Birth of the Cinema

The Story of Film: An Odyssey 'Birth of the Cinema' (2011)

*** (out of 4)

The first of fifteen films in Mark Cousins documentary starts off by taking a look at the various pioneers who put their stamp on the format. This includes those who invented the cameras, invented film, who realized what light could do to project an image as well as those men and women who started to film things and change their style. We see how one director (Carol Reed) filmed a certain shot only to them see how others (Godard, Scorsese) were influenced by this scene and worked it into their own version in their own films. Cousins style is certainly something interesting and quite different than what you'd normally get from a documentary. He serves as the narrator and puts his own spin on how he wants to tell the history of film. Those who have seen Jean-Luc Godard's series on the history of film will be happy to know that this here isn't quite as extreme. It's too early to comment on the entire series but I thought this episode was entertaining enough. The history of cinema has been told countless ways and I thought Cousins brought a few new ideas to the table. This includes showing scenes from older movies from the 1890s and then showing us that location today. Getting to see where Melies shot his first movie was interesting as well as a sequence where we see the current locations of the first movie theaters. Along the way we also learn about how editing changed the format and how various other techniques came into play. BIRTH OF THE CINEMA gets the series off to a good and unique start so we'll see how it goes from here.

This is a fine beginning to a really intellectual history of film. Some have criticized it because it doesn't give Americans their due. But the fact of the matter is that they truly are. It's just that cinema did begin in France. At least the fundamental technologies began there. With Lumiere and Melies and others, we have the foundation. This first offering shows us the early use of techniques we take for granted today. For instance, leaving the stage for the beginnings of editing. The playing off of characters by their placement in the scene. Dolly shots and isolation of people. Turning the back on the camera for effect. The use of the scene change and the beginnings of special effects. The wonderful scene where Buster Keaton moves from scene to scene. The eeriness of double exposure where characters can leave their bodies in a dream sequence. The use of horizontal structure in a scene. We get introduced to the great women writers and directors. It was said that the women were on an even playing field with the men because of the circumstances within the movie industry. The progress of the film camera and its companion, the movie projector. It also does a nice job of comparison the foundation of cinema with contemporary offerings. I enjoyed the narration. Sometimes when Americans don't get all the credit for everything, we diminish those that try to show a more balanced historical perspective. Let's face it. We have the big money to do big films. Those are often devoid of substance. The films of other countries force creativity to come to the fore. Nothing wrong with blockbusters but it sometimes emasculates the product.

Before this first part of the series "The Story of Film" was shown, Mark Cousins talked to Robert Osborne on Turner Classic Movies about how he made the film. Surprisingly, the project was done with him and one other person! It is impressive that they made this. However, when the film itself began, I was very disappointed. While he put years and years of energy into the film, it turned out to be less than I'd hoped. What exactly did I dislike? Well, I assumed it would be a nice documentary that chronicled the history of film and that was all. However, so much of what Cousins says during the course of the film is his OPINION couched as the early history of films. He seems to have a very, very strong penchant for non-Hollywood productions (particularly European cinema) and spoke rather disparagingly about most American films. Sometimes his facts were just wrong (such as saying the first American full-length film was in 1918--while it was much earlier) and sometimes he spoke about how Hollywood was anti-women and anti-ethnic. While assertion this is generally true, it isn't like black people and women were making huge numbers of films outside the US either. It was just too early in social history--and it's a shame to put all this off on America. I also kind of understood what Cousins may have meant when he said that "Casablanca" is NOT a real classic...but it IS and putting down a great film in order to bolster his opinions about non-Hollywood films seemed disingenuous. In addition, I was put off by his occasionally ham-fisted and occasionally dull narration and just cannot bring myself to watch the next 14 episodes.

Perhaps I am overreacting. See the film for yourself and let me know what you think. All I know is that the history of film can celebrate all great films and needs to be far less opinionated and more fact-based. I really was looking for a nice overview of the birth of films.

Also, I do ADORE European cinema and if you want to see a great series on this, try the terrific "Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood". A must-see for any serious student of films.

Epic , emotional and glorious like cinema . One of my best watching experience and helpfull to know cinema.

This long, long film (broken down into bite-size parts) starts exactly where you think it would: at the birth of the cinema.

We get a few detours -- clips from "Saving Private Ryan" and why Hollywood is not classic, but Japanese film is. We also learn that ideas, not money, is what drives movies -- and we learn the connection between Carol Reed and Martin Scorsese (bubbles).

But what makes this section really great is how it examines the innovations that now seem so simple -- the close-up, the cuts, the "phantom ride"... how we can show two people in conversation without them even having to be in the same room through the power of editing. This seems so obvious now, but someone had to figure it out over a century ago...