Century Film Project

Celebrating the movies our ancestors loved

Tag: 1906

The Black Hand (1906)

This short from Biograph disproves the commonly-made claim that “Musketeers of Pig Alley” was the first gangster movie. Unlike that movie, however, it shows little noble or romantic in the behavior of immigrant criminals, instead emphasizing the decency of the police and of the victims.

The movie consists of just a few shots, mostly with the action staged at quite a distance from the camera. The first shot is somewhat closer, however, and gives us a view of the villains of the story as they write out a note demanding extortion money from “Mr. Angelo,” threatening him with property destruction and the abduction of his daughter if he fails to comply. The gangsters are clearly marked as Sicilian in their attire and appearance, and their poor education is emphasized in the badly spelled ransom note. Read the rest of this entry »


Getting Evidence (1906)

This short comedy from Edison relies on a predictable formula of repeated foiled attempts and physical violence to get laughs. It has similarities to other comedies of the period, and, yes, even a large-scale chase sequence as well.

The opening title tells us this will show “the trials and tribulations of a private detective.” The first shot shows a stage dressed to be a classic private eye’s office, right down to the door with “Hawkshaw Private Detective” printed on the glass. The detective reclines in a chair with a newspaper. A man comes into the office and paces about, agitated. He gives the detective an envelope, which the detective opens and reads, then the two sit at the desk while the detective gets the particulars. The man gives him money, then leaves.

The next scene takes place in front of a house. The detective “sneaks” quite openly into a hiding position behind a pole, then watches as a lady and a gentleman emerge from the house and get into a car. The detective jumps out to photograph the two of them driving off, but as he does so, a gardener comes up from behind him with a wheelbarrow and knocks him down, wheeling him off. Next we see the detective on a country road. He jumps out as the car approaches, attempting to take his picture, but the driver runs him over. He gets up and hobbles off. The next scene shows the man and the woman at an outdoor café at a club, being waited on by an African American waiter. The detective tries to take their picture again, but this time the man punches him and drives him off. The detective meets the waiter outside and pays him for his jacket, then smears dirt on his face to create blackface and puts on a shaggy wig. He serves the couple, but as he prepares to take the picture, the man grabs a seltzer bottle and sprays him in the face.

In the next scene, the couple is golfing, and the man hides in a sand trap. When he leaps up to take the picture, the woman drives the ball right at him, hitting him and knocking him down. The couple goes to see who’s been hurt, but when they find it is him, the man smashes his camera. Next we see the detective in a sailor suit, getting onto a gondola ahead of the couple. They board and he prepares to take his picture, but the man punches him and knocks him into the water. Then the couple are seen sitting on a hammock together in a park. The detective sets up a tripod to take their picture from behind, but when the flash goes off they are alerted and the man again smashes the camera. Finally, the couple stroll along  the beach, followed by the detective in a white uniform. This time he is able to take their picture unobserved, they are so distracted by one another, but another bather rises the alarm and soon the whole beach is after him! He manages to stash the photograph by hiding out under a levee, but the crowd does find him, beat him, and smash his camera again.

Now we see the client and his wife together at home. He is obviously agitated and the wife denies doing anything wrong. The detective is shown in, with bandages and bruises from all of his fights, and triumphantly shows the man the photograph he took. It’s the wrong woman! The woman and the man in the photo are shown in (apparently it is the mother-in-law), and then the poor man is forcibly shown the door.

This movie has a lot in common with “Mr. Flip,” that came out a few years later. The comedy hinges on a man being a persistent pest, and not taking the hint when he is upbraided for his behavior. The seltzer spritz and wheelbarrow scene are also similar to some of the punishments Ben Turpin suffers in that film. Unlike Turpin, however, this comedian doesn’t really add much to his pratfalls, he just takes the abuse when it comes. He isn’t funny in himself, it’s just that some of the things that happen to him are funny. The car running over him is pretty convincing, although I think it was done with jump cuts and a dummy. I particularly laughed when the entire beach started chasing him after it looked like he would (finally!) get off all right. I mostly felt sorry for him, though. Given that the couple weren’t doing anything wrong, it seems that the violence they mete out in defense of their privacy is a bit extreme.

