I thought it important to point out that movies essentially are still just moving pictures. We tend to forget that there is no actual movement in film, but just a lightbulb behind rapidly moving frames, imitating movement. The magic happens when we believe that the pictures come to life
Ok guys I'm back. the thing is there are lots of information here on the subject of how it all started that I couldn't manage to start it all! as a perfectionist I had to have a lot of free time to do it and here I am now! I'm having this Persian book and I'm reading and translate some parts and I dig the information online and share them with you.Let's say the journey is FANTASTIC
It all started by looking at candle lights. and looking at shadows in the day.People understand that they can make shapes on the walls with their hands and a little bit of light which lead to shadow play after some time. Chinese were the people who found what it really is.in the past millennium !
5 decades later, Gerolamo Cardano invented a lens which could make the image clearer.(1501-1576)
An Arab physicist, Ibn al-Haytham, published his Book of Optics in 1021 AD. He created the first pinhole camera after observing how light traveled through a window shutter. Ibn al-Haytham realized that smaller holes would create sharper images. Ibn al-Haytham is also credited with inventing the first camera obscura.
Which was something like this
The earliest extant written record of the camera obscura is to be found in the writings of Mozi (470 to 390 BCE), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism. Mozi correctly asserted that the image in a camera obscura is flipped upside down because light travels in straight lines from its source. His disciples developed this into a minor theory of optics.
A camera obscura (Latin: "dark chamber") is an optical device that led to photography and the photographic camera. The device consists of a box or room with a hole in one side. Light from an external scene passes through the hole and strikes a surface inside, where it is reproduced, rotated 180 degrees (thus upside-down), but with color and perspective preserved. The image can be projected onto paper, and can then be traced to produce a highly accurate representation. The largest camera obscura in the world is on Constitution Hill in Aberystwyth, Wales.
On 24 January 1544 mathematician and instrument maker Reiners Gemma Frisius of Leuven University used one to watch a solar eclipse, publishing a diagram of his method in De Radio Astronimica et Geometrico in the following year.[5] In 1558 Giovanni Batista della Porta was the first to recommend the method as an aid to drawing.
Using mirrors, as in an 18th-century overhead version, it is possible to project a right-side-up image. Another more portable type is a box with an angled mirror projecting onto tracing paper placed on the glass top, the image being upright as viewed from the back.
This was only two pages of the book I've bought so guys do you want me to continue like this or you prefer it with less details?
In my opinion, it is definitely one of the prettiest and well-done music videos of the 90's.
I've posted an embedded video of the film (originally titled Le Voyage dans la Lune) on page 1
This film was directed by the world's first female filmmaker.
It is recognized by film historians as one of the first narrative fictions.
The film was inspired by the popular French fairy tale of the origins of babies,
which tells that baby boys are born from cabbage patches,
while baby girls from rose bushes.
Okay, I'm not sure what I feel about this one. Which is actually why I posted it.
I found it weird to be honest (and not in a good way).
How do you feel about the handling of the actress with the babies in this?
Going to the technical aspect, what I appreciate in general, is how the introduction of fiction in films,
paved the way for a more imaginative production design.
So though the set design and costuming in this is rather simplistic,
it's quite more interesting in comparison with the more
'realistic' props and backdrops of other films during the time.
Now, it seems apt to choose this, since the latest major adaptation
of the fairy tale Cinderella was just released this year (116 years interval!).
It's very interesting to see how much cinema has evolved
by comparing how two major production companies during their time
handle the same material, while using different technical facilities.
I only like this one in parts, particularly the 'transformations,' and 'the waltz.'
I'm not sure about the relevance of some additions like the 'huge clocks' scene.
Did Melies want to emphasize that time is the main antagonist in his version?
Is it also why he left out much of the back-story (esp. the stepmothers and stepsisters)?
Even so, I think it doesn't fully justify the conflict that time caused in this film. Or does it?
Plus, the main object that resolves the conflict, the iconic glass slipper, wasn't even showcased enough.
Then again, considering the duration of the film, I guess that's all that can be done.
