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. All of the Edison films can be found at the Library of Congress and can be accessed here. Please be sure to tell me the name of the film and who made it and answer the following questions:
- Do you notice anything particular about the film’s presentation of cinematic space—what you see on the screen? Lots of landscapes or close-ups? Moving or static camera? How does this differ from films you watch today?
- Do you identify with the camera lens? What does the filmmaker compel you to see? What is left to your imagination? What is left out altogether?
Due: Friday, September 20
Do we choose just one of the films to write about?
ReplyDeleteA Trip to the Moon (1902) Georges Méliès
ReplyDeleteMéliès uses a static camera and mainly relies on the actors and changes in setting to represent movement. Because the technology for it was not available at that time, no close-ups were used. Many of the scene were shot in the same studio using different props.
The camera lens shows us the story, but it does so from basically one angle. Méliès is known as the inventor of antirealism in films. The setting and costume design of this film along with special effects used (stopping the camera to remove a person from the shot and starting it again with a smoke effect to create the illusion that someone has disappeared, to name one) create an early science fiction world. Méliès edited A Trip to the Moon as skillfully as was possible at the time, cutting between scenes of the earth and the moon to create an antirealistic world for his audience.
Frankenstein (1910) Edison Studios, directed by J Searle Dawley
ReplyDeleteIn this adaption of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein the filmmakers paid much attention to the set and costumes. Frankensteins Laboratory was designed to look like such, showing close attention to set that films had not quite taken to yet in this time period. Almost all of the scenes were taken from the same landscape shot, with the camera remaining static throughout. The close-up had not been established as a viable angle in film yet. This film was very different from films that i watch today. The actors were much more dramatic as stage actors are. As well as the static camera angles.
The camera lens gave the viewer the means of seeing the action. Therefore I did identify with it because it gave me my view on the world of the film. The filmmaker shows us everything that he deemed necessary for us to see. Saying that he showed us everything to do with Frankensteins monster, from his creation to his demise. The story is very simple, not leaving much to our imagination. The monster is created, realizes that he is a monster and then finally is destroyed. This film being silent and short left out many important details that modern day movie watchers would expect to see.
Kill 'em
DeleteA Trip to the Moon (1902) Georges Méliès:
ReplyDeleteMéliès innovated many new techniques in A Trip to the Moon, some of which he had used for earlier films. Rather than moving the camera toward the actor, he had a moving chair operation set up on a ramp. He put the actor on the chair and pulled them toward the camera.This was a completely different way of presenting space at the time. He also used a static camera and had the camera in a set spot while filming. There werent any close ups, all landscape shots. films today have moving camera and focus on one character more than just a landscape view of all characters. The camera lens gives us a good idea of what's going on in the film but in a very basic sense. We only see the world of the characters from one position the whole film. Of course this is because it's an old film but that doesn't make it any less true. You are compelled to see exactly what is happening on screen. Everything leading up to the trip to the moon is left to your imagination. There is no sense of verisimilitude in this film, totally leaving out any concept of realism from the film.
Childish Quarrel (1898) Lumiere Brothers:
ReplyDeleteIn making the film Childish Quarrel, the Lumiere Brothers used a static camera, but it appears shaky, like somebody was holding it instead of using a tripod, which doesn't seem too unlikely during the 1800's. There are no cuts in this film, the shot remains the same for the entire duration. It's fairly close up, but I'm not sure it would be considered a close up, seeing as its focused on two babies and you can see just about all of both of their bodies (minus from about the knees down). In films today, the camera would most likely cut back and forth between the two babies as well as some shots similar to the one used in the film. The cuts back and forth would most likely be even closer up so viewers could see how adorable the babies are in a closer shot and appeal to people through that.
I do identify with the camera lens. It feels like you're there watching them, especially because of how the composition never changes, so it feels like as a viewer, you are sitting next to them, watching. The filmmaker compels you to see two babies, fighting with each other in a childish way. They are fighting over a spoon, pulling it back and forth between them. A lot is left to your imagination, such as why they are fighting over it, how they got the spoon, and many other things. The Lumiere Brothers completely leave out what finally happens with the spoon. The film ends with one baby rubbing the other baby's hand with the round end in an attempt to cheer it up, and when the crying baby looks up at it, the film ends, so viewers don't really know what it is about to do.
Actually, Maura, they most definitely used a tripod (cameras were big and unwieldy). The shakiness is due to the age of the film and how it goes through the projector and then transferred to digital. The shot is a medium shot of the babies. Cute movie.
DeleteA Trip to the Moon (1902) Georges Méliès:
ReplyDeleteMelies completely uses only static and long shots for his film. This is predictable, as there were no film techniques or conventions at the time. The long shots are effective however in that they capture the spectacular mise-en-scene created by Melies. In the movie, we see a lot of what is going on since it is set up as basically a stage in which the action takes place. But we are forced to imagine the world in which this story is taking place from the backdrops depicting the city. In today’s films there is a varying pattern of close ups and long shots and low angles, there are all sorts of shots that can be used in different combinations to create a better feel for the story and a greater meaning. But much like a play, Melies forced his viewers to imagine everything they couldn’t see in an attempt to entertain them and create an escape.
Fire Boat “New Yorker” (1903) in action, Thomas Edison Inc.
ReplyDeleteThe first most noticeable thing in the film is its somewhat wide frame. There isn’t really a close up, besides the man in the foreground at the end of the shot. This is because the boat, “New Yorker”, is far away, however the boat is the main focus in this movie. The camera does move in this moving picture, but it’s not very noticeable.
The viewer can identify with the camera lens, because it is depicting the action on screen, in this case it’s a fire boat putting on a display by spurting water. Since the boat is the main focus there isn’t much to be left to the imagination, except that there is no explanation to who the man at the end of the shot is there.
"A Trip to the Moon", George Melies:
ReplyDeleteMelies' "A Trip to the Moon" utilizes setting to make up for the lack of a moving camera. So, Melies had to be creative with set design and show everything in a single shot. The camera does do a zoom-in closeup on the moon when the astronauts arrive there. In today's films, the camera would move considerably more. This results in larger sets seen today. Georges Melies used his knowledge of magic tricks to create real special effects. However, today, these effects would be made using CGI and the sets could be made using green screens. I identified with the camera lens in this film. Everything that has to do with the protagonists is shown on screen. Every scene is also focused purely on the space-faring adventurers. There is nothing left out that would be of interest to the viewer. The audience does not know what will happen when the astronauts reach the moon, but, this is shown later on as the protagonists explore. The only thing that is left to the viewers' imagination is what happened after the astronauts got home. Either they would return to the moon for further study or simply report their findings and move on.