Upon reflection of the films studied over the course of two weeks, surprises seep from the intricate cinematic workings of early cinema –  more specifically during the 1890s to the 1910s. Not only did the extensive repertoire of early cinema surprise us, but we were captivated by witnessing the steady progression of narratives throughout early European film; such as the social documentary works of Cricks and Martin, to the impressive construction of early narratives directed by Cecil Hepworth. Furthermore, as a group we didn’t overlook the industry surrounding film, as we didn’t want to brandish the early workings of cinema as a self-contained entity – it is much more three dimensional.  

During a time of stylistic change within 1905 – 1914, the progression of film is ever more apparent. Changes in length, narratives and multi-shot films came to fruition as cinema developed and transformed into a business amidst the structural reformation wrought by Edison, and his implementation of ‘Motion Picture Patents’. Issued to gain complete control over the new industry, litigation processes were implemented with the intent to license equipment for use within the film market. Stabilisation was only reached during 1908 where the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) was introduced to avoid the perpetual counter-suing war between Edison and the American Mutoscope Company. As a group, we were surprised by the fact that it is not only visual cinema that is wrought in complexity, but the intricacy of the cinematic industry surrounding it cannot be understated.

The complexity of cinematic structures and staging enhanced our appreciation for film as we moved towards the larger, more dominant European film companies throughout the 1910s such as Pathé Frères, Gaumont and Film D’Art, and compared them to that of Nordic cinema. Our surprise was further pursued by the contrast in European film styles; particularly throughout the work of Victor Sjöstöm and his silent film ‘Ingeborg Holm’ (1913). We noticed that he drew on specific conventions most often adopted by Swedish production companies. The film opens with a beautiful setting of an allotment; a convention of the time, as most Swedish films accentuated the natural beauty of the Nordic landscape. However, it is throughout the silent film that Sjöstöm captures our attention through contrasting the beauty of the landscape to the clinical setting of a workhouse, wherein Ingeborg spirals into madness. This particular contrast in mood was surprising as it was relatively complex and innovative for the time – it was intriguing to see how easily early cinema could evoke certain emotions and then deconstruct them and transform them into something entirely different.

Authenticity is achieved during the early Italian cinematic movement of the 1910s (albeit starting to produce films later than France) and can be specifically narrowed down to the impressive ‘neorealism’ period. The ‘neorealism’ period involves using people who were not professional actors to occupy space within the background; drawing on the inclusion of cultural elements such as authentic, realistic traditional costume in order to add realistic portrayals of cultural environments. Films produced in Italy were highly innovative for the time, drawing on biblical and historical narratives and transforming the works into an epic repertoire of longer narrative films. Cinema in Italy was regarded as a higher art form, perhaps drawing a similarity to that of the work from Film D’Art. Established in 1908, Film D’Art debated heavily on what the real meaning of cinema is and demanded that it represented cinematic prestige, to be derived from literature and to represent serious social and political topics. This was surprising as we were unaware that during this particular time in cinematic history, distinct similarities could be drawn between all arenas of film, perhaps arguing that despite cinema being so intrinsic and multi-faceted, cinema from different periods must be considered as their own entity with alternative conventions relevant to the time, cultural environments and social and political climates.

Analysis of film history requires a thorough understanding of the integral components which led to the creation of early cinema. The natural and observable progression seen across film’s historical landscape was the extension of the narrative and therefore a growth towards feature films with increasingly complex storylines. The physical film itself was a highly flammable and unpredictable substance which cautioned filmmaker’s as their art was threatened, so films gradually extended their duration once the base material was treated proficiently or indeed was developed. For instance, a comparison between the lengths of one of the earliest versus one of the most contemporary films we have studied, demonstrates the extremity of the elaboration in running time. Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (The Lumière Brothers, 1895) is under a minute long whereas Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016) is almost 2 hours which is not unusual for modern productions. This demonstrates how the physical components of film, including the technicalities, directly impact the way film is received by an audience and by extension, what it offers in terms of pleasure and diversion.

Challenges can arise when analysing films from the early 20th Century (1900’s). This is because of their depiction of the actuality of the storyline they are trying to portray. An example of this is through the film made by Cricks and Martin titled “Peek Frean and Co’.’s Biscuit Works (1906)”. This is where the audience is given a tour of the inner workings of a factory; as the camera passes through the factory we see a slight insight into the manufacturing process whilst also orchestrating the physical mechanics of the factory itself. This is a problem for film historians of today due to the present day films having greater depth into the depiction of their individual storylines and actualities, that appeals to more than one form of audience’s interests. On the other hand, back in the 1900s the actuality of the storyline being told by the film pioneers of the 20th Century such as Cricks and Martin were lacking and limited thus resulting in these films being perceived as tedious or labourious. This can make problems arise when trying to analyse these sort of films due to the fact when analysing or watching the film the interest into the film itself is already lacking.

Another challenge of working with Early Cinema is approaching the content with an open mind. Growing up in the 21st Century we have been exposed to a very different visual execution, perhaps acquiring certain expectations, that may contrast to an individual from the period 1895-1910. Perhaps the most obvious example is the lack of colour, or when colour began to be introduced it was created through hand painting, tinting or toning, producing a very different look, which is more unusual to us as a group. The challenge now is to remind ourselves that one time period is not superior than the other. We need to treat early cinema as its own entity and not compare it to modern films as if one is better than the other.