the cat asked

J-Cat asked " Just a question: How good was the picture quality in 1903? Or is that something that we would know today?"

[quote]
It is certainly crude filmmaking, made in a time when cameras had to be operated manually and Nickelodeons where part of the new, technological rave. To rate the quality of the film by today’s standards is certainly cheating, but it is also probably cheating to even rate it on the standard that D.W. Griffith created not five years later with The Birth of a Nation. It is amazing to note how much filmmaking improved in just five short years, between 1910 and 1915,
The visual quality of silent movies -- especially those produced during the 1920s -- was often extremely high. However, there is a widely held misconception that these films were primitive and barely watchable by modern standards. This misconception is due to technical errors (such as films being played back at wrong speed) and due to the deteriorated condition of many silent films (many silent films exist only in second or even third generation copies which were often copied from already damaged and neglected film stock).


Up until around 1925, most silent films were shot at slower speeds (or "frame rates") than sound films, typically at 16 to 23 frames per second depending on the year and studio, rather than 24 frames per second. Unless carefully shown at their original speeds they can appear unnaturally fast and jerky, which reinforces their alien appearance to modern viewers. At the same time, some scenes were intentionally undercranked during shooting in order to accelerate the action, particularly in the case of slapstick comedies. The intended frame rate of a silent film can be ambiguous and since they were usually hand cranked there can even be variation within one film. Film speed is often a vexed issue among scholars and film buffs in the presentation of silents today

Projectionists frequently showed silent films at speeds which were slightly faster than the rate at which they were shot. Most films seem to have been shown at 18 fps or higher - some even faster than what would become sound film speed (24 fps). Even if shot at 16 fps (often cited as "silent speed"), the projection of a nitrate base 35mm film at such a slow speed carried a considerable risk of fire. Often projectionists would receive instructions from the distributors as to how fast particular reels or scenes should be projected on the musical director's cue sheet. Theaters also sometimes varied their projection speeds depending on the time of day or popularity of a film in order to maximize profit.
[/quote]

Posted by Dybbuk @ 12:21 pm EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments

White Rabbit

Today is Alice "in Wonderland" Liddell's birthday so i will post one of the first fantasy films Alice in Wonderland.

At 800ft, Alice in Wonderland was the longest film yet produced in Britain, running about 12 minutes. Its unusual length meant that it was not suitable for all film showings, where a variety of short subjects was considered ideal, so all the scenes were sold individually. A showman need only buy and show a single sequence, such as the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, not the whole film, which was less a self-contained story than an illustration of key moments from the book.

In 1903, there were two directors working at the Hepworth studio in Walton-on-Thames, Cecil Hepworth himself and Percy Stow. Hepworth was responsible for the studio's non-fiction films, while Stow made all the fiction films. This was such a large production that the two men worked together.

Posted by Dybbuk @ 1:53 pm EDT | Permalink | 2 Comments

Lucas I am your Father

Georges Méliès' fascination with film came early in the game, leading to the creation of a studio headed by Méliès as early as 1896. His background as a magician entertainer helped him develop the medium both technologically and as an effective medium for escapism. The contributions by the Lumière brothers and other European and American mavericks were quickly employed by Méliès, and were assimilated into his artistic output.


At first, plagiarising Lumière proved a worthy venture for the magician, who could now get his stage tricks to a larger public. With the innovation of editing, however, Méliès understood that the trickery could be achieved independent of continuous reality. At that point, magical cinema was born, which then slowly developed into a refined genre of the science fiction film. By 1902, technological developments allowed the French director to employ stop-action post-production effects on nearly 700 feet of film (around 14 minutes at a 16fps rate), a length permitting a more complex narrative. For film historians, A Trip to the Moon is the first true manifestation of cinema as an art able to deal with substantial 'texts', thus competing in effect with literature, music, dance and, primarily, theatre. What differentiates Méliès' film from other productions at the time is that the techniques employed are purely cinematic, impossible to reproduce in the physical world.