I love the sets and the costumes though. As well as the use of cuts to show stage-like magic.
------------
3) An Interesting Story
Director: James Williamson
Producer: Williamson Kinematograph Company
Year: 1904
Country: UK
Slapstick - a type of physical comedy characterized by broad humour, absurd situations,
and vigorous, usually violent action. The slapstick comic more than a mere funnyman or buffoon,
must often be an acrobat, a stunt performer, and something of a magician—a master of uninhibited action and perfect timing.
(Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "slapstick", accessed July 29, 2015, http://www.britannica.com/art/slapstick-comedy.)
When I was young, every time I hear 'silent film' or 'black-and-white film',
the image that crosses my mind was always Charlie Chaplin doing slapstick.
So I thought it interesting (no pun intended) to share this one (though no Chaplin),
and show the beginnings of this comedic style.
What is easily noticeable about this film (like in Cinderella) is the use of multiple shots to narrate the story.
As its director, James Williamson is also one of the pioneers of the film technique 'continuity editing'.
Continuity editing refers to arranging the sequence of shots to suggest a progression of events.
(Cyber College Internet Campus, "Continue Editing", accessed July 29, 2015, http://cybercollege.com/tvp050.htm)
Also, some scenes were shot in actual locations, instead of the studio,
which was still not very popular back then in doing narrative films.
Though I'm not particularly a fan of this type of humor,
I appreciate the film for being one of the first to introduce
this old style of entertainment from the stage into the reel.
*Extra:
I just want to include this because it is said to be the one of the first movies shown in public.
Dickson Greeting
Director: William K.L. Dickson
Production: Edison Studios
Year: 1891
Country: USA
Duration: 3 seconds!
It's really amazing that movies started out as just random scenes or as was said,
the imitation of particular real-life movements, without much to tell.
Not much different from today's personal videos posted on Vine or Instagram.
I only like this one in parts, particularly the 'transformations,' and 'the waltz.'
I'm not sure about the relevance of some additions like the 'huge clocks' scene.
Did Melies want to emphasize that time is the main antagonist in his version?
Is it also why he left out much of the back-story (esp. the stepmothers and stepsisters)?
Even so, I think it doesn't fully justify the conflict that time caused in this film. Or does it?
Plus, the main object that resolves the conflict, the iconic glass slipper, wasn't even showcased enough.
Then again, considering the duration of the film, I guess that's all that can be done.
I love the sets and the costumes though. As well as the use of cuts to show stage-like magic.
Cinderella as a folk tale long predates the now famous Disney incarnation and has many different, sometimes very gruesome, variations.
The Aarne–Thompson system classifies Cinderella as "the persecuted heroine". The story of Rhodopis, about a Greek slave girl who marries the king of Egypt, is considered the earliest known variant of the "Cinderella" story (published 7 BC), and many variants are known throughout the world.
I once had to create a variation of the story as a class assignment. I don't remember anything about it other than the identification technique was somehow based on her teeth rather than a glass slipper (like fingerprints, dental patterns are unique to the individual).
I once had to create a variation of the story as a class assignment. I don't remember anything about it other than the identification technique was somehow based on her teeth rather than a glass slipper (like fingerprints, dental patterns are unique to the individual).
About variations, I understand stories (esp those from folklore) can be subject to different interpretations by storytellers.
It's just that in this particular version, Melies chose to go by the original events (incl. the use of the slipper as identification),
but I feel that the use of time as major conflict and slipper as resolution wasn't portrayed so effectively.
(Or it could be that the main goal for making this was to observe how audiences would
respond to the use of more lavish set designs, costumes, and the use of more visual effects.)
Maybe it's just me though. Was it effective for you? Thanks for sharing some info btw.
About variations, I understand stories (esp those from folklore) can be subject to different interpretations by storytellers.
It's just that in this particular version, Melies chose to go by the original events (incl. the use of the slipper as identification),
but I feel that the use of time as major conflict and slipper as resolution wasn't portrayed so effectively.
(Or it could be that the main goal for making this was to observe how audiences would
respond to the use of more lavish set designs, costumes, and the use of more visual effects.)
