Dybbuk
Shared on Sun, 04/15/2007 - 07:28Georges 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 / 1888) 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.
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 / 1888) 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.
- Dybbuk's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments