The record, as it exists, is hazy and will continue to be. So much is culled from subjective memory. Exactly who truly can be credited with what particular cinematic firsts? More research and preservation is needed, especially concerning these fleeting earliest days. It took a true magician and showman to create the first magical subjects on film. It also took a talented and creative woman to fashion film programs that would be of interest to women. Since women would be ticket-purchasing movie patrons, it would stand to reason that films should exist which would appeal to them. This is not to say that films of interest to specific audiences (say, children and the elderly) should be produced by, say, children and elderly filmmakers, respectively. But since trends are usually dictated by what is popular at the box office, groups such as these are always taken into consideration. For predominantly black audiences of this earliest era of the cinema it seemed right that a black pioneer, Oscar Micheaux, would exist to make the first films that would be of interest to black audiences. Eventually, as the film industry as well as audiences grew progressively mature and jaded, advisors would be a part of the planning and production of films. In an industry that was controlled by men, directors like George Cukor and Alfred Hitchcock (specifically in the 30s and 40s) were being touted as directors who made films of interest to women. Then, what could be considered a woman’s film? A soapy love story, where men wear very little? For that matter, what is a man’s film? A nonsensically violent shoot-em-up, with women wearing very little (the bulk of what is permeating the multiplex screens)? The first and most important rule of filmmaking should be to have an involving story with involving characters - involving to both genders. This rule should be adhered by any talented filmmaking, whether male or female.
Georges Melies was truly the world’s first cinema auteur while Alice Guy Blache was truly the world’s first woman auteur, decades before the term auteur was ever coined. They built upon what was accomplished by the Lumieres. Subsequently, the Lumieres were building upon and improving upon all that had gone before. The Lumieres, Melies and Guy-Blache were essentially products of the 19th Century. The technical aspects of the development of cinematography needed to be handled by people like the Lumieres to progress as far as was possible for the times. Moving into the 20th Century, the Lumieres retained the elements of the Industrial Revolution. They saw that revolution as a never-ending cycle of new products, improvements on those new products and their eventual replacement by yet newer products. They also saw the Cinematograph for its (primarily) immediate commercial potential with no future. Melies and Guy-Blache in turn recognized the Cinematograph for it’s long range artistic potential, invented techniques to advance their art, inspired others, were ahead of their time and helped in establishing an industry. Yet they were left behind when that industry burgeoned. Melies’ main inspiration for his films was the fantastique, although he did on occasion touch upon social issues. One could say that his films were aimed at that predominantly male audience. Occasional acts of silent on-screen violence as well as the continual presence of showgirls from the nearby Folies Bergere bear a mute witness of this. Although she did on occasion touch upon the fantastique, Guy-Blache felt more the calling to present social issues. Keeping in mind the general acceptance (or, more accurately, the non-acceptance) of such fare in the Cinema, one could say she was consistently ahead of her time in this respect. Critics of the time (mostly male) tended to pan her work while Melies was praised. Melies was a true independent, financing, producing and distributing his films while Guy-Blache relied on others (again, mostly male) to finance and distribute hers.
The contemporary casual filmgoer may not be aware of any of the names mentioned above so cannot evoke any awe at what is presented on the screen. We, the audiences of the world, take for granted many elements involved with ‘going to the movies.’ We plan what and where we are going to ‘catch a film.’ We plan what we are going to do after the film. The ticket is purchased, we find the particular theater within the multiplex and we are seated. Coming attractions are flashed on the screen. Eventually, the film we came to see, and paid good money to do so, unfolds before our eyes. All elements then meld into one, as in any involving film they should. For the next few hours our attention is diverted as our consciousness is transported to another time and another place. The story unfolds, the characters go through their paces, the action thrills, the comedy amuses and the drama moves us. The technical means which made this all possible does not cross our minds. The long and arduous century (plus) of experimentation, triumph and failure is never brought to mind. True, it really should not be. When one is driving in an automobile, one is not usually preoccupied with how people traveled throughout history in the centuries before such means became the norm.
Yet, there will always be a select few who will want to know. The Lumieres, Guy-Blache and Melies were aware of each other’s existence. All had viewed each other’s works. The Lumieres’ era of product development and commercial activity can roughly be set between the early 1880s to mid 1930s. Melies era of creativity can roughly be set from between the mid 1890s to 1913. Guy-Blache’s era of creativity can roughly be set from between the mid 1890s to 1922.
However, of all involved in this narrowly selective, as well as most important, era of the earliest development of the Cinema, Louis Lumiere is the one honored with a star on the ‘Walk of Fame’ on Hollywood Boulevard
In the later part of 1897 an independent company in New York City was producing the USA’s earliest ‘spectacle’ film, THE PASSION PLAY. In a move apparently for the purpose of including an element of respectability to the venture, producer Rich G Hollaman hired the distinguished stage director L J Vincent of Niblo’s Garden Theatre to supervise the artistic aspects of the production. Since this was the first time anyone was officially engaged by a ‘producer’ as a ‘director,’ Cinema history was made. Consequently, this separated as well as defined the functions of the two jobs. Since there were absolutely no existing job descriptions of either job, there were no rules to follow for each capacity. Presumably, the production schedule of THE PASSION PLAY was very tight. Equally pressing were the stage directing duties of J L Vincent. In contemporary times, one such as Mr Vincent would have been given a proper indoctrination of the technical aspects (such as they were) of the new medium of ‘pictures that move.’ Unfortunately, this first director had never seen a moving picture and could not be persuaded that the camera being used was capable of ultimately reproducing live action. Instead, he was convinced that he was hired to supervise a succession of lantern-slide tableaux. As the scenes progressed he would constantly yell, “Hold it!” and rush out into the scene to talk with and rearrange the actors. This happened constantly while the camera was rolling. Nothing he supervised while physically in the studio with the cast and crew was usable.
Eventually, the production was made by subterfuge. Each afternoon the cameraman, William Paley, would declare that the light was no longer strong enough to continue. Mr Vincent would depart, returning to his theatrical duties. The actors would reassemble and go through the scenes, largely based on Mr Vincent’s directions and suggestions. Paley would also make suggestions and revisions in the action, ‘from the cameraman’s point of view.’ In this way as much as possible was shot before dark. When the two-reel drama was premiered at the Eden Musee on January 30, 1898 it caused a sensation. It is unknown ultimately what L J Vincent’s thoughts, reactions and comments were if, and when, he ever viewed the film.
For this little slice of Cinema History it is difficult to accurately describe this production of THE PASSION PLAY as the first film made by a compensated professional director, or the first commercially successful dramatic American film made – technically - with no director at all.