1001 Movies ... my own version (1910's)

Notes: A long time ago, when I was a student, I spent a year in Cambridge and, when I was there, I had the pleasure to follow a course about film history. The goal with this course was to start from the very beginning and go slowly up to the 80’s, if I’m not mistaken. So, this was the first movie we had to watch and, to be honest, it wasn’t an easy one. I mean, to give you an idea, before we watched the damned thing, our teacher actually warned us that it would be probably seriously tedious and she said she wouldn’t blame us if we wouldn’t stick around until the end. And, indeed, at the beginning, I think the whole class was present but, at the end, we were only 3 still watching the damned thing (including me, of course). And, yes, the whole thing was just so boring to behold. Indeed, for more than 2 hours, you get to see a decadent mute black-and-white murky drama involving some Roman guy apparently called Maciste. At the end of the day, it boils down to how much slack you should give to a movie just because it is old.

Notes: Eventually, I must admit it, the first half was actually quite impressive. Indeed, it was a really intriguing depiction of the Civil war, displaying the impact on the people of the North and the South. There were also some very well made battle scenes, especially considering the fact that it is a 100 years old feature and it must have cost a fortune back in those days. However, in the second half, Griffith went completely apeshit on us and the whole thing became really despicable. First of all, the way black people were described was just really awful. Indeed, they are basically portrayed as evil, ignorant and completely useless. It was so disturbing that even at the time many people were really outraged. Furthermore, while the first part seemed pretty accurate historically speaking, in the second half, they gave an alternate version where the North and South were actually bonding against the black oppressor ruling in the South and the Ku Klux Klan was described as some kind of rightful resistance group… Still, even though you don’t agree with Griffith's ideas, you have to bare in mind that the guy was actually a visionary and he has single-handedly created most of what we know of the cinematic language (intercutting between various scenes, establishing shots going to medium shots going to close-ups,…). When you see this movie, you don’t notice those tricks because you have seen them in 100s of movies that came afterwards but he actually invented all these things. So, from a technical and historical point of view, it is quite a valuable feature and it is usually considered as the birth of the modern American cinema but the ideas developed were just disgusting and the whole thing felt terribly misguided.

Notes: I didn’t know that, back in the 1910’s and 1920’s, such serial films were actually very popular. Louis Feuillade was apparently the master in this genre and this movie is considered as his magnum opus. Well, with 7 hours of running time, it is considered as one of the longest movies ever made but, to be honest, I don’t actually agree with this assessment. Indeed, it is not a continuous epic story like ‘The Lord of the Rings’ but it is in fact very episodic and, in my opinion, it is a more a vintage mini-series than a very long feature film. Anyway, to be honest, I think it must be quite a drag to watch it all at once and, in my case, I actually watched it the same way it was released, one episode each day over a 10 days period. Anyway, how was the damned thing after all? Well, in spite of its title, it turned out that this movie had actually nothing to do with actual vampires after all. Indeed, it was actually dealing with some bizarre underground gang called ‘The Vampires’. In this group, the most memorable character was definitely Irma Vep, such an intriguing character that it inspired Olivier Assayas not only to make a movie back in the 90’s but also a mini-series much more recently. On the other side, with the good guys, to be honest, I didn’t care much for Philippe Guérande but, on the other hand, Oscar-Cloud Mazamette was very often quite hilarious.

Notes: To be honest, I kept pushing this movie away because, let’s face it, to watch a 3 hours silent feature is a rather daunting prospect, at least to me. Eventually, I have to admit that it was quite impressive. Indeed, it was a very ambitious production, no doubt it, and the production value was really amazing. Apparently, D.W. Griffith spent $2 million to make this flick which was a huge amount of money at the time and, apparently, even so, the audience were not really attracted by such a long movie so it wasn’t really a financial success after all. I must admit it, myself, I was quite intrigued during the 1rst hour but then, I had a hard time to focus until the end. Griffith basically mixed 4 stories, 3 around some historical events (the fall of Babylon, the crucifixion, the massacre of the St. Bartholomew's Day) and a contemporary fiction and the fact that he kept switching between all these tales made it even more difficult to hold on the whole thing. Still, it was very well directed, especially when you think that it is more than 100 years old. Eventually, even if I’m not a huge fan of those very long silent features, this one is a classic though.

