Le grand Méliès (1952) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Tribute to the Great Melies
gavin69422 September 2014
A biography of the pioneer film director Georges Méliès, featuring his son André playing Georges, and with shots of his second wife, aged 90.

Anyone unfamiliar with Georges Melies should look into his work. Other than perhaps Edison, few could be said to pioneer film in such a big way. Making countless short stories, he devised numerous trick shots and techniques that have been used for over a century since.

Franju is an appropriate director to tackle the subject. Of course, all filmmakers owe a debt to Melies, but it seems appropriate that a Frenchman would make a nice tribute to the man's life and involve his family in the production.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A familiar look into how it all began
Horst_In_Translation1 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
"Le grand Méliès" is a French black-and-white short film with documentary elements from 1952, so this one is already over 65 years old and it is among the more known career efforts by writer and director Georges Franju. It's an early, but not very early career effort from him. When it was released, Méliès had already been dead for almost 15 years, but his significant other was still alive and we get to see her in here on several occasions, like towards the end when she buys flowers for her late man's grave. This film is a family affair altogether as she is not the only Méliès family member included in this one. Not at all. Méliès' son plays his father and I think it is the granddaughter who does some narrating. All in all, I would say that this short film offers at least as much from the audible side than from the visual. What we hear is at least as memorable, maybe more memorable, compared to what we see. Which is quite ironic given the fact we heard nothing in Méliès' original works back then, but yeah this is not supposed to say what we see is bad or mediocre or anything, it is still pretty good as we see the movie magic from the master's works, here and there some nice recordings from Méliès' sets. Just what we hear is so so informative and there is no denying that this is not just one of the best short films of its respective year, but one of the best films as a whole. People should really see this one. It is the second time I watched it now and it was (almost) as good as the first time. Quite a shame that cinema audiences who go watch Avengers, Hobbits, Beasts and all kinds of other film phenomenons these days have no clue who Georges Méliès was. Allmost as if he was right when he struggled with his craft and burnt so much of his efforts. But he wasn't right. He was a pioneer and a genius, one of the most defining, probably the most defining, man from the very early years of cinema. His vision was groundbreaking without a doubt. So give this short film a go and if you haven't then go see Scorsese's Hugo afterwards, in which Ben Kingsley brings Méliès back to life as well in a truly memorable manner. But now back to this one here. I highly recommend checking it out. A must-see for film students, a good watch for anybody else who is interested in more than just explosions, modern visual effects and teenage schmaltz movies. Film at its most essential.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brief and Flawed Docudrama
Cineanalyst24 January 2008
This docudrama by Georges Franju isn't especially enlightening, interesting, or faithful to the career of Georges Méliès. It's, however, rather brief at about half an hour in length, and it may be a useful introduction to those unfamiliar with Méliès, who was one of early cinema's most influential and entertaining pioneers. Yet, even for an introduction, I recommend the biographical documentary "La Magie Méliès" (1997) instead. In "La Grand Méliès", Georges Méliès's son André plays his father, but unfortunately, he apparently can't act; he's lumbering, which seems entirely inappropriate to the exuberant performances his father gave in his own films. That André plays it mute and that much of the film plays out as a silent film with narration is also a mixed blessing: it seems faithful to silent films and the stage pantomime that influenced Méliès, but the filmmakers seem unsure of such territory, and the stiff performance by André is the result. Additionally, the film-making, in general, appears incongruous.

Factually, the film's narrator incorrectly says the year 1896 for the first Lumière program. Méliès, in fact, attended their first cinema screening on 28 December 1895. I wonder, however, if this was a mistake in the English translation of the film, because it seems odd that a French filmmaker would mistake these dates. Yet, from there, the film implies that Méliès's first trick films employed his stage magic, rather than cinematic magic. A scene of a disappearance of a woman, by her climbing below the stage, is shown. Actually, Méliès's first films tended to be actuality films like those by the Lumière brothers, but almost from the beginning, such as with "The Vanishing Lady" (Escamotage d'une dame au théâtre Robert Houdin) (1896), Méliès was already stopping the camera and editing the film for disappearance and substitution effects.

On the other hand, they're correct about the test exhibition for "A Trip to the Moon", which was to justify the film's high price to exhibitors. The film also provides a brief glimpse of Méliès's studio and the stage effects that were performed inside it for his films. Moreover, given the scholarship of 1952, one has to expect such a film to be factually lacking and potentially erroneous in parts. Additionally, clips are shown from Méliès's films "The Man with the Rubber Head" (L' Homme à la tête en caoutchouc) (1901), "A Trip to the Moon" (Le Voyage dans la lune) (1902), "The Music Lover" (Le Mélomane) (1903) and "The Merry Frolics of Satan" (Les Quatre cents farces du diable) (1906).

Franju, along with the likes of Henri Langlois, was an early film preservationist, and this film of his in particular is said to have been important in reviving interest in Méliès among a contemporary generation of film scholars. Today, a new surge of appreciation for the pioneer cinema magician likewise seems to be on its way.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed