. It was the filming of a parade consisting of police officers. The film itself was very grainy and wasn't very long, preventing much movement of the camera, although the camera seemed to wobble as if it was being held or controlled by a human rather than being held up by a tripod or similar device. This differs from modern films because in modern films the camera would move with each row of the police, highlighting their significance, rather than just letting them walk by. The film itself does not show what the parade is for, leaving the audience to wonder what the police are in fact celebrating. The (?) Motorist was a film designed to entertain through illusions of the camera as Melies was famous for. It was about a man and what the audience assumes is his wife driving around a motorcar and disobeying both the laws of society as well as the laws of reality. My favorite scene was one which Melies no doubt painstakingly edited to make it seem like the motorist had run over a police officer using stop motion cinematography. The camera is moved in between scenes, but is static during the scenes, whereas modern films would zoom in and follow the motorcar to emphasize the realities that are being broken, like one such scene where the car drives up the outside of a building. Melies compels the audience to see what might be possible, not the limitations of reality- showing that even back then Melies used the element of verisimilitude. The questions that are left with the audience about the film are mostly based on 'what provoked the police to chase the car in the first place' and 'where did this couple get that magnificent car.' The last film i watched was 'The Derby.' this was footage of what is assumed to be the end of a horse race. The camera is very static, and the quality of the footage is much worse than that of the Police Parade by Edison, maybe demonstrating how the lower fps of the Lumieres' films affected the overall image of the film. The camera was completely static throughout the film and did not use many elements, and was in fact one uninterrupted take. This film doesn't leave much to the imagination because it simply is just the end of a horse race, but some questions that aren't acknowledged include 'who won' and 'what was the significance of the race? was it the Belmont, or any other of the nationally watched horse races?'
The 3 films I watched were "The Artist's Dilema" by Thomas A. Edison (1901), "The Sprinkler Sprinkled" by The Lumiere Brothers (1896), and "The Conjurer" by George Melies (1899). The films were all in black and white, and one had music, which was somewhat significant towards the film itself. "The Artist's Dilema" was about an artist painting a portrait of a woman until a mysterious man comes out of a clock and starts messing with him. The camera was positioned in one place throughout the film, so it was almost like a "silent play" with no sound. The camera showed the entire setting, so it gave you initiative to focus on the actual characters themselves, since they were the only other thing moving, because the lens wasn't. The films I watch today implement many different elements that past film makers didn't have a chance to utilize, such as color, sound, camera angles, and advanced special effects. Finally, I identified through the camera lens that at the end of the movie the director wanted to make you think the exact same thought the artist did: "What the heck just happened?". It's very comical in a way how the man comes out of the clock and just randomly does things to throw off the artist's concentration. I found "The Springler Sprinkled" to be a very interesting and comical film. There a man was on an ordinary day watering his plants, until another man comes and starts messing with him by stepping on his hose. What I found interesting about the film was the music. Music was just starting to become relevant at this time, and I love how the director uses it to add to the feeling the short film gives you. Notice how at the beginning of the film the music plays at a normal pace, and then speeds up when the man becomes angry, as if his emotions triggered the pace of the music. This made me chuckle as I noticed it right away even though it seemed to be intended as an implicit element in the film. Finally, "The Conjurer" was another film I out to be exceptional. The use of special effects really made me felt as if I was at a magic show, and I found the tricks he (and the director) was trying to implement amusing. Another thing I noticed was that the camera was swaying a little bit, as if it wasn't meant to be still. I think that when people were originally watching films and saw the effects being used on a still camera, it kind of gave it away and took away from the realistic feeling of the effect. The camera swaying adds on to that, and makes even the observant film critic say "How did they do that while the camera was moving ?". Overall, I identified and saw lots of meaning in all 3 of the films. At first I didn't know that I could write so much on such short clips, but after I thought about it, I had much to say. There is a lot more to films then I could have ever imagine, and now I can understand how people can write huge essays on two-hour movies, since paragraphs can be typed about movies as short as one minute in length.
The three early films that I watched is the "Imperial Japanese Dance" (1894) by Thomas Edison, "The Haunted Castle" (1896) by George Méliès, and "The Teddy Bears" (1907) by Edwin Porter.
While watching "Imperial Japanese dance", I noticed that the frames succeed each other very smoothly, and do not have large gaps in between. This is noticeable when the three girls are waving the long cloths and the fan. The camera is stationary for the entire film, but everything that is happening within the shot is very busy and alive.
"The Haunted Castle" uses a very creative disappear/reappear effect for the characters, which was made possible by keeping the camera static in the corner of the room where a wide view can be seen. Even though the effects are non realistic, I am still able to picture what Méliès was trying to attempt, using my imagination. The characters movements are extremely exaggerated because we can not see the emotions on their face, due to the full room angle.
"The Teddy Bears" by Edwin Porter, which is based off of Goldilocks and the three bears, shifts from several different sets, such as the kitchen, bedroom, staircase, and outside the house. The camera seemed to shake throughout the film, which makes it seem as those its was being hand held. Like most early films, this film does not have any close ups, and shows the room as a whole, just like a play. Porter was able to create a small story within a silent film that even I would want to see until the end, 105 years later.
The three films i watched were "Edison in his chemistry lab" by Thomas Edison, "A terrible night" by George Melies, and "Workers leaving the factory" by the Lumiere Brothers.
In Edison's film, the space is used to express a tightly packed chemical lab. Edison is seen shifting about in a laboratory packed to the brim with test tubes and other orderly shelved materials. The way that Edison partially leaves the screen, as well as the fact that the tables and shelves extend off of the screen suggest that there's is more space beyond the confines of the screen in the lab. This camera is static, and there is no landscape or close ups. This differs from modern film because today, a film set in a laboratory would have many close ups and odd angles to show the dynamics of a science lab, as well as lots of movement and dramatic music. One identifies with the camera, and feels that they are literally watching Edison work in his lab. We have to wonder only what Edison is doing, as we cannot see the nature of his work.
In Melies' film, we watch a man laying down to sleep when a huge bug crawls up his leg and across the wall next to his bed. He swats it and it falls into his bed, causing him to flop about it distress, unable to rest after his traumatic experience. The space in the movie is mostly empty, holding only a bed and a wall. This suggests a large and majestic room, however, when paired with the royal clothing and bed dressings of the man. Again, we have a static camera with no close ups. This is rather similar to modern film, besides the fact that we again miss basic technique like close ups and movement. We identify with the lens of this film also. The filmmaker does not leave much to the imagination, as the whole story is self explanatory and straight forward.
The Lumiere film is about a factory closing for the day, and all of its workers leaving for home. The space is not used much, apart from it being a place for the workers to walk through. There are no close ups or landscapes, and the camera is static. This differs from modern films in the fact that there doesn't appear to be a plot, and there is no message conveyed. We identify with the camera lens, and the filmmaker wants us to understand what closing time is like at this factory. Nothing is left to the imagination, and nothing is left out. The open nature of the shot suggests that the whole world is open outside of the factory.
The films by Edison, the Lumiere Brothers, Melies, and Porter that I watched were all from the early 1900s. The screen is in black and white and not very high quality. The camera was positioned in one place to show a landscape view of the set and it never moved. The films we watch today are composed of several different camera angles and close-ups. The movies we watch today are also of much higher quality and do a better job of intriguing the viewers by cross cutting, editing, zooming in/out, shooting from different angles, etc. I feel like it is harder for the viewer to identify with the camera lens in the early cinema films because the lens does not move. The filmmaker allows us to see a landscape view of the set and not much more. It forces the viewer to imagine for themselves what is happening to the characters outside of the wide-screen view. The viewers cannot see the character's facial expressions very well because the camera doesn't zoom in. This causes the viewers to pay more attention to the film so they can really focus on the characters and follow the story. Where today, not much is left for the viewers to imagine for themselves.
ReplyDeleteChristina--Which films did you watch? Please post the names of the films in your paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteSorry I forgot to write the names of the films in my response! But I watched "Men Boxing" by Edison, "Baby's Lunch" by the Lumiere Brothers and "A Terrible Night" by Melies.