In canonising A Trip to the Moon on these grounds, what is at stake is whether cinema should be seen as a purely technical art. This has serious consequences for how we see the medium's development throughout the 20th century. If we do accept Méliès' achievement as invaluable, then special effects become the main factor in judging the quality of a film and new is placed above older technology, thus positioning A Trip to the Moon beneath The Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith /USA / 1915), which is under Metropolis (Fritz Lang / Germany / 1927). We ascend to Star Wars (George Lucas / USA / 1977), then Sin City (Robert Rodrigues / USA / 1995), and finally The Lord of the Rings (Peter Jackson / USA-New Zealand-Germany / 2001-2003), by these standards crowned the greatest film ever made.


It could also be argued that in being the first cinematic epic narrative, A Trip to the Moon was not simply technologically innovative, but also helped establish the film as a proper work of art capable of inspiring empathy from viewers, be that expressed as laughter, tears or amazement, at any (first or subsequent) viewing. That this could be done using purely cinematic techniques was very important. However Méliès' film is hardly the first production that can be given the credit for achieving this, as either The Execution of Mary Stuart (Alfred Clark / USA / 1895) or even the first film, Roundhay Garden Scene (Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince / UK / 188 can also claim that status.


So, if the technological factor alone is not enough to establish a film's status, and if A Trip to the Moon was not the first pure film 'text', where does this leave us in trying to assess its significance within the cinematic canon? We must look at the narrative itself. The film is a loose adaptation of HG Wells' The First Men in the Moon and Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon. Theirry Lefebvre, however, identified the source as Offenbach's operetta based on Verne's novel, which was performed in Paris in 1877, with a striking similarity between the stage setting in the latter and certain scenes from Méliès' film

Méliès' film has become an icon purely because of its appreciation by the general public. In time, A Trip to the Moon became almost the only early film that was still playing in cinemas, leaving the public enthralled with the magic of cinema in its puberty years, yet still having only one point of reference. Essentially, the film is canonised for becoming and holding its place as a blockbuster, and its age is often seen as a sign of quality. While it may be an important film, however, it is by no means a standard-setter in terms of artistic achievements.


A Trip to the Moon is not a bad film, despite the fact that it really belongs within the damned bundle of blockbusters. Its director showed that cinema has a unique capacity at physically recreating worlds that are unachievable in any other art form. Also, unintentionally, he provided all the ingredients for analysing the film text not as integral, but in reference to various developments in modern sciences such as psychology or sociology. Yet, what he lacks is a vision that would help make any argument complete, or at least provide the theories it raises with a basis to make them worthy of discussion. Therefore, it must be clarified that to claim its importance on qualitative grounds is far-fetched, while to consider the film's impact on the development of how the medium is perceived is unquestionably a worthy venture.


Posted by Dybbuk @ 8:28 am EDT | Permalink | 0 Comments

Star Wars whos your Daddy?

Voyage dans la Lune, Le/A Trip to the Moon (France, 1902), the screen's first epic science fiction story, was a 14 minute masterpiece, created by French director and master magician Georges Melies. The film's plot, a light-hearted satire criticizing the conservative scientific community of its time, (the opposite position of Shelly's and Dawleys Frankenstein) was inspired by Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon (1865) and H. G. Wells' First Men in the Moon (1901).

This film, Melies' 400th and most notable film, was made on an astronomical budget for the time of 10,000 Francs - risky, but worthwhile since it was hugely successful. Its popularity also led to it being illegally copied, released under others' names, and pirated (including one stolen by Edison's film technicians and distributed throughout the US). For example, an illegal duplicate of the film was available in the USA from Siegmund Lubin under the title A Trip to Mars.

Melies wrote the whimsical script, acted in the film in the lead role, designed the sets and costumes, directed, photographed, and produced the film. He hired acrobats from the Folies Bergere to play the lunar inhabitants named Selenites, and the scantily dressed assistants (or pages) who launched the cannon were dancers from the Châtelet ballet. The image of the lunar capsule landing in the eye of the moon is a memorable sight and widely-recognized in cinematic history.

