The Growing Pains of (Very) Early Cinema
It’s easy to assumethat “moving pictures” burst onto the scene in the late 19th century all atonce. We often imagine that pop culture history can be neatly sliced into“before cinema” and “after cinema,” positive that the traditional forms ofstage entertainment swiftly became passe. The truth, of course, is always morecomplicated. In a 1940 interview, early filmmaker Edwin S. Porter recalled hisuncertainty over whether cinema could retain a steady audience until he saw anexciting new film called A Trip to theMoon–which, as we know, was released all the way back in 1902!
Even determining what films count as the “earliest” can betricky. Should we, for instance, count the pioneering methods of EadweardMuybridge, who discovered how to photograph an animal’s precise movements onequick shot at a time? What about Étienne-Jules Marey’s similar experiments withhis chronophotographic “gun,” which created strips of crisp images of movinganimals and people?
Along with the various optical illusion toys and magiclantern shows that were common at the time, these did indeed play a hand in thecreation of motion pictures. However, it’s often agreed that the earliest“true” films were the ones shot on light-sensitive strips of material. Thus,French inventor Louis Le Prince may be the strongest contender for the creatorof motion pictures as they’re known today. His stubby wooden box-like structureused strips of fragile paper film from the Eastman Kodak Company, and in Leeds,England, he shot some brief footage of family and friends clowning in abackyard. The surviving fragment, RoundhayGarden Scene (1888), is considered the oldest film in the world.
Once we settle on what counts as film, there’s the equallyconfusing question of credit. Who made the first motion picture camera? Whomade the first projector? In the late19th century patents for innumerable film-related inventions flew like confetti(indeed, patents for every type ofinvention were legion). During a span of just a few years inventors around theworld–especially the U.S., U.K., France and Germany–were feverishly working oncameras, projectors and other movie making accessories, practically stumblingover each other in the rush to corner the market.
Auguste and Louis Lumière, Thomas Edison, William K.-L.Dickson, Grey and Otway Latham, and Max and Emil Skladanowsky are just a fewprominent names among these pioneering inventors–and were certainly well awareof each other’s work. Dickson even secretly went behind his boss Edison’s backto help the Latham brothers design their “Latham loop,” a slack loop of film inthe motion picture camera that reduces tension on the filmstrip. The Lumièrebrothers’ first public screening of their projected films in Paris on December28, 1895, is justly famous, but they were technically beaten to the punch bythe Skladanowsky brothers in Germany, who held their first screening inNovember 1895. They in turn were beaten by the Latham brothers, who exhibitedin May.
Can we say, then, that these 1895 screenings opened thefloodgate of interest in the brand-new technology of motion pictures? We can,and we might also say that as 1896 was the year that films really took off. Thefilms themselves were simple, of course–very brief and simply capturing dancersdancing, or boxers sparring, or footage of a busy city street. But audiencesmarveled at how the camera could capture details like smoke rising from a pipe,or leaves waving in the wind–details which couldn’t be captured by stillphotography. For a time, the sheer novelty of the film itself was excitingenough for amazed audiences around the world.
But behind the scenes,all wasn’t smooth sailing. Competitions over the various patents only grew morefierce. Edison in particular managed to seize control of many of the motionpicture camera components and his company frequently started lawsuits with competitors.In the meantime filmmakers themselves were constantly “borrowing” from eachother–if one film grew popular then other studios often made their own,identical versions.
By the early 1900s, films were not only familiar to the generalpublic (thanks mainly to traveling shows and “theaters” set up in rentedbuildings), but they were so familiarthat, strange as it sounds today, the novelty was finally wearing off. Therented “storefront theaters” were having a harder time sustaining business, thefilms that were formerly a prominent part of vaudeville programs were relegatedto being “chasers” (stuck at the very end of the program), and audiences weregrowing tired of seeing the same types of subjects over and over again.Vaudeville and “legitimate” theater still dominated, and the nickelodeonwouldn’t start popping up until 1905.
But if there was one film that helped breathe a bit of freshinspiration into the competitive industry, it was George Méliès’ A Trip to the Moon (1902). Runningaround 15 minutes long, it was one of the lengthier early silents. With itswhimsical story of astronomers who travel to the winking, blinking moon and itsfantastical hand-colored imagery, it was a treat for both the eyes and theimagination. When the film quickly became a hit around the world, manyfilmmakers began to realize that story-centric films were the way forward.
By the end of the 1900s, it was clear that motion pictures would not just be a passing fad or a novelty. A fresh new kind of storytelling had emerged, with its own particular language that was evolving every week. There were still years of innovations to come, but fortunately for us, early cinema had largely overcome its growing pains.
…
–Lea Stans for Classic Movie Hub
You can read all of Lea’s Silents are Golden articles here.
Lea Stans is a born-and-raised Minnesotan with a degree in English and an obsessive interest in the silent film era (which she largely blames on Buster Keaton). In addition to blogging about her passion at her siteSilent-ology, she is a columnist for theSilent Film Quarterlyand has also written forThe Keaton Chronicle.