Director: Edwin S. Porter and Wallace McCutcheon

Camera: Unknown, possibly Edwin S. Porter and Wallace McCutcheon

Starring: Paul Panzer

Run Time: 14 Min

You can watch it for free: here (no music).

Kathleen Mavourneen (1906)

A short melodrama from Edwin S. Porter that draws from Nineteenth Century theater as well as traditional song, and comes off as creaky as any movie of the Nickelodeon Era. While we see some evidence of the editing techniques that made Porter famous, acting and plot don’t show much advancement in this one.

Kathleen is a lovely Irish lass, introduced in a pastoral setting before a waterfall. She is approached by Captain Clearfield, her landlord, who has designs on her affections. Kathleen spurns his advances, but when he persists, the heroic Terence O’More comes onto the scene and fights him off. Clearfield is now shown conspiring with a band of thugs who hold up a carriage on the highway. He meets with them in a very fake-looking cave set, and divvies up the spoils of their heist. Now Clearfield shows up at Kathleen’s father’s home, accompanied by four men in uniform (I think they’re supposed to be bailiffs, but they look like bellboys to me). When his advances on Kathleen are again spurned, he orders the men to turn Kathleen and her father out of their home. When O’More overhears what is happening, he runs off to get the neighbors to band together and drive off the bailiffs. This precipitates a lengthy chase sequence, which ends with all of the bailiffs chased into the river.

There are two “lost scenes” that follow this sequence, which are today replaced with Intertitles. In the first, the gang kidnaps Kathleen with chloroform, rendering her unconscious and dragging her back to the cave. In the second, one of Clearfield’s henchman knocks out her father and sets the house on fire. O’More arrives in time to rescue him and then goes in pursuit of Kathleen. Wearing a hood, he pretends to be a bootlegger, and convinces some of the men to take him back to their hideout to drink whiskey. Once there, he tears off his disguise and engages in fisticuffs with the entire gang, besting them and freeing Kathleen. The final sequence is a wedding dance for Kathleen and O’More.

This movie is based on a play by Dion Boucicault, which was apparently unreleased in America at the time. The play had been based on the song “Kathleen Mavourneen,” which was popular among Irish Americans during the Civil War. “Mavourneen” is derived from the Gaelic mo mhuirnín, meaning “my beloved.” The lyrics to this song are simply maudlin longing for a lost love, with no mention of all the complications of an evil landlord and robbers, so Americans unfamiliar with the play might have been baffled by the plot of this movie, which lacks Intertitles or other explanatory techniques to reveal the plot and characters. No doubt some exhibitors provided narration to make sense of it. Historian Charles Musser in “Before the Nickelodeon,” suggests that Porter may have “misjudged their audience’s familiarity” with the material or else “failed to achieve the level of self-sufficient clarity” that was needed. In any event, the movie, which was comparably complex to shoot, was not a big success with exhibitors, who bought fewer than half as many copies as was the case for “The Terrible Kids.”

Looking at it today, it’s hard not to see Clearwater as a classic example of the mustache-twirling “you must pay the rent” model of an evil landlord from the silent era. At least he never ties Kathleen to any railroad tracks! I think he would have seemed old-fashioned even to the moviegoers of the time, in fact. His behavior derives from stage conventions of the Victorian age, which movies would often lampoon in coming years. Given that he has the forces of the law on his side, it seems somewhat unrealistic that simply besting him in single combat is enough to remove his threat, but that is also a convention of simplistic melodrama. The more “modern” pieces of the film include the chase sequence, which we’ve been seeing a lot of lately, and the closing dance, which makes me think of “Watermelon Patch” and “The Miller’s Daughter.”

Director: Edwin S. Porter and Wallace McCutcheon

Camera: Unknown, possibly Edwin S. Porter and Wallace McCutcheon

Starring:Kitty O’Neil, Walter Griswoll

Run Time: 15 Min

You can watch it for free: here (no music).

