19 reviews
If you are a lover of the history of cinema, then FANTASMAGORIE is an absolute must--particularly if you are interested in animation. That's because this short little film is the first animated film and considering everything, it's a darn good one.
Instead of the usual structure, style and narrative, this film is rather unique and free-flowing. A series of drawings morph and change with no apparent rhyme or reason. In many ways, it's more like a work of art than a traditional cartoon and it's all done in black and white.
It must have taken a very, very long time to make and for 1908, it's an incredible little film. Sure, films made just a few years later would make this seem obsolete, but given the context, it's a grand little film.
Instead of the usual structure, style and narrative, this film is rather unique and free-flowing. A series of drawings morph and change with no apparent rhyme or reason. In many ways, it's more like a work of art than a traditional cartoon and it's all done in black and white.
It must have taken a very, very long time to make and for 1908, it's an incredible little film. Sure, films made just a few years later would make this seem obsolete, but given the context, it's a grand little film.
- planktonrules
- Oct 11, 2008
- Permalink
Émile Cohl, a French caricaturist, is often described as "The Father of the Animated Cartoon." Considered the first fully-animated film, his two-minute 1908 film 'Fantasmagorie' {alternatively, in English: 'A Fantasy,' 'Black and White,' or 'Metamorphosis'} is made up on approximately 700 double-exposed drawings, using what is known as a "chalk-line effect" (filming black lines on white paper, then reversing the negative to give the impression of white chalk on a black chalkboard), a technique probably borrowed from early animator James Stuart Blackton. A fast-paced, confusing and almost-surreal short film, 'Fantasmagorie' is loaded with dozens of tiny seconds-long scenes, which rapidly metamorphosise into the next, possibly a stylistic tribute to the short-lived, long-forgotten Incoherent Movement of the 1880s, of which Cohl had been a part. The title of the film itself is taken from the word "fantasmograph," which referred to a magic lantern that could project ghostly images across walls.
Not following any standard narrative, 'Fantasmagorie' is really quite difficult to follow. The film starts with a hand quickly sketching a dangling clown, which instantly transforms into a large man in an elevator, which materialises into a man in a cinema whose view is suddenly blocked by a woman with a tall feathery hat. This scene, probably the longest single sequence at about 20 seconds, shows the man desperately trying to glimpse the screen again by peeling away the feathers of the hat, only for the women's head to suddenly expand into a large bubble for the next scene transition. The remainder of the film is a hectic jumble of jumping about, fishing, sword-fighting, canons, flowers, milk bottles, elephants turning into houses and, for the grand finale, a character departing into the left-hand side of the screen on a horse.
I found 'Fantasmagorie' to be quite an interesting early short, though it moved much, much too quickly to be solidly enjoyable (J. Stuart Blackton made a much more accessible film two years earlier with 'Humorous Phases of Funny Faces'). Nonetheless, the film carries great historical importance in the field of animation, and Cohl's style undoubtedly influenced such animators as Winsor McCay, perhaps most famous for his 1914 animated short film, 'Gertie the Dinosaur.'
Not following any standard narrative, 'Fantasmagorie' is really quite difficult to follow. The film starts with a hand quickly sketching a dangling clown, which instantly transforms into a large man in an elevator, which materialises into a man in a cinema whose view is suddenly blocked by a woman with a tall feathery hat. This scene, probably the longest single sequence at about 20 seconds, shows the man desperately trying to glimpse the screen again by peeling away the feathers of the hat, only for the women's head to suddenly expand into a large bubble for the next scene transition. The remainder of the film is a hectic jumble of jumping about, fishing, sword-fighting, canons, flowers, milk bottles, elephants turning into houses and, for the grand finale, a character departing into the left-hand side of the screen on a horse.
I found 'Fantasmagorie' to be quite an interesting early short, though it moved much, much too quickly to be solidly enjoyable (J. Stuart Blackton made a much more accessible film two years earlier with 'Humorous Phases of Funny Faces'). Nonetheless, the film carries great historical importance in the field of animation, and Cohl's style undoubtedly influenced such animators as Winsor McCay, perhaps most famous for his 1914 animated short film, 'Gertie the Dinosaur.'
This is a pretty neat little film. It appears to be chalk on a blackboard. It has a little plot with a man trying to watch a movie when a woman with a huge hat sits in front of him. But there are other things that help make the two minutes memorable.
