To the best of my knowledge, the Lumieres had only one camera during most of 1895 and none of them visited London to film anything. The movie was probably taken in 1896 by a Lumiere-company cameraman. Since the projected Lion would be about life size, the film must have impressed the viewers.
9 Reviews
Exotic Locales
boblipton9 April 2002
Sparing no expense, surrounded by hostile natives in their colorful clothing -- sorry, but this is black and white -- across stormy seas, braving the local perils of English cooking, Lumiere has ventured into darkest London to show you.... a lion.
Another one of the early shorts
rbverhoef4 March 2005
The camera watches a lion behind bars and a man in front of it feeds the animal. From time to time he wants the attention of the lion who sticks his paw through the bars.
The Lumière Brothers, Louis and Auguste, were not present while this little film was shot; one of their workers brought the camera along. Like all these shorts this one is interesting for its historical value. Watching something as old as this, a lion long gone, is sort of special. Also, it must have been pretty spectacular then, a pretty huge lion on a screen. Since it plays for not even a minute you will not be bored. Quite interesting.
The Lumière Brothers, Louis and Auguste, were not present while this little film was shot; one of their workers brought the camera along. Like all these shorts this one is interesting for its historical value. Watching something as old as this, a lion long gone, is sort of special. Also, it must have been pretty spectacular then, a pretty huge lion on a screen. Since it plays for not even a minute you will not be bored. Quite interesting.
Probably Didn't Work Quite As Intended
Snow Leopard23 November 2005
This brief Lumière feature is not really very good, and it probably did not work out quite as intended. The earliest movies were generally limited by what they could get to happen while they were shooting the fifty feet or so of film contained by the early motion picture cameras, and this is one example when they had probably hoped for something a little more interesting or exciting. As others have pointed out, it seems unlikely that the Lumières themselves filmed this, and so perhaps they could have done a little better if they had made the film personally.
The footage simply shows a lion in the London Zoo, with a keeper attempting to get it to do something interesting. The setting is the old-fashioned steel bar and concrete kind of enclosure, rather than a more natural one, and amongst other things it makes for a relatively dull background to the movie.
There are few things that are more worth looking at than a lion, and to early cinema audiences it may have been interesting to see even the simplest moving footage of a majestic great cat. But the lion seems ill at ease, and it often largely disappears from the camera field. Given the wealth of fine wildlife footage that is produced now, it's unlikely that this could have competed with it anyway, but perhaps if things had worked out a little differently it would have been a little more interesting.
The footage simply shows a lion in the London Zoo, with a keeper attempting to get it to do something interesting. The setting is the old-fashioned steel bar and concrete kind of enclosure, rather than a more natural one, and amongst other things it makes for a relatively dull background to the movie.
There are few things that are more worth looking at than a lion, and to early cinema audiences it may have been interesting to see even the simplest moving footage of a majestic great cat. But the lion seems ill at ease, and it often largely disappears from the camera field. Given the wealth of fine wildlife footage that is produced now, it's unlikely that this could have competed with it anyway, but perhaps if things had worked out a little differently it would have been a little more interesting.
Unpleasant depiction of captivity
Horst_In_Translation12 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the first animal documentaries. Made at a zoo, we see a lion getting his meal. Unfortunately, this film also depicted to me how an animal as strong and majestic as this (or any other) should not be put in a small area behind bars. Anyway, even with this obstacle, he was still beautiful to look at and he was especially impressive when he got his meal. I just wish the zookeeper or whoever was feeding him wouldn't be annoying and trolling him repeatedly throughout these 30 seconds. I have to admit I never heard of Alexandre Promio before watching this movie and now I see he has made quite a few more films (of course not in the dimensions of Lumière, Méliès or Guy), but still not too bad. What a pity this one is possibly his most famous work. Not recommended.
Historical and cultural curiosities
BrandtSponseller3 April 2005
This 37-second long Lumiere Brothers actuality (Lumiere No. 54) is a close shot of a lion in a cage. A zookeeper tries to keep the lion moving for the camera.
This short is fascinating for two reasons not intended by the Lumiere Brothers, because they both hinge on historical facts about cultures. The first is that this is a nice record of "old fashioned" zoos. Zoos used to be rows of small cages that appear more like prison cells for the animals. Modern zoos, although still arguably prison-like for animals (which is not to say I dislike zoos--I love them; the issues surrounding the capture and display of animals in zoo environments are complex), attempt to put their animals in much larger and more "natural" spaces.
The second is the behavior of the zookeeper. Here we see him antagonizing the lion while standing precariously close to him. A modern zookeeper wouldn't intentionally antagonize an animal, whether it's for a film camera or not (at least if they would, they'd get fired for it if their superiors found out). The viewer expects any second to see the "original version" of that famous scene from Paul Schrader's Cat People (1982), wherein Ed Begley, Jr. loses an arm.
