Apparently the Bourrichon family was going to fudge on their debts and leave town. Unfortunately, for them, the creditors are aware of what they are up to and pursue them all over the place. There is no rhyme or reason to most of this we are simply treated to one confrontation after another. For some reason, on board a train, people could go on the roof the train car and make their ways into the car itself. This is the last film by Melies and apparently was never released. It was a broader, fuller presentation.
4 Reviews
Méliès's Last Film
Cineanalyst20 August 2013
"The Voyage of the Bourrichon Family" was pioneer cinema magician Georges Méliès's last picture. His final films were made under contract for his former rival Pathé. These were relatively-lavish productions by the standards of the filmmaker and the 1910s, despite the staginess typical from Méliès. According to historian John Frazer, however, this last one was never even released.
In it, the Bourrichon family tries to evade their creditors, but they are chased down by them everywhere they go in comically and acrobatically-exaggerated fashion. The humor is very broad and of the knockabout variety, but it can be somewhat entertaining. I liked the bit involving the man falling down the well, and the acrobatics are amusingly absurd.
The print available from the Flicker Alley DVD set, however, is damaged in a way that I've never seen before. Now, like everyone who has seen many old nitrate films in various states, I've seen mottling, bleeding and scratched-up prints before and ones that are contrasty, bleached, deteriorated or where the alignment is screwy, there's flickering, or the image is otherwise partly cut off. In this print, however, it looks like some black thing is constantly waving across a large part of the right side of the frame. This continues for a few minutes and goes away during the sixth scene in what is a 13-tableaux and 15-minutes short film. There's also an icon in the lower right-hand corner of the frame. This really ruins the screening experience for the first part, but past that, it's pleasant viewing.
The art and industry that had now passed him by owed plenty to Méliès. His contributions are numerous and include constructing the first real movie studio, with a glass ceiling aligned by cotton for diffused natural lighting; the earliest constructed movie sets and stage-designed depth; some of the earliest multi-scene story films; introducing genres such as fantasy, science fiction and dream films to cinema; using substitution splicing and superimpositions on both black and white backgrounds for trick effects; using superimpositions to enlarge and shrink images within a scene and to create superimposed close-ups; the use of dissolves and lens focus; early animation of a few frames; breaking down the fourth wall via magic presentation; continuity of character movements laterally across scenes; the use of many theatrical techniques and more.
(Edit: Josh Morrison, from Flicker Alley, has responded to my inquiry concerning the print damage. His helpful response: "What you're seeing on 'The Voyage of the Bourrichon Family' is a defect of the original film element; it is not a defect of our publication. The black shutter effect is evidence of nitrate cellulose deterioration on the original film element. Please bear in mind that the materials on the set were pulled from archival sources all over the world, and in many cases, what you're seeing is the best surviving or the only surviving extant material of these films. Depending on the storage condition, nitrate film has different deterioration packs, and in this case, it is clearly worse than others.")
In it, the Bourrichon family tries to evade their creditors, but they are chased down by them everywhere they go in comically and acrobatically-exaggerated fashion. The humor is very broad and of the knockabout variety, but it can be somewhat entertaining. I liked the bit involving the man falling down the well, and the acrobatics are amusingly absurd.
The print available from the Flicker Alley DVD set, however, is damaged in a way that I've never seen before. Now, like everyone who has seen many old nitrate films in various states, I've seen mottling, bleeding and scratched-up prints before and ones that are contrasty, bleached, deteriorated or where the alignment is screwy, there's flickering, or the image is otherwise partly cut off. In this print, however, it looks like some black thing is constantly waving across a large part of the right side of the frame. This continues for a few minutes and goes away during the sixth scene in what is a 13-tableaux and 15-minutes short film. There's also an icon in the lower right-hand corner of the frame. This really ruins the screening experience for the first part, but past that, it's pleasant viewing.
The art and industry that had now passed him by owed plenty to Méliès. His contributions are numerous and include constructing the first real movie studio, with a glass ceiling aligned by cotton for diffused natural lighting; the earliest constructed movie sets and stage-designed depth; some of the earliest multi-scene story films; introducing genres such as fantasy, science fiction and dream films to cinema; using substitution splicing and superimpositions on both black and white backgrounds for trick effects; using superimpositions to enlarge and shrink images within a scene and to create superimposed close-ups; the use of dissolves and lens focus; early animation of a few frames; breaking down the fourth wall via magic presentation; continuity of character movements laterally across scenes; the use of many theatrical techniques and more.
(Edit: Josh Morrison, from Flicker Alley, has responded to my inquiry concerning the print damage. His helpful response: "What you're seeing on 'The Voyage of the Bourrichon Family' is a defect of the original film element; it is not a defect of our publication. The black shutter effect is evidence of nitrate cellulose deterioration on the original film element. Please bear in mind that the materials on the set were pulled from archival sources all over the world, and in many cases, what you're seeing is the best surviving or the only surviving extant material of these films. Depending on the storage condition, nitrate film has different deterioration packs, and in this case, it is clearly worse than others.")
Georges Méliès' final film...a most unusual one, too!
planktonrules6 September 2020
This is the last film of the great French filmmaker, Georges Méliès and because it was done late in his career, it's a bit different from his usual short films. First, it's longer. Second, it has a fuller story and many sets...and has a more polished look than his early productions.
The Bourrichon family are apparently a family of deadbeats. Instead of paying off their many debts, they've chosen to run away! But the creditors are rarely far behind and they make the family's life on the run pretty awful...though considering everything, it's hard to care about the fate of the Bourrichons!
As I mentioned above, this film has many sets and some are pretty inventive (such as the cut-out so you can see inside the train cars). However, the film is antiquated when it comes to the acting...which is VERY broad and slapsticky. It was the rage back in 1913, but it sure doesn't age well because of an overreliance on exaggerated action and fighting. Subtle this certainly is NOT....and while it looks great compared to many films, it's also tough going due to all the meaningless pratfalls, somersaults and the like...none of which help the story in any way. Sadly, by 1913, most films were better than this one...a case where the filmmaker hasn't adapted with the times. Interesting but also not very good.
The Bourrichon family are apparently a family of deadbeats. Instead of paying off their many debts, they've chosen to run away! But the creditors are rarely far behind and they make the family's life on the run pretty awful...though considering everything, it's hard to care about the fate of the Bourrichons!
As I mentioned above, this film has many sets and some are pretty inventive (such as the cut-out so you can see inside the train cars). However, the film is antiquated when it comes to the acting...which is VERY broad and slapsticky. It was the rage back in 1913, but it sure doesn't age well because of an overreliance on exaggerated action and fighting. Subtle this certainly is NOT....and while it looks great compared to many films, it's also tough going due to all the meaningless pratfalls, somersaults and the like...none of which help the story in any way. Sadly, by 1913, most films were better than this one...a case where the filmmaker hasn't adapted with the times. Interesting but also not very good.
An Outdated Work By the Standards of 1912
Tornado_Sam29 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
