Man Walking Around the Corner

Review: Man Walking Around a Corner (1887) Genres: Documentary, Short Runtime: 1 min English This is a damaged first film in the world. It's been said the length is about 13 seconds however only a frame sequence featuring a man walking around a corner survive.

Malay Man Walking Around the Corner adalah cebisan filem yang terselamat yang merupakan rakaman imej bergerak pertama dunia. Dikatakan rakaman asal mempunyai durasi 13 saat akan tetapi hanya 2 saat dari rakaman tersebut berjaya terselamat. Seperti juga tajuknya rakaman ini hanya memaparkan seorang lelaki berjalan.

This is the finest piece of art I have ever seen. The man walking around the corner has been called a "modern masterpiece" (Joel Taylor, 2015), to which I can agree. It brings the quality of all media to a new level. Any who wants to try and make a film should watch this first to get an idea of where the bar has been set. In the words of the great Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince, "It is not about the length, or the camera quality of the video, but it is about the emotional drive and the attachment that the audience has with the Man Walking Around the Corner, and our star, the man walking around the corner." Excellent watch, I would recommend this to every aspiring film-maker.

First, I must admit that I never heard about Louise Le Prince before I went in search for a oldest movie ever recorded. I heard about many movie pioneers, but never for Le Prince.

Now, I am very happy that i saw oldest movie ever recorded and I must recommend all people who want see this movie to watch it in slow motion (you can find slow motion version on YT), and you can find a version with all 16 frames remastered there (some versions have only 13 frames - two lost, one bad quality). Also, my recommendation is to find and read on internet about this movie and Le Prince, and you will find very interesting story.

It may have been 9 years since the last movie, but Louis le Prince was a good director and had a great debut film

The trivia on the IMDb... entry is as good a word as any, I suppose ... says this is not a film. It was shot on a device of LePrince's devising which used sixteen lenses. By triggering then in order, he got an image over a span of time... sort of. The positions of the lenses differed, which meant that the series, when viewed, jumped around.

This tentative groping towards an explanation forces us either to define what a film is narrowly, or to understand the organic process that led to what we call a film now. The former leads us to pettifog over details that are often irrelevant, and the latter provides us with no clear answer to the question of what film is. Do we in the 21st century, who frequently watch "movies" shot on digital cameras, processed in computers and viewed on our computers even watch films?

I prefer to think as film as a recorded moving image which we view, one produced by a process which, in its commercial forms, includes films, movies, television, and other related items. It did not arise suddenly, but evolved out of earlier technologies, which include flip books, magic lanterns, phantasmagorias and such nineteenth century devices as praxizooscopes and kinegraphs.

If you accept that attitude, then the question of whether this is a film becomes irrelevant. It may not be a film by some technical definition, but it an important artifact in the development of that art.