The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1895) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
26 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
it's place in film history cannot be taken away despite the cruel nature of the film
Mikko_Elo_17 October 2004
all right, the execution of mary, queen of scots is certainly not the prettiest of the edison labs. films. i'm not keen on executions nor bad camera tricks and this one delivers. still, it's the first of it's kind for both, and is therefore essential viewing for anyone seriously interested in film.

now, let's get realistic for a second here. the camera trick used here is one of the first, if not the first of it's kind. apparently it shocked the audience it had in it's days, but for obvious reasons it today looks quite fake. this is also one of the first if not the first film reproducing a historical scene going for the best possible realism, a description that later became a definition for a genre. the execution wasn't very realistic historically either, though.

according to IMDb it's also the first film with trained actors. it doesn't show much ;) but it's yet another merit for this film only mildly interesting in traditional sense. like it or not, the execution of mary stuart ranks high in film history. the influence it has given to countless films after it cannot be dismissed.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A short film of great importance...
jluis198423 April 2007
1895 was a year of great importance in the history of cinema, the main reason for that is of course the beginning of the Lumière brothers' series of public showings of their movies. The brother's invention of the Cinematographe changed the way moving pictures were seen, as for the first time, images could be projected on a screen for an audience to see them, just like the theater. This event was a significant blow to Edison's Kinetoscope (then the most popular device used for watching moving pictures), as the Cinematographe offered a more comfortable experience when compared to the individual "peep show machine" of the Kinetoscope. In an attempt to save his invention, Edison hired Alfred Clark to make original films of a different subject matter to compete with the Cinematographe. The results were a series of representations of historical events, among them it was this movie, "The Execution of Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots".

In its barely one minute of duration, "The Execution of Mary Stuart" presents a representation of the beheading of Mary I of Scotland (Robert Thomae), monarch of the kingdom of Scotland who was executed in 1587 because of her supposed participation in plots to assassinate the Queen of England, Elizabeth I. The strange circumstances surrounding her trial and execution have transformed the figure of Queen Mary into a legendary icon of a victim of political intrigues (some see her as a martyr), making her life an inspiration for many works of art, and this short movie represents the first time her story was portrayed in film. While historically inaccurate (the real Mary was beheaded with three blows, instead of one), the movie has a very haunting atmosphere that even today looks very realistic and solemn.

Despite having been made when Kinetoscope was in its last days, "The Execution of Mary Stuart" is a very important film for many different reasons. For starters, it was among the first movies to use trained actors, and the very first to have a man (Robert Thomae) playing a woman. Before Clark's historical movies, Kinetoscope's shorts were either moving pictures portraying everyday scenes (the Lumière would follow this format) or famous artists like Annie Oakley or Annabelle Moore performing their arts for the camera; Clark's movies changed this by having actors playing characters instead of themselves. While he didn't fully introduced theater's elements in his films (Georges Méliès and J. Searle Dawley would do that), his work was certainly groundbreaking as it was the seed of storytelling in films, and the beginning of the close relationship between theater and film.

Finally, Alfred Clark's movie introduced another interesting element to cinema that would become one of its most important features in its future years: film editing. In order to achieve a realistic beheading, Clark decided to use a simple cut to change from the actor to a dummy that could be beheaded without problem. While a very simple device (that in this modern age of effects looks painfully obvious), this meant the first use of the medium's properties to achieve an effect (that was considered so real that some thought a real person was being killed on screen). Later pioneers like Georges Méliès and Edwin S. Porter would further develop this trick in order to create their fantastic magic. Kinetoscope died shortly after the release of this film, but while it wasn't a very successful movie on its release, "The Execution of Mary Stuart" is definitely one of the most important movies of those early years of cinema. 7/10
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What an excellent day for a beheading.
ackstasis27 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
One of many films produced by Thomas Edison throughout the 1890s and early 1900s, 'The Execution of Mary Stuart,' sometimes referred to as 'Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots,' is reportedly the first film in history to implement trained actors. The film, running less than a minute, is comprised of two stationary shots (passed off as one for the purposes of the visual trickery), and shows an understandably somber Mary being led to the chopping block, where an axe-wielding executioner waits expectantly. Courageously, Mary obediently follows instructions to kneel down, and she lays her neck across the chopping block. With one solid hack, Mary's head comes clean off, her body slumps to the ground and the executioner ominously holds her severed head towards the camera.