DeleteThe three short films that I watched we're Annabelle's Serpentine Dance (1894), Leonard-Cushing Fight (1894), and Sioux Ghost Dance (1894), all by Thomas Alva Edison. In Annabelle's Serpentine Dance, there is just one character, most likely Annabelle, who does a strange and elegant dance in a long flowing dress. In Leonard-Cushing Fight, there is a boxing match that only shows the two people fighting. The Sioux Ghost Dance was a strange type of film that showed an Indian tribe doing a spiritual dance. In all of the films, the camera stayed in one, static position for about 40 seconds. No close-up, no low-angles, no moving of the camera at all. Movies today are definitely different. To start, they are much longer than 40 seconds. Also, they contain much of the cinematic language that is not prominent in movies during this time.
ReplyDeleteIt is sort of hard for me to identify with the camera lens with these types of movies. I have a hard time figuring out what the filmmaker is trying to convey and why he/she is doing so. In most of these movies, the director is trying to get the viewer to see exactly what is in front of their faces - in my case, a woman dancing, two men fighting, and a tribe doing a ghost dance. What is left to my imagination is why the director chose to film these things.
The films I watched we're A Terrible Night by Georges Melies, Men Boxing by Thomas Edison, and Baby's Lunch. A Terrible Night seems to be the only film out of the three that is a narrative rather then a recording of a random event. A Terrible Night shows a man in his bed trying to go to sleep, but can't when he finds a bug crawling around in his bed. All you can see in this scene is the small portion of the mans bedroom. We don't see anything else because the camera is static, and the film is one continuous shot instead of several shots like it is today. There Is no movement of the camera, thus no change in the screen with no close ups or changing of angles. Melies is trying to make you see what the character is going through as he attempts to fall asleep. As the camera can't zoom in, the bug that is seen crawling up the side of his bed, exaggerated in size for the viewer to see it clearly. After the man kills the bug, he still thrashes around in his bed trying to see other bugs that we can't see, and since the first bug was so clearly seen, we as the viewer must interpret that the man is being paranoid about more bugs being there, when more than likely there aren't any bugs there at all. It's left for us to imagine whether or not this man will ever get a agood night sleep tonight.
ReplyDeleteIn the film Men Boxing, Edison is using this film as an experimentation film to try to get this act on film in the first place, not trying to tell a story really. All we see in the cinematic space is two men getting ready to box. The camera during this time is motionless and the film itself isn't long enough even for them to move the camera forward at all, so there are no close ups on the two men. There also is no back round, as this was one of the many films done in Edison's studio. The thing that Edison wants us to concentrate on is the two men getting ready to box in the middle of their set ring. We have to imagine however whether they are fighting professionally, if it's just for the shot or not? We have to imagine these things as this short film does not tell us much.
The last film I watched was Baby's Lunch. The Lumiere Brothers were famous in film, as they recorded things on there camera that were basically normal daily activities, like a train arriving at a station. In this case, it's a baby's lunch time. What we see on the screen is a baby and it's parents trying to feed it lunch at what seems to be an outside table, which is one of the major differences between this film and the other two I watched; it's outside. The camera does however remain static in one position facing the three people, but the Lumiere Brothers do provide a more zoomed in picture then the other two films I've watched. They are trying in this shot to get you to see the parents trying to feed the baby, which is the main thing to see in this shot. We are left to imagine possibly what meal if the day this is? This film is pretty straight forward, as it is just showing you something people do on a regular daily basis.
These films are by different then what we watch today. Not just the obvious fact that they are in black and white and have no sound, but cinematically speaking they are very different. First off, mostly all films that are made today are narrative films, as in they tell a story. Most early cinema was just used experimentally, and only one of the three films I watched we're telling a story at all. Also the us of the camera then and now is very different. Now we use the camera I. All different ways like rotating it around zooming in and out within shots, while in all three films the camera remained static. Also a major difference between films now and early cinema, all three films I watched were one shot films. There was no editing involved or special effects to enlighten the film like we have today. We can take several shots and edit them all together to tell a story for different angles and styles. That's how early cinema differs from films today.