Notes: Well, this was the 3rd short I saw with Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle and, even though I enjoyed more ‘The Garage’, it was pretty good as well though. The most interesting thing about this short, at least for me, was the fact that that, this time, Buster Keaton was not involved so Arbuckle really had to carry the whole thing on his shoulders. Sure, Mabel Normand, one of his frequent co-starts at the time, was also there to assist him but I think it was pretty obvious that he was the main draw here. Anyway, there is no doubt that the guy was really charismatic and his comedic timing was pretty much perfect. Concerning the movie itself, at least, there was more or less a plot this time around. Still, to be honest, it was narratively not really impressive but, except for Charles Chaplin’s groundbreaking work, that’s something that could be said about most silent comedies, I’m afraid. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it was still a solid vintage silent comedy though.

Notes: Well, to be honest, the damned thing didn’t really impress after all. Basically, the main idea was to have the Tramp becoming a police agent which was quite a huge contrast with what the guy was usually doing in Chaplin's movies. At least, I have to admit that the approach was rather original but I think they clearly struggled to get the character involved in an interesting story. I mean, if I understand correctly, he was assigned to work on Easy Street which was supposed to be a rough neighborhood. However, it turned out to be really only a single street, not even a whole block of houses. Even more problematic was the way they decided to show how rough it was by having a bunch of locals endlessly fighting with each other for no clear reason whatsoever. The end-result was, at least as far as I was concerned, more bewildering than really entertaining and I wish they did find some other way to show how difficult and hazardous it was to work in these parts. Fortunately, as usual, Charles Chaplin was really entertaining playing this great character and the damned thing is still definitely worth a look.

Notes: I don’t think I have ever seen this short before but, within a few mins, I was reminded why I used to love these shorts so much when I was a kid. Indeed, the damned thing was just so hilarious and, in my opinion, Chaplin was just from a different league than everyone else involved in silent comedies at the time (Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy,…) . Concerning the story itself, there were basically 2 parts. The first one was about the Tramp going on a trip to America and it was quite amazing how still topical the damned thing was, even 100 years later. Indeed, you can be pretty sure that most (illegal) immigrants face such hardship and worse when they try to reach Europe or the US and the fact that Chaplin managed to turn such dark material into something so entertaining is just a pure marvel. The second part was this time about the poor guy trying to pay his meal at a restaurant when he didn’t have a dime. It was actually the starting point of his short, Chaplin apparently did add the first part as an explanation on how the main character ended up in this predicament. Eventually, I actually preferred the 1st part because it had more impact but the 2nd part was some serious fun as well.

Notes: It was in fact the 2nd short I saw with Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle and, even though I enjoyed more ‘The Garage’, it was pretty good as well though. Above all, it was pretty cool to see Arbuckle working again with Buster Keaton. Indeed, Arbuckle was actually the one who helped Keaton launching his career and this short was one of the earliest movies starring Keaton which was of course really neat. Coming back on the movie itself, sure, it was pretty entertaining and some of the gags were really funny but the damned thing was still too messy and random, I’m afraid. Sure, you can argue that it was inherent to the genre but, in this case, it was even more chaotic than usual. There was also a 3rd guy in this movie who was involved in some rather acrobatic stunts but I guess he never managed to become as famous as Arbuckle and Keaton were.

Notes: D.W. Griffith is nowadays considered the first great movie director and even though I'm really curious to check his work, I also have some mixed feelings about the guy, even before I have watched anything he made yet. Indeed, his great masterpiece 'The Birth of Nation' is highly controversial but, still, considering myself a great movie buff, I couldn't avoid his work for much longer so I decided to check this flick. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good but there were many elements, inherent to the era that bothered me. I mean, the main character is an Asian man called 'The Yellow Man' and he was played by a white guy. I'm really sensitive to this kind of things and it was pretty offensive. Of course, I know, it was a common thing back in those days but, still, I couldn't help thinking that with an Asian actor, the whole thing would have been greatly improved. Still, it remains a solid drama, very dark and gloomy, and from a visual point of view, it was quite amazing. Indeed, without any dialog, Griffith still managed to drag you into this dark tale and it was quite fascinating. You can see that everything was shot on stage but the details were great and created an immersive atmosphere. Finally, it displayed one of the most striking death scenes I have ever seen and Lillian Gish was definitely a great actress.