Life of an American Fireman

This short feature creates a pretty good sense of excitement and suspense. It seems to have been well-crafted, although the print is not always very clear now. It could almost be called a big-budget picture for its time, due to all the vehicles and equipment that they used in it.

The first part of the film might be the most impressive, as the line of horse-drawn fire engines with all of their equipment race to the scene of the fire. The vantage point for the camera is well-chosen, and it does well in conveying the urgency of the situation. As it goes on to show the fire-fighters battling the blaze, the settings are believable, and they also seem rather detailed, although much of the detail is now obscured by the physical deterioration of the film.

This was an ambitious effort for 1903. It still works well, and it is also an interesting look at the past.

Once again, I'm reviewing another of Edwin S. Porter's early films. In this one, a fireman wakes up and goes to work when an emergency is called out. So he and his men go to rescue some people and put out the fire. This was an early film that employed many cuts though some of those scenes took a static approach in depicting the action such as when you see fire vehicle after vehicle moving across the screen without any cuts to any particular vehicle. So the rescue scenes aren't as exciting to watch as when cross-cutting were employed in later films. So in summary, Life of an American Fireman was interesting and nothing else. Now on to Porter's most famous work: The Great Train Robbery...

THE LIFE OF AN AMERICAN FIREMAN is one of the earliest narrative films. It was made in 1903 by Edwin S. Porter. The extremely short film tells of the life of an American fireman. In the finale, he races to save a girl from a burning building.

Arthur White stars as the fireman. The film is very fascinating, as it gives a look at a bygone era. It is fascinating to see horse-drawn fire trucks. And this was just at the beginning of the 20th Century!

The only problem I have with this is that half the film shows tanker after tanker going down a road in front of bystanders. It seemed as though the film firemen would never get to the fire. But, eventually they do and the film viewer gets a look at this dangerous occupation.

Kenneth MacGowan in his book "Behind The Screen" discusses this film at length. He was familiar both with the controversial print and the paper print in the Library of Congress. He didn't think that the evidence of the paper print was conclusive. At the time, a movie could be copyrighted only as a collection of still photos, which is why the paper prints were made. For that purpose, it didn't matter whether they were in the final edited form,or even if there was more footage than in the released version. MacGowan thought that a hastily assembled negative was used to make the paper print,with all of the footage shot from one angle together. Porter therefore had more time for final editing without delaying the copyright process.

The question is, if the existing copy was reedited, who did it and why? Certainly not during the silent era? By the time such editing became more common, this picture was an obsolete relict of a primitive era. And if reedited then, where are the title cards? They weren't in use in 1903 when the picture was made,but came into general use a few years later. So why "modernize" the movie in one way, but not another? It seems strange that they were not added.

Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Porter himself made the reedited version in the 20's or later to show people how he originally wanted the picture to be.

MacGowan admits that there is certainly a question about the complex editing, but points out that Porter took exactly the shots he needed for it. And as to why he never used it again, there are two factors. It may have been too advanced and confusing for the audiences of 1903,just as later audiences found the more complex editing of Griffith's "Intolerance" even more confusing. And there is evidence that Edison disapproved of Porter's editing. Edison involved himself in every aspect of his companies' operation, insisting on personally approving each piece of music that went on his records,for example. Which didn't help sales, as he didn't have very good taste. Edison's word was law, and Porter would have bowed to it without complaint. In addition, the Edison Catalogue of that time specifically stated that after the woman was carried out of the room by the fireman, there was a dissolve to the outside of the building,the woman pleads for the fireman to rescue the child, and he returns up the ladder. The copyright version shows the fireman carrying out the mother and returning immediately to rescue the child in one continuous shot with no dissolve to the outside. Since the catalogue is so specific on this point it would certainly seem that there was inter cutting not shown in the copyright print.