At the Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy (in October 2006) I saw a movie which purports to be 'How the Professor Fooled the Burglars'. The film screened at the Sacile festival was a print on loan from the University of South Carolina.
Here we have a movie -- although we don't know for certain WHICH movie -- that shows how very dicey is the business of silent-film history and scholarship. When this short film surfaced with no introductory titles, USC's film curator Greg Wilsbacher tentatively identified it as a production of the Vitagraph studio, based on the patterned backdrop and several other traits which this movie shares with known Vitagraph productions. IMDb's credits list this as an Edison movie, but that isn't necessarily a discrepancy: some movies distributed by Edison during this period were actually made by Vitagraph and then sold outright to Edison for distribution. After comparing this movie's content to existing lists of Edison film titles, Wilsbacher has tentatively decided -- probably correctly -- that this movie is 'How the Professor Fooled the Burglars'. IMDb's webpage gives a synopsis of that film, quoting the Edison catalogue.
Now, here's the problem: the movie I saw at Sacile doesn't match that synopsis ... or, rather, it does but with discrepancies. The titular professor has only ONE visitor in this movie, and there are no visual clues to indicate that the visitor is a burglar. The short movie is basically a trick film: an excuse for some Melies-like stunts for the purpose of baffling the professor's visitor, with comical results.
But, since this movie contradicts the Edison synopsis, then it must be a different movie, aye? Perhaps not. It's very possible that the copy-writer for the Edison catalogue simply didn't bother to view this movie before writing about it. (I would never do such a thing, of course, but it's been known to happen.) Maybe some publicist consciously lied, deciding that burglars (plural) would make this movie sound more interesting than a visitor (singular). I don't know. Until and unless another movie surfaces which more accurately fits the description in Edison's catalogue, I believe that Mr Wilsbacher is correct, and this movie was indeed released as 'How the Professor Fooled the Burglars'. On its own merits as an amusing trick film, and as a cautionary example of how silent-film historians must tread very carefully indeed, I'll rate this epic 9 out of 10.
Here we have a movie -- although we don't know for certain WHICH movie -- that shows how very dicey is the business of silent-film history and scholarship. When this short film surfaced with no introductory titles, USC's film curator Greg Wilsbacher tentatively identified it as a production of the Vitagraph studio, based on the patterned backdrop and several other traits which this movie shares with known Vitagraph productions. IMDb's credits list this as an Edison movie, but that isn't necessarily a discrepancy: some movies distributed by Edison during this period were actually made by Vitagraph and then sold outright to Edison for distribution. After comparing this movie's content to existing lists of Edison film titles, Wilsbacher has tentatively decided -- probably correctly -- that this movie is 'How the Professor Fooled the Burglars'. IMDb's webpage gives a synopsis of that film, quoting the Edison catalogue.
Now, here's the problem: the movie I saw at Sacile doesn't match that synopsis ... or, rather, it does but with discrepancies. The titular professor has only ONE visitor in this movie, and there are no visual clues to indicate that the visitor is a burglar. The short movie is basically a trick film: an excuse for some Melies-like stunts for the purpose of baffling the professor's visitor, with comical results.
But, since this movie contradicts the Edison synopsis, then it must be a different movie, aye? Perhaps not. It's very possible that the copy-writer for the Edison catalogue simply didn't bother to view this movie before writing about it. (I would never do such a thing, of course, but it's been known to happen.) Maybe some publicist consciously lied, deciding that burglars (plural) would make this movie sound more interesting than a visitor (singular). I don't know. Until and unless another movie surfaces which more accurately fits the description in Edison's catalogue, I believe that Mr Wilsbacher is correct, and this movie was indeed released as 'How the Professor Fooled the Burglars'. On its own merits as an amusing trick film, and as a cautionary example of how silent-film historians must tread very carefully indeed, I'll rate this epic 9 out of 10.
