This film, if you'll pardon the pun, created quite a storm upon its release in the first days of the cinema, and given the turbulent thrashings of the waves here it's hardly surprising. Workers leaving a factory and men pretending to be blacksmiths against a black background tend to pale in comparison. This also succeeds in the same way that the Lumiere's films succeeded: in the way that it captures motion, something a conventional camera was incapable of doing. It was a major advantage for the motion picture, and it's perhaps not surprising that it took filmmakers so long to see beyond this to the other potential uses of cinema.
10 Reviews
Pretty to watch but mundane
planktonrules15 September 2006
Okay, since the film was made all the way back in 1895 (when films were in their infancy), I'll cut the film some slack. After all, ALL the movies were dull and short pieces about the most mundane activities. And so, compared to contemporary pieces, it's not too bad. The subject matter--waves crashing--isn't too interesting, but the film has an artistic composition that make it rather like an Ansel Adams print come to life. Not great, certainly, but for 1895 not bad.
If you LOVE this film, then be sure to watch THE ROUGH SEA (1900). It must be once of the cinema's first sequels! Yay!!! MORE Surf footage!!!!
If you LOVE this film, then be sure to watch THE ROUGH SEA (1900). It must be once of the cinema's first sequels! Yay!!! MORE Surf footage!!!!
Blockbuster of the 19th Century
Cineanalyst14 December 2007
Robert Paul and Birt Acres were England's first commercial filmmakers and, thus, largely introduced motion pictures to the country (although Edison and Lumière quickly entered the market, as well). Additionally, this film of theirs, "Rough Sea at Dover", in particular, had a distinguished journey in introducing motion pictures and, moreover, cinema to the UK and US. To begin, Paul exploited the negligence of Thomas Edison not patenting his Kinetoscope peephole viewer in Europe by copying it to go into the Kinetoscope parlour business for himself, as well as selling them to others. Paul would also later sell the projectors he invented, and he provided Georges Méliès and Charles Pathé, among others, with their starts in the business. Yet, since Edison didn't sell his Kinetograph camera and, thus, didn't expose it to duplication, Paul had to invent his own. For this, he acquired the assistance of Acres. They made several films together with their camera before parting company, including this one. That the subject of "Rough Sea at Dover" takes place not only outdoors but also by the rough seas indicates the superiority of their camera to the Kinetograph, which was a bulky, electrically driven, camera essentially trapped within the "Black Maria" studio.
John Barnes ("The Beginning of the Cinema in England"), indeed, has attributed the popularity of the film to its natural, actuality setting standing out in early programs where it was surrounded by indoor staged and fiction films, especially those the Edison Company lifted from vaudeville. Barnes also points out that unlike other films originally photographed for the Kinetoscope (that is, a faster rate than became standard for cinematic projections), the rather slow-motion effect that resulted from their transfer to the screen didn't damage this film's effect and, rather, perhaps, enhanced it. Furthermore, three major producers attained copies of "Rough Sea at Dover", in addition to other distributors, making it one of the most widely screened pictures of its era. Paul and Acres both retained prints after their divorce, and Edison attained a copy, too (a gift from Paul it seems). The film appeared in the Kinetoscope at the Empire of India Exhibition, during its run beginning 27 May 1895. Acres was the first to project it onto the screen, having done so for the Royal Photographic Society on 14 January 1896, and he continued to use the film in his later programs, including those with his new projector called the Kineoptikon, which premiered on 21 March.
Here's a contemporary review of the film's appearance at an Acres's program: "The final slide--a study of waves breaking on a stone pier--was simply wonderful in its realistic effect. We all know how beautiful ordinary instantaneous effects of breaking waves appear on the screen, but when the actual movement of nature is reproduced in addition, the result is little short of marvelous. Very rarely indeed has such enthusiastic applause as greeted Mr Acres on the conclusion of his demonstration been heard at the 'Royal'."
Paul devised his Theatrograph projector shortly after Acres's screenings, including for a 28 February showing at the Royal Institution on Albemarle Street. Beginning 25 March, "Rough Sea at Dover" and other films also had a run at the Alhambra. Again, the reviews paid particular notice to this film. "The waves dashed against the breakwater, the spray seemed to start out of the picture and those who stood near the screen appeared to be in imminent danger of being wetted. A few people were observed dodging the flying foam, while all the time the sea was in a perpetual state of motion."