Fantasmagorie (1908)
**** (out of 4)
Landmark film in history as this here was the first animated movie ever made. Director Emile Cohl shows us a hand that draws a character and for the next two-minutes we see what is basically chalk animation. There's not too much story here but you'd be somewhat crazy to bash the film for that as everything we do see is rather easy to follow. If you're a fan of D.W. Griffith then you've probably seen his film THOSE AWFUL HATS, which is about some men in a theater who get upset because the women are wearing large hats, which blocks the screen. This here is also shown here in a rather funny way. The animation itself is pretty darn good considering there was nothing made before it to go by. Film buffs will certainly want to check this one out.
**** (out of 4)
Landmark film in history as this here was the first animated movie ever made. Director Emile Cohl shows us a hand that draws a character and for the next two-minutes we see what is basically chalk animation. There's not too much story here but you'd be somewhat crazy to bash the film for that as everything we do see is rather easy to follow. If you're a fan of D.W. Griffith then you've probably seen his film THOSE AWFUL HATS, which is about some men in a theater who get upset because the women are wearing large hats, which blocks the screen. This here is also shown here in a rather funny way. The animation itself is pretty darn good considering there was nothing made before it to go by. Film buffs will certainly want to check this one out.
- Michael_Elliott
- May 30, 2015
- Permalink
Even if it wasn't rightly famous for being the world's first animated film, Fantasmagorie would still stand out as an eye-popping piece of entertainment.
There isn't any story to speak of, and most of it seems to be a kind of stream-of-consciousness, free-form flow of ideas that borders on the surreal. Its use of a human hand to show the initial creation of the drawing brings to mind the much earlier work of J. Stuart Blackton. It might seem a little primitive by today's standards, but this little film is one of the landmarks of cinematic history.
The film can be found on the internet on Youtube or DailyMotion and is worth two minutes of anybody's time.
There isn't any story to speak of, and most of it seems to be a kind of stream-of-consciousness, free-form flow of ideas that borders on the surreal. Its use of a human hand to show the initial creation of the drawing brings to mind the much earlier work of J. Stuart Blackton. It might seem a little primitive by today's standards, but this little film is one of the landmarks of cinematic history.
The film can be found on the internet on Youtube or DailyMotion and is worth two minutes of anybody's time.
- JoeytheBrit
- Nov 28, 2009
- Permalink
- Foreverisacastironmess123
- Dec 19, 2013
- Permalink
Considered the first fully animated film, Emile Cohl's 1908 "Fantasmagorie" departed from J. Stuart Blackton's 1906 "Humorous Phases" by showing a total hand-drawn movie rather than using a combination of live action, cut-out animation as well as hand-drawn scenes.
Cohl was inspired by Blackton's work in reflecting white lines on a black background. However, while Blackton used an actual blackboard to draw his figures, Cohl used 700 paper drawings, 8 drawings for each second, and then shot them onto negative film. He would shoot two frames for each drawing while his film speed was 16 frames per second. Cohl labored 5 months to create this 1 minute, 20 second cartoon. The viewer has to see this movie several times to catch the quick movements of morphings from one set of figures to the next.
Cohl was inspired by Blackton's work in reflecting white lines on a black background. However, while Blackton used an actual blackboard to draw his figures, Cohl used 700 paper drawings, 8 drawings for each second, and then shot them onto negative film. He would shoot two frames for each drawing while his film speed was 16 frames per second. Cohl labored 5 months to create this 1 minute, 20 second cartoon. The viewer has to see this movie several times to catch the quick movements of morphings from one set of figures to the next.
- springfieldrental
- Jan 12, 2021
- Permalink
Emile Cohl's Fantasmagorie is perhaps one of the earliest film depictions of animation, in this case it's chalk drawings on a black board morphing from one scene to another without any real connection except for the way lines keep moving to any shape or form Cohl can think of. And it all happens in the space of two minutes! So, historically, this is one of the most fascinating animated shorts ever. Audiences might have been even more awestruck then than we would be now what with all the improvements that have happened in the nearly one hundred years since then. So for all of the above reasons, this short gets a 10.
- Eumenides_0
- Jan 4, 2010
- Permalink
What a film this is! The film is under two minutes, and I can't remember half of it. I seem to remember a woman with a very large hat getting it pulled off, pants turning into umbrellas, men getting stabbed an dismembered, but still walking around, houses turning into elephants, and many other images. Cohl seemed to want to include every image he could think of in the film. I'm sure he had no idea of the legacy he would leave. In fact, judging by the showoffy nature of the film, it's almost as if, at the time, Cohl thought he might be one of the only people on the planet who would ever be able to make drawings move like that. Even today, with all the technological advances in the field of animation, "Fantasmagorie" is entertaining. Despite the fact that it has no plot or real point except to show off what animation can do, and despite the relative crudeness of the drawings, its relentless, violent energy, and short running time make it a joy to watch. I wouldn't expect non-animation buffs to care much about it however. They'd probably enjoy it, but would have hard time understanding the fuss.