The three motion pictures that I viewed were The Eclipse, by Melies in 1907, A Terrible Night, by Melies in 1896, and Annabelle Serpentine Dances, by Edison in 1895. The Eclipse, running around nine minutes, was a narrative, telling the audience a story about the eclipse and also explaining it at the same time. This motion picture has a similar form to A Trip To The Moon, where there are different scenes that contain different parts of the story. This motion picture is split up into somewhat chapters that are named different things. Each chapter has a title sequence that is a nondiegetic element. While watching through a telescope, he eclipse is shown to the audience as the moon and the sun each merged with a face to show he silly expressions hey make during the process of the eclipse. The next motion picture, Annabelle Serpentine Dance is a combination of two women in dresses that flow in order to mesmerize the audience. There are no other props but the women and their distracting dresses. The setting looks like it takes place on a stage which makes the scene feel more theatrical. The last motion picture is A Terrible Night, which shows only one shot of a man attempting to go to sleep but is awaken by terribly large insect in which he attempts to defeat and does but more keep coming. I found it weird that after the first bug, I could not physically see the other bugs that were disturbing the sleeping man. There is one thing that all these films have in common and that is that none of the shots move, they only change places for some of the films.
ReplyDeleteThe three films I watched were Buffalo Police on Parade (1897), Electrocuting an Elephant (1903), both by Edison, and The Devil and the Statue (1901). Both of the Edison films were recordings of events as opposed to a scripted story, however one of which is anything but mundane. First, I watched Buffalo Police on Parade, a 28 second clip of, yes, the Buffalo, NY Police way back in 1897 marching through the streets of Buffalo. Basically, you're watching lines of police officers approaching the camera, walking in unified step. You can see some children in the beginning weaving in and out of the lines and a few seconds into the clip, a man smoking between two lines runs ahead and joins some other people running up and down the sidelines. Overall, the clip was somewhat prosaic - a single shot and no camera editing or different angles whatsoever. Just a simple film of a simple act.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the second Edison film I watched, while a recording of an event as opposed to a scripted movie, was anything but boring or familiar. Edison took us almost 'behind the scenes' as we watched the electrocution of an elephant in Electrocuting an Elephant. The clip starts off as we see an elephant being brought into an area, and then jumps to a closer shot of just the elephant as it begins to be executed. Smoke begins to appear and the elephant collapses. Perhaps Edison wanted us to see the inhumane acts that took place in that period. Perhaps this was intended as more of an expose. On the other hand, it could've been solely made as a chance for people to see an event of this caliber, something they would never have had the opportunity to see personally. Unlike some of Edison's earlier films, the clip is somewhat hazy and unclear, almost as if Edison were trying to conceal part of the horror (although this could be equally due to the age of the clip or the type of film he used to record).
Lastly, I watched Melies' The Devil and the Statue (1901). This two minute long clip tells the tale of a woman, a minstrel, the devil, and the Virgin Mary. The clip starts off with a woman in the left of the screen talking to who appears to be a minstrel, with the Virgin Mary constantly present on the far right of the screen. They appear to be very flirtatious with one another, and when he leaves the woman seems very upset, praying for his return. However, instead, the devil shows up in a cloud of smoke (a great example of early special effect). Upon the devil's arrival, in the window her lover once stood beside appears a grated barrier. The Devil begins to almost dance, and soon removes his large cloak and begins to dance enthusiastically, getting larger and larger as the woman crouches down into almost a ball, praying. I found this 20-30 minute sequence to be almost surreal and certainly terrifying. The Virgin Mary acts and she drives the Devil away, and removes the grate from the window where the minstrel enters and much thanks is given. I found the story to be very interesting, especially in the way they represent the Devil as sort of a conniving seducer as opposed to just an evil spirit. This particular lens is used so the viewer can see all the action at once, from the window which would eventually be grated, to the middle section where the Devil committed his offenses, and to the constantly present Virgin Mary, which makes a statement on religion.
All in all, these films are not that different from films we make today, besides the fact that the technology was different. We still make documentaries, although they don't necessarily involve recording events as much as the tying together of various recorded events. On top of that, The Devil and the Statue is very much like a typical film today with an initial incident, an arising problem that relates to that incident, an a solution. On top of that, special effects are visible, including the introduction of the Devil in a cloud of smoke and the enlargement of the devil as he dances, which are extremely impressive effects considering the time. Although feature films have gone from as little as 20 seconds to an hour and a half, the general format of these films hasn't changed too much.