Never mind the glaring historical inaccuracies (it is generally agreed upon by historians that, on February 8 1587, it took three blows before Mary's head was hacked off); this is a genuinely chilling little film, and I can only imagine how unsettling audiences of its day must have found it. Even though we can clearly see the cut where the actor (Robert Thomae) was substituted with a dummy, the moment when the axe appears to slice clean through Mary's neck certainly gave me a start.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firsts: Edit and Production
Cineanalyst1 December 2007
This film seems to be the first edited film. It is a historical reenactment of the 8 February 1587 execution for treason of the deposed monarch. In it, Mary kneels before the executioner, and once he raised his axe, the filmmakers (Alfred Clark and William Heise) stopped filming. (Interestingly, Mary is portrayed by a man--a relic dating back to Elizabethan and Shakespearian times when women were barred from the stage. This is even odder because the Edison Company had since introduced female stage performers to the movies.) They replaced Mary with a dummy and resumed filming--creating a jump cut. The executioner promptly beheads her. In post-production, the filmmakers spliced the shots together to create a seamless, that is, invisible transition; at least, that was their hopeful intention.

Today, the splice is quite noticeable (although maybe not if you're viewing an Internet transfer) if you look for it (in the lower half of the frame), as are the differences in proportion and position of the actor and the dummy. Given the technical limitations of 1895, however, it's effective. Méliès and many others did the same thing for years afterwards, including most popularly in the trick films. In "The Great Train Robbery", released eight years later, the replacement of an actor with a dummy is more obvious than here, and it is so with many other later films, so the filmmakers here did well. The splice probably wasn't too noticeable when viewed through the Kinetoscope peephole viewer, as originally intended, either.

This must have been quite an effective film for its time, but the apocryphal stories are dubious. One of them, told at this web page's trivia, is that spectators believed a real murder was committed for the camera. Another is that some fainted during viewings. There are many anecdotes like this for various early films, but they're generally not this far fetched. I haven't read any credible evidence or support for these two particular stories, either.

The introduction of editing is of immense historical importance to film. It is exclusive to this medium--distinguishing it further as a unique art and opening not only opportunities for temporal reordering, but also (in later movies) for further spatial dimensions. Without it, the story film--cinematic narrative--is hopeless. It took a while for filmmakers to realize this, though. After this film, the Edison Company went back to filming single shot pictures. The earliest films with spatially separate scenes didn't begin appearing until about 1898, which not coincidently, coincides with the adoption in cameras and projectors of the Latham Loop: a device that relieves tension and vibration from the moving filmstrip that otherwise might tear it, thus allowing for longer and edited films. Economics was also a major factor in the sluggish advancement in multi-shot films, as exhibitors, and not producers, largely controlled the final appearance of film back then--supporting the single-shot film for longer than technical limitations demanded.

In addition to production and post-production innovations, the filmmakers here also gave care to pre-production matters. According to Gordon Hendricks, and contrary to Charles Musser (both authorities on the subject), this film was shot in the environs of West Orange, rather than on the lot of the Edison Laboratory. Although the Kinetograph camera was bulky, the Edison Company had filmed several subjects outside before. Hendricks, however, suspects that this film was photographed with a new, more portable camera. The novelty here, however, is its attempt at dramatic realism that is its historical reenactment (perhaps the earliest such film). Thus, also for possibly the first time, this film features professional, theatrical actors. Additionally, as evidenced by an extant document (provided by Hendricks in "The Kinetoscope"), Clark was involved in the precise costume decisions and devised cautious planning for weather conditions. Although these innovations in the production of a reenactment aren't as cinematically innovative as editing and are, really, rather theatrical, they nonetheless were also important steps towards the development of film narrative and the increasingly elaborate nature of film production.

