Le manoir du diable

I'm not interested in retroactively assigning early films to the horror genre, as others seem to desire by claiming this film, "Le manoir du diable", as some sort of first horror film or to misunderstand the bat transformation to devil character here to be a vampire. Rather, this is another trick film, which Méliès made many of. Mephistopheles is in quite a few of these, of which this is probably the first. Mephistopheles is the director-magician's surrogate, allowing a slight narrative construction around the attraction of substitution-splices (a.k.a. stop substitutions), as the devil terrorizes a lord/cavalier with various appearances, disappearances and substitutions. By the way, I'm quite sure that Méliès plays the Faust-type lord/cavalier character and not Mephistopheles, despite several sources stating otherwise. Thus, Méliès plays the victim to the magic perpetrated by himself as the film's director and editor.

For a film of 1896, this is a rather elaborate fiction subject and production. Most films at this time were actualities of ordinary events, popularized by the Lumiére Company. The only studio had been the "Black Maria" shack, which provided a black background for every production, in addition to the few props the Edison Company occasionally employed. Soon, Méliès would create the first decent movie studio, but for this film, he at least created a makeshift, painted cardboard set in the open air (see the shadows). Nobody else, as of then, had went to such trouble for a movie. Méliès used the same or very similar backdrop and costumes, as well as a related narrative, for "Le Château hanté" (1897). These films were also offered to be hand-colored, which would add to their appeal.

(Note: At this time, most viewers have probably seen this film via the extract available on the Internet, which is taken from the documentary "The Magic of Méliès" (Le magie Méliès) (1997). A more complete version is available on French DVD, which includes the bat transformation at the beginning. According to catalogues, the film originally ended with the devil being bashed into smoke, but this part seems to be lost. It now ends with Méliès holding a cross to corner Mephistopheles.) EDIT: Flicker Alley has now also put this film on DVD in Region 1.

The very first horror movie was not 1896's Le Manoir Du Diable (The Devil's Castle), in fact, Georges Melies' Un Nuit Terrible that features a giant insect, is his first production in the horror genre, anticipating the creature-on-the-loose plots of the fifties. However, Le Manoir Du Diable is the first film to feature hints of the vampire. Its running time barely three minutes, and made by and starring Melies. Looking at it many years later it seems primitive and crude, but it also displays an imaginative exuberance and joy that makes it one of film history's little treasures.

The Devil played by Melies himself, has a kind of carnival charm. In a castle, a flying bat turns into the Devil. The Devil makes a cauldron magically appear. He also conjures up a beautiful woman, and an old man carrying a book. Satan then makes cauldron, woman, man, and book disappear. A knight shows up carrying a cross. Our villain clearly panicked, there is a puff of smoke and the Devil is gone.

Because of the brazen, Gothic quality of Le Manoir Du Diable, its brief running time is not a limitation. Serious movie lovers should make the extra effort to get real satisfaction. Go to the "Horror Films" and "Classic Horror Films" Web sites. Read books like " The Satanic Screen: An Illustrated Guide to The Devil in Cinema" by Nikolas Schreck and Allan Hunter's "Chambers Concise Encyclopedia of Film and Television." Find odd-man-out wonders like Le Manoir Du Diable and enjoy horror's timeless feast.

This Georges Melies film is one of the very first films to dip into the horror genre. As was usual for a Melies production it's full of visual trickery and invention, while obviously being stagey and crude due to it's incredibly old age. It certainly must be one of the first films to make reference to vampires with its bat that turns into Satan. The simple narrative involves this character manifesting himself in an old castle and then conjuring up a cauldron, a young woman and old man. A heroic knight appears shortly afterwards and thwarts the villain. Like all of Melies films, this one isn't about story-lines. Cinema back in the earliest years of the medium never was. It actually took a while before it became obvious that the medium would even be any good for telling stories. And it took many years for both audience and film-makers to work out how to do it. So these early films like the Melies ones were mainly a means of showcasing visual trickery, a way of letting people see the impossible. Hence their extremely short running times too. But I always sort of marvel at the ingenuity of those guys from over 100 years ago. Right from the offset they had loads of crazy ideas of how to present images in creative and interesting ways. It's well worth any fan of cinema taking a few short minutes of their time out to watch these ancient films, not only because they are the very first primitive twitches of cinema but also because they are fascinating historical documents in themselves.

