. . . as in, why the heck did the Edison folks NOT use any title cards during this 1 minute, 13.89 second short?? The uncredited actor who plays the bumpkin traveler wastes enough time with his histrionic and repetitious gesturing to provide a competent editor more than enough time to insert a dozen or two title cards (even if the running time needed to be kept to 74 seconds). Some suggestions: at :14 (after the bellman somersaults backwards and disappears into thin air) WHERE DID HE GO?!; :21 WHAT HAPPENED TO MY UMBRELLA AND BAG?, :26 WHERE'S MY COAT?; :49 WHO'S PULLING MY BOOTS?, etc., etc. Instead, a person needs to watch this 15 or 20 times to gain an inkling at what directors Porter and Fleming may be driving at. Given the crass nature of this film company--which has never been equaled to this day--this was probably part of their conspiracy to make people feel really stupid, forcing them to "put another nickel in, in the nickelodeon," so to speak, in order to not appear like total idiots around the water cooler.
5 Reviews
Pretty Interesting As An Example of Editing & Other Techniques At the Time
Snow Leopard25 July 2005
This Edison short comedy is mildly amusing to watch for its own sake, but it is particularly interesting as a historical example, because of the way that it was filmed and edited together. Although the effect is uncomplicated, it tried to do at least a couple of things that were relatively new and ambitious for its time. The story blends together a comic fantasy sequence with a climactic gag of a more macabre nature, and both hold some interest, in different ways.
The main story is quite similar to a number of other features of the era (particularly those of Georges Méliès, as well as some other Edison movies), in showing a man spending the night in an unfamiliar place, where he encounters some bizarre behavior on the part of various inanimate objects. This was one of the stock story-lines that some movie pioneers used to set up special camera effects, using stop-motion photography, and this is one of the earlier examples. A couple of the visual tricks are quite good, and would have been creditable even if they had been done some years later. Others do not come off so well, either because the intended effect was too ambitious or because the editing does not quite work.
The closing gag is of interest in another way, in that the way that it is constructed requires the viewer to supply what happens in between the final two camera shots. It shows cause and result, but with a gap in between that the viewer has to 'catch' in order for it to make sense. This is very common now, and present-day film-makers often use it to very good effect, but it's a relatively rare example from its own era. It comes off pretty well, although the next-to-last shot does not quite take in the important details as clearly as it should have, probably because it was limited by the vantage point of the camera equipment of the era. The gag itself, though a morbid one, is also clever enough, if somewhat snide and elitist - perhaps even at the expense of some of its own viewers. Overall, the movie offers a number of points of interest.
The main story is quite similar to a number of other features of the era (particularly those of Georges Méliès, as well as some other Edison movies), in showing a man spending the night in an unfamiliar place, where he encounters some bizarre behavior on the part of various inanimate objects. This was one of the stock story-lines that some movie pioneers used to set up special camera effects, using stop-motion photography, and this is one of the earlier examples. A couple of the visual tricks are quite good, and would have been creditable even if they had been done some years later. Others do not come off so well, either because the intended effect was too ambitious or because the editing does not quite work.
The closing gag is of interest in another way, in that the way that it is constructed requires the viewer to supply what happens in between the final two camera shots. It shows cause and result, but with a gap in between that the viewer has to 'catch' in order for it to make sense. This is very common now, and present-day film-makers often use it to very good effect, but it's a relatively rare example from its own era. It comes off pretty well, although the next-to-last shot does not quite take in the important details as clearly as it should have, probably because it was limited by the vantage point of the camera equipment of the era. The gag itself, though a morbid one, is also clever enough, if somewhat snide and elitist - perhaps even at the expense of some of its own viewers. Overall, the movie offers a number of points of interest.
Everyone Wants To Be Georges
boblipton25 November 2019
Here's yet another variation on Melies' THE HAUNTED INN. Melies did not invent the trick shot in cinema --THE EXECUTION OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS, in which Mrs. Robert L. Thomas' head seems to be chopped off, came out in 1895). Nonetheless, Melies' stuff was immediately and immensely popular, which meant that people were going to imitate his movies. At least the folks at Edison restaged it, instead of simply buying a print of the Melies flicker and making copies for their own catalogue, as some 'producers' were reputed too.
It's fairly good, but something went wrong in the copy I saw. The last shot shows the exterior of the hotel, which makes sense. If this was the way the movie was initially released.... well, they learned better.
It's fairly good, but something went wrong in the copy I saw. The last shot shows the exterior of the hotel, which makes sense. If this was the way the movie was initially released.... well, they learned better.
Entertaining Trick Film
Michael_Elliott15 December 2016
Another One for the Undertaker (1901)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
If you're a fan of Georges Melies then you know he was a master at the trick film. This here isn't the work of Melies and it's rather obvious, although the ultra short running time is small enough to where you can be entertained. Basically a man walks into a room where he goes to undress for bed but he's haunted by an invisible force. There's obviously nothing ground-breaking here but for the most part this is entertaining enough to where it's worth watching for fans of these early movies. The trick effects aren't anything spectacular but they look good enough for the period. The film does have an edited shot to an alternate location at the end of the film, which wasn't all too common for the time.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
If you're a fan of Georges Melies then you know he was a master at the trick film. This here isn't the work of Melies and it's rather obvious, although the ultra short running time is small enough to where you can be entertained. Basically a man walks into a room where he goes to undress for bed but he's haunted by an invisible force. There's obviously nothing ground-breaking here but for the most part this is entertaining enough to where it's worth watching for fans of these early movies. The trick effects aren't anything spectacular but they look good enough for the period. The film does have an edited shot to an alternate location at the end of the film, which wasn't all too common for the time.
It's a complete ripoff of Méliès, but it's still enjoyable
Tornado_Sam13 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the French filmmaker Georges Méliès's films had to do with a traveler going to stay the night at an inn but then meeting up with mysterious happenings presumably influenced by ghosts. This film, "Another Job for the Undertaker" resembles these concepts a lot but is actually a ripoff of his ideas by Edison, who was clearly trying to cash in on the Cinemagician's popularity. It is a minute long and features some pretty cheap sets (the table painted onto the backdrop, for example) and pretty obvious tricks, but in the end it's still a pleasant enough little diversion for only about a minute. The same old stuff happens: chairs disappear, boots move by themselves, etc. At the end we see the guy's funeral procession because he apparently died, which is supposed to be funny but isn't because it felt irrelevant to the rest of it. I can understand this because of the lack of sound or intertitles at the time. There was simply no other way to do it. If you've enjoyed Méliès's haunted inn shorts, you will find this to be an interesting diversion.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
