|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 28, 2017 4:13:34 GMT
Lately I've been watching short silent films directed by Edwin S. Porter.
He directed many films during the 1900s/1910s.
I like most of the films I've seen by him. His directing style is very old-fashioned, which is fine with me.
Does anyone else on here have any thoughts on him?
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 28, 2017 4:15:10 GMT
Lately I've been watching short silent films directed by Edwin S. Porter. He directed many films during the 1900s/1910s. I like most of the films I've seen by him. His directing style is very old-fashioned, which is fine with me. Does anyone else on here have any thoughts on him? Legendary director. Are there many available?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 28, 2017 4:18:16 GMT
Lately I've been watching short silent films directed by Edwin S. Porter. He directed many films during the 1900s/1910s. I like most of the films I've seen by him. His directing style is very old-fashioned, which is fine with me. Does anyone else on here have any thoughts on him? Legendary director. Are there many available? Various examples are on the "Edison: The Invention of the Movies" DVD set. Also, various examples can be viewed on YouTube as uploaded by the Library of Congress, such as this one:
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 28, 2017 4:19:11 GMT
Legendary director. Are there many available? Various examples are on the "Edison: The Invention of the Movies" DVD set. Various examples can be viewed on YouTube as uploaded by the Library of Congress: Nice! Thanks dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 28, 2017 4:26:51 GMT
Various examples are on the "Edison: The Invention of the Movies" DVD set. Various examples can be viewed on YouTube as uploaded by the Library of Congress: Nice! Thanks dude. I've always been rather fond of this one, which anticipates Marilyn Monroe's skirt-blowing scene:
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 28, 2017 4:30:08 GMT
I've always been rather fond of this one, which anticipates Marilyn Monroe's skirt-blowing scene: The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind ... the answer, is blowin, in the wind!
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Dec 28, 2017 13:26:55 GMT
Matthew the SwordsmanRE: 23rd street. OK... watch the boy in the background who is watching as the people are walking. He seems to be just hanging around and is looking where the action is going to be. I bet he knew what might happen and that several of these scenes had been filmed with this "take" of an innocent walker being the keeper. The lady's reaction is priceless ! I watched it a few of times- First to see the story and then to look at the horses and the buildings and the passers by. I am familiar with the area so it was particularly fascinating to see it in 1901. Thanks so much for posting these peeks back in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Dec 28, 2017 19:03:00 GMT
 Edwin S. Porter at work, or just posing for this photography.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Dec 29, 2017 5:30:00 GMT
When I first saw The Great Train Robbery back in 2002, I was filled with all sorts of thoughts and reflections. Here is what I wrote at the time at the weekly thread on the old boards:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 6:11:50 GMT
Legendary director. Are there many available? Various examples are on the "Edison: The Invention of the Movies" DVD set. Also, various examples can be viewed on YouTube as uploaded by the Library of Congress, such as this one: The Great Train Robbery was a cinematic masterpiece. Many film historians consider it the first modern motion picture with natural motion. Compare The Great Train Robbery with Porter's Life of an American Fireman made earlier in 1903. Life of an American Fireman has choppy motion. It was the film editing perfected by Edwin S. Porter that gave The Great Train Robbery natural motion. Some film historians posit that Cecil Hapworth simultaneously made similar advances with Alice in Wonderland- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_(1903_film)The Great Train Robbery was a good film also. 1903 was a magnificent year for technological innovation. The first airplane (heavier than air aircraft) was flown at Kitty Hawk by Wilber and Orville Wright. Henry Ford made the first assembly line which revolutionized manufacturing. The Great Train Robbery was the first modern film. 1903 was an amazing year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 15:08:49 GMT
Compare The Great Train Robbery with Porter's Life of an American Fireman made earlier in 1903. Life of an American Fireman has choppy motion. It was the film editing perfected by Edwin S. Porter that gave The Great Train Robbery natural motion. Yes, but Life of an American Fireman was a profoundly historically significant film, because it was the first film to employ non-linear editing, cross-cutting as it did between the burning building and the firemen racing to get to it. Nothing like that had been done before. The other watershed moment from Porter was, of course, the first close-up in a narrative film at the end of The Great Train Robbery. These two things together really laid the groundwork for the seminal films of D.W. Griffith, who forever change the landscape of cinema.
