THE EARLY FILMS

Early on E. Muybridge had made a set of “series” or “serial” photographs to show whether a running horse had all its feet off the ground at the same time. He did this by using a series of cameras along a track where the horse would run. As the horse ran, it tripped the shutters of the cameras and Muybridge was able to show that the feet of the horse were all clear of the ground at certain points as it ran.

Melies and Lumiere are two names associated with early motion picture photography. Melies was intrigued by the “magic” that could be done photographically by making people and things appear and disappear. Basically he brought to motion pictures something which exploited their peculiar characteristics. Although he was interested in filming what amounted to stage performances, he wanted to do things that were not possible on the stage. Hence his original films appear to be documented performances in which remarkable things go on, which would not be possible on a live stage,

Auguste and Louis Lumiere on the other hand, made more “documentary” type films. His films show people at work, carrying out everyday tasks and are something like travelogues and something like educational films.

Technically, neither had begun to exploit many of the things we will come to associate with modern films. For these pioneers, the cameras remain firmly fixed in one spot. There is rarely any camera movement at all (panning – moving the camera from side to side). Shots (the film exposed from the time the camera starts to run until it is stopped), tend to be the length of the film being used – often only a few minutes.

Over time things would change. Phantom journeys, in which cameras were placed on moving vehicles (trains, cars, boats, etc.) gave the feeling that the viewer was moving, thus freeing the camera from its fixed position.

Cameras tended to be placed at a distance from the subjects. Close-ups are not evident at first and are rare later.

Basically in early films the camera is used the way a still camera might be and the action is restricted to the performers.

Characteristics of very early films:

First development that involves "trickery" dealt with running the PROJECTOR backwards. Later it became apparent that by stopping the camera and putting someone or something into the scene (or removing someone or something out of the scene) a magical appearance or disappearance would happen in ways that were not possible in theater performances. This was a kind of exploitation of the peculiarities of film.

The general idea is that each art form finds its own areas to manipulate which make the form somewhat unique. Film can play with change and time. Because it can "delete" time it is ubique, and this dimension of motion pictures led to something novel and uniquely "film". As long as it remmained simply a "gimmick" it didn't quite become artistic. It isn't until the manipulations are done to a purpose that it seems to take on the level of film art.

In this regard "montage" is significant. Within the Russian school of film making montage has to do with the additional meaning that occurs by placing two shots together.

Films, like most narratives may have texts and subtexts. The test is the story line, while the subtext is the underlying meaning. Subtexts tend to be philosophical (and not little axioms like "It is better to be honest" - which is much more likely to be in the text than subtext!). Subtext appears by analysis of the text and looking for ways in which the author (film maker) has coded the subtext. The process of "breaking" the code to get to the subtext is known as hermeneutics. This is often done through symbols in the film which may be universal (few), cultural (lots) or personal (some). The first two are generally understood by the members of the audience if they come from the same culture as the film maker. The last requires a number of examples of the symbol to appear with enough context that the viewer can finally decode it.

Symbols are generally technically defined as "Those things which stand for other things in an arbitrary manner. Hence a word like "dog" is a symbol for the animal (look at the word for dog on other languages to see how it varies) whereas the footprint of a dog is really connected with the animal and is not a symbol at all.

In Melville's Moby Dick the text is about the hunt for a white whale by a vengeful captain who lost his leg to the creature. In the end the whale destroys nearly everyone on the ship, except the narrator. A quick examination of the names of characters, Ahab, Ishmael etc. implies something religious. The harpooners are all pagans. When the three masted ship sinks, it resembles the crucification with the three harpooners in the masts - Queequeg in the center. It becomes quickly apparent that Queequeg whose coffin saves Ishmael, is a Christ figure and the subtext of the novel is religious and has little to do with whaling. The novel becomes a metaphor for the subtext.

In looking at films it is necessary to discover how the film techniques assist the audience in understanding both the text and subtext. As an experiment, try watching a film with the sound turned off. Can you still tell somethign about hat is going on? How?

Try the reverse. Turn the picture off and just listen to the soundtrack. Can you still follow the film? If not, why not? What info is the film giving you visually that is lost?

Remember in analyzing films NOT to restrict yourself to the dialog or you will be analyzing a radio program, not a film.