I really put some time in today's movie by investing two and a half minutes! Talk about attention span, people ...
The short I have for you is "The Monster" from 1903 and is by Georges Méliès, so you may know what to expect. It's a kind of magic .... (admit that you sang it)
Here's the very short plot full of spoilers 😉
An Egyptian prince and a priest meet in front of the Sphinx during a full moon.
The priest brings a decorated chest and takes out a skeleton which makes the prince turn away in distress.
Next the priest wraps the skeleton in fabric and it starts a strange dance during which it distorts, gets smaller and taller.
The priest wraps more fabric around the skeleton and when he takes it off again, it has been revived to a beautiful young woman. The prince can't believe it, he reaches out for her longingly ...
... but the priest wraps her up again, lifts her, and throws her at the prince who's shocked to find she has turned into a skeleton again, drops her, and runs after the fleeing priest.
Last week, I boldly claimed that the narrative probably wasn't the important part in these films. Yes, there is a "but" now.
BUT obviously there was more to the story. This film was supposed to have a spoken narration (remember that I mentioned a "benshi" or film narrator in the post on "Namakura Gatana" as well?) which is known from Méliès's catalogs (see the source) and which tells us that the skeleton is the prince's wife.
Has anyone seen "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff? He also tried to revive his love almost 30 years later and didn't succeed, either.
Let this be a warning to you.
People have been fascinated by the old Egypt for a long time and they still are today, in literature, art, movies, science (and I haven't been completely immune to it myself how one of my jewelry pieces inspired by Khepri shows (I hadn't planned it that way, but it's still one of my personal favorites)).
Now the question is - did the priest fail or did he do this on purpose? And who is the monster in this film? What do you think?
Source and further reading:
Fritzi Kramer: The Monster (1903) - A Silent Film Review. On: Movies Silently, October 6, 2017
The short I have for you is "The Monster" from 1903 and is by Georges Méliès, so you may know what to expect. It's a kind of magic .... (admit that you sang it)
Here's the very short plot full of spoilers 😉
An Egyptian prince and a priest meet in front of the Sphinx during a full moon.
 |
| Please note that the Sphinx still has its nose 😉 |
The priest brings a decorated chest and takes out a skeleton which makes the prince turn away in distress.
Next the priest wraps the skeleton in fabric and it starts a strange dance during which it distorts, gets smaller and taller.
The priest wraps more fabric around the skeleton and when he takes it off again, it has been revived to a beautiful young woman. The prince can't believe it, he reaches out for her longingly ...
... but the priest wraps her up again, lifts her, and throws her at the prince who's shocked to find she has turned into a skeleton again, drops her, and runs after the fleeing priest.
Last week, I boldly claimed that the narrative probably wasn't the important part in these films. Yes, there is a "but" now.
BUT obviously there was more to the story. This film was supposed to have a spoken narration (remember that I mentioned a "benshi" or film narrator in the post on "Namakura Gatana" as well?) which is known from Méliès's catalogs (see the source) and which tells us that the skeleton is the prince's wife.
Has anyone seen "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff? He also tried to revive his love almost 30 years later and didn't succeed, either.
Let this be a warning to you.
People have been fascinated by the old Egypt for a long time and they still are today, in literature, art, movies, science (and I haven't been completely immune to it myself how one of my jewelry pieces inspired by Khepri shows (I hadn't planned it that way, but it's still one of my personal favorites)).
Now the question is - did the priest fail or did he do this on purpose? And who is the monster in this film? What do you think?
Source and further reading:
Fritzi Kramer: The Monster (1903) - A Silent Film Review. On: Movies Silently, October 6, 2017
Looks like the monster would be the skeleton (?). Or the priest who brings it back to life (sort of, on and off). I read that this priest is played by Méliès himself!
ReplyDeleteThat's the question. Did the priest have a hunch that it wouldn't work? The way he ran off was very suspicious to me. Or was the priest a monster for even trying?
DeleteYes, he was in others of his movies, too. I bet he enjoyed that!
If the skeleton was the prince’s wife then the priest is the monster, because that was really mean.
ReplyDeleteYour necklace is gorgeous! I can see why it’s one of your favorites. I think it’s one of my favorites too.
Right? He can manage the big dance and distortion and that's it? Sounds fishy to me!
DeleteThank you, Michelle! The best was that I had not planned something like this at all when I started.
I remember seeing this in my college film class but I have little recollection of the end!
ReplyDeleteBasically, the priest just threw what was the skeleton again by then at the prince and then ran, that coward! 😉
DeleteIt's amazing how much storytelling and creativity Méliès packed into just two and a half minutes! I love that knowing the skeleton was actually the prince's wife adds a whole new layer to the film. And now I'm wondering too whether the priest failed or knew exactly what he was doing!
ReplyDeleteGood question! If it was supposed to be a lesson for the prince, he wouldn't have run, would he?
DeleteBeautiful jewelery piece, Cat!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Linda! 😊
DeleteI would say the monster was the priest. He brought the skeleton which had no choice in the matter. That poor prince and his love interest!
ReplyDeletehttps://marshainthemiddle.com/
Maybe the prince should had been smarter than to take the chance? Isn't it funny how interesting such a short film can be?
DeleteThis story does make me wonder. Why did the priest not let the young woman be???
ReplyDeleteI wonder how they decided on the ending. They could have given them a happy one. Was is just for that one trick more?
Delete