Le manoir du diable

There are dozens of ways that this three minute movie is amazing for the day. "Le Manoir du Diable" is one of filmmaker Georges Melies's earliest trick movies. Originally, his output until then mostly consisted of your typical Lumiere subjects: trains arriving in stations, women washing clothing, blacksmiths at work, etc. But, having discovered special effects earlier the same year, he began experimenting with them, reproducing a stage magician's act with "The Vanishing Lady" and going even further to turn out "The House of the Devil".

I have many things to say about this film. I'll begin with the 'first vampire movie' thing. Yes, there is indeed a bat included--but it is actually Mephistopheles, an incarnation of the devil, which it turns into. Only looking at movies today about vampires do we look back at this and misinterpret it. It's just like some people are saying that the eclipse in Melies's "The Eclipse: Courtship of the Sun and the Moon" features a 'gay' eclipse and that Melies was encouraging homosexuality or whatever. It's not true. I cannot believe how stupid people can be nowadays.

Is it a horror film? With that I am inclined to agree. According to Wikipedia, "The House of the Devil" was originally meant to amuse rather than scare. The thing is, it looks so much like a horror. The ghosts that appear actually DO look a little creepy. And there's the bat turning into Mephistopheles. It may not have originally meant to have been a horror, but one cannot deny that the whole theme makes it so from start to finish.

As for the rumor going around that Melies played Mephistopheles, I have something to say about that too. Wikipedia's article makes no mention of Melies having ever appeared in this short at all; however, according to my own beliefs, he played the cavalier character who is the victim of Mephistopheles's traps. Melies's acting always has a certain joyful charm whenever he is in front of a movie camera, whether he's playing a frightened inn guest, a magician or the devil. The devil here doesn't really feel like Melies at all, but instead comes across as sinister and lurking. On the other hand, the cavalier not only looks like Melies, he comes off as very lively, amusing and every bit as childish as you'd expect from Melies's acting. The actor for Mephistopheles's role still remains uncertain, though Georges Sadoul, a film historian, believes him to have been played by Jules-Eugene Legris, a performer at Melies's Theatre Robert-Houdin.

Now that we've cleared that up, we can get on to see just how amazing this movie is for the time. As I said before, Melies's earliest films were exactly like other films of the day--documentaries of ordinary life with no attempt to tell a story of any sort. There was sometimes acting but not any sets at all--and NO special effects. Looking at this now, it seems silly. Just a bunch of guys appearing and disappearing in a castle. But back all the way in 1896, it was amazing. Audiences had no idea how anyone could film stuff like this--they were spell-bound. Not only does "The House of the Devil" contain special effects, it has a really (and this is sincere) cool looking set which sets the scene for the interior of the castle. In fact, it's a few sets really. Behind the main set, there is another doorway guarded by a cardboard knight (which was later reused in Melies's films "A Nightmare" and "The Haunted Castle", I believe). Behind that is another painted backdrop which is supposed to look like other doorways, later replaced by a balcony set so the second cavalier can jump off. (A little odd, that change of sets, but Melies hadn't yet invented multi-scene narratives). The cauldron also looks cool for just a piece of flat painted cardboard.

There's the costumes too. They look totally awesome. The ghosts' masks are really cool and still a little spooky. The outfits for the cavaliers look great and not a bit hand-made at all. It is all extremely lavish and every bit as convincing as though you were there. Besides that, there's also some good special effects work. The dwarf appearing in puffs of smoke effect looks very convincing, while both transformations from bat to devil are actually surprisingly well done. While all Melies used was just a simple splice to do all the effects, I think it actually looks better than could be hoped for.

The whole thing was filmed out in Melies's garden in Montreuil, but watching it you wouldn't really know it since the sets are so convincing looking (at least to me). While it may be a bit padded, that is actually a good thing since a three minute movie from 1896 was very rare. And while the story is simplistic, it is still impressive since you hardly ever saw films with plots at all at this point in filmmaking. This is truly amazing for the time and proof that Melies was one h--l of a guy.

this film, although generally seen as the first horror, was in fact originally intended to amuse rather than scare. its only when you look at it with todays understanding of horror conventions that we see it as such. yes, it does correspond with the whole dark and impending thing and have aspects of the supernatural and creatures that we, as a modern cinema going audience connect automatically with horror, but if you view it as those at the time would have, you start to see that contrary to being a fear inspiring piece, it is actually a very interesting and cleverly put together series of artistic images. also, bearing in mind the level of filmic technology available at the time, is a fairly superior piece, but most definitely not a horror.

I saw this for the first time recently. If this film is not the first horror film at least it is the first vampire film n it includes the first transformation, that too of a human turning into a bat. A skeleton turning into a bat n then into a demon.

The plot is about a demon who disguised as a bat enters a castle n turns into a demon who produces a large pot n an assistant. Aft some mumbo jumbo a woman appears from the pot. Later kingsmen enter n they r harassed by the demon's assistant.... This film was supposed to b a fantasy amusement but the gothic feel n the transformation is truly that of a horror film.

I'm sure the appearing and disappearing in this brief film must have been quite entertaining to the viewers in 1896. In a castle are representatives of the devil. Their purpose seems to be to frighten people, like in a Halloween haunted house. They poke people in the back and then disappear when the person spins around. A beautiful woman is transformed into a hag just as a young man approaches her. There are legions of witches and other creatures. Two young men are accosted by these beings. Anyway, at three minutes or so, there is a lot of action and one of the great early masters of film begins to feel his oats. Worth seeing, even if for the visuals.

This Georges Melies film is one of the very first films to dip into the horror genre. As was usual for a Melies production it's full of visual trickery and invention, while obviously being stagey and crude due to it's incredibly old age. It certainly must be one of the first films to make reference to vampires with its bat that turns into Satan. The simple narrative involves this character manifesting himself in an old castle and then conjuring up a cauldron, a young woman and old man. A heroic knight appears shortly afterwards and thwarts the villain. Like all of Melies films, this one isn't about story-lines. Cinema back in the earliest years of the medium never was. It actually took a while before it became obvious that the medium would even be any good for telling stories. And it took many years for both audience and film-makers to work out how to do it. So these early films like the Melies ones were mainly a means of showcasing visual trickery, a way of letting people see the impossible. Hence their extremely short running times too. But I always sort of marvel at the ingenuity of those guys from over 100 years ago. Right from the offset they had loads of crazy ideas of how to present images in creative and interesting ways. It's well worth any fan of cinema taking a few short minutes of their time out to watch these ancient films, not only because they are the very first primitive twitches of cinema but also because they are fascinating historical documents in themselves.