O Gatinho Doente

This is George Albert Smith's remake of his own film "The Little Doctors" (1901), which probably had its negatives worn out due to reprints--hence it being remade. The original film is probably lost forever. These two pictures must have been quite popular in their day. Smith essentially introduced the close-up to motion pictures in 1900 with "As Seen Through a Telescope" and "Grandma's Reading Glass", enhancing upon the medium close-up that had been quite popular since the Edison Company's "The Kiss" (1896). In Smith's two aforementioned films from 1900, the close-ups are point-of-view shots, with a mask around the camera lens to create circular vignettes. In "As Seen Through a Telescope", a man with a telescope looks at something, then the film cuts to a close-up of what he's looking at through the perspective of the telescope.

"Sick Kitten" contains a similar one scene, three-shot structure. There's a long shot, or establishing shot, followed by a close-up and the end takes us back to the original long shot position. The close-up in this film, however, doesn't involve camera masking or any character's point of view. It's a standard (as we know it today) close-up. It's also a match on action shot. It's seamlessly done and creates a good continuity. The same year, Edwin S. Porter's "The Gay Shoe Clerk", which is a reworking of "As Seen Through a Telescope", used a similar three-shot continuity: two establishing shots with a close-up inserted in the middle. Smith took this idea further within the same year in what is probably his most advanced surviving film, "Mary Jane's Mishap". Films with multiple shots were nothing new by 1903, but the scene dissection on display in these films by Smith were quite rare. For comparison, the most popular film from 1903, "The Great Train Robbery", has multiple shots, but they are all scenes in themselves. Oh, "Sick Kitten" doesn't have much of a story itself--just a couple of kids feeding a sick kitten. The cut to the close-up occurs during the feeding. Additionally, the children demonstrate that they were very aware that they were being filmed; the boy bows and holds his hat at the end.

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.

Having seen Smith use new techniques with his last few films this one was a bit of a letdown at first to me. It shows two children giving medicine to a sick cat and that's it. However only after reflection did I realise what was worth noting about it and, again, it is not the material (although the cat is cute). No Smith does two things of importance herein. Firstly he gets natural performances from the children and the cat, clearing that old saying had not been coined in his day. More importantly, although the film is one scene, it is broken up with close-ups on the action edited together to give the impression that it is all one continual time frame. OK this is nothing new and indeed it is so ordinary now for so long that I didn't even notice that it was happening in the same way as we don't notice breathing until we think about it.

So not a brilliant film but yet again an example of Smith experimenting with methods and devices in his films. The material is weak otherwise with only the cute and natural performances being of merit.

It's so simple and plain. Acting is perfect. Story line is marvelous. Cats are magnificent as always. I rate this movie 10/10.

This short feature combines pleasant, enjoyable material with good craftsmanship and some imagination. It was a remake of the 1901 film "The Little Doctors", which apparently was permanently lost. Remade and given the simpler title "Sick Kitten", it's a charming and creative little movie.

The engaging mini-story involves two children and two cats, one of which is unwell. The children's acting is really pretty good. They are lively, and they are naturally presented as being cute, but they are believable as well.

A number of G.A. Smith's films show that he seemed to have had the knack for getting believable performances like these from his cast.

As simple as the story is, both the tone and the technique are commendable. In many movies today, such scenes are too often presented with some kind of extraneous crudity inserted into the sequence, to keep it palatable to those with short attention spans. Alternatively, such scenes can be marred by labored post-modernist references or other pretentious material, to avoid the appearance of being too innocent or naive. To make this kind of simple, positive family scene believable and effective is really a more worthwhile achievement.

The technique is also worth noticing, as it shows one continual scene broken up into multiple segments with different camera viewpoints. While using this kind of technique is perhaps not a monumental creative insight, this seems to be one of the very earliest films to use it, and it certainly shows an appreciation for the material and for how best to communicate it to an audience.

Okay, in 1903 this must have been considered a pretty good film. Back then, many of the films lasted only a minute or two and consisted of very mundane everyday activities--hence this dull film about a little girl feeding her sick cat. However, unlike many of the other raters, I STILL cannot rate this movie any higher than a 4 because there actually were GOOD films with plot, sets, acting and imaginative camera-work that should be elevated far above the boring drivel that was flooding the nickelodeons. Georges Méliès' films (not just his very famous LE VOYAGE DANS LE LUNE) were head and shoulders above the dull fare of the day. And this cat film is certainly one of those dull (but rather sweet) films.