I'm sure the appearing and disappearing in this brief film must have been quite entertaining to the viewers in 1896. In a castle are representatives of the devil. Their purpose seems to be to frighten people, like in a Halloween haunted house. They poke people in the back and then disappear when the person spins around. A beautiful woman is transformed into a hag just as a young man approaches her. There are legions of witches and other creatures. Two young men are accosted by these beings. Anyway, at three minutes or so, there is a lot of action and one of the great early masters of film begins to feel his oats. Worth seeing, even if for the visuals.

There are dozens of ways that this three minute movie is amazing for the day. "Le Manoir du Diable" is one of filmmaker Georges Melies's earliest trick movies. Originally, his output until then mostly consisted of your typical Lumiere subjects: trains arriving in stations, women washing clothing, blacksmiths at work, etc. But, having discovered special effects earlier the same year, he began experimenting with them, reproducing a stage magician's act with "The Vanishing Lady" and going even further to turn out "The House of the Devil".

I have many things to say about this film. I'll begin with the 'first vampire movie' thing. Yes, there is indeed a bat included--but it is actually Mephistopheles, an incarnation of the devil, which it turns into. Only looking at movies today about vampires do we look back at this and misinterpret it. It's just like some people are saying that the eclipse in Melies's "The Eclipse: Courtship of the Sun and the Moon" features a 'gay' eclipse and that Melies was encouraging homosexuality or whatever. It's not true. I cannot believe how stupid people can be nowadays.

Is it a horror film? With that I am inclined to agree. According to Wikipedia, "The House of the Devil" was originally meant to amuse rather than scare. The thing is, it looks so much like a horror. The ghosts that appear actually DO look a little creepy. And there's the bat turning into Mephistopheles. It may not have originally meant to have been a horror, but one cannot deny that the whole theme makes it so from start to finish.

As for the rumor going around that Melies played Mephistopheles, I have something to say about that too. Wikipedia's article makes no mention of Melies having ever appeared in this short at all; however, according to my own beliefs, he played the cavalier character who is the victim of Mephistopheles's traps. Melies's acting always has a certain joyful charm whenever he is in front of a movie camera, whether he's playing a frightened inn guest, a magician or the devil. The devil here doesn't really feel like Melies at all, but instead comes across as sinister and lurking. On the other hand, the cavalier not only looks like Melies, he comes off as very lively, amusing and every bit as childish as you'd expect from Melies's acting. The actor for Mephistopheles's role still remains uncertain, though Georges Sadoul, a film historian, believes him to have been played by Jules-Eugene Legris, a performer at Melies's Theatre Robert-Houdin.

Now that we've cleared that up, we can get on to see just how amazing this movie is for the time. As I said before, Melies's earliest films were exactly like other films of the day--documentaries of ordinary life with no attempt to tell a story of any sort. There was sometimes acting but not any sets at all--and NO special effects. Looking at this now, it seems silly. Just a bunch of guys appearing and disappearing in a castle. But back all the way in 1896, it was amazing. Audiences had no idea how anyone could film stuff like this--they were spell-bound. Not only does "The House of the Devil" contain special effects, it has a really (and this is sincere) cool looking set which sets the scene for the interior of the castle. In fact, it's a few sets really. Behind the main set, there is another doorway guarded by a cardboard knight (which was later reused in Melies's films "A Nightmare" and "The Haunted Castle", I believe). Behind that is another painted backdrop which is supposed to look like other doorways, later replaced by a balcony set so the second cavalier can jump off. (A little odd, that change of sets, but Melies hadn't yet invented multi-scene narratives). The cauldron also looks cool for just a piece of flat painted cardboard.

There's the costumes too. They look totally awesome. The ghosts' masks are really cool and still a little spooky. The outfits for the cavaliers look great and not a bit hand-made at all. It is all extremely lavish and every bit as convincing as though you were there. Besides that, there's also some good special effects work. The dwarf appearing in puffs of smoke effect looks very convincing, while both transformations from bat to devil are actually surprisingly well done. While all Melies used was just a simple splice to do all the effects, I think it actually looks better than could be hoped for.

The whole thing was filmed out in Melies's garden in Montreuil, but watching it you wouldn't really know it since the sets are so convincing looking (at least to me). While it may be a bit padded, that is actually a good thing since a three minute movie from 1896 was very rare. And while the story is simplistic, it is still impressive since you hardly ever saw films with plots at all at this point in filmmaking. This is truly amazing for the time and proof that Melies was one h--l of a guy.