The Terrible Kids (1906)

An early “JD’s” (for juvenile delinquents) film, this short from Edison shows the exploits of two naughty boys and their faithful dog, terrorizing the adult world through pranks. The comedy relies on pratfalls and physical stunts for its humor, and on the audience’s enjoyment of seeing the kids get away with their mischief.

Similar to “The Great Train Robbery,” the movie opens with a close-up on our miscreants, who are seen munching on (possibly stolen) pastries, while their dog sits up and begs. When the kid on the right tries to feed him a bit of his pastry, the dog tries to steal the whole thing, giving us a sense of his character right off the bat! The next scene shows a young woman in a summer dress with a small dog of her own. The kids run up to her and seem to try to take the dog away, but she shoos them off. Then, a gentleman comes up and speaks to her. They put the dog in her purse and put it on the ground while they speak. He seems to be giving her directions as the kids’ dog runs up from behind and snatches the purse, running off down the street. The kids run past and the adults notice and give chase.

The next scene is an ethnically insensitive portrayal of a Chinese American, who walks with a funny lope down the street and has a long “queue” or ponytail. The dog runs up from behind him and bites the queue, knocking him down and hanging onto it as the kids run up and laugh. His attempts to get up and chastise them are discouraged by the dog’s persistence in knocking him down. Again, kids and dog end the scene by running off with the adult in pursuit. The next scene involves a poster-hanger, attempting to glue posters on a wall from a ladder. The kids again run up and start putting their hands on the glue, and he shoos them away, flinging glue at them from his brush. Then, once he is five steps up the ladder, the dog jumps up and bites his pants-leg, bringing him crashing to the ground and spilling all of his glue. Now the dog runs up behind two proper Victorian ladies out for a stroll. They ignore him as he runs past with a piece of rope, but then the kids, holding the other end of the rope, position themselves to trip the ladies (incidentally giving the audience occasional glimpses of their petticoats and ankles). Dog and children run around the ladies, effectively tying them together to give them time to escape while the ladies disentangle themselves from the rope.

The next shot shows a wooden fence. The dog runs up and grabs a rope hanging from the top of the fence, suspending itself in the air until the kids lean over and pull it across. It’s not really clear why they do this until the adults, now joined by a policeman, start running up to the fence and start trying to scale it and pursue them. Now we see an opening in the same fence and a large yard behind it. The kids and the dog run across the yard to the opening, then the dog grabs a piece of rope and uses it to trip all of the pursuers. The next shot is of a hillside, and we see the adults rolling up it in what seems to be reversed-action. I guess (?) we are meant to think this is what happens after they are tripped, although we saw them all get up and start running in the previous shot. Again, the undergarments of the women are positioned to be visible during the roll. The next shot is of a trolley, and the kids jump on, luring all of the adults on board before leaping off. The adults climb out of the windows (I guess the kids are supposed to have locked the doors, but I don’t see this as happening). The pursuit continues down a country street, with the dog in the lead. After he runs past, a policeman sees the crowd coming and waits behind a fence in order to catch the kids. The other policeman helps him to drag the kids to a waiting paddy wagon (or “Black Maria”). The camera pans past the dog, sitting innocently on the street corner as the kids are bundled aboard, and once the cops are gone, he leaps up to open the handle. As soon as the wagon starts to roll, the door springs open and the kids and dog make their escape.

Ultimately, this movie is a variation on the chase film, which became so popular in the Nickelodeon Era. Each shot is set up to have one action take place, usually ending with a pratfall or funny physical stunt. No Intertitles are necessary, the movie is shot cheaply, and few effects are seen (assuming that we can count people rolling uphill in reverse as an effect). The only camera movement is the pan at the end, and we only have the one close-up at the beginning. The movie still has the sense of being performed by amateurs. During the opening sequence, we can see the kids responding to directions from off-screen. Occasionally, they look up as if distracted by whatever is being said to them. They are clearly not actors, and neither do the adults attempt to give their characters any real motivation, except anger at the kids.

No one is acting here.

