For my 1902nd review, cinematic pioneer Georges Méliès' A Trip to the Moon (1902), the silent classic featuring that iconic image of an unhappy moon with a shell lodged in its eye. Based on Jules Verne's De la Terre à la Lune, the film sees a group of astronomers travel to the moon inside a large bullet fired from a huge cannon; once safely on the moon's surface, the scientists explore the terrain and discover a strange race of creatures called the Selenites (portrayed by acrobats from the Folies-Bergere).
I feel like something of a philistine for not absolutely adoring Méliès' A Trip To The Moon: it's an undeniably important work in terms of furthering the art of movie-making, introducing such techniques as cuts and fades, but this classic of fantastical cinema made far less of an impact on me than I expected it to. While the stylised, surreal look of the film is certainly unique, its two dimensional stage scenery and painted backdrops making it feel like an intricate pop-up fairy-tale book featuring live actors, the structure of the narrative, the performances and certain technical aspects left me wanting.
I found much of the action fairly dull and repetitive, particularly the first of several protracted, frustratingly static shots—a bunch of wizard-like astronomers waving their arms around—a scene which I imagine would have been even more dreary if it hadn't been for the English narration pointing out details I would have otherwise missed. I understand that Méliès' static camera technique was probably due to technical limitations of the day, but it does reduce A Trip To The Moon to little more than an elaborate stage production captured on film. The exaggerated performances add to this stagy feel, and the crude special effects do little to help.
For the opportunity to witness several examples of iconic movie imagery in context, and for its naive turn-of-the-century charm, the film is definitely worth watching (it is, after all, not that long), but I cannot for the life of me understand all of the rave reviews.
I feel like something of a philistine for not absolutely adoring Méliès' A Trip To The Moon: it's an undeniably important work in terms of furthering the art of movie-making, introducing such techniques as cuts and fades, but this classic of fantastical cinema made far less of an impact on me than I expected it to. While the stylised, surreal look of the film is certainly unique, its two dimensional stage scenery and painted backdrops making it feel like an intricate pop-up fairy-tale book featuring live actors, the structure of the narrative, the performances and certain technical aspects left me wanting.
I found much of the action fairly dull and repetitive, particularly the first of several protracted, frustratingly static shots—a bunch of wizard-like astronomers waving their arms around—a scene which I imagine would have been even more dreary if it hadn't been for the English narration pointing out details I would have otherwise missed. I understand that Méliès' static camera technique was probably due to technical limitations of the day, but it does reduce A Trip To The Moon to little more than an elaborate stage production captured on film. The exaggerated performances add to this stagy feel, and the crude special effects do little to help.
For the opportunity to witness several examples of iconic movie imagery in context, and for its naive turn-of-the-century charm, the film is definitely worth watching (it is, after all, not that long), but I cannot for the life of me understand all of the rave reviews.