The First Film

Beautifully made and compelling to watch, this is a stylish personal journey taking us back in time to 19th Century Leeds, where we discover the original, yet still unknown and unsung, inventor of the first moving image.

The director's passion for his subject is as focused as it is clear, and David Nicholas Wilkinson, himself a former actor, is as charming as he is charismatic. Placing himself at the centre of the film's journey of discovery, Wilkinson has created a smoothly seductive narrative device, transforming what in lesser hands might have amounted to a mere factual programme into the story of one man's obsessive mission to investigate the truth about the birth of cinema, a truth mired in the mists of 19th century history and the brutal competition wrought by the tail end of Northern England's industrial revolution.

The film also showcases a series of irresistible cameos featuring both well-known and not- so-well-known film industry insiders, including actors, writers, financiers and others, all providing an off-the-cuff perspective that might well have been expected instead from outsiders.

This wonderful film is apparently still in search of a sales agent and of distribution outside the UK - let's hope it gets the worldwide release it deserves.

Maybe there was a day and age that film classes were overly stressing the importance of Edison and the Lumière Brothers. I myself have witnessed classes at the Dutch Film Academy were the legend of the frightened public fleeing the first performance of the Cinématographe were told. But that is a long long time ago.

Already for another long time the work of Louis le Prince is recognised as an important part of the 19th century saga of many inventors trying to analyse an synthesize still images into moving images.There are many of them, mostly indeed unknown by the general public but the experts know them for sure.

In 1996 the book "Who's Who of Victorian Cinema" by Luke McKernan an Stephen Herbert, two eminent film historians, was published and credit was certainly given to Louis le Prince.

In 1997 Christopher Rawlence wrote the book "The Missing Reel" and made a film of the same title about Louis le Prince. You can find the info about that film here on the IMDb. So "The Missing Reel" was there before "The First Film"'

This is in no way meant to put down "The First Film" in any sort of way. I was also astonished when I read and later saw "The Missing Reel". Le Prince deserves very rightly a place in the history of the development of the cinema as a whole. No doubt about that! Any extra attention to him is very welcome, like so many other contructors/inventors. The 19th century is teeming with them.

But let's not forget the impact the Cinématographe-type of the Lumière Brothers had on the general public and the gulf of innovation that followed. I am not going into any discussions here who invented what, e.g. what was the role of the excellent constructor monsieur Carpentier, but I would like to say that the Cinématographe-type is an amazing compact, very portable machine, very well constructed and very wel designed. It seems simplicity itself. Of course I am an extremely lucky guy who has the opportunity to study the Cinématographe-type no. 311 and no. 88* in real life. That's an absolute joy! * With a great and warm thanks to mr. Michael Rogge (Look him up on YouTube!) for allowing me acces to his Cinématographe-type to study and even partly deconstruct it.

Saw this at the Ghent film festival 2015. It shows interesting research and it is certainly thought provoking. Nevertheless, we know of more examples where several inventors claim to be the real and only one, e.g. printing claimed by Gutenberg (Germany) as well as Coaster (Netherlands) and Martens (Belgium). Moreover, when does an inventor believe that his product is perfect enough to show the public? Trying to be too perfect may let him miss the chance to be the first, even when his model proves to be the better one after all. Also, we know that some inventions were frowned upon by authorities and hence suppressed, or became the victim of saboteurs. All such considerations count. A fact of life is that most inventions are just a child of their time, hence it is no miracle that some seem to go public nearly simultaneously.

Anyway, just as the filmmaker (present before and after the screening) stated: This is a hard sell. Just to stand up against "everyone knows (…)", and the feeling that history lessons, the library and WikiPedia cannot all be wrong. So why bother. His film is a mixed collection of evidence, some convincing some just circumstantial, all of that adding up to his conviction. It is interesting to watch, while pondering by myself which other well-known inventions are wrongly attributed. Regretfully, I cannot imagine that some film distributor considers the matter worthwhile enough for a world wide release, yet the way the evidence is presented and the film maker's enthusiasm deserves more attention than I expect it to receive.

Greetings again from the darkness. How do we handle challenges to historical achievements that have been accepted as facts for more than a millennium? Film classes have long taught that Thomas Edison and the Lumiere brothers were the pioneers of moving pictures. Director David Nicholas Wilkinson has worked for 33 years to prove that Louis LePrince actually beat them to the punch with his own camera and "movies" produced in 1888 Leeds. When LePrince mysteriously disappeared in 1890 he became the industry's first tragedy/mystery, leaving him with no place in history … something Wilkinson is trying to correct.

You may have heard other arguments for Eadweard Muybridge, William Friese-Greene and Wordsworth Donisthorpe, but it comes down to limiting the definition to a single lens camera capturing live action on film for playback. Director Wilkinson includes the 3 surviving snippets of scenes recorded by LePrince: a small gathering of friends/family walking around, LePrince's son Adolphe playing an instrument, and a Leeds street shot of moving carriages.

To prove his theory and secure LePrince's place in history, Mr. Wilkinson meets with film historians, researchers, academic experts, museum curators, and even a patent lawyer. The patents are key because LePrince had secured his U.S. and England patents, but the laws worked against him and his supporters once he disappeared. Details are presented in all aspects … some concrete, scientific and impressive; others more speculative and circumstantial (as you would expect 125 years later). Wilkinson is willing to do what's necessary to make a clear point as evidenced by his searching a graveyard for a specific headstone (to establish a timeline of the "walking" footage).

Two of the more interesting sequences occur when Wilkinson visits the actual room in the oldest house in Manhattan where LePrince's moving picture was intended to be shown; and his trip to Memphis, Tennessee to meet with LePrince's great great granddaughter to share evidence, artifacts and stories. The three main theories surrounding LePrince's disappearance are profiled. Was he murdered (possibly a hit by Edison)? Did he commit suicide? Was it all a plot to steal his patents? With no body, no witnesses and no evidence of a crime, the LePrince disappearance is the first unsolved mystery of the movie business.

It seems Wilkinson presents enough hard evidence to justify adding LePrince into the discussions around the birth of movie making. The unsolved mystery adds an element of intrigue, and makes for a more interesting movie. Mostly Wilkinson is to be admired for his 33 year obsession, for finishing his project, and for bringing attention to one of history's forgotten players. Beyond that, the tongue-in-cheek manner in which he chooses to end his film allows us to appreciate his efforts and keep it in perspective.

Documentary on Louis Le Prince's work on moving pictures and his cameras as well as his disappearance. I will admit this documentary was interesting. Unfortunately there is at least 30 minutes that should have been cut.

Things like watching people have a conversation but we don't actually hear what they are saying. A visit to a house where nothing actually happened there. Later asking several people if the host has convinced them Le Prince made the first film and none of them really answering.

I wasn't convinced either. They didn't provide much more info than you can read on Le Prince's Wikipedia page. Only thing additional is seeing the few frames of film that exist and a replica of one of the cameras.

I don't recommend this documentary because of the extra garbage. If that was cut out it would have been so much better.