La fée aux choux

Let's talk about Alice Guy. She started out as a secretary at Gaumont and was soon put in charge of film production, yet for some reason, although her IMDb page credits her first movie as director as LES DEMOLISSEURS, (now apparently lost), the page for this movie appears later in production, has a release date of 1900 and the IMDb claims it is the first movie directed by a woman. It's also written by her. It also credits her as one of three actresses appearing in the movie, although there is only one.

It's a minute and a half of a woman in fancy dress dancing around a cabbage field, occasionally plucking a baby out. Some modern feminist writers claim that early women in the film business were a lot like modern feminists. I think it better to actually look at the works of early movies, as many of them as possible, and then make up your mind. This looks silly and charming and not the least feminist to me. Clearly someone -- or several people -- have been talking about Mlle. Guy and this movie without bothering to look at anything pertinent.

...Wikipedia states. I'll go along with that. In 1896, films were relatively new--and, the Lumiere Bros were still turning out actuality shorts. Apparently, this little vignette is based on the concept that baby boys come from cabbages (and baby girls from roses). There is no real story and all you see is a fairy of sorts pulling babies out of cabbages. At a minute long you can't expect much more.

I will admit I am not too familiar with director Alice Guy. This is the only film I've seen by her (except for "Making an American Citizen" from 1912). Reportedly, this is Guy's first film. About that reviewer who said it's all about child cruelty--forget that! Yes, she wasn't exactly gentle to these babies, but I doubt they were hurt all that bad, and it feels harmless enough to me at least. At least that aforementioned reviewer did inform me that the 1896 original is lost and the 1900 remake survives. Watch it anyway--it's available on YouTube. And while you won't be impressed, you will have to give it to Guy--these sets and costumes are ahead of their time.

This strange but cute little film was apparently the first one ever directed by a woman. Alice Guy (later Alice Guy Blaché) made what is in some ways very indicative of the 1890s--a film only about a minute long and with an underdeveloped plot. However, the set is actually very nice for the time as is the woman's costume. Compared to the Lumiere Brothers' films of the day, this one is much more interesting and isn't about mundane everyday activities (such as folks leaving work or babies eating). It consists of a woman(Guy herself) who you assume is some sort of fairy. She's in the cabbage patch pulling out babies from the plants. It's certainly NOT the best sexual health and reproduction lesson I've seen and is kind of goofy...but cute at the same time.

One reviewer went on and on about how abusive the film was towards these poor naked babies...I just thought it was kind of cute and nothing more. But, I must admit that the fairy was awfully rough with the babies! This is an interesting review to read.

By the way, I am not giving this one a numerical score and I often don't with the earliest films because they are so short and simple that they defy scoring.

Ms. Guy, an enchanting actor, makes the connection between humanity and nature. Mirthful and succinct. -David Olive, Toronto

This film is actually lost. No footage survives. Online footage is a remake from the year 1900 by the same woman director. I was astounded when viewing the 1900 film. The 1896 original was, I was informed, the first film ever directed by a woman. One might expect a woman's touch in her own remake? Instead the 1900 version depicts what amounts to risking harm to babies, perhaps not deliberate but totally inexcusable, needless and careless!

The film is a 'fantasy' with a mother nature figure grinning inanely and posing whilst plucking babies out of the cabbage patch. It is quite clear the 1st two babies are real and when roughly picking the first one up and plonking it down the stupid and irresponsible woman - also the director, apparently - lets go of the baby's head allowing it to fall backwards onto the floor. The baby then reacts flailing its arms and appearing to cry. I can only hope the floor was thickly carpeted but it may have been hard and even this small drop could injure such a young baby. Not content with this the woman then picks the next baby up by one arm/shoulder! Anyone knows this could cause a baby pain and possible injury. She plonks that baby onto the floor still grinning inanely and posing. The third cabbage she reaches into produces something which apparently is a doll. That is haphazardly put on the floor and just looks creepy because it is immobile and so appears rather like a dead baby.

I find this film unacceptably careless and the woman would be questioned for her poor treatment of the babies nowadays. Instead she is revered as the world's first woman director! The fact this was 1900 does NOT excuse this behaviour at all. There are other early films depicting animal cruelty (such as 'Cock Fight No. 2' and the appalling 'Electrocuting an Elephant') but this so far is the only film I have seen depicting possibly dangerous treatment of babies. Ironic that the woman director and mother nature figures are the ones guilty of this. By 1900 there were impressive and innovative works of early film being produced by the likes of Georges Melies, Walter R. Booth and James Williamson which are hugely technically and artistically advanced compared to this very crude and inept film.

To be fair the 1896 film cannot be commented on or assessed at all as it is lost. It apparently had one real baby and dolls. If we assume the one baby was treated more carefully in that then it would be far better than the 1900 remake but if the remake is so crude that even for 1896 it would be unimpressive then the 1896 film would be equally unimpressive I am sure.