Movies like this were criticized for giving children bad examples of behavior, and it is noteworthy that the children are allowed to escape punishment at the end. Of course, bad boys had been in the movies since “The Sprinkler Sprinkled,” and the process of chasing and catching them was typical of the resolution, but usually justice would be seen to prevail, however much the audience may have enjoyed identifying with their acts of mischief up to that point. In subverting this narrative by his ending, director Edwin S. Porter may have been consciously or unconsciously attacking his critics, which surely only made them angrier.

Director:Wallace McCutcheon Edwin S. Porter and

Camera: Unknown, possibly Edwin S. Porter and Wallace McCutcheon

Starring: “Mannie” the dog, unknown

Run Time: 7 Min

You can watch it for free: here (no music).

Films of the San Francisco Earthquake (1906)

Actuality footage of one of the major natural disasters of the Nickelodeon Era. These early newsreels fed audiences hungry to see what they were reading about in the papers.

On April 18, 1906, an earthquake of an estimated 7.7-7.9 magnitude hit San Francisco. Because of the construction standards of that time, the quake did far more damage than would be expected today, but worse was the fact that fires quickly broke out that could not be contained. Broken water mains and damaged streets prevented the quick response of volunteer fire departments, the fire burned for four days, destroying huge portions of the city. Hundreds of people lost their lives, and tens of thousands their homes, and the entire city was disrupted. Naturally, this was a major news event at the time. While there was likely no camera rolling during the actual quake, nor so far as I can tell during the height of the fires, there were newsreel cameramen on site within days, taking images of the devastation, the refugees, and the rescue efforts.

This particular “movie” is included in the “Invention of the Movies” DVD from Kino, and serves to give us a sample of that footage. I am not certain whether it was ever screened in the form we see here, whether it is stitched together from multiple sources, or whether it is a fragment of a larger film. In comparing what we do have here with “Searching the Ruins of Galveston for Dead Bodies,” it doesn’t appear that documentary techniques have changed much in six years. The camera pans across scenes of devastation, wisely getting human figures into the picture when possible for scale, and stays at a distance from its subjects. There are a few shots of newspaper headlines to give context, but I assume that exhibitors would usually provide a running narration, possibly reading from newspapers, to add to the drama of the images, when these scenes were originally shown. We do see some flaming buildings in relatively close-shot, but the long pans show a city after the fires have passed.

For a modern viewer, the first response is that the ruined cityscapes look like the aftermath of a war, but it’s interesting to note that large-scale artillery attacks on civilian areas were rare at the time, and aerial bombing nonexistent. Thus, when people who lived in 1906 witnessed such things as in the later World Wars, they were more likely to think that they were “like an earthquake.”

Director: Robert K. Bonine

Camera: Unknown, likely Robert K. Bonine

Run Time: 2 Min

You can only see the reviewed version on the “Inventing the Movies” DVD, however some of the same shots are edited into a film: here (no music) and you can see a much longer set of actuality footage of the 1906 earthquake aftermath here (no music).

The Game-Keeper’s Son (1906)

Alternate Title: La fils du garde-chasse

Alice Guy makes a daring shift from comedy to drama in this short, which may be one of the first “revenge movies.” It shows the complexity that audiences were beginning to expect as the Nickelodeon era progressed, but also tests the limits of that complexity in a short format.

Game Keepers SonThe movie opens on the front yard of a typical rural household. The father sits at a table with a glass of wine and a small child plays with his (the father’s) rifle. Then the elder son, perhaps nine or ten, takes the gun away from him and cleans it for his father. The father finishes up his wine, totally unconcerned about either child’s handling the weapon, and then prepares for his day at work. Finally, he takes the rifle, and as he does the elder son asks if he can come along. The man decides he is too young and tells him to stay home, but the boy follows him secretly. Next, we see two men hunting in the woods, dressed in ragged clothes, clearly local poachers. Each shoots his gun and they run over to collect their game. Now the man from the previous scene (who is the game-keeper) comes running out of the brush, chasing them offscreen. For a little while, the movie follows a fairly standard chase format, where the pursued run across the screen, followed by their pursuer (and then the son, who in one instance picks up the gun his father has dropped but leaves his hat). But, then, the men cross a ravine which is traversed by a plank, and the second one turns the plank, allowing it to fall into the ravine. When the father runs into the shot, he is looking at the poachers, not at his feet, and he also falls into the chasm. His son stops in time, having seen his father plunge out of sight.

