Come Along, Do! (1898) User Reviews

Shaggy Dog story

[JoeytheBrit · 5/10 · 28 May 2009]

I thought I was missing something here until I read the excellent review by Cineanalyst because, even by early primitive film standards, a lot of nothing seems to be going on here.

Apparently the film was originally made up of two shots - a rarity for 1898 - but the second scene, which apparently takes place in the art shop into which the two elderly couple in the first scene are seen entering, has been lost, which is a shame considering the film's subsequent historical significance. Paul was the main man of British cinema back in Victorian Britain, and it's a shame that his is a name now largely known only to film historians...

Across Scene

[Cineanalyst · 25 December 2007]

"Come Along, Do!", otherwise known as "Exhibition", was originally a two-shot film, but the second shot is now lost. The two shots were both scenes in themselves; that is, they were set in two spatially separate locations. The first, which is intact, is the opening exterior scene of a seemingly lower-class elderly couple partaking in refreshments. Two signs above them read "Art Section", which points left, and "Refreshments", which points right. We can assume they've already been to the right. Two smartly-dressed young ladies pass through the scene and into the doorway to the Art Section. The elderly couple decides to follow suit.

Historians suspect that a direct cut was employed for transition between the two scenes, which would be characteristic of many of R.W. Paul's later productions and, in general, most subsequent movies. A catalogue description reads, "The interior is then shown with the old couple examining the pictures." Two stills of the second scene have survived from one of Paul's catalogues (these are available on the BFI's DVD "RW Paul: The Collected Films", but haven't been so in previous releases of the film, such as on "The Movies Begin" home video set). (Historian John Barnes also appears to have had a few frames of this scene, as he reproduced six frames of it in his third volume of "The Beginnings of the Cinema in England".) These stills show the couple in an art room, with a couple statues and some paintings against the wall. It appears to have been a stationary long shot as was the first scene. In the second still, the husband is gawking at a sculpture of a nude Venus while his wife tugs at his jacket to pull him away. She's saying, "Come Along, Do!"

Simple enough; it's humorous without being crude. It's a historical milestone in cinema, however, for being an early multi-shot film, perhaps the first fictional story film to fluidly display action across two separate scenes. Splices within a scene, generally for a trick effect, were already common, such as in the overly-long-titled films "The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots" (1895) and "Escamotage d'une dame au théâtre Robert Houdin" (The Vanishing Lady) (1896). But, not only were these cuts meant to be inconspicuous, they were within the same scene and shot--the same spatial and temporal dimensions. In a few of James White's films as early as 1897, such as "Return of Lifeboat", there are cuts between shots--shifting perspectives--but those are in nonfiction films and the transitions are rather awkward and not entirely linked to the action in a continuous way such as in "Come Along, Do!"

As is the case with many of the earliest and most elaborate films, this one is based on traditions in other media. As the BFI DVD points out, the film was likely based on a song of the same title, as well as, perhaps, a magic lantern show. John Barnes, in the aforementioned book, has also reproduced two stereographic photographs, which, indeed, bare a resemblance to the film's second scene; moreover, it was also entitled "Come Along, Do!" Therefore, the story here wasn't unique, but Robert W. Paul's introduction of action across two spatially separate scenes (an exterior and interior, no less) within a fictional narrative--the earliest such instance I know of--was a milestone in film history.

(Note: At the posting of this comment, IMDb and, perhaps, a few other sources suggest that James Williamson had a hand in this film. I've entered an update for IMDb, which will hopefully soon correct the error here. In addition to the lack of evidence (at least as far as I know) that Williamson was involved in this film, there is plenty that credits Paul with it. Moreover, it seems unlikely that the two would work together, as they were competitors who worked primarily in two different cities, and there's no suggestion that they ever worked together. Williamson worked in Brighton, and he wasn't that important of a filmmaker or innovator of fiction films yet. Paul, however, was the leading British producer of films at this time, and he had a studio in Muswell Hill, London, where he probably made this film.)

Don't waste your time

[Horst_In_Translation · 2/10 · 13 October 2013]

If there's comedy involved in this short film it surely was lost in translation. Early on we see a man and a women, both not really young anymore, sitting on a bench. The woman has a food basket with her and shares the meal and drinks with the man. I assume they're an item, probably married as their actions seem too familiar for two people who just met. Of course both are dressed pompously just like almost all the people in these early short films, especially the women. As the film continues they seem to enter an art gallery, but we only get to see two stills of what happens there. I guess most of the frames from the second half of the film were destroyed over the years. Quite a shame as the film surely could not have been less interesting in the gallery than it was outside. Not recommended.

A Clever Plot? Really?

[Hitchcoc · 3/10 · 13 May 2019]

I know it's 1898. But without giving away too much of the suspense, this involves a man drinking a soda or something and his wife impatiently waiting for him to finish so they can go to an art exhibit. There you go! I can't hold back my excitement. It's a step up after watching the next to final episode of Game of Thrones.

That time-honoured, agonising debate - Art or refreshments?

[the red duchess · 8/10 · 31 October 2000]

An apparently revolutionary film in that its single frame contains two narratives - in one, an unsophisticated couple stuff themselves outside an art gallery; two snooty, well-dressed ladies pass them by. No, me neither. On the wall are two signs, one pointing towards the art, the other towards 'refreshments'. It would be pompous, if tempting, to see this as an allegory for the future of cinema - our couple hearteningly choose Art, but only after a time-consuming feed.

Pleasant Light Comedy

[Snow Leopard · 24 February 2005]

This pleasant light comedy is fairly amusing, and it is also rather engaging at times. It's simple in concept and in execution, and it's not uproarious or anything of the sort, but instead is an early, simple example of the kind of dry humor that is based on human nature itself, rather than on action or on humorous predicaments.

