Statue of Liberty (1898) User Reviews

Of no particular value

[Anamon · 7 June 2009]

"Statue of Liberty" is exemplary for what was wrong with so many of the Edison short subjects of the time. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how to create an interesting actuality film, ignoring any of the strengths inherent to the still relatively new medium.

The Lumière brothers, thanks to their background in photography, at least knew how to frame and compose an interesting picture. In an even stronger contrast, at the very same time Georges Méliès was constantly pushing this new art form to its limits, combining jump cuts and multiple exposure with stage tricks in order to create one stunning effect after another, really measuring the potential of motion pictures.

But there are also many interesting actualities in Edison's own catalog. Depictions (or reenactments) of important events with famous people, that allowed the audience to get a glimpse of historical moments they were not able to witness in person. The maker of "Statue of Liberty", however, obviously put no thought in his choice of subject at all. People already knew what the statue looked like, and pictures in a newspaper were far more suited for the purpose. As another comment already pointed out, it offers absolutely nothing over a single photograph. It wastes hundreds of frames where one would have been sufficient. To make matters even worse, the camera being fixed to the boat makes the statue slowly drift out of the frame.

There are so many interesting films to watch from the 19th century, if you can find them. Even the bad ones are usually worth watching today, simply because they give you a glimpse of life as it took place over a hundred years ago, or because they give you an idea of what that society was interested in, how they thought about the issues of their day. None of this is true for "Statue of Liberty", and I cannot help but suspect that back then, people found it just as pointless as you would find it today. The irony? That reading about why you should not bother watching it probably took you longer than it would have taken you to watch it and find out for yourself.

A movie of a statue

[boblipton · 2/10 · 7 August 2002]

I would suppose that an American in a theater in 1898, watching a film program of short films from around the world, would be caught up in the excitement of a film of the Statue of Liberty. If you stop and think about it, though, what you have here is a film of a statue. This differs from a photograph of the Statue of Liberty in that.... what? There is no movement, just the Statue of Liberty, right profile. No people, no flags rippling in the wind, no seagulls flapping past to mar the unmoving image of the Statue of Liberty. This goes on for thirty seconds. Andy Warhol, look out.

As an actuality, pointless

[Tornado_Sam · 17 February 2020]

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.