In America, "Rough Sea at Dover" was part of the program shown at the Vitascope's premiere on 23 April 1896 at Koster and Bial's Music Hall in New York. In a poster advertisement for the Vitascope, it's shown being projected to a riveted audience. (The peculiar thing about the picture, however, is how small the projected image is in comparison to the large crowded theatre.) The film was still the showstopper. Reportedly, it was so successful that exhibitors would play it several times in a program. One of the Vitascope's inventors, Thomas Armat said of the film, "A scene that was totally unlike anything an audience had ever before seen in a theater. When it was thrown upon the screen the house went wild...."
Other notable exhibitors of "Rough Sea at Dover" included William Friese-Greene, who was one of the earliest inventors of motion pictures. He appears to have attained a copy through his relationship with Acres, and he screened this film in his program on 2 December 1896 at a meeting of the Croydon Camera Club. It's likely that Georges Méliès also projected the film at his Robert Houdin theatre, as he ordered films from Acres before he began making movies himself. Furthermore, the popularity of this film resulted in remakes and imitations, including the Edison Company's "Surf at Long Beach" (1896) and Bamforth Films' "Rough Sea" (1900). Paul and Acres also returned to similar subjects. "A Sea Cave Near Lisbon" (1896), photographed by Henry Short for Paul, is a particularly well composed example.
Another thing to mention concerning "Rough Sea at Dover" is that it's a single scene. It has been mistaken for otherwise because the archive print (shown in the Movies Begin home video series) contains another film (or part of it) with it. It's probably another Acres production, "Niagra Falls No.1: The Upper River Just Above the Falls" (1895), which as of this writing doesn't have an IMDb page. This joining surely happened during an exhibition, when films of similar subject were often shown together--when the exhibitors controlled the assembling of films. "Rough Sea at Dover", however, was made, sold and conceived as a single shot film, as were all films at the time. (Paul would later pioneer multi-shot films, though.) I think it's remarkable enough that this film has survived. Its somewhat deteriorated form today even seems eloquently fitting to those rough seas.
(Main Source: Barnes.)
John Barnes ("The Beginning of the Cinema in England"), indeed, has attributed the popularity of the film to its natural, actuality setting standing out in early programs where it was surrounded by indoor staged and fiction films, especially those the Edison Company lifted from vaudeville. Barnes also points out that unlike other films originally photographed for the Kinetoscope (that is, a faster rate than became standard for cinematic projections), the rather slow-motion effect that resulted from their transfer to the screen didn't damage this film's effect and, rather, perhaps, enhanced it. Furthermore, three major producers attained copies of "Rough Sea at Dover", in addition to other distributors, making it one of the most widely screened pictures of its era. Paul and Acres both retained prints after their divorce, and Edison attained a copy, too (a gift from Paul it seems). The film appeared in the Kinetoscope at the Empire of India Exhibition, during its run beginning 27 May 1895. Acres was the first to project it onto the screen, having done so for the Royal Photographic Society on 14 January 1896, and he continued to use the film in his later programs, including those with his new projector called the Kineoptikon, which premiered on 21 March.
Here's a contemporary review of the film's appearance at an Acres's program: "The final slide--a study of waves breaking on a stone pier--was simply wonderful in its realistic effect. We all know how beautiful ordinary instantaneous effects of breaking waves appear on the screen, but when the actual movement of nature is reproduced in addition, the result is little short of marvelous. Very rarely indeed has such enthusiastic applause as greeted Mr Acres on the conclusion of his demonstration been heard at the 'Royal'."
Paul devised his Theatrograph projector shortly after Acres's screenings, including for a 28 February showing at the Royal Institution on Albemarle Street. Beginning 25 March, "Rough Sea at Dover" and other films also had a run at the Alhambra. Again, the reviews paid particular notice to this film. "The waves dashed against the breakwater, the spray seemed to start out of the picture and those who stood near the screen appeared to be in imminent danger of being wetted. A few people were observed dodging the flying foam, while all the time the sea was in a perpetual state of motion."
In America, "Rough Sea at Dover" was part of the program shown at the Vitascope's premiere on 23 April 1896 at Koster and Bial's Music Hall in New York. In a poster advertisement for the Vitascope, it's shown being projected to a riveted audience. (The peculiar thing about the picture, however, is how small the projected image is in comparison to the large crowded theatre.) The film was still the showstopper. Reportedly, it was so successful that exhibitors would play it several times in a program. One of the Vitascope's inventors, Thomas Armat said of the film, "A scene that was totally unlike anything an audience had ever before seen in a theater. When it was thrown upon the screen the house went wild...."
