Fantômas - À l'ombre de la guillotine

Movie serials, consisting of multiple episodes with the same characters ending in cliffhangers, leaving viewers in suspense so they would gladly pay to see the next one, were becoming popular in the early 1910's. The first serial in cinema to some degree was Edison Studio's 1912 "What Happened To Mary." Although the serial consisted of 12 one-reelers, no chapter ended in a cliffhanger.

France's Gaumont Studios gets the crown for producing the first serial with dangling suspenseful endings to each episode. Gaumont bought the rights to Marcel Allain and Pierre Souvestre's very popular crime books (32 books in all) "Fantomas," published beginning in 1911. The studio's director, Louis Feuillade ("A Roman Orgy--1911), was assigned to direct a five-part serial based on the criminal portrayed in the books. Each episode concluded either in suspense or unanswered questions of what would happen next.

"Fantomas" is cinema's first crime serial portraying movie's first super-villain, a slick criminal as well as leader of a gang of masked thieves. The serial kicked off in May 1913, with the release of "In The Shadow of the Guillotine." That followed with "Juve vs. Fantomas" "The Murderous Corpse," "Fantomas vs. Fantomas," and lastly "The False Magistrate." The entire series totaled five hours and 30 minutes, with each episode was one hour to 90 minutes long. All are available for viewing.

The work of Feuillade, as seen in his 1911's "A Roman Orgy," is fluid but not innovative. His camera sits filming a tableaux of exciting action, which doesn't linger too long on a sequence. The serials' pacing in editing also gives the episodes a rapid pulse of showing events unfolding, something other early movie makers were continually learning to grasp. With a diabolical villain who was a bridge between the 19th century Victorian criminal and the 20th century serial killer, "Fantomas" entertained audiences with his numerous disguises and trickery, performing almost implausible escapes from his arch nemesis, Police Inspector Juve.

The serial would go on to inspire a wave of crime and adventure serials in the next decade, most notably Fritz Lang's "Dr. Mabuse." Feuillade himself would go on in a couple of years to write and direct his masterpiece, the much-heralded "Les Vampires," which influenced such notable directors as Alfred Hitchcock and Luis Bunuel.

NOTE: This isn't a review of the entire "Fantomas" film serial (which, in its entirety, is 5 1/2 hours in length), but of the 54 minute film that starts off the series.

In 1913, a bit over a hundred years prior to this review, cinema was a lot different. There weren't nearly as many ways to explore feelings of humor, anger, and sadness on the screen as there are in today's cinematic world. However, around this time, a few filmmakers began to change the way film was, filmmakers like Georges Melies, D.W. Griffith, and Louis Feuillade, the director of this film.

While I'm sure that the film serial gets far more interesting and entertaining as it goes on, this installment was surely great! Already, there's murder, suspense, and crime as well as some pretty interesting filmmaking techniques (ex: use of close ups, a newly invented technique at that time).

Overall, it definitely makes me excited for the rest of the film serial!

For a person who would have read the Souvestre /Allain's novels,Feuillade's movies would fatally be a disappointment.I read them when I was sixteen and I was fascinated by this mysterious masked figure .Today "Fantomas" has lost much of its popularity ,probably because he was not a "nice "character ,like Arsene Lupin who is still enjoying success.But anyway Maurice Leblanc was a better writer than Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain.

Feuillade's adaptation is not very satisfying:he ruled out the best part of the first volume ,which took place in a château where the marquise de Langrune was murdered (the first word of the saga is "Fantomas!" when nobody had still heard of him).That's after this crime that Charles Rambert became Jerome Fandor -in Feuillade's movie ,he is introduced as Juve's best friend whereas Juve really "made " Fandor.

Even more embarrassing is the ending Feuillade chose -he had to make Gaumont's money work for them ;these are his own words- for what was primarily a horror story: in the novel,Valgrand is really guillotined .It's only a movie after all ,so what's the point of saving him apart from making a film "suitable for any audience"? The Danidoff episode seems out of its context.But the biggest mistake is to have shown Fantomas.Fantomas had no face or he had other people's faces (such as the actor's).By showing since the cast and credits the actor who plays the "hero",they make the character lose 90% of its appeal.

Feuillade had talent for story telling ,nobody can deny.The scene of the substitution retains a sense of mystery .Feuillade's greatest merit -and it's quite important-was to attract the crowds : the serial genre forced them to come back and come back again if they wanted to know if the criminal would be finally caught.He was the granddaddy of so many series and miniseries in the world that he would never be thanked enough just for that.

For people who would like to know about the first part of the novel,I would recommend Paul Féjos's "Fantomas" (1932),which includes spooky scenes in the old château and features Fandor when he was still Charles Rambert.

The De Funes movies ,unless you are a fan of the actor ,should be avoided ,for they kept nothing from the novels but some of the proper nouns.

On the other hand, Chabrol's miniseries in the late seventies /early eighties is to be commended:Helmut Berger was an ideal Fantomas and he got good support from Jacques Dufilho as Juve and from Pierre Mallet as Fandor.

Fantômas (Rene Navarre) makes it as the emperor of Crime. First is the robbery at the Royal Palace Hotel. Then he abducts Lord Beltham...

Critic Maurice Raynal wrote that "There is nothing in this involved, compact, and concentrated film but explosive genius." I absolutely agree with this assessment.

Film historians (and amateurs like myself) tend to focus on American innovation (Thomas Edison) and the rise of the German film. While these are important areas (I believe the Germans did more for cinematography than any other group), "Fantomas" shows that the French were in the game, too.

This is an incredible film, and it has been touched up very nicely by the folks at Kino. It could easily pass for being the 1920s...

Fantomas is a kind of French Moriarty, an arch-criminal, leader of a huge rag-tag band of villains, who can evade arrest by two policemen holding each of his arms simply by shaking his wrists and knocking them both out. I ask you, what chance has an honest copper got? The film actually seems quite ambivalent about him at times, and you suspect there is a sneaking admiration for him on the filmmakers' part, despite his incredibly ruthless streak (in one episode he uncouples a train carriage and sends its passengers to their death so that they can't act as witnesses against a robbery he has committed on board; in another incredible sequence he leaves a fellow villain stranded inside a church bell to await certain death the next time it is rung).

The story lines of this French pre-WWI serial are fairly simplistic and don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny but, as a time capsule from a bygone age, the films are fascinating. Louis Feuillade's style of direction is basic to say the least and, for such a renowned early name from French cinema, something of a disappointment. The camera never moves, and every shot appears purely functional and nothing more. Perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps I'm expecting more than I should from a piece of work nearly one hundred years old, but his style makes things drag at times. The film only really comes alive when Feuillade takes his camera outside to capture scenes of both rural and urban France. The film makes as much use of letters as it does intertitles to drive the story on and, considering the hindrance of it being a silent film, it's a device that works quite well.

Fantomas will only be of interest to the movie buff rather than the film fan. The art of storytelling has moved on – or, given the impression of advancement that gives, perhaps changed is a better word – and even the most patient of filmgoers will find that the pace drags at times. Nevertheless, given its place in film history, it's an important film that is worth checking out.

And it's also worth watching just for the final get-out-of jail card played by the wily Fantomas…