“Burlesque Suicide, No. 2” (1902)

                       

The Edison/Porter shorts and other early avant garde films can be understood as the epitome of original creativity in filmmaking.  While they are all productions of black and white silent film (only some had non-diegetic sound superimposed post production), their simplicity is much of the reason they can be referred to as great films.  It can be argued that many of today’s films within the horror category lack originality and succumb to predictability because they rely so heavily on the repetition of clichés and successful ideas or techniques of past works of film.  Today’s horror movies are a product of Hollywood narrative cinema and do not strive for the same quick thrill that was achieved by what Tom Gunning calls “the cinema of attractions” in An Aesthetic of Astonishment (122).  They do however allow the spectator to be lost in the drama of the narrative with the help of sound, color and smooth transitions.

In “Burlesque Suicide, No. 2” (1902), the entire 55 seconds is filled with a medium shot of a man sitting at a table, presumably drunk, who appears to be contemplating suicide by gun shot between sips of wine.  Towards the end of the experimental short, the audience is fooled when the man puts the gun up to his head only to set the gun back down on the table and burst into hysterical laughter, pointing his index finger directly at the viewer as he does so.  By doing this, the audience is essentially “made fun of” for being vulnerable because the film is able to control what happens next along with the audience’s emotions and reactions to an extent.  Many early Edison productions (“Burlesque Suicide, No. 2” especially) aim at sensationalism and this idea of attacking the senses.  Without astonishment, these films would no longer provide the amusement of a theatrical spectacle similar to that of the magic show or the freak show.

In terms of mise-en-scène, the detailed and expensive looking wallpaper in the background and the carafe of red wine is significant to the film.  It can be assumed that this man is quite wealthy by the material objects he keeps around him.  It is amazing how much information can be understood or inferred simply by the placement of objects in a frame.  From the opening scene when he is seen sitting at a table with a gun, even though the man is not necessarily introduced, the audience becomes invested in the character and narrative questions are raised.  Is he rich?  Why is he depressed?  Will he kill himself?  The spectator is completely excluded from any answers to these questions, and that is how curiosity is raised.

Although “Burlesque Suicide, No. 2” (1902) cannot be considered a horror film (as horror was not yet a genre in mainstream cinema), it is evident that it was a major influence of the horror genre that emerged later in the 1930s.  And while unintentional at the time, the shakiness and fuzziness of the camera in early trick films was clearly a technique that inspired later horror films as a way to instil fear and unsettlement in the viewer.  It is important to consider why humans continuously crave the experience of shock that is present in all horror films.

Questions are raised here regarding human nature.  Do we secretly wish to watch other people suffer from fear or pain?  “Burlesque Suicide, No. 2” was produced over a century earlier and still the horror film industry is robust.  Over the past several decades there has been a surge in the amount and frequency of blood and gore within horror films.  Is this because horror fanatics have built up a tolerance to disturbing acts of violence?  If this is the case, how will future filmmakers adjust?  As technology advances, does originality become a lost entity?