Démolition d'un mur

Demolition of a Wall (1896), is also known as, Démolition d'un Mur (1896). This film in some publications or online services have this film listed as 1895. I'm fine having this listed as 1896, because it probably was shot in 1895, but was shown to a paying audience the following winter or spring. It shows the classic film technique of discovery by accident. The film was accidentally rewound, thus giving the scene the backwards appearance, of a wall reassembling itself. It is something we don't even notice today, but was a breakthrough in film effects and editing in 1896. The shot is framed nicely and the captured moment of the wall coming down (in forward speed), along with the dust in the air, creates a essence of tangibility to the film. This is another winner from Lumiere, as they continue to astonish, with each new cinematic discovery, unfolding on the screen.

8.7 (B+ MyGrade) = 8 IMDB.

this can be considered the first great film. Whereas 'Sortie d'Usine' and 'Repas de Bebe' are interesting theoretically, for the ideas they provoke, and nostalgically, as the first films, for unwittingly embodying a period, a century, a sensibility long vanished, 'Demolition d'un mur' stands up on its own, offering genuine excitement.

A group of workers, instructed by a foreman, hack away at a wall until it falls down. This film is brilliant for a number of reasons. First of all, it is possibly the first act of self-reflexivity in the cinema, the foreman barking orders to his workers mirroring the director(s) organising his crew.

But this dream of order is thrillingly destroyed, and hierarchies abolished by a supreme act of violence. As the wall finally collapses, lumbering as Boris Karloff, a whirling storm of dust and chips swallows the scene, and the screen. The foreman, once the centre of power and order, is marginalised, pushed to the edge of the screen or off it entirely. The workers, at first mere servants, hands of the capitalist machine, become demented, and start hacking away at the wall's stump. This, a single, conservative, static set-up, overspills with energy, destruction, violence.

That the Lumieres were a little afraid of what they had done can be seen in the trick they used at screenings of projecting the finished film backwards, so that the wall would be restored, and the old order reasserted. This is a good trick - it is a visual, special-effect; it shows cinema's triumph over mortality and the fixed; it shows that cinema, for all its claims to realism and documentary objectivity, is essentially a fantastic medium.

But it also reassures the audience, negating the impact and implications of the scene, showing that destruction is not final, can be reversed. The revolution can be quelled. Cinema, once again, is used for conservative ends, but this time we can sense the hysteria, the sense of a medium going beyond the intentions of its makers. That irrepressible scene of whirling, all-consuming smoke was unexpected by the directors; it is a brief glimpse of the power of a cinema that is not controlled, a power rarely utilised; indeed rarely desired.

The film also works as a compelling ghost story, the image of that single bare wall, the ruins of a former construction, a building, a room; what happened to it? What is being destroyed to feed our taste for sensation?

Although those mired in an antiquated theoretical framework may mistake this movie as a Marxian commentary on the oppression of the free worker and the destruction of useful property that rightfully belongs to the proletariat, in actuality, it is no such thing, but a paean to the organizing genius of of capitalism. It is an answer to Marx,a throwing down of the gauntlet.

Some roustabouts are standing with sledgehammers and no idea of what to do: typical of the working class. At the command of the gang boss -- representing, as he does, the capitalist, who knows what he wants and will achieve it while paying his worker what the invisible hand of the economy will permit -- the workers, previously unmotivated, lift their hammers and destroy the wall.

The wall, the Marxian theoretician will have us believe, represents some useful function of society. The twisting of things to the service of propaganda is apparent. The wall represents evil, a separation among society. Only through work, directed by the capitalist, will walls be destroyed and all profit.

But there is more. The auteur retreats one step and runs the movie in reverse! At the command of capital, labor can make or unmake a wall. Clearly labor has no voice in the process. All direction comes from the capitalist.

After the debut of the Cinématographe in 1895, its creators, Auguste and Louis Lumière, started to make more movies to supply the audiences' demand of more of those amazing moving images that were projected on the big screens during their shows. The brothers' invention had been a success, but they thought that it was only the initial impact of moving images displayed on a screen what made the Cinématographe so popular, so their movies focused on the idea of showing as much movement on screen as possible. Soon common scenes of everyday life such as trains arriving and people working would be captured by the brothers' camera and transformed into "actuality films", early documentaries depicting the life and times of the late 19th Century. However, while watching a film they had just finished, Louis Lumière had an idea that literally, would demolish the established ideas about cinema.

As usual, it all started at the Lumière factory, where one day in 1896 a group of workers was gathered to help in the demolition of the some walls. Louis Lumière thought it would be a good idea to use their new invention to capture the moment and so "Démolition d'Un Mur" was made. As the title implies, the movie captures the complete scene of the demolition of one of the walls of the factory, taken down by the workers in a very careful way. Like Lumière imagined, the scene has a lot of movement and one could even say that the images of the destruction of the wall have some unnatural, haunting beauty in them. However, what makes "Démolition d'Un Mur" even more fascinating is the brilliant idea that Lumière had for the screening of this film. Completely understanding the properties of his invention, Lumière decided to run the movie's reel backwards after the ending, so the audience could see the illusion of the wall being magically rebuilt in front of their very eyes.

While quite creative inventors in their field (and "Démolition d'Un Mur" is certainly a testament of that), the Lumière brothers weren't exactly interested in the commercial possibilities of their invention, and in fact considered "without future". So while Edison's company was showing vaudeville artists and dancers in Dickson's Kinetoscope, the brothers focused their Cinématographe shorts in the same style of actuality films they were so fond of. Even when oddities like this movie or "L' Arroseur Arrosé" (argualy cinema's first comedy) showed them using their talents in different kind of movies, their would soon lose interest and kept making documentaries while focusing their attention to new inventions. Anyways, while probably it was never intended in that way "Démolition d'Un Mur" showed that cinema was more than captured scenes of real life, and with the wall, the limits of a new art-form were demolished. 8/10

'Demolition Of A Wall (1896)' depicts a work crew... demolishing a wall. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, a twist comes about halfway through that shouldn't fail to put a smile on your face. This short is, as I understand it, the first use of a specific cinematic technique which I won't spoil here. Though it's a basic trick, it certainly would've blown away audiences (especially considering they were still impressed that pictures could move in the first place). There's a bit of tension as the wall teeters on the edge of falling, and a burst of destructive glee as it collapses to the ground. Then, the thing pulls the rug out from under you and treats you to a nice visual surprise. Again, it's very basic. It's effectively unexpected, though, and gives the film its own distinct identity. Once again, it's hard to rate these pioneering pictures. Regardless of how traditionally entertaining it is, it's well worth a watch. 7/10.