This is an important piece of history for film - the first traditional animated short. It's just over a minute long but worth watching for historic value though it's not particularly good. It is a stop motion animation but reminds one of flipping pages of a book to see the animation.
6/10.
6/10.
- Rainey-Dawn
- May 10, 2021
- Permalink
It may not seem like much to today's audience, who has been exposed to the latest technilogical advances in animation, but Emile Cohl's Fantasmagorie is one history's revolutionary groundbreakers in the field. Truly enjoyable and admirable.
- Rollergirl 81
- Feb 6, 2001
- Permalink
Often described as "the first motion picture animation" that lasts a staggering two minutes. Silent live action pictures were slowly becoming popular in the early 1900's (particularly in France thanks to Méliès), Émile Cohl then decided to create a diversion by testing the limitations of film. Much like a flip book, he photographed a sequential array of cartoons and edited them to create a fully realised motion picture. A cartoon that comes to life. Now I don't know about you, but in 1908 I'm sure this was a monumental achievement in film experimentation. Does it mean the film is good? Well, it's just a random series of drawings that hold no narrative structure. It's simply a case of proving that it was an achievable goal. The illustrations depict a man in precariously surreal scenarios, whether he be balancing on an elephant's trunk to plucking the feathers off a stranger's hat. Each five second scene seamlessly moulds into the next, creating one long animation as opposed to small cartoons with abrupt transitions. Honestly, not much else I can say. I'm sure if one was high, this would be an unforgettably abnormal experience. However, it remains a functional animation that surprisingly has stood the test of time. Its lack of narrative imagination results in an unmemorable animation, but Cohl proved that you can bring life to pen and paper (or in this case chalk and board).
- TheMovieDiorama
- Jun 15, 2018
- Permalink
- Horst_In_Translation
- Jun 25, 2015
- Permalink
A few years ago I had a real passion for short films, seeking them out at festivals and on television, trying to see those considered as established and also those from first time or local artists. This fell off for some reason and I found myself watching more television which is not a problem but I did decide recently I should take the time to watch short films when I have the chance. Fantasmagorie was the one of the shorts I decided to watch, partly for the historical value but also for the good things I heard about it generally.
Watching it once was not enough though, because it is very short but also moves with real speed and energy. The animation consists of chalk drawings on a black background and without any narrative context they flow across the screen, seamlessly turning from one thing into another but making a sort of sense while doing so. Every second of it is creative and clever and engaging and, most importantly, a real joy to watch. The age of the film shows in the quality of the picture (or at least it did in the version I saw) but nowhere else. There is a real pleasure to it, a sense of wonder and excitement in the animation that has stayed with it for over a century.
A great little animation; it has historical value but you will only think of that afterwards because during your several viewings I suspect you'll be too busy keeping up and enjoying the passion and flow that the images have.
Watching it once was not enough though, because it is very short but also moves with real speed and energy. The animation consists of chalk drawings on a black background and without any narrative context they flow across the screen, seamlessly turning from one thing into another but making a sort of sense while doing so. Every second of it is creative and clever and engaging and, most importantly, a real joy to watch. The age of the film shows in the quality of the picture (or at least it did in the version I saw) but nowhere else. There is a real pleasure to it, a sense of wonder and excitement in the animation that has stayed with it for over a century.
A great little animation; it has historical value but you will only think of that afterwards because during your several viewings I suspect you'll be too busy keeping up and enjoying the passion and flow that the images have.
- bob the moo
- Feb 22, 2013
- Permalink
absolutely fantastic, ideas pop out without connections. I believe that MOnty Python's Terry Gilliam has seen this film, Gilliam has the same kind of flow on his animations. the technique is brilliant due the time when it was made. it could not be any longer because timing just over one minute it captures viewer's eye and focus.
- heikkiloytynoja
- Apr 19, 2017
- Permalink
This animated short film is nothing but fun, exactly what animation should be, nowadays I feel animation has tried to become as realistic as possible, but this is just pure cartoony nonsensical fun! As the very first actual animated film you can't expect much, but this is just fun, it does make me smile a lot! Most would find this creepy nowadays, but i find it fascinating! It's truly a work of it's time, not saying that it is bad, but I don't see anyone would line up to see fantasmagoire, except certain film historians, however this film is just to fun not to see! It's truly a work of art I say!
- GreenOrMikeTyson
- Apr 1, 2024
- Permalink
- littlepinkunicorn
- Dec 3, 2021
- Permalink