Edison and the Moving Picture By Charles Musser

A national association of independent filmmakers asked its members in the late 1970's whom they considered the most important figure in the history of motion pictures. Undoubtedly the pollsters expected the tally to certify D.W. Griffith, Robert Flaherty, Sergei Eisenstein or perhaps Dziga Vertov as the single greatest influence on American independent filmmakers. Instead they heralded Thomas Alva Edison for his key role in creating the technology which made their own work possible. I was one of these filmmakers. Later, as I began to research Edison's role in the emergence of American cinema, it became clear that Edison had an impact on at least three facets of early motion picture history. He not only contributed to the technology but was involved in its commercial application and subsequent shaping of the industry. Finally, he gave others the opportunity (though sometimes limited) to expand cinema's expressive boundaries -- both in subject matter and technique.

Terry Ramsaye's classic history of American cinema, A Million and One Nights (1926), romanticized Edison's role as father of the American film and backdated his breakthroughs to give "the Wizard of Menlo Park" a clear claim of priority. His account, echoed by many subsequent historians, was challenged in Gordon Hendricks' The Edison Motion Picture Myth (1961). Hendricks championed the essential work done by Edison's assistant William Laurie Dickson and argued that Edison failed to attribute any importance to the laboratory's motion picture work until newspaper publicity and then financial benefits convinced him otherwise. He portrayed Edison perhaps unjustly as often uninformed and as a disinterested impediment rather than a key contributor to the development of his camera, the Kinetograph. Hendricks' research, however, clearly established a chronology which reveals Edison's and Dickson's dependence on work done by Edward Muybridge, Jules Marey and others. He dated the construction of Edison's vertical feed camera to October 1892, three years later than Ramsaye.

After twenty years Hendricks' important study can benefit from a new perspective. Although Edison had a clear vision of the future (tied to electricity and the light bulb) he was not clairvoyant. Like most people exploring new terrain, he groped forward hesitantly, uncertain of the path he was taking or its value. The issue of credit in the Edison-Dickson debate does not seem as important to us today as it did to some in the past. We are less concerned with the assigning of credit than with the nature of their collaboration. If Edison relied on Dickson to do the practical work on motion pictures as Hendricks has pointed out, Dickson needed Edison to formulate the problem, set the task and provide the resources for execution. The extent to which Edison and Dickson complemented each other's abilities or exchanged insights is probably impossible to ascertain although some answers may still be revealed after future examination of the documents now being organized, cataloged and micro-filmed by the Thomas Edison Papers. It is possible to say, however, that the contributions to motion picture technology made at the Edison laboratory must be attributed to the input of both men.

The process of invention need not be our only concern. We may also need to understand why and how Edison created his own myth rather than, as Hendricks does, simply condemn it. The inventor faced certain commercial realities in the 1880's and 1890's. He needed capital to finance his inventions and had to convince people to invest in them. The business standards of his day were far different from our own and Edison's operations have to be examined in this historical framework Today we are more interested in trying to understand rather than to judge. We can be both more critical and more sympathetic.

In December 1892, two months after the first kinetograph began to turn out motion pictures, construction began on Edison's Black Maria, the first studio to be built specifically for making commercial motion pictures. By then Edison's involvement in film had entered a second phase which was principally that of a businessman/entrepreneur. Here too his role is often controversial particularly from the perspective of an independent filmmaker. Edison's goal as an entrepreneur was to single-handedly control the motion picture industry through his patents. In the late 1890's he initiated suit for patent infringement against all of his competitors. Many went out of business rather than contest the lawsuits. The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company was one of the few to dispute Edison's claims. In July 1901, however, Biograph was defeated in the lower courts and the Edison Company became the only producer in the United States to either make fictional films or sell subjects to exhibitors. Biograph alone remained in limited production but under court supervision and apparently limited to taking news films for its own exhibitions. This state of affairs continued until March 1902 when Biograph's appeal was reviewed and reversed by a higher court. Not surprisingly Edison's actions disrupted the American industry which soon found itself trailing behind the British and French. By 1902 European productions dominated the American screen.

Edison, even after his defeat, did not give up on his attempt to dominate the American film industry. He reformulated his patent claims, then reactivated his suits. By October 1907, he was again in a favorable though still tenuous legal position. His business associates, particularly General Manager of the Edison Manufacturing Company Frank Dyer, used the legal situation as an opportunity to form the Motion Picture Patents Company in December 1908. This corporation acquired most major motion picture patents, offered licenses to a few established producers and sued all those left outside the "trust." Those who stayed outside were known as "independents" the first time the term was applied to a group of filmmakers. Since 1908 the term has referred to those outside or in opposition to the established elements of the industry. This opposition has always had a commercial basis frequently it has been political, and aesthetically oriented as well. Arguments about the independent's role and relationship to the dominant parts of the industry continue within today's independent movement.

