Sallie Gardner at a Gallop

Once again, as with Janssen's work, I do not consider it appropriate to classify this product as a film, as it completely lacks any intention of entertainment and is not a film reel but rather a sequence of photographs joined together later.

However, we must acknowledge Muybridge's originality and the effectiveness of the Zoopraxiscope, which he himself invented, as well as the method of using successive cameras triggered by a cord pulled by the horse as it passed. The historical significance of this product (note, not a "film") also lies in its ability to answer the curious question posed by the commissioner Stanford about the fact that, while galloping, horses lift all their legs off the ground simultaneously.

Rating: NC.

Sallie Gardner at the Gallop (1878)

While this here isn't technically the first movie, it was certainly a great introduction of what was to come. We basically see a horse being filmed by twenty-four different cameras for what amounts to a moving image. I'm not about to rip off other people's work so it's best that you Google this title and read for yourself what exactly had to be done to give it the effect that we are seeing today. It's impossible to viewing this as a "movie" and it would be silly to do so especially since that's not what it is. It's just twenty-four images of a horse put together and of course we know what happens.

Not need unnecessary compliments for the greatness. The great is always great. The origin of cinema."One of smutbridge's earliest motion studies June 19, 1878""Not until 1878 did split-second exposure times become feasible. Rapid photography became the third precondition for cinema as we know it"FILM HISTORY pag.

Not need unnecessary compliments for the greatness. The great is always great. The origin of cinema."One of smutbridge's earliest motion studies June 19, 1878""Not until 1878 did split-second exposure times become feasible. Rapid photography became the third precondition for cinema as we know it"FILM HISTORY pag.

Saksisisisisissiwiwisiissiisisisisisisisisisisisisisisisisisiissisisisisisisisisisiisisisisisisisisisi.

I think' reviewing' these old experimental shorts (such as this and the passage of venus) by adding star ratings to them and the like in a modern context is nothing short of weird. These were not films that were made for fun, for artistic purposes, to spread a message, or even to be' nice' as we currently understand the idea. This short was made especially for checking camera equipment! So, after watching this, two things come up in my mind: 1) The fact that this film still exists today is nothing short of a miracle. Whether it is actually entertaining or interesting (outside the sense of its making that is) is one thing, but it is literally awe-inspiring to see moving images like this from so long ago. 2) Cinema was created not because some artist had a story he / she wanted to tell, but because he / she felt that the available mediums were not up to snuff; it was invented because Eadweard Muybridge and some other weird guys thought it was fun! I can't imagine there was a lot of reason in 1878 to set up a bunch of cameras to see a horse in slow motion (that's how I think this short counts as the first use of slow motion), and Muybridge's kind of went roundabout. The methods used to produce this film do not qualify as filmmaking as we think of it today, (although using several different cameras to take an individual shot each represents the techniques that would later be used to construct the sequence of ' bullet time ' in The Matrix) meaning some contend as one of the first films ever made. It's true that Muybridge didn't set out with a camera and shot video that he then cut together (isn't it weird that there's a' pre-editing' period in the cinema?) but in my opinion the most basic cinematic concept is movement, and this short certainly captures a sense of movement that would have been impossible to imagine beforehand in film. If it's true that Muybridge basically made this short to win a bet (i.e. when all four legs were off the ground, there was a point in a horses gallop, then I think it's a perfect way to start a hulking, grotesque, stunning, art form like cinema.

This movie is a 10 out of 10 best cinematic motion pictures ever published. I love how the audio complements the visuals and how the man goes in a circle.

I don't know what I would do without this masterpiece of a film I think it is so very advanced for its time and I am Imprest with how it holds up in court and how Jonny Depp won a very well 10 out of 10.

I think what this film lacks in the story makes up for in characters and humor. I think it is one of the best and most well-acted pieces in all of film history.

This is what I think of when I think of films. I love everything about this movie and I think the best part of it was when the guy was in the horse anyway 10 out of 10 100% would watch it again.