Wrong. The cross-cutting in Life of an American Fireman was added by someone years after the film was released, probably in the 1930s or 1940s, who was unfamiliar with editing of the early 1900s and was trying to "correct" the film. When originally released, the film had no cross-cutting. This is discussed by film historians on the DVD "Edison: The Invention of the Movies". As originally released, the rescue scene was shown twice, first inside and then outside. This kind of editing (showing the exact same scene but from two different perspectives) was common at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 15:24:02 GMT
Wrong. The cross-cutting in Life of an American Fireman was added by someone years after the film was released, probably in the 1930s or 1940s, who was unfamiliar with editing of the early 1900s and was trying to "correct" the film. When originally released, the film had no cross-cutting. This is discussed by film historians on the DVD "Edison: The Invention of the Movies". As originally released, the rescue scene was shown twice, first inside and then outside. This kind of editing (showing the exact same scene but from two different perspectives) was common at the time. This was not my academic training in graduate school decades ago, nor my understanding of it in my professional life. I would have to listen to or watch the DVD you mention in order to make my own evaluation. Do you have a source for me to find it? And btw, I'm not a fan of being so abruptly labelled "Wrong." There are more polite ways to make that point. If it's a point that can even be made. I'm sorry if I was rude. The DVD is on Amazon and other places like that, released by Kino video in association with the Library of Congress and the Museum of Modern Art. The proof of the original editing is the "paper print" sent to the Library of Congress for copyright purposes, which shows the original editing. Here's more information on paper prints: www.loc.gov/collections/early-films-of-new-york-1898-to-1906/articles-and-essays/the-paper-print-film-collection-at-the-library-of-congress/
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 15:31:48 GMT
Matthew the Swordsman Thanks, Mr. Dacron. I'll look for it when I have a chance. It goes against everything I've considered to be historically accurate for so many decades. It will be interesting to evaluate it in the context you now present. Here's a copy of the film with the original editing, ripped by someone from the DVD. The source is a 35mm print from the Library of Congress. This kind of editing was common in 1902, but gone by 1907.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 16:00:23 GMT
Search life of an american fireman 1902 temporal overlap into Google and there's lots of pages discussing the strange editing of the film in which the same scene is shown twice from two different perspectives without cross-cutting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 16:13:03 GMT
Here's a copy of the film with the original editing, ripped by someone from the DVD. The source is a 35mm print from the Library of Congress. This kind of editing was common in 1902, but gone by 1907. Okay, let me rephrase myself. Instead of cross-cutting (though if memory serves, that is the version I saw decades ago), this version, at the very least, uses continuity editing - in other words, it employs a series of shots sequentially to advance the narrative in one direction. Very different from the proscenium style before it: all in one set with no cuts. So if only in this way, FIREMAN is a seminal film in regards to editing and narrative storytelling. A little dull, I admit, but it works, and at the time was probably not considered dull. And later, in TRAIN ROBBERY, it was a technique that was finessed. And I would argue that film does employ cross-cutting techniques, to say nothing of the startling and historically significant cut to the Close-up at the end.
I hope this clarifies my perspective. Now I want to find the version of FIREMAN that used cross-cutting. With the footage in the version I just watched, I would tend to think that was not even possible. And if there is more coverage to be used, I then wonder if perhaps the company registered a film that was just an assembly, rather than a fully edited version. Interesting question to ponder. But thanks for getting my old brain going. You've brought back a lot of memories.
