a three-quarter front view of the Statue of Liberty.a three-quarter front view of the Statue of Liberty.a three-quarter front view of the Statue of Liberty.
- Director
Photos
Storyline
Featured review
As an actuality, pointless
The other reviewers of this Edison 1898 documentary have said it all. Filming a statue, with nothing else occurring in frame and essentially no movement at all, is pretty much wasting celluloid on something that could have been caught as a still photo. Why James White, who was a significant character in the filming of the earliest Edison actualities, did not see this pertains to one thing: Edison was so in demand for films and/or so hungry for cash, that they went to the biggest extremes to find subjects audiences would find interesting. Not at all like the Lumiere Brothers, who were more interested in filming subjects that contained movement to wow their viewers, which could have been anything. The Brothers were also interested in composition, which made their work superior to many Edison actualities.
"Statue of Liberty", illustrates this point perfectly. To begin with, the composition of the picture is nothing to write home about: the camera is stationed clearly on a boat, out of the harbor some distance from the statue, and does not create a particularly appealing shot. There is next to no movement in frame at all, nothing to make it work as a motion picture, nothing to keep the view interesting. The most motion one sees is that the boat, being out on the waves, cannot be held in one stationary position and moves so that the composition is just made worse as the statue moves to the side of the frame. So it's the Statue of Liberty folks. That might make this a just a little bit more interesting despite all these flaws, except that even the interesting aspect of the subject is taken away since the same statue is still in existence today. There is no real historical significance at all except the fact it's an old motion picture. What it mainly serves to show is how not to film an actuality. If the view had been a closer one and there would be more action to see in frame as well as more detail, it could have been much better.
"Statue of Liberty", illustrates this point perfectly. To begin with, the composition of the picture is nothing to write home about: the camera is stationed clearly on a boat, out of the harbor some distance from the statue, and does not create a particularly appealing shot. There is next to no movement in frame at all, nothing to make it work as a motion picture, nothing to keep the view interesting. The most motion one sees is that the boat, being out on the waves, cannot be held in one stationary position and moves so that the composition is just made worse as the statue moves to the side of the frame. So it's the Statue of Liberty folks. That might make this a just a little bit more interesting despite all these flaws, except that even the interesting aspect of the subject is taken away since the same statue is still in existence today. There is no real historical significance at all except the fact it's an old motion picture. What it mainly serves to show is how not to film an actuality. If the view had been a closer one and there would be more action to see in frame as well as more detail, it could have been much better.
helpful•10
- Tornado_Sam
- Feb 17, 2020
Details
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content