ReplyDeleteI watched A Terrible Night by Melies, The Devil and the Statue by Melies and Workers Leaving the Factory by the Lumiere Brothers. All three had very bad quality which is understandable by the time period which they were all around the 1900. A terrible night was about a man who was about to go to bed when a giant bug crawls on him. So he wakes up immediately and kills it. Then he goes back to sleep. The camera was in one place the entire time and there was no sound. The next film was the Devil and the Statue which was about a girl who is being serenaded by a man. Then the Devil appears and starts taunting her so she prays to a statue of the Virgin Mary who defeats the devil and saves the girl. Again no sound and the camera didn’t move, but this time the actors had to over act to help display their emotion to the viewer. The last film I watched was Workers Leaving the Factory which is just that. It’s one shot of workings leaving the factory. All three films were made around the same time and you can tell by the picture quality, lack of sound, and lack of close ups or movement in the camera.
ReplyDeleteKirk--Stay away from phrases like "bad quality." "Bad" is way too subjective.
DeleteI watched two videos, but one was a compilation of multiple videos. The first video i watched was 'Buffalo Police on Parade' from 1897 by Edison, and the second one claimed to have a video from both the Lumiere brothers as well as a video from Melies. After reading up on the backgrounds of each of the cinematographers i was able to deduce that 'The (?) Motorist' from 1906 was by Melies because it was a film made for entertainment purposes, whereas 'The Derby' from 1896 was footage of a random event, which points to the fact that it was a film by the Lumiere Brothers.
ReplyDeleteBuffalo Police on Parade was very straightforward. It was the filming of a parade consisting of police officers. The film itself was very grainy and wasn't very long, preventing much movement of the camera, although the camera seemed to wobble as if it was being held or controlled by a human rather than being held up by a tripod or similar device. This differs from modern films because in modern films the camera would move with each row of the police, highlighting their significance, rather than just letting them walk by. The film itself does not show what the parade is for, leaving the audience to wonder what the police are in fact celebrating.
The (?) Motorist was a film designed to entertain through illusions of the camera as Melies was famous for. It was about a man and what the audience assumes is his wife driving around a motorcar and disobeying both the laws of society as well as the laws of reality. My favorite scene was one which Melies no doubt painstakingly edited to make it seem like the motorist had run over a police officer using stop motion cinematography. The camera is moved in between scenes, but is static during the scenes, whereas modern films would zoom in and follow the motorcar to emphasize the realities that are being broken, like one such scene where the car drives up the outside of a building. Melies compels the audience to see what might be possible, not the limitations of reality- showing that even back then Melies used the element of verisimilitude. The questions that are left with the audience about the film are mostly based on 'what provoked the police to chase the car in the first place' and 'where did this couple get that magnificent car.'
The last film i watched was 'The Derby.' this was footage of what is assumed to be the end of a horse race. The camera is very static, and the quality of the footage is much worse than that of the Police Parade by Edison, maybe demonstrating how the lower fps of the Lumieres' films affected the overall image of the film. The camera was completely static throughout the film and did not use many elements, and was in fact one uninterrupted take. This film doesn't leave much to the imagination because it simply is just the end of a horse race, but some questions that aren't acknowledged include 'who won' and 'what was the significance of the race? was it the Belmont, or any other of the nationally watched horse races?'
Jack--Thoroughly enjoyed reading your response. Nice work. Keep it up.
DeleteThe 3 films I watched were "The Artist's Dilema" by Thomas A. Edison (1901), "The Sprinkler Sprinkled" by The Lumiere Brothers (1896), and "The Conjurer" by George Melies (1899). The films were all in black and white, and one had music, which was somewhat significant towards the film itself.
ReplyDelete"The Artist's Dilema" was about an artist painting a portrait of a woman until a mysterious man comes out of a clock and starts messing with him. The camera was positioned in one place throughout the film, so it was almost like a "silent play" with no sound. The camera showed the entire setting, so it gave you initiative to focus on the actual characters themselves, since they were the only other thing moving, because the lens wasn't. The films I watch today implement many different elements that past film makers didn't have a chance to utilize, such as color, sound, camera angles, and advanced special effects. Finally, I identified through the camera lens that at the end of the movie the director wanted to make you think the exact same thought the artist did: "What the heck just happened?". It's very comical in a way how the man comes out of the clock and just randomly does things to throw off the artist's concentration.
I found "The Springler Sprinkled" to be a very interesting and comical film. There a man was on an ordinary day watering his plants, until another man comes and starts messing with him by stepping on his hose. What I found interesting about the film was the music. Music was just starting to become relevant at this time, and I love how the director uses it to add to the feeling the short film gives you. Notice how at the beginning of the film the music plays at a normal pace, and then speeds up when the man becomes angry, as if his emotions triggered the pace of the music. This made me chuckle as I noticed it right away even though it seemed to be intended as an implicit element in the film.