The whole scenario features a rather elderly couple sitting outside an art exhibit, having a snack before going in. The wife seems to get just a little impatient with her husband, suggesting the title phrase. Nothing fancy or complicated arises, but a couple of little touches work pretty well in creating some light humor.

As with most of the earliest narrative features, the main task of the film-makers was to create a setting and a camera field that could accommodate as much as possible. In this case, they set things up so as to create a view not only of the main couple, but also of enough of their surroundings (in particular, the signs in the background) so as to provide a complete picture of the situation. It also accommodates a couple of other characters who appear briefly.

It's all put together well enough to make pretty good use out of the main idea.

Venus has a lot to answer for

[kekseksa · 11 September 2015]

On the subject of the relationship between this film and the song of the same title by Walter Burnot and Jesse Williams. Not only is the film very definitely based on the song, the gag (although clearly quite comprehensible in itself) was a lot more fun if people knew the song and the story behind it.

The British sculptor John Gibson (1790-1866) exhibited in 1862 a polychrome marble statue called "The Tinted Venus" (now in the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool, if you want to take your spouse and gawp up close, and equally available to view on the internet). The sculpture attracted a good deal of attention because its use of colour (suffusing the entire piece with a pinkish shade) was highly original and naturally it also led to a certain amount of controversy, a good deal of sniggering and....

...a song where a husband is imagined very precisely to be gawping at the pink, naked Venus while his wife complains "Come along, do! What are you staring at? You ought to know better - so come along do!" This of course is precisely what we see in the film or rather would see if we had the missing second part of it. One can see stills on the internet and most videos include them, and, although Venus is looking the other way, she is quite clearly based on Gilbert's famous sculpture.

The scene envisaged in the song had also been issued in the 1870s as a stereo view card (a sort of pseudo-3D lantern-slide)which had been reissued in the 1890s (see Boston Public Library's stereograph collection on flickr.com).

It was not uncommon for early films to be based on songs and, when they were, it was no doubt usual for the song to form part at least of the accompaniment to the film. It is perhaps interesting and instructive to try and imagine oneself in the role of an exhibitor and think how one might choose to organize the accompaniment and the viewing. Might the accompanist not even sing the words of the song at the appropriate moment? Might one not re-run the film a second time so that the audience could then join in? We know sadly little about how interactive film might have been in these pioneering days, but the Paul repertoire was often close to "music-hall" and there must one imagines have been times when the atmosphere of the picture-show came close to that of the popular theatre.

It is a good example too of how films could be at the hub of several different media (in this case a sculpture, a song, a view-card,a film). A more famous example is the original "vamp" film - A Fool There Was, a film based on a play, based on a poem (read in full before the film was shown), based on a painting.....

I am indebted for much of the above to Julie Brown and Annette Davison's The Sound of the Silents in Britain.

Comedy without a laugh?

[bob the moo · 2 March 2008]

I watched this film on a DVD that was rammed with short films from the period. I didn't watch all of them as the main problem with these type of things that their value is more in their historical novelty value rather than entertainment. So to watch them you do need to be put in the correct context so that you can keep this in mind and not watch it with modern eyes. With the Primitives & Pioneers DVD collection though you get nothing to help you out, literally the films are played one after the other (the main menu option is "play all") for several hours. With this it is hard to understand their relevance and as an educational tool it falls down as it leaves the viewer to fend for themselves, which I'm sure is fine for some viewers but certainly not the majority. What it means is that the DVD saves you searching the web for the films individually by putting them all in one place – but that's about it.

While many were still developing the media by setting up shots and capturing everyday (and not so everyday) events for audiences to gasp at, credit to Robert Paul for trying to do more than this with his films, in particular making clever references and trying to entertain audiences. However with this film one has to wonder what he was trying to do. The action seems like a set-up for a punch line or a pay-off as we have two people sat between two places ahead of action. However when the movement comes it is nothing special and certainly not funny. The delivery from the actors is nothing of value either and there is nothing in their performance that draws any value from the scenario.

Normally I like to try and find some historical context or value to the film by what it did but other than filming two separate groups of people having a vague interaction, I cannot find much to commend this film for.

2nd Scene No More

[Tornado_Sam · 30 August 2017]

This film is considered to be the first to use 2 scenes to tell one story, made by the British filmmaker, R. W. Paul. Unfortunately only the first scene survives, sad because the second scene is the one that actually featured the basic gag.

What's here features the outside hall of an art exhibit. A couple is sitting on a bench, eating lunch before they decide to see the exhibit. They enter the doorway on the left, and that's it. None of the comedy from the original appears here, so this one appears to look like a typical actuality short, not a funny little gag film as the original was.

Luckily, 2 still frames from the original 2nd scene do survive, so we can still determine what that scene looked like. One of the stills has the woman looking at a painting, while the man is interested in a nude statue. In the next still* the woman has realized what her husband has been doing, and is tugging on him, apparently making clear of the films' title.

A groundbreaking short, but unfortunately only part of Paul's film can be watched today.

*This still I have recently added to IMDb, and can be viewed in the photo gallery.

A Work of Fiction

[Michael_Elliott · 22 August 2016]

Come Along, Do! (1898)

The majority of the movies that were made during this era were quite simple as production companies would set up a camera and capture something on film. This could be people walking out of a factory, firemen on their way to a fire, a police parade or some sort of dance. This film here is different and one of the earliest examples of some sort of "fiction" being put on the screen but exactly what they were doing is somewhat of a mystery. A man and a woman are sitting on a bench when they eventually stand up and walk into a door. I'm not sure what the director was going for here but you've at least got to give him credit for trying something new. Obviously there's nothing ground- breaking here as the film lasts under a minute but it's interesting for fans of early cinema.