Having now seen all of the 199 films from Georges Méliès available on 6 DVDs from Flicker Alley, which is albeit fewer than half of the more than 500 films he made overall, but of which most are now lost, I consider this one, "Not Guilty", to be the worst that I've seen. His mostly single-scene trick films are repetitive, but they have a goofy joyfulness that earns them a pass, and his other forays around this time of increased production into the comedic and melodramatic genres made popular by other studios could also be weak imitations, but they also often displayed adoption of some new cinematic techniques. On other IMDb pages, I've praised the pioneer cinema magician's best work, including "The Dreyfuss Affair" (1899), "Bluebeard" (1901), "A Trip to the Moon" (1902), "The Kingdom of the Fairies" (1903), "Long Distance Wireless Photography" (1908) and "Baron Munchausen's Dream" (1911), as well as remarking on the appreciable aspects of others from good to not so good. But, I don't really have anything nice to say about "Not Guilty".
The four-scene scenario is a labored melodrama where three outlaws try to steal, murder and get their victims' son to be falsely tried for the crimes. An eavesdropping neighbor girl is temporarily blinded by the men during the home robbery, but all is abruptly made well in time for a courtroom revelation where the true criminals (who are stupid enough to attend the trial instead of skipping town) are pointed out by the neighbor girl. If that weren't enough, apparently, the neighbor girl and the homeowners' son display their love at the end.
Despite being only 10 minutes long, the picture has a slow pacing with only four scenes and three different sets. These sets are poor by Méliès standards, too, including one that's mostly a backdrop. The biggest problem with the production, however, is the acting, which is some of the worst I've ever seen. The actors wander all over the stage waving their arms and making huge theatrical gestures. That Méliès's films are already typically very theatrical--being bound to a stage and recorded by a stationary camera from a consistent long-shot framing--does the performances no favors. That's too bad, because Méliès was usually good at restraining the enthusiasm and theatricality of the performances better than this.
The four-scene scenario is a labored melodrama where three outlaws try to steal, murder and get their victims' son to be falsely tried for the crimes. An eavesdropping neighbor girl is temporarily blinded by the men during the home robbery, but all is abruptly made well in time for a courtroom revelation where the true criminals (who are stupid enough to attend the trial instead of skipping town) are pointed out by the neighbor girl. If that weren't enough, apparently, the neighbor girl and the homeowners' son display their love at the end.
Despite being only 10 minutes long, the picture has a slow pacing with only four scenes and three different sets. These sets are poor by Méliès standards, too, including one that's mostly a backdrop. The biggest problem with the production, however, is the acting, which is some of the worst I've ever seen. The actors wander all over the stage waving their arms and making huge theatrical gestures. That Méliès's films are already typically very theatrical--being bound to a stage and recorded by a stationary camera from a consistent long-shot framing--does the performances no favors. That's too bad, because Méliès was usually good at restraining the enthusiasm and theatricality of the performances better than this.