I'm sorry again if I was rude. I've read that Charles Musser, considered an expert on Edison films, says the version I posted above is how the film originally appeared. I assume he's correct. But yes, it was indeed an innovative film, although I personally prefer Edwin S. Porter's film from the same year of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (unfortunately, no good copy appears on YouTube, but the below will do):
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 16:19:43 GMT
Search life of an american fireman 1902 temporal overlap into Google and there's lots of pages discussing the strange editing of the film in which the same scene is shown twice from two different perspectives without cross-cutting. I did this and only found a couple of articles written by academics, which discuss the concept without showing it. And the concept is not clear. Something an academic loves to play with, I know from experience. But back to what I said earlier - and what these papers I read also agree with - FIREMAN and TRAIN ROBBERY (and for that matter A TRIP TO THE MOON to some extent) are examples of continuity editing, as explained in my previous post, which was revolutionary at the time and was the beginning of narrative film storytelling as we now know it. I'm still going to see if I can find the version of FIREMAN I remember seeing first, but it's been so long, and I suppose it's possible that the version I saw today is the one I saw then. In any case, as I said, the fact that it utilized continuity editing is still historically significant. Yes I agree the continuity editing is historically important. I didn't mean to downplay that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Dec 30, 2017 16:27:01 GMT
Yes I agree the continuity editing is historically important. I didn't mean to downplay that. Thanks, and I didn't think you were. This has been a most interesting conversation, in fact. I'm sorry I haven't looked at JACK AND THE BEANSTALK yet, and now have to leave for an appointment. But I'll look at it later and get back to you. As I said, a very interesting conversation. . . "Jack and the Beanstalk" appears on various uploads on YouTube. It runs about 10 minutes. I'm surprised the Library of Congress hasn't uploaded it as well. It's such a charming version of a timeless story. The stage-like sets seem very beautiful to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Dec 31, 2017 2:36:59 GMT
"Jack and the Beanstalk" appears on various uploads on YouTube. It runs about 10 minutes. I'm surprised the Library of Congress hasn't uploaded it as well. It's such a charming version of a timeless story. The stage-like sets seem very beautiful to me. I finally looked at this and have to say I very much enjoyed it. I especially liked the optical effects - dissolves, circles opening and closing, people appearing and disappearing. And, yes, the delightful sets. Thanks so much for introducing me to it. I didn't even know it existed. Oh, and the acting was much better, too. Thanks again. I think it may be my favorite Porter film yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Dec 31, 2017 2:40:03 GMT
When I first saw The Great Train Robbery back in 2002, I was filled with all sorts of thoughts and reflections. Here is what I wrote at the time at the weekly thread on the old boards: Brilliant, insightful, and beautiful comments, mike. You've captured the film's historical significance perfectly, particularly in regards to the final moments and that close-up of the shots heard "'round the world." Thank you.
I especially love this: "Later, I reflected on how far movies had come and how little they had changed in the last 100+ years. This movie is a priceless historical artifact that shows us just how much the past is still with us."
So true! I grow weary of those who believe that any "old" film is irrelevant and worthless, precisely because it's old. Only the great filmmakers of today seem to understand the relevance of all that came before. Shakespeare's not irrelevant or not great because he wrote centuries ago. And without Porter's films, and those of Melies and the Lumiere Brothers earlier, and of D.W. Griffith's films later (and those of Eisenstein and Kuleshev even later, who invented montage by dissecting and reassembling Griffith's films), we wouldn't have the medium as we know it today. Anyway, that's all by way of saying thanks for your profoundly astute comments.
Thanks for all those kind words. You know, I'm sort of fond of that little essay myself. It's almost like I didn't write it at all. It's not something I'm really capable of - yet there it is. I give all the credit to the inspiration I took from that 115-year-old 11 minute leap of genius. It lit something under me. Whenever we get those trolls over here who call us old fogies and elitist because we watch dumb ol' black & white movies, I love to point out to them that we foot-in-the-gravers (HA!) usually like movies from every era and that an elitist is one who has a very narrow interest and puts down others that don't share his view - like you, Mr. Troll, with your love only going to "modern" movies and berating all others.
|
|