Other notable exhibitors of "Rough Sea at Dover" included William Friese-Greene, who was one of the earliest inventors of motion pictures. He appears to have attained a copy through his relationship with Acres, and he screened this film in his program on 2 December 1896 at a meeting of the Croydon Camera Club. It's likely that Georges Méliès also projected the film at his Robert Houdin theatre, as he ordered films from Acres before he began making movies himself. Furthermore, the popularity of this film resulted in remakes and imitations, including the Edison Company's "Surf at Long Beach" (1896) and Bamforth Films' "Rough Sea" (1900). Paul and Acres also returned to similar subjects. "A Sea Cave Near Lisbon" (1896), photographed by Henry Short for Paul, is a particularly well composed example.
Another thing to mention concerning "Rough Sea at Dover" is that it's a single scene. It has been mistaken for otherwise because the archive print (shown in the Movies Begin home video series) contains another film (or part of it) with it. It's probably another Acres production, "Niagra Falls No.1: The Upper River Just Above the Falls" (1895), which as of this writing doesn't have an IMDb page. This joining surely happened during an exhibition, when films of similar subject were often shown together--when the exhibitors controlled the assembling of films. "Rough Sea at Dover", however, was made, sold and conceived as a single shot film, as were all films at the time. (Paul would later pioneer multi-shot films, though.) I think it's remarkable enough that this film has survived. Its somewhat deteriorated form today even seems eloquently fitting to those rough seas.
(Main Source: Barnes.)
Waves, waves and... waves
Horst_In_Translation12 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Usually, I'm too fond of nature documentaries, especially if they include animals, but this one just doesn't do anything for me. Of course the wild water is kinda intimidating, but even no more than 23 seconds, it's just not engaging enough to keep me interested from start to finish. I wish there would have been maybe at least one brave swimmer in there offering a welcome distraction. But nope. We also see the shore and I'm not entirely certain if there's people on it enjoying the view and the sound of the waves (which would have been a nice addition, too bad it wasn't invented yet). It's just too far away to say with certainty. Birt Acres has done better during his very prolific career from 1894 to 1900.
Turneresque.
the red duchess18 October 2000
Made the same year as the first Lumiere films, this is a much more dramatic short than the brothers attempted until the following year's 'Niagara'. The surviving print is very rough, but this only adds to the Turneresque visual violence, as huge surges of water dash against a stolid pier, and seem ready to engulf the camera, the viewer.
If you watch a number of these early shorts in chronological order, and try to get into the mindset of the times, there is a further shock in that, unlike the single frame set-ups of the Lumieres, this film features an edit, which for me at any rate, was as slashing as the razor blade in 'Un Chien Andoulu).
Unlike the mono-vision of the Lumieres' films, Paul opens up the possibility of multiple perspectives, freeing the viewer from the power of nature, eluding its grasp in a way the Lumieres never could. The second shot features a similar gush to that of Niagara, but is less frightening because, by way of the edit, we have sidestepped the danger. In a film like 'L'Arroseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', nature stands indifferent and powerful, uncontainable by the camera. Basic film grammar puts an end to its supremacy.
If you watch a number of these early shorts in chronological order, and try to get into the mindset of the times, there is a further shock in that, unlike the single frame set-ups of the Lumieres, this film features an edit, which for me at any rate, was as slashing as the razor blade in 'Un Chien Andoulu).
Unlike the mono-vision of the Lumieres' films, Paul opens up the possibility of multiple perspectives, freeing the viewer from the power of nature, eluding its grasp in a way the Lumieres never could. The second shot features a similar gush to that of Niagara, but is less frightening because, by way of the edit, we have sidestepped the danger. In a film like 'L'Arroseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', nature stands indifferent and powerful, uncontainable by the camera. Basic film grammar puts an end to its supremacy.
Somewhat Unrefined, But Memorable Footage
Snow Leopard4 August 2005
The footage in "Rough Sea At Dover" is rather unrefined, at least in its present condition, but it features some memorable views. The main footage is now rather blurry and unclear, and it's hard to tell just how realistic it may have looked originally. Again as it now stands, the movie consists of two different scenes that may have been edited together after the fact - once again, it's probably impossible to tell with certainty. But in any event, this short movie is one of the more effective examples of the type of early 'actuality' that features water in motion.
The scene at Dover catches the wall of a pier as heavy waves crash against it, and the slightly diagonal camera angle adds to the power of the sea as it comes towards the viewer. If the picture were less blurry, it might be an excellent shot. The second scene must come from an entirely different, inland location, but it too shows a good view of water in motion, from a different perspective.
The early cinema team of Birt Acres and R.W. Paul did not stick together very long, but this feature shows what they were capable of doing.
