Grandma's Reading Glass

A young boy looks at various things through his grandmother's magnifying glass.

When people speak about innovation in films, the process of adding new shots that would eventually lead to modern film grammar, few people mention George Albert Smith. This stage hypnotist, magic lantern exhibitor and film maker was born in 1864. He entered film-making in the late 1890s and almost immediately began directing films that clearly investigated camera techniques that are still used more than a century later. He imported techniques from the magic-lantern shows, produced films that demonstrated the impact of close-ups and, with this film, was an early adopter and innovator in the point-of-view shot.

Later on, he would move to the more technical side of the industry. In concert with Charles Urban, he would develop Kinemacolour, the first really successful color film. He died in 1959.

This little feature is both playful and innovative, with an idea that allowed plenty of room for creativity. Most of it simply shows a young boy playing with "Grandma's Reading Glass", and as simple as the idea is, it opens up a new realm of possibilities. This picture must have been one of the very earliest, if not the earliest, to experiment with different points of view in such a way.

Even aside from the innovation, it is also generally interesting to watch in itself. At least one of the boy's uses of the reading glass leads to a pretty unusual sight. Even the more commonplace images still do a reasonable job of bringing out the spirit of jaunty experimentation that characterize both the technique and the content of this pleasant little film.

This is the first film to make sustained use of point of view shots. A small boy picks up his granny's magnifying glass, and looks at various items through it, the newspaper, a cat etc. The film in itself is utterly charming: the little boy with the huge glass, the grandmother in her nannyish Victorian clothes, the tiny, overstuffed room all contrive a surreal, Alice-like atmosphere, which is very English in its exaggerated normality. and the young boy's discoveries, his making the world strange by looking with someone else's eyes, is delightful, explaining logically why the last thing he sees is his grandmother's eyes (birth of Godard!).

This making strange the familiar is, again, surreal, but it is also what the cinema does, and what the cinema had largely been doing since its invention, photographing the everyday, workers, families, trains etc., but making them marvellous. The difference being that these things were marvellous, not in themselves, but because of the medium, because they were moving pictures, because people had never seen themselves, or people like themselves in such an art form before. That novelty soon wore off, hence the move towards narrative, fantasy, comedy, genre.

The point of view, however, suggested a new avenue altogether. where early films were shot with a calm, detached, effacing distance, its framing belonging ostensibly to no-one (whatever ideologies such objectivity implied), the point of view took the image, or narrative, from outside the frame within it, breaking it up as it were, creating two levels of looking - the audience looking at the fiction, and the character in the fiction looking at something. The inviolability of the image is shattered, is no longer objective - 'reality' exists at two removes. We don't see an unmediated image anymore, we have to ask about the state of mind of the looker. Subjectivity is born, paving the way for German Expressionism, 'Citizen Kane', 'Vertigo', the monuments of the medium.

Smith cannily understands this- the point of view here is deliberately distorted, a young person looking through the glass of an older person with poor sight. The image is heightened, almost unreal. The camera and the distorted glass become the same thing, objectivity dies. Hoorah!

There's quite a little gang forming in these comments for films-so-old-that-no-one wants-to-watch-them-apart-from-a-few-die-hards. Apart from me there's Bob and Alice and the wonderfully informative Cineanalyst, and every now and then Plankton drops by to moan about how dull it all is. Hey-ho. Grandma's Reading Glass is notable today for its early use of 'point of view' shots, as we see through the eyes of a young boy looking through a magnifying glass. It's also an early example of extreme close-up as we're treated to a shot of Grandma's eyeball rolling about wildly for a few seconds. As Plankton has commented, given that the likes of Melies were already creating dynamic films filled with trickery by 1900, this all seems a little tame.

I watched this film on a DVD that was rammed with short films from the period. I didn't watch all of them as the main problem with these type of things that their value is more in their historical novelty value rather than entertainment. So to watch them you do need to be put in the correct context so that you can keep this in mind and not watch it with modern eyes. With the Primitives & Pioneers DVD collection though you get nothing to help you out, literally the films are played one after the other (the main menu option is "play all") for several hours. With this it is hard to understand their relevance and as an educational tool it falls down as it leaves the viewer to fend for themselves, which I'm sure is fine for some viewers but certainly not the majority. What it means is that the DVD saves you searching the web for the films individually by putting them all in one place – but that's about it.

As with his Kiss In the Tunnel, British pioneer George Smith (an English name if ever there was one!) again works with the devices possible with the camera for telling the audience what is happening. Here it is the "point of view" technique where the screen is seen through a circular frame that makes the viewer understand that this is the view from the character's eye. It is a simple device that is not used any more because of how obvious it has become but at the time this was cutting edge stuff because these techniques were not developed and the audience was being told what this meant.

Substance wise the film is again like Kiss in the Tunnel in so much as, when the technical interest is put to one side, there isn't much else to be had from it. Still, worth seeing as part of learning more about why Smith should be a name that is mentioned alongside the work of people like Lumière.