Game Keepers Son1Now, the tone of the movie changes. What had seemed a fairly light-hearted chase through the woods has become tragic. The boy runs home and tells his mother and little brother what has happened. While they are grieving together, the poachers, still lost in the woods, stumble upon the hut of the grieving family. Only the eldest son sees (the others are covering their faces and weeping), and he once again picks up the gun and gives chase. The poachers, however, think they have made a clean getaway and return to town, where they stop in a café and order wine. Fairly soon they begin to bicker among themselves. The son hides beneath a table until they are fully engaged with one another and then springs out with a knife, attempting to stab one of them. He is unsuccessful but the ruckus convinces the waitress to summon the police. They hold one of the poachers and run, with the boy, in pursuit of the other. We get another short chase sequence, but soon the poacher comes to that same ravine from the other side. This time, the boy shoves him, and he falls to his doom. The police quickly arrive and shake his hand.

Game Keepers Son2This movie is a bit startling, and I suspect that’s at least partly intentional. The simple set up and chase at the beginning makes you expect a comedy, or at most a fairly conventional action picture, and the sudden death of the father in the middle leaves you groping for a resolution. Up until the end, I kept expecting him to come back, having somehow survived the fall. It just seemed like that kind of a movie. But, it’s not. In the end, the boy still has no father and the death of the second poacher seems a rather extreme punishment for running away from a game keeper. Admittedly he caused the man’s death, but all they really meant to do, so far as I could see, was inhibit his pursuit. That the police would congratulate this seems all the more chilling. Still, I have to assume that this, as well as the child’s handling of a gun, was taken to be appropriate in context at the time. That context isn’t just the difference in attitude between today and 1906, but also the standards of a rural community, living we assume in a traditional manner where the eldest son has certain rights and responsibilities, even at quite a young age. I won’t say that I liked this film as much as some of the fun comedies I’ve been reviewing lately, but it did force me to think a bit. It’s also reasonably sophisticated for the time – where the chase scenes seem set up to be formulaic, Guy throws narrative surprises at us and keeps the movie from falling into obvious ruts.

Director: Alice Guy

Camera: Unknown, possibly Alice Guy or Anatole Thiberville

Starring: Unknown

Run Time: 5 Min, 10 secs

You can watch it for free: here.

Ocean Studies (1906)

Alternate Title: Effets de mer

It’s odd to find this simple series of shots of the ocean amidst the movies Alice Guy put out in 1906 – it feels like a reversion to the simple experiments from the “Age of Attractions.” I do suspect that this was also a bit of an experiment, but from what we have, it’s hard to rate its success.

Ocean Studies

We see three images of the ocean breaking against rocks at the shore, edited together in sequence. The first is so close that it could almost be a river. The second is a slow pan back and forth along the coast – this gives us the clearest perspective of the location. And the final image appears to be a reversal of the first, again focusing on the rocks without the horizon visible. The movie includes no human figures or narrative of any kind.

I’m inclined to read this as an attempt at “visual poetry,” but it’s hard to say. For one thing, as it stands, we have the images, but there could have been more to this movie. Possibly Guy released it with narration, which would have been read aloud as it ran by an exhibitor. Or, possibly this wasn’t even intended for release – maybe she was testing a new camera or taking shots she intended to use later in some other way, but they were found in Gaumont’s cellars and included in this set. The title “Ocean Studies,” made me expect something scientific, but as soon as I saw it I realized they meant “study” as a painter would use the term: a study of the ocean. It’s worth noting that by this time Guy had brought on a new assistant, Louis Feuillade, who would write “manifestos” of film as art and try some interesting work along those lines as well, so it’s possible that he influenced this anomalous movie as well.

Director: Alice Guy

Camera: Unknown, possibly Alice Guy or Anatole Thiberville

Starring: Unknown

Run Time: 1 Min, 40 secs

You can watch it for free: here.

