"The Voyage of the Family Bourrichon" is not only director Georges Méliès's last film, it is also the biggest example of why the great auteur simply couldn't keep up with the times. This 1912 work (it was planned to be released in 1913 but made in 1912) follows the story of a French family who, when unable to pay their debts, depart on a journey to escape their creditors. These creditors, meanwhile, are smarter than they think and follow the Bourrichons all over the place, causing trouble and making life miserable, until the family is forced to give up the money. The film was apparently based on a music hall comedy by Eugène Labiche and made in the style of Max Linder, which shows the director's attempts to appeal to a popular thing at the time in order to gain an audience.
The proof of just how outdated this film is for 1912 (or 1913, regardless) lies right in how it was made. The short consists of a series of stagy long shots in which the action takes place, no cutting, no closeups or medium closeups. Furthermore, very theatrical-looking sets, nothing shot on location and in general a stage play. What's wrong with this? Plenty. Méliès, as film historian John Frazer points out, was very 19th century when it came to how he made his films. The theatrical sets, the long shots. . . everything reflects that. By 1912, D. W. Griffith had really begun to show the power in cutting and closeups, and this was the standard by then. Méliès's thinking was way off at this point and his long theatrical shots were likewise no longer appreciated after this new form of storytelling entered the scene.
Moreoever, this film also assumes that the viewer knows the story of the Bourrichon family (which in turn assumes that the music hall comedy was well known during the period). There is absolutely no indication of what the story was supposed to be; if I hadn't known from Flicker Alley's helpful description at the beginning, I would have been lost. Without the background, this absurd, physically comical short would have looked like a story about a bunch of people traveling around and getting assaulted with no actual way of knowing why. The immense amount of action in each scene just confuses the story further; once again, this was the style of 19th century theater.
Of course, this is not to say that the film doesn't have any sort of appreciative aspects in it at all. When you view it as being another one of Méliès's super productions regardless of date, you see a very silly film full of slapstick and physical comedy. The joke with the well was seen in a previous silent film around the same time (showing Méliès was trying to gain success by what his competitors did) and the growing chair was a gag the director had used in "The Merry Frolics of Satan" from 1906. The slapstick chase of having people tumble in out of walls and floors was seen in several of his earlier features, particularly "The Cook in Trouble". This work, Max Linder influenced or not, is definitely in his style.
Still, it was time for the director to end his career. He was no longer appreciated and simply couldn't change his methods of filmmaking. It is no wonder, then, that this movie was never released because of how obvious of a flop it would have been. At that point, he was ready to throw in the towel, and it would be nearly two decades until his work would finally be acknowledged in the "Gala Méliès" of 1929.
The proof of just how outdated this film is for 1912 (or 1913, regardless) lies right in how it was made. The short consists of a series of stagy long shots in which the action takes place, no cutting, no closeups or medium closeups. Furthermore, very theatrical-looking sets, nothing shot on location and in general a stage play. What's wrong with this? Plenty. Méliès, as film historian John Frazer points out, was very 19th century when it came to how he made his films. The theatrical sets, the long shots. . . everything reflects that. By 1912, D. W. Griffith had really begun to show the power in cutting and closeups, and this was the standard by then. Méliès's thinking was way off at this point and his long theatrical shots were likewise no longer appreciated after this new form of storytelling entered the scene.
Moreoever, this film also assumes that the viewer knows the story of the Bourrichon family (which in turn assumes that the music hall comedy was well known during the period). There is absolutely no indication of what the story was supposed to be; if I hadn't known from Flicker Alley's helpful description at the beginning, I would have been lost. Without the background, this absurd, physically comical short would have looked like a story about a bunch of people traveling around and getting assaulted with no actual way of knowing why. The immense amount of action in each scene just confuses the story further; once again, this was the style of 19th century theater.
Of course, this is not to say that the film doesn't have any sort of appreciative aspects in it at all. When you view it as being another one of Méliès's super productions regardless of date, you see a very silly film full of slapstick and physical comedy. The joke with the well was seen in a previous silent film around the same time (showing Méliès was trying to gain success by what his competitors did) and the growing chair was a gag the director had used in "The Merry Frolics of Satan" from 1906. The slapstick chase of having people tumble in out of walls and floors was seen in several of his earlier features, particularly "The Cook in Trouble". This work, Max Linder influenced or not, is definitely in his style.
Still, it was time for the director to end his career. He was no longer appreciated and simply couldn't change his methods of filmmaking. It is no wonder, then, that this movie was never released because of how obvious of a flop it would have been. At that point, he was ready to throw in the towel, and it would be nearly two decades until his work would finally be acknowledged in the "Gala Méliès" of 1929.