PLOT

At a meeting of astronomers, their president proposes a trip to the Moon. After addressing some dissent (by throwing paper at a heckler), six brave astronomers agree to the plan. They build a space capsule in the shape of a bullet, and a huge cannon to shoot it into space. The astronomers embark and their capsule is fired from the cannon with the help of a bevy of beautiful women in sailors outfits. The Man in the moon watches the capsule as it approaches, and it hits him in the eye.

Landing safely on the Moon, the explorers get out of the capsule and watch the Earth rise in the distance. Exhausted by their journey, the astronomers unroll their blankets and sleep. As they sleep, a comet passes, the Big Dipper appears with human faces peering out of each star, old Saturn leans out of a window in his ringed planet, and Phoebe, goddess of the Moon, appears seated in a crescent-moon swing. Phoebe calls down a snowfall that wakens the explorers. The explorers then seek shelter in a cavern and discover giant mushrooms. One astronomer opens his umbrella; it promptly takes root and turns into a giant mushroom itself.

At this point, a Selenite (an insectoid  alien inhabitant of the Moon) appears, but it is easily killed by an astronomer, as the creatures explode if whacked with a stick or umbrella. More Selenites appear and it becomes increasingly difficult for the explorers to destroy them as they are surrounded. The Selenites arrest the astronomers and bring them to their leader. An astronomer picks the Chief Selenite up off its throne and dashes him to the ground, exploding him.

The astronomers run back to their capsule (continuing to whack the pursuing Selenites on the way). Five get inside. The sixth uses a rope to tip the capsule over a ledge on the Moon and into space. A Selenite tries to seize the capsule at the last minute. Astronomer, capsule, and Selenite fall through space and land in an ocean on Earth, where they are rescued by a ship and towed ashore.

Posted by Dybbuk @ 12:04 pm EDT | Permalink | 0 Comments

cathode ray campfire

In the book, we learn that Frankenstein mixes science with witchcraft to create the Creature, but the process for creation is never revealed—a strict contrast to the scientific explanations for the fantasy provided in the works of Wells, Verne, and even the later Frankenstein films. Shelley ignores the science and is seemingly more interested in Victor’s fate for toiling with dark, unknown arts. It is interesting to note that this original Frankenstein film understood this, whereas the later versions apparently forgot it. As the science of Frankenstein grows more and more outlandish as each new version is made (the most recent theatrical version features the Creature entombed in a metal coffin filled with amniotic fluid while sting-rays bite him, charging him into existence).

Frankenstein gives us insight into the earliest chapters of cinema and the horror genre, before the archetypal, Hollywood Frankenstein clichés existed. Viewing Frankenstein today, it is difficult to give it a fair review. It is certainly crude filmaking, made in a time when cameras had to be operated manually and Nickelodeons where part of the new, technological rave.The story is confined to one set stage at a time, that all fits into the unmoving camera, and the actors are all filmed in long shots with no close-ups or edits.

Also more of an observation than a criticism; unlike Frankenstein’s monster, the film is certainly a successful experiment. Of greatest interest here is the extended scene where Frankenstein “creates” the monster. Like A Trip To The Moon’s immortal shot of the man in the moon, this sequence features one of the great early special effects (simple by today’s standards, but downright brilliant at the time) when the monster is “born” out of a vat of chemicals. In reality, a human-like figure was created out of synthetic material, burned, and the footage played in reverse, creating an eerie image of a bone and flesh accruing even as flames mysteriously engulf them. We could create a more wondrous image with today’s computers, but this miniature time capsule, narratively deficient as it may be, still tops the majority of them for pure creativity.

I will end with some questions about why this and other stories endured for so many generations. The story of Frankenstein has been told and retold for almost 200 years. Its inspiration the Jewish folk story of the Golem has been with us over 2400 years. why do we continue to retell this and other stories around the cathode ray campfire. I also find it interesting that with the rise of MMO's and co-op gaming we are returning to the participatory experience of campfire storytelling.

Next a Trip to the Moon....

Posted by Dybbuk @ 10:36 am EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments