John-376

Having seen this film a long time ago, it wouldn't surprise me if it became the target of so-called "political correctness" in the present climate of New Labour Hypocrisy. Sure enough, the previous entry here has attracted a comment from one of this appalling brigade of interfering nonentities who haven't the intelligence to understand that any film, especially the early ones like this, is a reflection of its own time and culture. Who exactly is this "politically correct" judge who can sit there and state that a film of a black woman washing her little boy is racist and is therefore disgusting? What these stupid, ignorant hypocrites never realise is that THEY are the real racists. It is because of their narrow-mindedness that some people are led to believe there is something odd about a black kid being washed, whereas white kids naturally wash seven times a day. Anyone with a bit of common sense can see that this film is a bit of fun. A kid has been playing and has got dirty, so his mum washes him: doesn't matter if the people concerned are white, black, brown, yellow, red or Martian. Unless of course you are one of the righteous few who thinks Blair and his ridiculous wife should be canonised.

Unlike the previous commentator who failed to understand the historical importance of this piece of film and tried to review it in the context of 21st century technology, I would give this 10 out of 10 for the fact that without Le Prince's pioneering work, cinema as we know it might still be a pipe dream.

In terms of 19th century technology, which is the context in which it should be reviewed, this film is cutting edge.

The subject is recognisably a road across a city centre bridge in Victorian times. We have all seen plenty of still photographs from that era but in this composition, the horses and people actually move. I come from Yorkshire and I know that one branch of my family was resident in Leeds at this time so, who knows, one of those people could be a long-lost ancestor of mine. That's a romantic view but you really can't take anything other than a romantic view of something like this.

To see the film, follow the IMDb video clip and enjoy a glimpse of a bygone age. The title mentions traffic but you won't see any horseless carriages!

Absolutely fascinating.

The points made by the exquisitely named Welsh gentleman in the previous review are fair enough in a 2004 context but what people like him always forget is the HISTORICAL context. No, Charlie Bronson did NOT have a digital camera in 1958, so he had to make do with the existing technology.

The point is that this series was made FOR ITS TIME and so the only test we can apply in 2004 is: "was it entertaining?" And, like most of Mr Bronson's work, yes, it was entertaining.

Providing you maintain the right perspective and keep old series and old films generally within the context of their time, you can apply a meaningful judgment of them. It utterly amazes me how so many people can dismiss something because it was made in the days before computerised special effects became available. If these special effects films nowadays are so good, why are the cinemas so empty?

Lets take a modern example of a film that is closely related to contemporary technology: this "Matrix" rubbish. Is that entertaining? Is it hell. It is absolute garbage.

"Man with a Camera" is completely watchable. I agree that Charlie's subsequent superstardom tends to detract as you look back on it, but it is certainly worth watching again for its own sake.

If it's on a nostalgia channel near you any time, believe me the story lines alone make it worth watching. And Charlie was always worth watching anyway.