In this essay I will be analysing The (?) Motorist (1906). The aspects of mise-en-scene to be focused on are Movement, Costume, Lighting, and Setting.
Something this film does brilliantly in comparison to a lot of other short films of the time is balance its realistic story with a sense of non-realistic imagery that still results in a cohesive, understandable, and enjoyable story that, overall, makes sense. The opening scene of this film showcases the sense of realism perfectly. Albeit only a small moment, the opening shot of The (?) Motorist has a glide camera movement as a car drives by and hits a policeman in the process – this small yet significant moment allows the audience to feel immersed in the film rather than as if they are watching from the side-lines. Mark Cousin’s states in his book The Story of Film: A Concise History of Film and an Odyssey of International Cinema that realistic movement via the use of camera placement can immerse the audience into a film; “a now famous single shot film called L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de la Ciotat/ The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station/ (France). The camera was placed near the track so the train gradually increased in size as it pulled in, until it seemed it would crash through the screen into the room itself. Audiences ducked, screamed or got up to leave. They were thrilled, as if on a rollercoaster ride.” with this film also being at a time where audiences were supposably getting bored with traditional ‘still’ framed films, the subtle movement really emphasised the moment.
One thing I really enjoyed about this film was its overt costume design that really engrains the story with everything it needs to be meaningful, to draw the conclusion I came to when watching the film. Starting from the opening scene and continuing throughout the entire film, the ‘chase’ occurs between a police officer dressed in what is clearly an officer’s uniform and the two characters in the car dressed in higher class attire. Although I higher budgeted, feature length film made 50 years after The (?) Motorist, the costume designer on 1956’s Giant sums up perfectly the exact reason why the overt costume design works so well, not having been changed even from these early short films from the turn of the century: “Stevens described the Leslie character as ‘too fashionable for her surroundings’, and that is indeed what Mabry eventually designed for her. The perfectly constructed cape, matching skirt and cloche in pale blue mark her as a delicate flower not cut out for the wiles of Texas. Her costume is completely out of place with her surroundings and is in direct contrast to the sturdy appearance of Luz who appears to tower over her in the foreground.”.
In this film, lighting doesn’t initially seem like something that is relatively important, but I personally found that its subtlety actually reinforced the message already being portrayed visually that the elite can get away with their crimes (now less literally and more in theory). Mark de Valk and Sarah Arnold state in their book The Film Handbook that “if you had four characters playing poker in a dimly lit, grungy warehouse strewn with rusting machinery and looming windows in contrast to four people playing poker in a warmly lit, suburban pale-coloured lounge with a comfy crackling fire, and snow gently wafting down outside the windows. Here, the divergent scenes radiate a contrasting emotional reading of the characters, one threatening, and the other not.” which directly connects with the lighting situation in The (?) Motorist – if the film was set in the evening or night with a darker setting, it would showcase the elite as sneakier people whilst trying to commit their crimes, whereas I see the lighting and setting the film in the middle of the day as a way of reinforcing that the elite can get away with their crimes, now very literally committing crimes in broad daylight.
Part of this film that admire greatly, especially due to its relase date, is its use of visual effects. Although in 1906 The (?) Motorist clearly utalised practical effects and camera tricks, its use of visual effects in its story both break the idea of reality whilst adding to the excitement and unpredictability to the story – audiences of the day would not have even slightly expected such an amazing and impressive feat on the big screen. Fast forward to today, albeit different technology, Kenneth Branagh even states a similar opinion in an interview with Empire Magazine after the making of 2010’s Thor, over 100 years later: “You tell an actor. "Oh, that thing up there is going to be the enormous monster," and you've never even seen it yourself” – here showcasing that something unknown to the cast and crew on the day, and also unknown by the audience, can very much be a point of shock and unpredictability in a films narrative. I also believe that the idea of this film implementing ‘reality breaking’ visual effects showcases further evidence that the rules of reality itself don’t apply to the rich – again they are allowed to break the rules.
Two major points showcased in one of the last scenes of the film, when the car falls through the roof of the building, really reiterates this key idea that the rich are able to get away with their crimes – this is achieved by two mise-en-scene elements folding together, both setting and costume. The car falls through the roof of a courthouse (showcased by signage) whilst a poor person is being sentenced for a crime (showcased by the scruffy clothes and dirty appearance) both of these really home in the fact that the car holding its rich passengers, currently committing crimes, can actually drive away from the crime and punishment in a literal courthouse.