Today, this film seems inadequate; without its title and producers' descriptions, who would know that's it's a historical reenactment; that could be the beheading of anyone. There's also the lack of blood. As to historical accounts, it's not as interesting as other stories, which include two or three chops of the axe--perhaps, intentional, and, perhaps, clumsy. When the executioner holds up her head, there's no wig. This is a clean and simple execution. Additionally, the edit is a jump cut intended to be invisible in joining together two scenes that are spatially the same. Yet, it wouldn't be until about 1898 that action across spatially separate scenes emerged. It would be the Edison Company, however, that probably introduced multiple perspectives, with such films as "Return of Lifeboat" (1897).

The two filmmakers of "The Execution", though, deserve mentioning in the history books. The innovations of this film seem to have been mostly the work of its director Alfred Clark. He had just transferred from Raff & Gammon (the financiers of many Edison Company films), where he had been working in the phonograph business--another Edison invention. In a short span, Clark made several historical films, including "Joan of Arc" (1895) on the same day. Predictably, that film is about the saint's execution by burning. He would make few others before returning to the phonograph business.

William Heise co-invented the Kinetograph and Kinetoscope and thus motion pictures. With William K.L. Dickson, who had recently left Edison for Biograph and cinema, they made some of the earliest films ever made. Heise's name is behind many firsts in film.

(Note: This is the fourth in a series of my comments on 10 "firsts" in film history. The other films covered are Traffic Crossing Leeds Bridge (1888), Annabelle Serpentine Dance (1895), La Sortie des usines Lumière (1895), L' Arroseur arose (1895), L'Arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat (1896), Panorama du Grand Canal vu d'un bateau (1896), Return of Lifeboat (1897) and Panorama of Eiffel Tower (1900).)
18 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
First film in history to use trained actors
AlsExGal27 March 2017
This is a reenactment of the execution of Queen Mary. This clip was filmed in Edison's studio on August 28, 1895. Mary is brought to the execution block and made to kneel down with her neck over it. The executioner lifts his axe ready to bring it down. After that frame Mary has been replaced by a dummy. The axe comes down and severs the head of the dummy from the body. The executioner picks up the head and shows it around for everyone else to see. One of the first 'camera tricks' to be used in a movie. It shocked audiences in its day, but for obvious reasons it today looks quite fake. This is also one of the first if not the first film reproducing a historical scene going for the best possible realism, a description that later became a definition for a genre. This was the first film in history to use trained actors.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
18 second film mainly for those interested in the history of cinema
Armin_Nikkhah_Shirazi1 February 2024
The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots is an 18 second short film depicting exactly what its title says. There is no real story, and beside what the title tells us, we have no further context. Also, the actual swinging of the axe is curiously slow.

Still, this is the first known film to use a special effect, namely a cut where the person of Mary is replaced by a mannequin, and it also may be the first film to use trained actors.

The actual special effect, while visible, is not that bad. If the legend is to be believed, some audience members even thought that the film depicted an actual beheading.

18 seconds is not much to see one of the pioneering works in cinema history.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Simple yet important
Rodrigo_Amaro5 April 2013
Alfred Clark's "The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots" is pretty much what the title says: a queen being beheaded. I discovered this while watching a strange documentary which included a clip from this film, and something in the image made me want to know more about what it was cause it seemed something real. Thankfully one can find anything on the internet and the result was knowing that it wasn't real.

So, history gets represented by the image of a queen being decapitated and having her head exposed to the crowd. The interesting aspect of this is watching a very tricky scene happening, a good editing effect which can be noticed after a couple of views with a mannequin replacing the actor (Robert Thomae) playing the queen. But what really gives away about the editing being made was that the body falls while the head stays on a sort of table (I mean, isn't it "Off with the heads!" and then it falls down? It just stayed there.) Only distracted or easily impressive viewers will think this was a real execution but it's not.

Just goes to show that some folks back in the 1800's were interested in making gory films or, perhaps the most fascinating aspect of it and the legacy such experiments gave us, was the filmmakers interest in using films to present history to audiences, retelling famous events of mankind. Gotta consider both ideas as being truly valid. 9/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Too much CGI
LeftyLiebowitz11 January 2018
It was okay. I just wish Edison had put more effort into convincing CGI.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Today directors wouldn't dare to do such a crude scene
roberjruiz10 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Film was made in 1895, and of course special effects were very limited and the trick is very obvious.