The Consequences of Feminism (1906)

Alternate Title: Les Résultats du féminisme

This role-reversal comedy from Alice Guy may surprise modern viewers with its perspective on gender. Even the title seems like something far more recent than 110 years ago, and yet it survives as a commentary from an earlier age.

Consequences of FeminismThe movie begins by showing a group of men in a small room together, all apparently working on sewing hats. We notice that the men have longer hair than is usual for the period, and some of them are wearing flowers in their hair. They move effeminately, with hands extended and graceful steps. A woman comes into the room, dressed more or less normally for the period. She apparently wants to buy a hat and one of the men gets a hatbox out for her, but while she is waiting, she checks out the men and pinches one of them on the cheek. The man selected to carry the hatbox gets up and smears cream on his face in front of the mirror, then delicately picks up the hatbox and minces out the door. The next scene shows him walking on the street (a set, unfortunately, not one of Guy’s shots of contemporary Paris) past a café. A woman is at an outdoor table and sees the man, and gets up and comes over to him, trying to force a kiss. Another woman, seeing him harassed in this manner, comes over and breaks it up, the offers her arm to escort the helpless man away. This woman leads the man to a park bench, convinces him to put down the hatbox and sit with her, and now she tries to take advantage of him. While he struggles, two other men walk by, look and see what is happening, and quickly run away from the scene.

Consequences of Feminism1Next, we see the man at home. A woman lounges in a chair reading a newspaper while he sits at a sewing machine and another man does the dusting. The woman and the other man leave, but the man from before seems to be waiting for something. He takes out a photograph and kisses it, then he answers the door and the woman from the previous scene comes in and kisses him. She leads him to the couch and gets on her knees. The man seems overcome with emotion, but insists on writing a note before going out. The next scene shows the two of them in a hotel room, the woman ardently trying to show her affection while the man seems to have second thoughts. She starts to take his clothes off eagerly, and he faints. She runs to get him some water.

Now, we cut to a bunch of women in a bar. Some of them are reading newspapers, others are gathered around a table. A woman comes in wearing pioneer-clothing and carrying a gun. She is greeted heartily by the other women, who pour her a drink and pound her on the back. Now a man comes in, carrying a laundry basket with linen, and tries to ask her a question. The other women grab the items out of the basket and throw them around the room, laughing at his distress. He flees the scene in terror. Another man comes in, leading two small children and goes to the woman sitting in the corner, she chases them out as well. Now the women close the bar door to prevent all these male intrusions on their domain. At last, we see the women from the hotel sitting at the outdoor café as various men with baby carriages stroll by. The men begin to congregate, comparing their children and chatting. Finally, the man from the hotel walks by with several children in tow. One of them runs over to the woman, and the man pleads with her for his honor. She rejects him and all the other men band together in support of their wronged comrade. When the man slaps the woman, all the men gather round and shame her for taking advantage of his weakness. Then they march into the bar en masse and drive the women out, taking over and drinking to their hearts’ content.

Consequences of Feminism2It’s very tempting to over-analyze this film, to read more into it than Guy likely intended, in light of modern politics and perspectives on the history of gender and sexuality. Let’s back off for a moment and recall that she was trying to make something that would entertain her audience, most of whom would be presumed to be male. She probably knew that most would read this as a vicious parody of feminism’s aspirations to put women in men’s place and vice versa. No doubt she intended that it would be read that way, and made the women strong and the men weak to suggest that this reversal was “unnatural” and comical. But, it’s hard to avoid realizing that what she is doing here is commenting on the inferior position women had to tolerate at the time. By making men the objects of sexual harassment and exploitation, she forces her male audience to see how unpleasant it is, and how few choices women have when confronted with it. Moreover, by showing the men at the end banding together for their rights, she has (inadvertently? Subversively? It’s hard to be sure) validated feminism as a tactic and suggested its necessity.

Girl Power!

Girl Power!

