Who was Louis Le Prince? What was his contribution to cinema? After reading about him, what surprises you about reading this article?
Louis Le Prince was a French photographer who lived in England, having established the Leeds Technical School of Art. He is now considered the father of cinema, having been fascinated with the development of cinematic technology. His contribution to cinema was the Le Prince Single-lens Cine Camera and two of his most famous films that predated Edison and Dickson by a year. Somethings that surprised me while reading the article was how he patented his 16-lens Camera but hadn't been able to patent his Cine Camera.
Why do you like this next early silent film? What is so interesting about it? What are two common things that you noticed about the films you saw while searching for your video on YouTube?
I liked this early film as it had much better visual quality and acting. Comparing it to Ben-Hur, it was a massive improvement as I can actually make out people's faces which allowed for more nuanced acting performances rather than the overacting of Ben-Hur. It was interesting because it used a much more varied amount of shots with more editing in a single scene. Although it only had a few setups, it cut between them much more often and the characters moved through the space and into different spaces much more, adding more visual interest compared to earlier films that had a single static shot in a single location per scene. Two common things that I noticed about the films I saw were the emphasis on body language and the use of music. As the films had no sound, they had to supplement it with the use of music to convey the tone. This also goes in hand with the acting as they focus on their expressions and body language to give off the idea of what is going on. You need to infer a lot of things while viewing these films, but these elements aid a lot in deciphering them.
Why do you like this early silent film? What is so interesting about it? What are two common things you noticed about the movie you saw while searching for your video on YouTube?
I like this early silent film because it's set in ancient Rome, depicting a story with a culturally relevant climax. Some things that were interesting about the film was the creative set design, the action, and the context surrounding it. As it was an American movie set in ancient Rome, the filmmakers had to be creative about the set design and shooting locations. Thus, they went in a more traditional stage play-esque direction, using painted walls and platforms for the set, in combination with actual locations. The most action packed scene was the chariot race and I was surprised about how many horses they had. Thinking back, it is likely that horses were more commonplace thus easier to get access to for filmmaking that they would be now, but it still came to a shock to me. Something interesting regarding the context is that this film had led to a pivotal case in copyright infringement. This film had been based on Lew Wallace's novel, Ben-Hur, without acquiring any rights to use it. Wallace had then sued the Kallem Company for depicting parts of his book on screen without permission and won. Two common things that I noticed about the movie while searching for the video on YouTube were the poor image quality and the eccentric overacting. This film, especially has poor image quality; however, due to early technology and degradation over time, many of the films of this era have very poor image quality. I believe, partly to combat the poor quality, the actors had to overact so that we can see what they're trying to express. They likely also do this to make up for the lack of dialogue and the lack of text besides the ones that introduce the scene so that the audience has some semblance of an idea of what's going on.
What was their major contribution to cinema? How was their device different than Edison's?
The Lumière Brothers' major contribution to cinema was the Cinematographe and how they're credited for creating one of the first cinemas—the exhibition of a moving picture projection to a paying audience. Their device differed from Edison's as it didn't rely on electricity and instead used a crank, it was much more portable, and the exhibition was much easier as the camera also worked as a projector. The biggest development with the Cinematographe was the mechanism that moved the film as it used sprockets that allowed two pins to move the film while the shutter is closed—which was inspired by sewing machines.
What qualities do these early films share? Why do you think the filmmakers shot these? How do they differ from modern movies?
Some qualities that all of these early films share are that they're all in black and white, have no sound, often have a low frame rate and poor quality by today's standards. I think that the filmmakers shot these in order to capture what they found interesting and for special occasions. Many of the early films simply depicted motion, such as dancing or twirling Indian clubs, and actions that you'd often see in entertainment shows, such as the strongman posing, the sharpshooter, and the cats boxing. But a few of them depicted events, such as a baseball or football game, the opening of the Sutro Baths, and the destruction of the Battleship Maine. These differ from modern movies as they don't create new stories but rather show real life. They depict people showing off their talent, their culture, and simply living their lives.
What were Muybridge's contributions to motion pictures? What breakthroughs did he make? Why are they significant? What part of the story did you find the most interesting? Why?
Muybridge's contributions to motion pictures were the Zoopraxiscope and his series of sequential photographs that could capture motion. The Zoopraxiscope was able to project an animated picture, which Muybridge used to exhibit his photography to show the movement that he captured. His biggest breakthrough was developing a way to capture images quick enough to capture each frame of movement. This was significant because, prior to him, photographs often took minutes to expose. It would be impossible to capture movement with such a long exposure time, but he developed a way to capture it, which paves the way to motion pictures. I found his encyclopedia the most interesting as it likely was able to be studied by artists as well as scientists. The collection of photographs can be used to understand how to capture motion in art.
What was a Diorama Theatre? Why do you think it was a precursor to cinema?
A Diorama Theater was the exhibition of a double sided painting that would appear to change from one image to another—typically a scene that goes from day to night and/or one depicting a historical moment—by changing the amount of light that shined into the back of the painting. This was likely a precursor to cinema as it took place in a similar setting (a theater with a large image to view) and utilized an early form of animation to create a changing scene. It could also have multiple scenes displayed, possibly to create a full story, similar to more modern ideas of cinima.