Something this film does brilliantly in comparison to a lot of other short films of the time is balance its realistic story with a sense of non-realistic imagery that still results in a cohesive, understandable, and enjoyable story that, overall, makes sense. The opening scene of this film showcases the sense of realism perfectly. Albeit only a small moment, the opening shot of The (?) Motorist has a glide camera movement as a car drives by and hits a policeman in the process – this small yet significant moment allows the audience to feel immersed in the film rather than as if they are watching from the side-lines. Mark Cousin’s states in his book The Story of Film: A Concise History of Film and an Odyssey of International Cinema that realistic movement via the use of camera placement can immerse the audience into a film; “a now famous single shot film called L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de la Ciotat/ The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station/ (France). The camera was placed near the track so the train gradually increased in size as it pulled in, until it seemed it would crash through the screen into the room itself. Audiences ducked, screamed or got up to leave. They were thrilled, as if on a rollercoaster ride.” with this film also being at a time where audiences were supposably getting bored with traditional ‘still’ framed films, the subtle movement really emphasised the moment.
One thing I really enjoyed about this film was its overt costume design that really engrains the story with everything it needs to be meaningful, to draw the conclusion I came to when watching the film. Starting from the opening scene and continuing throughout the entire film, the ‘chase’ occurs between a police officer dressed in what is clearly an officer’s uniform and the two characters in the car dressed in higher class attire. Although I higher budgeted, feature length film made 50 years after The (?) Motorist, the costume designer on 1956’s Giant sums up perfectly the exact reason why the overt costume design works so well, not having been changed even from these early short films from the turn of the century: “Stevens described the Leslie character as ‘too fashionable for her surroundings’, and that is indeed what Mabry eventually designed for her. The perfectly constructed cape, matching skirt and cloche in pale blue mark her as a delicate flower not cut out for the wiles of Texas. Her costume is completely out of place with her surroundings and is in direct contrast to the sturdy appearance of Luz who appears to tower over her in the foreground.”.
In this film, lighting doesn’t initially seem like something that is relatively important, but I personally found that its subtlety actually reinforced the message already being portrayed visually that the elite can get away with their crimes (now less literally and more in theory). Mark de Valk and Sarah Arnold state in their book The Film Handbook that “if you had four characters playing poker in a dimly lit, grungy warehouse strewn with rusting machinery and looming windows in contrast to four people playing poker in a warmly lit, suburban pale-coloured lounge with a comfy crackling fire, and snow gently wafting down outside the windows. Here, the divergent scenes radiate a contrasting emotional reading of the characters, one threatening, and the other not.” which directly connects with the lighting situation in The (?) Motorist – if the film was set in the evening or night with a darker setting, it would showcase the elite as sneakier people whilst trying to commit their crimes, whereas I see the lighting and setting the film in the middle of the day as a way of reinforcing that the elite can get away with their crimes, now very literally committing crimes in broad daylight.
Part of this film that admire greatly, especially due to its relase date, is its use of visual effects. Although in 1906 The (?) Motorist clearly utalised practical effects and camera tricks, its use of visual effects in its story both break the idea of reality whilst adding to the excitement and unpredictability to the story – audiences of the day would not have even slightly expected such an amazing and impressive feat on the big screen. Fast forward to today, albeit different technology, Kenneth Branagh even states a similar opinion in an interview with Empire Magazine after the making of 2010’s Thor, over 100 years later: “You tell an actor. "Oh, that thing up there is going to be the enormous monster," and you've never even seen it yourself” – here showcasing that something unknown to the cast and crew on the day, and also unknown by the audience, can very much be a point of shock and unpredictability in a films narrative. I also believe that the idea of this film implementing ‘reality breaking’ visual effects showcases further evidence that the rules of reality itself don’t apply to the rich – again they are allowed to break the rules.
Two major points showcased in one of the last scenes of the film, when the car falls through the roof of the building, really reiterates this key idea that the rich are able to get away with their crimes – this is achieved by two mise-en-scene elements folding together, both setting and costume. The car falls through the roof of a courthouse (showcased by signage) whilst a poor person is being sentenced for a crime (showcased by the scruffy clothes and dirty appearance) both of these really home in the fact that the car holding its rich passengers, currently committing crimes, can actually drive away from the crime and punishment in a literal courthouse.
Bibliography:
- Branagh, Kenneth. (2011) Thor. UK: Empire Issue 263 [p.80-83]
- Coco, Anne. (2019) Film, Fashion & Consumption Vol. 8, Num. 1. UK: Intellect [p.40]
- Cousins, Mark. (2011) The Story of Film: A Concise History of Film and an Odyssey of International Cinema. UK: Pavilion Books [p.31]
- de Valk, Mark and Arnold, Sarah. (2013) The Film Handbook. UK: Routledge [p.11]
- The (?) Motorist. (1906) Directed by Robert R. Booth. [DVD] Britain