Finally, "The Conjurer" was another film I out to be exceptional. The use of special effects really made me felt as if I was at a magic show, and I found the tricks he (and the director) was trying to implement amusing. Another thing I noticed was that the camera was swaying a little bit, as if it wasn't meant to be still. I think that when people were originally watching films and saw the effects being used on a still camera, it kind of gave it away and took away from the realistic feeling of the effect. The camera swaying adds on to that, and makes even the observant film critic say "How did they do that while the camera was moving ?".
Overall, I identified and saw lots of meaning in all 3 of the films. At first I didn't know that I could write so much on such short clips, but after I thought about it, I had much to say. There is a lot more to films then I could have ever imagine, and now I can understand how people can write huge essays on two-hour movies, since paragraphs can be typed about movies as short as one minute in length.
Derek--I believe you will continue to love writing about films and will find much much more to write about as the course goes on!
DeleteThe three early films that I watched is the "Imperial Japanese Dance" (1894) by Thomas Edison, "The Haunted Castle" (1896) by George Méliès, and "The Teddy Bears" (1907) by Edwin Porter.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching "Imperial Japanese dance", I noticed that the frames succeed each other very smoothly, and do not have large gaps in between. This is noticeable when the three girls are waving the long cloths and the fan. The camera is stationary for the entire film, but everything that is happening within the shot is very busy and alive.
"The Haunted Castle" uses a very creative disappear/reappear effect for the characters, which was made possible by keeping the camera static in the corner of the room where a wide view can be seen. Even though the effects are non realistic, I am still able to picture what Méliès was trying to attempt, using my imagination. The characters movements are extremely exaggerated because we can not see the emotions on their face, due to the full room angle.
"The Teddy Bears" by Edwin Porter, which is based off of Goldilocks and the three bears, shifts from several different sets, such as the kitchen, bedroom, staircase, and outside the house. The camera seemed to shake throughout the film, which makes it seem as those its was being hand held. Like most early films, this film does not have any close ups, and shows the room as a whole, just like a play. Porter was able to create a small story within a silent film that even I would want to see until the end, 105 years later.
The three films i watched were "Edison in his chemistry lab" by Thomas Edison, "A terrible night" by George Melies, and "Workers leaving the factory" by the Lumiere Brothers.
ReplyDeleteIn Edison's film, the space is used to express a tightly packed chemical lab. Edison is seen shifting about in a laboratory packed to the brim with test tubes and other orderly shelved materials. The way that Edison partially leaves the screen, as well as the fact that the tables and shelves extend off of the screen suggest that there's is more space beyond the confines of the screen in the lab. This camera is static, and there is no landscape or close ups. This differs from modern film because today, a film set in a laboratory would have many close ups and odd angles to show the dynamics of a science lab, as well as lots of movement and dramatic music. One identifies with the camera, and feels that they are literally watching Edison work in his lab. We have to wonder only what Edison is doing, as we cannot see the nature of his work.
In Melies' film, we watch a man laying down to sleep when a huge bug crawls up his leg and across the wall next to his bed. He swats it and it falls into his bed, causing him to flop about it distress, unable to rest after his traumatic experience. The space in the movie is mostly empty, holding only a bed and a wall. This suggests a large and majestic room, however, when paired with the royal clothing and bed dressings of the man. Again, we have a static camera with no close ups. This is rather similar to modern film, besides the fact that we again miss basic technique like close ups and movement. We identify with the lens of this film also. The filmmaker does not leave much to the imagination, as the whole story is self explanatory and straight forward.
The Lumiere film is about a factory closing for the day, and all of its workers leaving for home. The space is not used much, apart from it being a place for the workers to walk through. There are no close ups or landscapes, and the camera is static. This differs from modern films in the fact that there doesn't appear to be a plot, and there is no message conveyed. We identify with the camera lens, and the filmmaker wants us to understand what closing time is like at this factory. Nothing is left to the imagination, and nothing is left out. The open nature of the shot suggests that the whole world is open outside of the factory.
https://elyedamuly.blogspot.co.id/2012/02/
ReplyDelete