The scene at Dover catches the wall of a pier as heavy waves crash against it, and the slightly diagonal camera angle adds to the power of the sea as it comes towards the viewer. If the picture were less blurry, it might be an excellent shot. The second scene must come from an entirely different, inland location, but it too shows a good view of water in motion, from a different perspective.
The early cinema team of Birt Acres and R.W. Paul did not stick together very long, but this feature shows what they were capable of doing.
Nice Day For Waves
PCC092113 December 2022
Rough Sea at Dover (1895), was shot in mid-1895. It wouldn't be projected onto a screen at a paid public venue, until January of 1896. It is considered an 1895 film, because of all the work it took, during 1895, getting the camera built and ready for shooting, in order, to get this film made. Birt Acres and Robert W. Paul had a huge influence on the early inventions of filmmaking. They are true pioneers of the film industry. They too were competing with the Lumiere brothers and Edison to reach that starting point of paid public screenings. This is the first time I have seen Rough Sea at Dover (1895) and I loved it. The first disaster film, maybe? The waves that Acres captured on that day looked pretty dangerous. It showed the power and magic, that the art of the motion pictures can convey. Of course, I'm giving one of the first movies ever made a 10.
9.8 (A+ MyGrade) = 10 IMDB.
9.8 (A+ MyGrade) = 10 IMDB.
Really needs to be seen with historical context or else it is just very grainy footage of water for 30 seconds
bob the moo27 February 2008
I watched this film on a DVD that was rammed with short films from the period. I didn't watch all of them as the main problem with these type of things that their value is more in their historical novelty value rather than entertainment. So to watch them you do need to be put in the correct context so that you can keep this in mind and not watch it with modern eyes. With the Primitives & Pioneers DVD collection though you get nothing to help you out, literally the films are played one after the other (the main menu option is "play all") for several hours. With this it is hard to understand their relevance and as an educational tool it falls down as it leaves the viewer to fend for themselves, which I'm sure is fine for some viewers but certainly not the majority. What it means is that the DVD saves you searching the web for the films individually by putting them all in one place but that's about it.
I will not even try and match the excellent review written for this film by user Cineanalyst. Although he/she doesn't actually review the film per se, he/she does do a great job of setting the historical context and giving the reader an understanding of what the reaction to this film was, something the DVD collection totally fails to do. And I'll say this, the film desperately needs context. I watched it after seeing many Lumière films and it made me appreciate them more because the photography here is terrible. I don't know if it is the effect of age or just the way it always was, but the photography is chaotic and grainy, really taking away from the impact of the footage. This was a problem for me and it was why I was grateful for the wider understanding because without it there is little else.
I will not even try and match the excellent review written for this film by user Cineanalyst. Although he/she doesn't actually review the film per se, he/she does do a great job of setting the historical context and giving the reader an understanding of what the reaction to this film was, something the DVD collection totally fails to do. And I'll say this, the film desperately needs context. I watched it after seeing many Lumière films and it made me appreciate them more because the photography here is terrible. I don't know if it is the effect of age or just the way it always was, but the photography is chaotic and grainy, really taking away from the impact of the footage. This was a problem for me and it was why I was grateful for the wider understanding because without it there is little else.
Rough Sea at Dover
Michael_Elliott21 September 2018
Rough Sea at Dover (1896)
The title of this twenty-second film pretty much tells you all that you need to know. The camera is set up to capture some giant waves crashing up against a wall. On top of the wall you can see some people standing. That's pretty much the only thing that happens here but if you're a fan of these early movies then you'll certainly want to check it out even though there's certainly nothing here that changed film history. The waves are good enough for what they are and I'm sure people who had never seen them were having fun paying a penny to watch this back in 1896.
The title of this twenty-second film pretty much tells you all that you need to know. The camera is set up to capture some giant waves crashing up against a wall. On top of the wall you can see some people standing. That's pretty much the only thing that happens here but if you're a fan of these early movies then you'll certainly want to check it out even though there's certainly nothing here that changed film history. The waves are good enough for what they are and I'm sure people who had never seen them were having fun paying a penny to watch this back in 1896.
Bad Condition with shortly entertaining footage
Tornado_Sam24 May 2017
This short feature is included in Kino's "The Movies Begin" set in the second volume. It is the only Birt Acres feature included in that volume, and I'm presuming all the others don't include any other films by the director. Besides the sea being rough in the film, the print condition is also. I can't guess why this was included in Kino's set because there isn't really much point to it. There are plenty other films showing stuff like this with rough seas. However, this was made in 1896 and back then it would have been well appreciated I'm sure. This short is 30 seconds or a bit more than that and it's interesting...while it lasts.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