The other thing that stands out about this movie is all of the signals the men put out regarding sexuality, which a modern audience reads as their being “flaming” or openly gay. Gay men existed at this time, of course, but they were far less open, even in liberal France, and again it’s hard to know how much we are “reading backward” when we interpret their behavior in this manner. Obviously, Guy was making them as feminine as possible to show her future dystopia in which men and women have traded places. Did she hire female impersonators as actors? That would make the longer hair and obvious facility with feminine roles more logical. Certainly, there were cabarets by 1906 in which this sort of thing went on, but I don’t know whether Guy would have had access. It’s possible that she used wigs and directed “straight” male actors until she got what she wanted.

Whatever the case, this is a very unusual film for the period, and one of the few Guy made that really speaks to her being a woman in a largely male industry.

Director: Alice Guy

Camera: Unknown, possibly Alice Guy  or Anatole Thiberville

Starring: Unknown

Run Time: 7 Min

You can watch it for free: here.

The Truth Behind the Ape Man (1906)

Alternate Title: La vérité sur l’homme-singe

Another of Alice Guy’s bizarre late-period French comedies, this one doesn’t use a lot of trickery but does include some interesting inter-cutting and close-ups. Perhaps not as innovative or surprising as “The Drunken Mattress,” it’s still good fun.

Truth About the Ape Man Read the rest of this entry »

The Parrish Priest’s Christmas (1906)

Alternate Title: Le Noël de Monsieur le curé

This fluffy little Christmas story from Alice Guy probably exemplifies why some speak of early Gaumont as “moralist” (although the later Fantômas series argues against this!). It speaks of a simple faith that overcomes poverty and hardship.

Parrish Priests Christmas1We see a Priest at home; on his wall a calendar tells us it is Dec. 23. He opens a book and an insert shot lets us see that he is reading about Christmas and the Nativity. He is suddenly overcome with an inspiration and summons his housekeeper. He reminds her of the coming holiday, and they go through his current budget to see if there is money for a special display. His purse has only a few small coins, so he resolves to go out into the community and raise funds. His first stop is the home of some simple peasants. They turn out their pockets as well; they have no money, either. But, they are eager to contribute something and the wife gets a basket full of eggs. The Priest happily agrees, but then can’t figure out a way to carry the basket safely, in addition to his hat and cane, so the woman comes along with him. Now they stop at the shop of a wealthy merchant, and he and the Priest talk for a while. The merchant wants to sell the Priest a large statue of an infant, but the Priest asks if he has anything smaller. Looking disappointed, the merchant finds a smaller infant doll. The Priest gets out his meager coins and the merchant looks dubious. The Priest calls in the woman and she offers the basket of eggs. Now the merchant is dismissive – he won’t accept barter and he’s not interested in giving charity to the church. The Priest and the peasant woman leave. The next scene shows them setting up the nave of the church. They have put out a cradle in front of the statue of the Madonna and put straw in it to represent the manger, but there is no baby Jesus, the congregation will have to use their imaginations for that. When the Mass is performed, suddenly two angels appear on the altar, and one places a baby into the cradle. All of the congregation and the Priest show their thanks for this miracle.

Parrish Priests Christmas2Unlike the many American Christmas movies I reviewed last year, this is a thoroughly religious Christmas movie, tied to a specific faith and its rituals. This probably limited its appeal for foreign distribution, although it is a well-made and touching story. The moral of the story – that the poor people are willing to donate even though they have little to offer while the rich merchant is too stingy – would work well enough in American progressivist pictures, but many Protestants would object to the idolatry and symbolism of the end. Almost certainly, it would be rejected in the Baptist south. From a French point of view, however, it probably works, and this seems to confirm the surprising trend away from English translations in these movies at this time. Guy continues to improve her technique, as the use of the insert shot, the measured acting, and the careful pacing of this thoughtful movie all show. There are no Intertitles (at least, none that have survived in the print I saw), but the story is told in a way that allows the viewer to sort things out with minimal work. You don’t necessarily know at first what the Priest wants money for, but it works itself out logically by the time he’s at the merchant’s shop. This movie seems to be a good representative of the style Guy established as she became more confident and less imitative.

Guy's first insert?

Guy’s first insert?

Director: Alice Guy

Camera: Unknown, possibly Alice Guy or Anatole Thiberville

Starring: Unknown

Run Time: 5 Min, 30 secs

You can watch it for free: here.