Maybe it's just me though. Was it effective for you? Thanks for sharing some info btw.
Nothing in particular stood out to me about the clocks other than enhancing the spectacle of the show. As a magician and filmmaker, he certainly knew his showmanship.
There is a vague sense of self-reference between the brevity of Cinderella's night out and the duration of the film itself although it doesn't seem to be played upon. Certainly the audience, like Cinderella herself, are both being enthralled by the spectacle of it all and leaves us to wish for more.
The magic lantern or Laterna Magica is an early type of image projector employing pictures on sheets of glass. It was developed in the 17th century and commonly used for educational and entertainment purposes.
1646
Athanasius Kircher, a German Jesuit priest, published Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae, in which he improved on della Porta’s work, including arrangements to project using sunlight or candle light, using a convex lens as an objective to focus the images.
Kircher is one of the most famous names in the history of the lantern and is often mistakenly credited with its invention. A later edition of his Ars Magna... from 1671 includes illustrations of magic lanterns projecting pictures.
1671:
A Mystery
Kircher may not have been responsible for these pictures because they show the fairly obvious fault of having no projection lens to focus the images. So in many ways they are very similar optically to Giovanni de Fontana’s lamp or lantern of 1420, even to the extent that the images on the slides are upright as is the image on the screen. This is correct for this kind of lens-less projection, so whoever drew the illustrations probably knew a bit about basic optics, even though the lens is missing.
Willem Wagenaar has suggested (NMLJ Vol. 1 No.3) that the illustrations show point-source projectors. Hermann Hecht (NMLJ Vol. 6 No.1) suggested that when Kircher published the 1671 edition of his book, he had somehow to claim that he thought of the lantern first, and that his lantern was not only much better but much bigger as well. But Kircher did not publish details until 12 years after Christiaan Huygens had a lantern and six years after Samuel Pepys had bought one.
1650 onwards
All over Europe, people such as Dutch astronomer, mathematician and physicist Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) and the Danish mathematician Thomas Rasmussen Walgensten started to develop working models of Lantern Projectors.Huygens had a lantern at least as early as November 1659. His father kept pestering him to send him a lantern so he could “frighten his friends with it”. Christiaan Huygens
Huygens was born in The Hague into a wealthy and comfortable home. His father, a distinguished poet and well-known diplomat, was a friend of many respected European scholars. Rene Descartes was a frequent visitor, and through his influence Huygens developed a firm belief that science could in principle explain all natural phenomena. He constructed the first high-resolution telescope, by perfecting a method of grinding lenses, he designed a special kind of pendulum and used it to produce the first accurate clock, and most famously of all he developed the mathematics to describe the wave nature of light and its propagation through space. Many researchers are coming to the conclusion that if there was one inventor of the Magic Lantern in a usable form then it was most probably Christiaan Huygens.
Thomas Walgensten was the first person to use the term Laterna Magica. Walgensten not only realised the technical and artistic possibilities of the Magic Lantern, but also its economic potential, travelling round Europe demonstrating and selling them. Walgensten's Laterna Magica
Walgensten’s Laterna Magica, drawn by Dechales in 1665.
In 1663 the London optician John Reeves started to make lanterns for sale. A Frenchman, Balthasar de Monconys, recorded how he visited Reeves on 17 May 1663:
“After we had eate, we went to Long Acre to see Mr. Reeves who makes telescopes. But he had none ready and deferred us to another time and also to show us how a bull’s-eye lantern works.”
De Monconys then described the lantern.
The diarist Samuel Pepys was an early customer. He bought a lantern from Reeves on 19 August 1666, a fortnight before the Fire of London. In his diary he wrote “Comes by agreement Mr Reeves, bringing me a lanthorn, with pictures on glass, to make strange things appear on a wall, very pretty.” A later entry tells how he purchased the lantern.
Christiaan Huygens // Walgensten’s Laterna Magica, drawn by Dechales in 1665.
Magic lantern has a cool long history.so...
See you later
so guys do you want me to continue like this or you prefer it with less details?