By 1910 independents were again being forced out of business by trust lawyers. Their cause was defended by Carl Laemmle and William Fox, although both later instituted monopolistic practices of their own -- based on economic rather than legal clout. From a commercial standpoint Edison was not a friend of small, independent film entrepreneurs -- the more creative of whom are among the progenitors of those recognized by this festival. He can remind us of our tenuous position in the motion picture industry. Independents have been out of business in the past: comparatively minor restructurings of the industry (elimination of grants, different PBS and related acquisition methods) could cause this to happen again. Opportunities for independents with aesthetic and sociopolitical concerns have always been limited and are currently being further restricted by cutbacks in arts and humanities program funding.

If Thomas Edison was the motion picture establishment at the turn of the century (the precursor of Hollywood), his company and its employees also made important contributions to American film culture. At first cinema (i.e. projected motion pictures) was merely a screen novelty which celebrated its own ability to portray life-like motion. Late in 1896, as this novelty began to fade, James White, who just had joined the Edison Company, made a series of one-shot films showing fire departments in action. Other short films were taken of President McKinley's inauguration in March 1897. Exhibitors would purchase a selection of such 1/2 minute films and cut them into an appropriate sequence of scenes. They often accompanied these shows with music and their own narration. By 1898 exhibitors often built an evening's program around a single subject like The Passion Play or the Spanish-American War, using short films and lantern slides. Post-production (editing film to fit an idea or theme) was done in the project booth -- not by the producer. White and other Edison cameramen provided these exhibitors with the raw materials for their shows. Exhibitors like Edison licensees J. Stuart Blackton and Albert Smith played an important creative role -- after acquiring unedited films they simply cut them together into an effective program. They helped to decide what people saw and how they saw it.

Between October 1900 and February 1901, the Edison Company built a replacement for the Black Maria. The new structure was the first glass enclosed film studio in the United States. Edwin Porter, then making improvements on Edison projectors and other equipment, was promoted to studio head. He became the principal explorer of creative motion picture possibilities for the Edison Company in the years ahead. As Porter began to make films, he was predisposed to integrate his own earlier experiences as an exhibitor and juxtaposed shots in ways which were often humorous, poignant or significant. He, like several innovative filmmakers in other countries, began to centralize the creative process of cinema production, in particular editing, within the film companies themselves. These producers soon were exploring new ways to tell stories which such changes made possible. Edwin Porter, in particular, struggled with the problem of depicting simultaneous events on the screen. While two actions occur simultaneously in Porter's Sampson-Schley Controversy , they were shown successively on the screen. First Admiral Schley's attack on the Spanish fleet was shown in its entirety and then Admiral Sampson's tea party with a group of old maids. Today the standard way to handle this problem would be to cut back and forth between the two scenes. Early in the 20th century, this approach had not yet been conceived, instead the same time span was shown twice, repeated in what might be termed overlapping action. A year later, after looking at George Melies' A Trip to The Moon , Porter began to explore and elaborate on a concept of continuity in How They Do Things on the Bowery (October 1902) and Life of an American Fireman (November 1902 - January 1903). A situation occurring in adjacent spaces was shown from two different points of view. The same time period was repeated and key actions were shown in both shots, clearly establishing their relation in time and space. A fire rescue was shown first from inside a burning building and then again from the outside. Porter's approach were both consistent with, yet an extreme manifestation of, story-telling techniques of the early 1900's. Today independents, at least those concerned with aesthetic innovation, can admire the formal achievements of many films made for the Edison Company -- perhaps all the more so because they are outside the repertoire of modern Hollywood techniques of storytelling.

Porter was not only concerned with new, more effective ways of storytelling he also broke new ground by dealing with important social and economic issues raised during the progressive era. In The Kleptomaniac (February 1905) a banker's wife steals jewelry from Macy's but is freed by the judge. Her case is juxtaposed to that of a poor woman who spontaneously steals food for her starving children but is sent to jail. In The Ex-Convict (November 1904), a family man is haunted by his past and finally forced to return to his old life of crime. Porter helped to expand the screen's repertoire to include dramatic films dealing with social issues. Edison's competitors did not make films of similar depth but were content to portray crime by conventionally opposing bad guys versus good guys. Independent filmmakers can admire the fact that, at the Edison studio, Porter had the freedom to make significant films about American life, films which went beyond standard cliched perspectives. Our enthusiasm is tempered by the knowledge that Porter was soon required to focus on comedies, fantasy subjects and melodramas which sold better and created less controversy.

Although Porter conformed to the wishes of his employer when it came to subject matter, the filmmaker was unable to adapt to techniques of mass production and scientific management which were being institutionalized at the Edison studio by 1909. He also was unwilling to give up his own methods of storytelling. In November 1909 Porter was forced to leave the Edison studio and became an independent.

In the work of Thomas Edison, his associates and employees we can find many conflicts and issues which resonate when we examine our own contemporary situation. To better understand Edison's contributions and those of his associates, the Thomas Edison Papers has embarked on a 25 year project which will preserve and make available important historical materials. While the Thomas Edison/Black Maria Film + Video Festival can look to the Papers Project to help us better understand the origins and history of American cinema, its own role is to intervene in this ongoing history here and now, recognizing and supporting what is most promising in American filmmaking.

Last updated October 30, 2000. Version 5.0.

XHTML tagging and design by Kenneth Chandler