Anyway I found something really interesting in this short. The camera focuses on the beheading, and keeps there until the very end. I don't know any other film where that kind of scene is shown in such a crude way. If you see any modern film were someone is beheaded, they always avoid to show a first plane of the critical moment. May be they just put a black screen while you hear the axe chopping, or at most, they blur the image and after a second you may see the head rolling or in a basket but they always avoid to show a first plane of the axe or guillotine in the moment they cut the head.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wow...not a whole lot to this one!
planktonrules19 February 2014
I would consider "The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots" to be one of the earliest exploitational films. It has very little merit or substance and was made simply to shock audiences--and according to IMDb, it did!

The film is only about 15-20 seconds long! It consists of a lady laying her head on the chopping block and the executioner hacking her head off and showing it to the onlookers. However, it isn't at all historically accurate--as they did not use an axe but a French Sword for such executions and it would have been done on the grounds of the Tower of London and there would have been a scaffold. Additionally, it took a couple swings to mostly sever her head and the remaining sinew needed to be cut with a sharp knife!! In the film, there was just a quick swing of the blade.

So, what we have is a mostly historically inaccurate production. In some ways, being inaccurate was better as the real execution was a bloody mess! But it's interesting simply to see what passed as entertainment in the very early days of cinema.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good (If Macabre) Special Effects For Its Time
Snow Leopard23 June 2005
For its day, this dramatization of Mary Stuart's execution has effective and believable special effects. The combination of the macabre subject matter and the brand-new visual trick must have produced quite a reaction from its audiences in 1895, given the accounts of how early movie audiences sometimes reacted even to much milder material.

The execution scene doesn't really have much that identifies the subject as Mary, Queen of Scots, and in fact some details would be at odds with a couple of the known historical facts about her death. But in itself, it is believable enough. It's certainly possible to tell that it uses a camera trick, but it was probably very effective in its time. The surviving print is rather blurry, but in this case it almost makes it seem more believable, by making some of the rough edges a little less obvious.

Special camera effects have now become so refined that it's hard to be as impressed with those done long ago. Yet even today, once you've seen enough computer-generated images, their seams start to show too, except for the very best of them. In its day, this would have come pretty close to setting the standard.
20 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Neat Piece Of Film History
Rainey-Dawn5 May 2016
Actually a very nice looking but extremely short film. It's a total of 18 seconds long but it is a silent film by Thomas Edison and, from what I've read, the first film ever edited. This is a real piece of film history one that is good to watch whether for film history or for entertainment value.

The film looks fairly realistic - in particular for 1895! Sure the actor playing Mary Stuart was replaced with a dummy for the edit - they are not going to execute a real actor and that was the purpose of this film - film editing! It's actually very Gothic looking - the executioner and the execution - neat piece of film history.

9/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor
MarinaChipe14 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*Possible spoilers ahead!* This is historically inaccurate and very dull. I mean, lets face it: who wants to see an execution? In this video (spoilers!) it took one chop to cut her head off; in real life it was three. Don't watch this if you don't want to watch a silent, black and white video.
2 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Scintillating
Lugosi3114 June 1999
Do yourself a favor and see this movie as soon as you can. It is a dramatic and concise film, showing Mary, Queen of Scots, lose her head. I guarantee you will never forget this EXCELLENT work of art.
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Fake!
dutchie8928 December 2005
For the technicals, I am sure they could'nt have done better for 1895, but this is quite pathetic... I can easily see the camera moving a little when the actor is replaced. I expected something horrorish but it was'nt at all! The 'video' does also not really appeal to the reality happening. I would not expect a woman to be so easy during the beheading scene, since it would be that she would fight for her life and struggle or at least cry during the process. None of this is to see. You also see the head moving when the actor gets replaced by the dummy of which you can then easily see the fakeness. This was like an experiment of trying to make an early ghost picture.
1 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
of strictly historical (as in the movies) interest
didi-519 September 2003
Just over a minute and the first camera trick from Edison as Mary loses her head and the executioner holds it up. Not three blows as in historical reality, just one. It is clever and it certainly quickly gets to the point! Part of where all the sneaky CGI ideas started.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Gosh, folks, since it's just 12.51 seconds long . . .
cricket3027 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
. . . do we really need a "plot summary"? Who is IMDb intended for, people with attention span deficit disorder (like the Ellen Degeneris character on FINDING NEMO)? I've only been registered on this site for a few days, but some of the things I already have seen here really makes a person wonder. Are long-time users paid somehow by the word? It takes longer to read some of the reviews than to actually watch the whole movie--twice!! And why is a "Parent's Guide" necessary for every single frame of film ever shot is the history of Planet Earth? I mean, if the title of the movie is VAMPIRE ZOMBIES vs. NAZI STRIPPERS, you hopefully wonnent be tempted to show it to your first grader. Will you? So with this film, if the title is THE EXECUTION OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS do you really need a parents' guide to tell you anything else? Do you need an exact count of how many drops of blood are shed in Mary's beheading??

