How It Feels to Be Run Over

The great thing about this film is that these filmmakers, whether they had seen it or not, had the kind of movie that the Lumiere brothers happened to catch in mind - the Train coming in the Station that basically birthed cinema in 1895 - and they decided 'we can do a step further.' Now, it's not that the whole film is only the car coming at the camera, and we first see a horse and buggy go by the "person" sitting or standing in the road. It's a very basic feeling that the crux of this film does - terror - but it also is more primal, which is helplessness.

The whole 1 minute is meant to express a feeling, and whether you really feel it or not (it IS 116 years ago now), it does have a visceral impact: it's hard to not believe the car is going to kill "you" in place of the camera, since we're the camera-eye. This is one of the major accomplishments of cinematic grammar: if you can get an audience to feel something by how the camera is in place and how the frame is set in just such a position (and in this case there's even some odd text that comes over black in the last few seconds), then you win at cinema.

This is a great little film. There are three things happening here in this 43 second gem. First off, you are looking at something that is a glimpse into our past. It shows what the world was like 120 years ago. It is probably a small part of a few hours of motion picture recordings of what life was like over a century ago on this little blue marble. Before 1895 there wasn't anything. It is something very rare that we have therefore it is precious.

The second thing going on here is the fact that there is a contrast between technologies. First, we see the horse and buggy go past the camera and then there's a puff of smoke. Just as the smoke starts to clear out comes the car or horseless carriage. There is a contrast between the buggy and the car. In 43 seconds this film gives us an amazing preview of things to come.

And, of course, the final thing happening in this film is the climactic ending. Do we really feel that the woman cannot drive that vehicle or was she supposed to do that? Do we need to worry about the fact that someone may have gotten hurt badly during this? We also have to take note, that because this film is so short and so new for its time, it reminds us of what we are like now when we watch our YouTube videos. Being as it is one of the first movies ever made it's a wonderful piece of work.

8.6 (B+ MyGrade) = 8 IMDB

OK so the title more or less gives away the entire "plot" of this very short short film but it is still quite interesting. The point obviously is to try and amaze the audience and draw a reaction by having a car rushing towards the viewer in the hope that audiences still dealing with this new technology will instinctively panic somewhat. Watching it now of course I didn't react this way but you can imagine how it once did (even today we do it in the cinemas – it now just means it has to move faster and have effects that make it a lot realer.

However the film is nicely done because the cart going by first makes us assume safety before the car is seen approaching and the music lifts to become more dramatic. Of course it also plays on the fear of that other "new" piece of technology – the motor car, so the combination of these factors would have got a good reaction I would guess. Nothing really to it now but it is still interesting to see how it is structured to achieve its aim and then hits it well.

I think self-reflexive films, or self-referential films, meta-film, or whatever you want to call them, offer some of the most interesting experiences available in the art form--giving insight into the complexities of their very nature. Three of the earliest films to explore this territory bare some striking similarities, but the filmmakers strike upon very different ways and techniques for their self-reference. In addition to this film, "How It Feels to Be Run Over", I'm also discussing "The Big Swallow" and "The Countryman and the Cinematograph". These motion pictures are, of course, similar in that they all are about the process of themselves, whether it be film-making or the cinema viewing experience. They are also very old, short and, perhaps, somewhat deficient to the expectations of some modern viewers. They were all intended as comedies. Additionally, the British made them all. They were made independently of each other by three of the major producers in England at the time--three of the most historically important founders of film language, really. They are Cecil Hepworth, who produced "How It Feels to Be Run Over", Robert W. Paul and James Williamson (only George Albert Smith is missing here). During this period, it was the nation leading the world in filmic innovation.

There are earlier examples in film history of self-reflexivity if you look deep enough (which I've attempted), such as some Lumière and Edison films. In one Lumière short, for example, the cameraman records another cameraman filming a subject--making the filming of the subject the subject (see "Fête de Paris 1899: Concours d'automobiles fleuries"). In another, Louis Lumière, who was primarily involved in still photography throughout his life, poses for a picture. In an early Kinetograph experiment at the Edison Company, entitled "A Hand Shake" (1892), William K.L. Dickson comes from behind the camera and enters the frame to shake hands with assistant William Heise--basically congratulating themselves on film over the invention of film.

Another previous motion picture, produced by the American Mutoscope Company, is rather similar to this film in particular. It was planned as an actuality film of the reaction of a fire department. Yet, in this onrush, one of the engines was forced to crash into the Biograph camera and film crew. The film, which survived, was released as "Atlantic City Fire Department" (1897). "How It Feels to Be Run Over" is, however, a staged fiction film, which perhaps was inspired by the Mutoscope production.

In it, a horse carriage avoids the camera safely by moving to the right side of the road. Then, a wild automobile motorist driving down the right lane (which, of course, would be incorrect in England) smashes into the camera. The screen goes black and a quick flash of question marks and exclamation marks are followed by the words "Oh! Mother will be pleased", which appear on individual frames. That's it.

Here, there are two aspects interesting from a historical standpoint aside from making noticed the camera within the film that is filming that very film. First, it's one of the first films to feature intertitles. They're not the kind of title cards one is accustomed to viewing in later silent films, though. They're quickly gone, appear on separate frames and in non-fancy white letters against black background. The words may have been written on the negative themselves; otherwise, they may have been filmed against some black background, and then edited in stop-motion fashion. The only filmmaker to experiment with title cards before this film that I know of was George Albert Smith, who introduced his 1898 film Santa Claus with the title of the film. In 1900, he also included an intertitle ("Reversed") during "The House that Jack Built". In those days, exhibitors would tell audiences the titles of films as well as describe their action, or they would use title cards in the magic lantern fashion. But, Hepworth, Smith, in France, Ferdinand Zecca and, in the US, Edwin S. Porter, among others, would assume more narrative responsibility for the producers with the introduction of title cards.

Second, Hepworth probably started the common thread in early films of parodying the dangers of the newfangled horseless carriage. In another film from 1900, "Explosion of a Motor Car", he took the trick film, which was invented inside a studio by Georges Méliès, outdoors. Apparently, Hepworth was actually an automobile enthusiast, which demonstrates these films were meant to be facetious. In the end, however, it's not so much the car in "How It Feels to Be Run Over" that disrupts, but rather it is the filmmaker, who fiendishly takes a position on the road, and the camera, which by assuming our point-of-view runs us over.

This was amazing work for the time period. If this was a 3D movie I might have had to leave the theater because WOW. While the film was short that was expected for being from 1900. I could've watched this film for hours however.