The modern conception of documentary animal photography is to keep everything as "natural" as possible. This is distinct from a lot of modern documentaries featuring humans, which still stage a lot of scenarios for maximum effect (there are a lot of complex issues here, too, which aren't really appropriate to get into in this review). Even animal wranglers on fiction films won't (or aren't supposed to in theory/per the animal rights organizations that try to monitor such things) intentionally antagonize an animal to get it to perform.
Aesthetically, this is far from being one of the more successful Lumiere Brothers shorts, but the historical/cultural worth more than makes up for aesthetic deficiencies in this case.
This short is fascinating for two reasons not intended by the Lumiere Brothers, because they both hinge on historical facts about cultures. The first is that this is a nice record of "old fashioned" zoos. Zoos used to be rows of small cages that appear more like prison cells for the animals. Modern zoos, although still arguably prison-like for animals (which is not to say I dislike zoos--I love them; the issues surrounding the capture and display of animals in zoo environments are complex), attempt to put their animals in much larger and more "natural" spaces.
The second is the behavior of the zookeeper. Here we see him antagonizing the lion while standing precariously close to him. A modern zookeeper wouldn't intentionally antagonize an animal, whether it's for a film camera or not (at least if they would, they'd get fired for it if their superiors found out). The viewer expects any second to see the "original version" of that famous scene from Paul Schrader's Cat People (1982), wherein Ed Begley, Jr. loses an arm.
The modern conception of documentary animal photography is to keep everything as "natural" as possible. This is distinct from a lot of modern documentaries featuring humans, which still stage a lot of scenarios for maximum effect (there are a lot of complex issues here, too, which aren't really appropriate to get into in this review). Even animal wranglers on fiction films won't (or aren't supposed to in theory/per the animal rights organizations that try to monitor such things) intentionally antagonize an animal to get it to perform.
Aesthetically, this is far from being one of the more successful Lumiere Brothers shorts, but the historical/cultural worth more than makes up for aesthetic deficiencies in this case.
Caged Ferocity
someguy88929 June 2004
There it is! The king of the jungle, pacing back and forth, roaring at his vast domain! Look at this lion's bulging muscles, his indelible passion for life, his courage, his might, his ferocity. There he is! Caged in a zoo on the streets of dark London. He's being poked and provoked by an officer of some kind. The ferocious Lion is caged, and there's nothing he can do about it. But you can see his anger, an anger that has perhaps never been greater in his life. You can see it in the way this beast walks, in the way he roars, in his eyes and the way he moves his tail. Perhaps, back in the jungle, this lion was smaller than the rest, weaker than the rest, but here, in his cage, that doesn't matter. People can look upon him and scream because he's big, but what does he care? There's concrete under his feet now, there are bars in front of him. Maybe this was a movie made for a thrill, but what it does is capture perfectly and strikingly caged ferocity, and how some things are beyond anyone's powers.
My grade: 8/10
My grade: 8/10
As about as good as anyone could have filmed it
Tornado_Sam14 August 2017
As is the case with all of the Lumiere Brothers documentaries, this one is worth seeing for the facts that it presents people long gone, and places that have changed over the years. Here we are treated to a male lion who has long since died (camera's up close enough to get a sense of his proportions) being fed by a zookeeper. Or is it more like being tortured by a zookeeper? Another reviewer said that it's not very well filmed and could have been better if the Lumieres had filmed it themselves. I think quite the opposite. That lion looked ferocious enough to me, any closer and that would've been the end of the cameraman and the film. Probably the biggest problem with this short is that the print, like many of the other Lumiere films, is shaky and a bit choppy. If that doesn't bother you then this film is well worth a minute of your time.
Lions, Jardin zoologique, Londres
Michael_Elliott22 December 2016
Lions, Jardin zoologique, Londres (1896)
The title gives away everything you'd need to know about this Lumiere Brothers film. Basically we see a lion in a cage with its trainer on the outside throwing him some treats. There's nothing ground-breaking here but this actuality film will appeal to fans of these movies as well as people who enjoy watching these exotic animals. The camera picks up some nice footage and I'm sure there will be plenty who are entertained by the footage of the lion pacing back and forth and wanting its food. THis certainly didn't change film history but it's a nice film.
The title gives away everything you'd need to know about this Lumiere Brothers film. Basically we see a lion in a cage with its trainer on the outside throwing him some treats. There's nothing ground-breaking here but this actuality film will appeal to fans of these movies as well as people who enjoy watching these exotic animals. The camera picks up some nice footage and I'm sure there will be plenty who are entertained by the footage of the lion pacing back and forth and wanting its food. THis certainly didn't change film history but it's a nice film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