P.S.--The answer is: none that I could see, though it is amazing how seamless the transition from an actual person to an apparent chopping dummy is (given this was filmed 118 years ago). Though it is disillusioning to learn a guy played the queen, I still give this 8 points of 10, cuz I like docu-dramas, and this was the very first one!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Cruel, but interesting
Horst_In_Translation12 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Even if Alfred Clark did not make movies before and after the year 1895, this is possibly one of the most spectacular short films from the 19th century. It combines quite a few genres in it. Drama, horror, gore and it's even historically significant. In no more than 15 seconds running time we see the beheading of the Queen of Scots depicted brutally real. The way her body sinks to the ground is mesmerizing yet painful to watch. After it's all over and life has flown out of her body, the executioner takes the head and holds it up to the crows to show demonstratively to the crowd that the Queen is dead. The audience in the background looked as baffled as I did during this short film and it's probably worth a watch for silent film enthusiasts, not for the easily offended though.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Pretty straightforward...
cheesecollector5 July 2022
This special effect still holds up! It looks like a lady getting her head chopped off. Impressive.

I wish more modern directors would utilize practical effects. The gesture with the guillotine feels so real. Plus - as I wrote in my review of Nosferatu - the high-contrast, black-and-white film makes this look like a newspaper reporting the execution.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not great, but important.
punky-9331514 October 2020
I am a massive horror fan, and this could be considered the first horror movie so I checked it out. Obviously the effects look like garbage today, but they were absolutely groundbreaking! There really isn't much to this film. I feel bad putting it so low, even though it's one of the better movies from the time, but I just can't put it above other movies which actually tried. Great for looking back at film history, but can't really recommend it for most people.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Impressive
Michael_Elliott30 December 2008
Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, The (1895)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

This Edison short was one of the first movies to deal with a real event and the payoff is actually very good. Mary Stuart is taken to the chopping block where she puts her head down and has it hacked off. The special effects in the film are very well done but I'm not sure if the edit is done in a good fashion or if we just can't see it because the print quality is so shaky. Either way this is nicely done and shows that there were some violent films being made back in the day. I've read that this film was pulled from various places because people actually believed that the woman gave her life for the movie. You can't help but think what these folks would feel about certain violent movies of today.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
First Use of Stop-Motion
PCC092111 September 2023
The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1895), was another film produced in 1895, but definitely wasn't shown in a motion picture theater setting, until 1896 or even 1897. This is an Edison film, that was used with his Kinetoscope machines initially. Edison was too wrapped up with his Kinetoscope films, that he didn't really get into the movie screen projection business until mid-1896 or 1897. This is why the Lumiere brothers and a couple of other filmmakers, beat Edison to the starting line of the film industry. It was quite clear by the year 1900, that a projected film image, in a theater setting, works better than standing in line for peepshow machines. The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1895), is important though, because it is considered to be the first film, to use a special effect. It is the first use of stop-motion photography. It also is the first film to use hired actors. The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1895), looks to be the only film Alfred Clark really did, but it was history-making.

