This is the lady whose graceful interpretations of the poetry of motion has made this dance so popular of recent years. - From 'The Phonoscope' (1899)This is the lady whose graceful interpretations of the poetry of motion has made this dance so popular of recent years. - From 'The Phonoscope' (1899)This is the lady whose graceful interpretations of the poetry of motion has made this dance so popular of recent years. - From 'The Phonoscope' (1899)
- Director
- Star
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe first film to be banned in England and America.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Edison: The Invention of the Movies (2005)
Featured review
This is a splendid example of any early "exploitation" film and of course, whatever sober title they may have given the films in their catalogues, the film companies were all here in the business of exploiting the ephemeral notoriety of the coochie-coochie or belly-dancers.
Mutoscope as usual set the ball rolling with its March 1896 film of Little Egypt, originally produced seemingly for their first peepshow-viewer. If so all the ascriptions are probably wrong. Little Egypt was more likely to have been either Farida Mazar Spyropoulos or Ashea Wabe. Mutoscope went on to make three more short films of her in 1897. I know of no copies of these films.
Edison was not slow to follow (July 1896) and it is he who filmed Fatima Djemille or Djamile as Fatima, the Muscle Dancer or Fatima's Cocchie-Couchie Dance (surely the name by which it was popularly known) in 1896 and again as Fatima in 1897. It is the first of these films which appears on youtube variously as Little Egypt 1896 and Little Egypt Dances for Edison (no catalogue title refers to her as "Little Egypt") and as Fatima's Coochie-Couchie Dance (annotated version by the Cinémathèque française) Lubin also filmed coochie-coochie dances using goodness knows what artistes. It would not have been beyond Lubin to have dressed himself or one of his family up for the part.
The compilation film that appears in Youtube as "Little Egyot" and elsewhere as "Little Egypt (Fatima Djemille) 1896 Edison" appears to be poor-quality stock footage from some more ethnic films of belly-dancing (most probably French) shot in Morocco intercut with clips from the Edison film.
Although these dancers did get to perform at World Fairs (and this was often signalled in the catalogues), they really owed their notoriety to performances "in the altogether" at private society stag functions ("bachelor dinners") which invariably got raided by the police. So it is not surprising that the films attracted censorship (which would not have bothers the film companies one bit) which might take the form of "barring" across the screen as in the youtube version but it could take the form of any blot or "stain" covering the "naughty bits". In one case, Chicago censors supposedly required the stain in question to the in the shape of New England (or did that bright idea actually come from the film company?). Unquestionably the whole game of censorship was part of the marketing strategy involved with these films, just, as, for instance, the hoary myth about audiences running scared of approaching trains on the screen had similarly been exploited to advertise train films. Stuart Blackton once claimed to have an ambulance in readiness for anyone who fainted.....
What is interesting to notice is the wide degree of collusion involved in the process of "exploitation" which is typically just as dependent on the willingness of Puritan USA to be shocked as it is on the film-makers desire to shock. Forget the girls, who are fairly unimportant in the whole process. The organisers of the stag events were themselvea impressarios of a kind (one of the belly-dance events was organised by P. T. Barnum!!) The police raids and the prurient interrogations that followed (that is where "in the altogether" comes from) were an equally important element in establishing notoriety. The World Fairs played a significant role in providing a sort of spurious respectability. The original Little Egypt film was made by Mutoscope in association with the marketing company, The Magic Introduction Company. Then came the dupes from Edison and Lubin and the 1897 follow-ups. And the censors, by making a silly fuss, effectively helped the film-makers to market their products.....
So there is no innocence anywhere here (see also my review of "Tenderlon at Night"). Exploitation, exploitation, exploitation....And why not?
For more authentic footage of belly-dancing made for a non-puritan audience see Segundo de Chomón's beautifully hand-coloured Danse des Ouled-Naid made for Pathé in 1902.
Mutoscope as usual set the ball rolling with its March 1896 film of Little Egypt, originally produced seemingly for their first peepshow-viewer. If so all the ascriptions are probably wrong. Little Egypt was more likely to have been either Farida Mazar Spyropoulos or Ashea Wabe. Mutoscope went on to make three more short films of her in 1897. I know of no copies of these films.
Edison was not slow to follow (July 1896) and it is he who filmed Fatima Djemille or Djamile as Fatima, the Muscle Dancer or Fatima's Cocchie-Couchie Dance (surely the name by which it was popularly known) in 1896 and again as Fatima in 1897. It is the first of these films which appears on youtube variously as Little Egypt 1896 and Little Egypt Dances for Edison (no catalogue title refers to her as "Little Egypt") and as Fatima's Coochie-Couchie Dance (annotated version by the Cinémathèque française) Lubin also filmed coochie-coochie dances using goodness knows what artistes. It would not have been beyond Lubin to have dressed himself or one of his family up for the part.
The compilation film that appears in Youtube as "Little Egyot" and elsewhere as "Little Egypt (Fatima Djemille) 1896 Edison" appears to be poor-quality stock footage from some more ethnic films of belly-dancing (most probably French) shot in Morocco intercut with clips from the Edison film.
Although these dancers did get to perform at World Fairs (and this was often signalled in the catalogues), they really owed their notoriety to performances "in the altogether" at private society stag functions ("bachelor dinners") which invariably got raided by the police. So it is not surprising that the films attracted censorship (which would not have bothers the film companies one bit) which might take the form of "barring" across the screen as in the youtube version but it could take the form of any blot or "stain" covering the "naughty bits". In one case, Chicago censors supposedly required the stain in question to the in the shape of New England (or did that bright idea actually come from the film company?). Unquestionably the whole game of censorship was part of the marketing strategy involved with these films, just, as, for instance, the hoary myth about audiences running scared of approaching trains on the screen had similarly been exploited to advertise train films. Stuart Blackton once claimed to have an ambulance in readiness for anyone who fainted.....
What is interesting to notice is the wide degree of collusion involved in the process of "exploitation" which is typically just as dependent on the willingness of Puritan USA to be shocked as it is on the film-makers desire to shock. Forget the girls, who are fairly unimportant in the whole process. The organisers of the stag events were themselvea impressarios of a kind (one of the belly-dance events was organised by P. T. Barnum!!) The police raids and the prurient interrogations that followed (that is where "in the altogether" comes from) were an equally important element in establishing notoriety. The World Fairs played a significant role in providing a sort of spurious respectability. The original Little Egypt film was made by Mutoscope in association with the marketing company, The Magic Introduction Company. Then came the dupes from Edison and Lubin and the 1897 follow-ups. And the censors, by making a silly fuss, effectively helped the film-makers to market their products.....
So there is no innocence anywhere here (see also my review of "Tenderlon at Night"). Exploitation, exploitation, exploitation....And why not?
For more authentic footage of belly-dancing made for a non-puritan audience see Segundo de Chomón's beautifully hand-coloured Danse des Ouled-Naid made for Pathé in 1902.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Fatima, Muscle Dancer
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 minute
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content