Ataque em uma Missão na China

It should first be made clear that "Attack on a China Mission" is not known to exist in its entirety today. As the British Film Institute (BFI) says, just under half of it survives. Originally, it was 230 feet and, reportedly, around 4 minutes, which was comparatively long at a time when most pictures were a single shot-scene lasting about a minute. Additionally, two different prints, or versions, have been made available on DVD and neither of these is as complete as the one the BFI has on its website (with limited access, by the way). "Attack on a China Mission" was a four-shot film, and the website version includes all four shots, although in shortened forms. The version available on Kino's "Movies Begin" and the BFI's "Primitives and Pioneers" (the version most of the previous comments seem to be based on) is only the second shot of the film. A three-shot version (the final shot is missing) is shown in the "Silent Britain" program.

Historian John Barnes ("The Beginnings of the Cinema in England") said, "This is one of the key films in the history of the cinema and has the most fully developed narrative of any film made in England up to that time." From my studies of early film, it appears that at the close of 1900, the two most innovative places in development of narrative film were in Georges Méliès's studio and in England (that is, filmmakers R.W. Paul, G.A. Smith and, with this film, James Williamson). Méliès, however, hadn't explored continuity of shots within scenes, although he made some of the earliest multi-scene subjects, including "Cinderella", "The Dreyfus Affair" (both 1899) and "Joan of Arc" (1900). It seems that continuity of multiple shots within scenes was invented in England--at least in respect to fictional subjects. Paul's "Come Along Do!" (1898) is the earliest two-shot fiction film that I know of to feature action continuing across spatially separate locations and camera viewpoints. In 1900, Smith produced "As Seen Through a Telescope" and "Grandma's Reading Glass", both films of which contain insert close-ups within an outer establishing shot. Williamson's film here may be even more advanced.

The first shot of "Attack on a China Mission" shows the Chinese "boxers" breaking through a gate, which has a sign "Mission Station" printed on it. Some of them crouch and shoot before proceeding farther. The camera position is from outside the gate, which shows their backs.

The second shot is of the mission house--showing the missionaries reacting and preparing for a fight: the male gets guns, and the women hide inside. The second shot ends with the male missionary wrestling with a boxer and a woman waving a handkerchief from a balcony. As with all the camera positions, it's a stationary long shot staged in depth. (The supposed white-haired, mustached Chinese man who wrestles with the missionary and does some sword waving turns briefly towards the camera for a frontal view at the beginning of the shot, revealing that he is clearly not Chinese. Probably none of the actors were.)

Shot three is, again, of the front gate, but, this time, it's a reverse angle take of the film's first shot. Thus, we're now inside the gate, and the camera shows the front sides of the bluejackets (really, some local sailors) as they come to rescue the missionaries. Some of them also crouch and shoot before proceeding farther.

The final shot is a continuation of the second shot from the same camera position. The bluejackets save the day, including an officer escaping with a female missionary by horseback.

There seems to be no documented indication that Williamson meant to mislead viewers to thinking this was actuality (or documentary) footage of the real Boxer Rebellion (extant catalogue descriptions that I've seen make no mention of it being staged or not). Moreover, Barnes cites Méliès's 11-scene "The Dreyfus Affair", which also recreated scenes from contemporary news, as an influence on Williamson making this. Today, at least, it's clear that Williamson staged this production in Hove, England. It also doesn't appear to be based on any particular real incident of the Boxer Rebellion. A further note: this film shouldn't be confused with a Mitchell & Kenyon production and Wrench & Son distributed film, which is sometimes listed by the same or similar title and the same year as this separate Williamson film. That film isn't as of much historical importance, being shorter and probably only a single shot; it's also probably lost.

Besides being an early multi-shot film and one to feature continuous action across shots, Williamson's "Attack on a China Mission" is possibly the first film to feature a reverse-angle shot and brief crosscutting (the continuity being: A / B / reverse-angle of A / B). Additionally, the production values are somewhat elaborate for 1900, with a couple dozen actors, costumes and weapons, and a good amount of smoke from fake gunfire. This is a milestone in cinema history.

In the early days of the cinema, actual film of important historic events often wasn't available but the public clamored for news of the world. So, film companies began faking the news--making film of what people THOUGHT might be the actual events. A good example of this is the Edison film that purports to show the execution of the man that assassinated President McKinley. Another is this re-creation of this attack by Chinese peasants (the "Boxers") on a missionary and his family. Such attacks had happened, but given the sparsity of movie cameras, the scene was re-enacted for the public in this film. The problem is that the home and landscaping don't look particularly Chinese. Not a terrible film, but also not a particularly interesting or compelling one either.

In 1900, it would have been pretty ambitious to tell a fairly involved story like this in a short motion picture. It's hard to evaluate "Attack on a China Mission", in part because it tries to do more than it accomplishes, and in part because portions of the complete film seem not to have been preserved. (And what is preserved also shows definite signs of physical deterioration.)

The story is set in the Boxer Rebellion, which would still have been fresh in the public's mind at the time this movie was made. Otherwise, it would be hard or impossible to determine the context of events or the motivations of the characters from the film alone. There is plenty of action, and some good camera shots of it as well, although the course of events is sometimes a little chaotic. Still, it does tell a complete story, as far as it goes.

Given the limited resources and techniques then available, telling a story like this was an enterprising idea. Most of the other Williamson films of the era are of good quality, and it seems likely that this one might also have been a good one in its original or complete form. What survives of it is flawed, but still somewhat interesting.

Some of the previous reviewers have perhaps read more into this simple film than was intended by the maker.I think that it was intended as a simple "action" film for entertainment rather than a comment on the Chinese.The Boxer Rebellion was recent news, and many lurid accounts had appeared in the newspapers.The Boxers had done things just like depicted in the film.The film was made in England,explaining the architecture of the house.However, Europeans living in China often built their homes in the style of their own countries,so this is not unrealistic for China of the period.Claire Lee Chennault,leader of the Flying Tigers,in his memoirs mentioned French villas looming up incongruously out of the countryside around Kunming.

Attack on a China Mission (1900)

It's hard to full judge this film because it originally ran four minutes but now it's just under 90 seconds. What we've got is a woman is pulled and dragged by a man as a group of people attack the mission. There's a violent gun battle that follows. ATTACK ON A CHINA MISSION is one of many films that were drawn from the headlines. Producers realized that people would go see movies about stories they had read about in the newspaper and this here is just one example. For the most part the film is entertaining thanks in large part to the gunfight, which actually leads to quite a few dead bodies, which wasn't all that common in 1900. This British film is certainly worth watching but lets hope the rest of it is located at some point.