Carmencita

Here's a perfect example of the pitfalls of writing about films: especially films from the earliest days of the cinema. The other IMDb'ers who have posted reviews of Carmencita's performance for Thomas Edison's Kinetograph camera are apparently reviewing footage from Edison Motion Picture #28, which has been reissued on DVD as part of "Edison: The Invention of the Movies". Well, I am likewise reviewing Carmencita's performance for Edison's Kinetograph. However, the performance I saw (and which I'm reviewing) was a different performance by the same dancer, filmed on the same occasion -- the second week of March 1894 -- but photographed on a different negative and not included in the DVD.

I saw this film (the one I'm reviewing, mind) in October 2006 at the Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy. The print screened at Sacile was retrieved from the National Fairground Archive in Sheffield, England. (WKL Dickson, who shot many films for Edison, was an Englishman; he shipped prints of many of his Edison films to Britain.) When the Sheffield print was found, it was at first assumed to be one more copy of the existing Carmencita footage (the one on the DVD). However, after restoration, it was discovered that this was a 'lost' movie which no living person knew had ever existed in the first place: a completely different take of Carmencita's performance, differing significantly from the 'known' version. Since Edison's catalogue lists only one version, this 'lost' film has been provisionally titled "Carmencita #2" and catalogued as EMP 28.1.

This is certainly not a 'belly dance', despite a previous IMDb'er's comment. Carmencita's performance here is virtually identical to the one in the DVD version, with one interesting difference: in the version found at Sheffield and screened at Sacile (the one I saw), the señorita concludes her performance by curtseying to the camera (or to its operator?) and offering a moue.

Frame-by-frame comparisons make it clear that these are two separate 'takes': two completely different pieces of footage of the same dancer giving similar but not identical performances. I'd be keen to learn which one was shot first. Carmencita's acknowledgment in the Sheffield version might imply that this was the conclusion of her performance, therefore the final take. Or perhaps this was her first take, and Dickson may have felt that Carmencita's gesture -- appropriate enough for a live audience watching a stage performance -- was inappropriate for a movie, and he required her to do a retake. Barring authorisation for a trip yesterwards to March 1894 (grease up the time-portal!), it's unlikely that anyone will ever know which version was shot first.

On its own merits as an historic artefact, I'll rate "Carmencita #2" 6 points out of 10 ... plus one point extra (7 total) because this film and its twin sister -- placed side by side -- serve as a caution to those who would review old-time movies, or who would criticise other reviewers' film scholarship: sometimes the version which you saw, and the version which I saw, really are NOT the same movie!

This short film was included several years ago in a documentary about Thomas Edison and his early movie-making experiments. It's timeless - an absolute classic!

The video itself is jumpy and splotchy, and primitive by even the earliest silent film standards. But by anyone's measure, the dancer is amazingly good, and this peek into the distant past is well worth watching, if the opportunity arises.

It would be nice if someone put together for commercial sale a collection of very early experimental film projects like this one. Few are likely to be as fascinating as this, but it's amazing to see how dramatically video technology has changed - and how relatively little change there has been in our entertainment preferences.

This film is part of the series of short Edison films featuring circus and vaudeville acts. Subject in this movie is the American dancer Carmencita. She was quite popular as a dancer at the time and a much asked painting subject for painters. She was also the first every woman to appear in front of the camera in an Edison film, which also makes her the first every woman to appear in an American shot movie. But that's about as historically interesting as this movie gets.

The image quality isn't the greatest but the movements look at all times smooth and that's of course what was most important for Edison and Co. at the time. Camencita shows some twirling, with kicks and high arm movements. Her arms got out of the frame at times and the camera also didn't seemed to be steady. Perphaps it was standing on the same stage as Carmencita was dancing on, which caused the light camera shaking?

Interesting for those wanting to check out the early Edison Manufacturing Company films, but it's nothing too great or significant.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

"Carmencita" was not only one of the first vaudeville acts Edison filmed for his Kinetoscope ("Sandow No. 1" was the very first), it also appears to contain the earliest appearance of a woman in an American film. Of course, this did not make her the first known woman to appear in motion pictures period; don't forget, Louis le Prince had shot the first celluloid film as early as 1888, and that short contained two women. (Although if Edison had completely succeeded in proving his company to have invented the first motion pictures, he no doubt would have attempted to erase that landmark from history altogether and given himself the credit). Not only that, it also began a new genre in the Edison studios: the famous 'dance' genre, one of the biggest things the company is remembered for today.

Like the various boxing movies created from 1891-1895, the different dancers Edison hired to perform in his studio also became quite popular and frequently filmed. There was Annabelle Moore, the well-known serpentine dancer (who deserves a genre of films herself considering she did at least three different acts for the studio). Fatima the muscle dancer (don't be fooled, she was actually a belly-dancer) also falls in this genre. And don't forget Amy Muller, who specialized in dancing on her toes, and the Sarache Sisters with their imperial Japanese Dance. Even the Indian dances recorded by Edison in 1894 could count as being part of the 'dance' genre. (I could go on). In this case, the dancer of the title who started it all (real name Carmen Dauset Moreno) is shown to be performing a routine she had been practicing since February 1890 (funnily enough the year Edison began experimenting with motion pictures) at Koster and Bial's Music Hall, New York City. Involved in the choreography are twirls, kicks, spins, and at the end, a bow. Lasting at only 21 or so seconds, the film here presumably documents an excerpt instead of the entire thing, which would have run on much longer.

Finally, there's one more thing that this film is important for: it was one of the earliest films that began discussions of film censorship. With a dancer who constantly shows her ankles and legs, how could anyone not object? And that's not to say it was a shocker the Edison Co. produced such naughty material for the first time; violence and sex would sadly enough become a common trend among the company. The first such film to cause people to raise their eyebrows was probably the aforementioned "Sandow No. 1", which featured plenty of skin and was no doubt a temptation to women. Continuations of these naughty film elements include the "Cockfight" films, the said boxing films, further entries to the dance genre, and the notorious "The May-Irwin Kiss" of 1896.

Watching a film like this, it becomes fairly obvious that from the very first days of the cinema the camera was to be given a voyeuristic male eye. Filmed before projectors had been invented, this 24-second short would have been viewed in a dedicated parlour through one of Edison's kinetoscopes. It's a simple film of one woman dancing in front of a black screen. She was quite famous in her day, apparently, but she isn't particularly graceful here. The film was probably shot at Edison's Black Maria studio in West Orange. It was banned in some places because of the 'daring' display of leg - and has the distinction of being title number 0000001 in IMDb's listings