9.1 (A- MyGrade) = 9 IMDB.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting. The first horror film.
nekrotikk1 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Considered by many to be the first horror film, this 12 second short shows what might be the first beheading effect on screen. There's not a lot I can say about such a short film. Watch it if you're interested in comparing how effects have changed over the years or if you just want to see the earliest surviving horror film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
gruesome
stuff_100420 January 2001
I have always been a big fan of movies that has shown such gruesome situations as dismemberment and bloodshed. This movie started it all with the beheading of Mary. No blood was shed even though I love chocolate (the early special effect for blood was chocolate sauce). It was also a very nice piece of history rendered by the movie industry.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alfred Clark Introduces the Film Edit
Tornado_Sam25 December 2017
The Edison company had originally begun production for the Kinetoscope parlors in the year 1894, with Scottish filmmaker and inventor William Kennedy Laurie Dickson employed to discover one of the world's first motion picture systems by Thomas A. Edison. Beginning with the earliest film tests (1890-1892) the first commercially exhibited presentation using the Kinetoscope actually took place on May 9, 1893; yet, since the Black Maria film studio for the Edison company was still being completed that year, production for the Kinetoscope parlors began in 1894. Films such as "Souvenir Strip of the Edison Kinetoscope", (retitled "Sandow No 1") "Carmencita", and many others were among the first films to be shown when the Holland Brothers' Kinetoscope parlor first opened on April 14, 1894. W. K. L. Dickson and his partner Heise then continued to work for Edison until 1895, when Dickson soon quit the company and took up a job working for American Mutoscope & Biograph. To replace Dickson, a new groundbreaking director joined to take his place: Alfred Clark, former worker for the North American Phonograph Company and director of this film.

Originally, the Edison company had started attracting popularity by filming various vaudeville acts and dance routines, which in a sense promoted the filmed performer by providing a brief sneak-peek at the act. People like Annabelle Moore, Eugen Sandow and others were some of the most popular performers of their day. However, when Clark joined the company in 1895 (which turned out to be the only year he worked for the company) these things changed. Admittedly, he did somewhat pick up where Dickson left off by shooting movies of the Leigh Sisters' and Yola Yberri's dance routines, but the majority of his output for Edison appears to have been groundbreaking, revolutionary and ahead of Georges Méliès by a year. Clark was the first one to do reenactments of Joan of Arc's execution and Capt. Smith's rescue by Pocahontas (both of which used trained actors and actually had little mini-plots) and in addition created some of the first drama films with "A Duel Between Two Historical Characters" and "A Frontier Scene". Compared to what filmmaking was like at the time and the fact that almost all the earliest Edison films were of performances, these movies were part of what changed the industry from a mere fad to a form of entertainment. Nearly all appear to be lost.

"The Execution of Mary Stuart" seems to be the only known surviving work by Alfred Clark. As such, it's important in that regard. Arguably featuring the world's first film edit (another innovation of Clark's) this brief 15-second clip features a woman (Mary Stuart, played by Robert Thomae who was the Secretary and Treasurer of the Kinetoscope company) laying her head onto a chopping block only to have it hacked off in one blow by the executioner, which is then held it up for all to see. (Since about five people on IMDb have already pointed out that it took three blows instead of one to get the head off, I won't even bother going into the historical background). Additional details include costumed actors posing as soldiers standing in the background.

The morbid subject matter should not surprise anybody. From the very beginning the Edison company had earned its reputation as being a dirty business by filming such things as scantily-clad (for the time) dancers showing their ankles and boxing (then considered a low-brow sport at the time). If you think about it , Edison could really be considered one of the main reasons motion pictures are so violent and sexy nowadays, with Hollywood and other companies producing such garbage. Instead of using editing to produce magic (like Méliès would later begin to do) the admittedly obvious edit here is used to recreate a scene which could not have been done in real life. (Many people didn't actually assume this, however; most were actually so terrified by the movie that it got to the point where they believed the woman had actually allowed herself to be killed for filming). If you don't believe how dirty they were, just check out the now-lost title of the only other candidate believably featuring the first edit: "Indian Scalping Scene" of the same year also by Clark (where the edit was no doubt probably used to show Indians scalping white men). Both candidates just go to show how the company was out to provoke and shock--and they got the expected reaction for all the work they put into it. Even so, for being possibly the first horror short and one of the first films to feature film editing, "The Execution of Mary Stuart" deserves credit as being the only surviving work of the now-forgotten pioneer Alfred Clark.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed