Monkeyshines, No. 2 (1890) User Reviews

Improv(e)

[Polaris_DiB · 6/10 · 18 September 2006]

The first Monkeyshines was almost completely a blur, and this one is mostly completely a blur. This time a lot more detail comes out, so it's an improvement from the first... which went by steps and bounds towards eventually the crisp high definition stuff we have these days, so let's give a moment of appreciation for it.

Again workers move in front of the camera in order to explore the possibilities of capturing motion. Again the result is mostly spectral, very ghostly, and mostly intangible. The act of capturing motion will be a predominant focus of camera development for another decade and more.

--PolarisDiB

MONKEYSHINES, No. 2 provides us with a much better idea . . .

[cricket30 · 6/10 · 18 July 2013]

. . . of the attributes of the world's first actor, G. Sacco Albanese, such as his face. (Indeed, it is appalling to people who are sticklers for detail that the friends and family of Albanese and John Ott, another employee of the Edison Manufacturing Company which invented movies in their light bulb lab in 1889, cannot be bothered to glance at MONKEYSHINES No. 1 and MONKEYSHINES No. 2 and settle for once and for all whether it is actually Albanes or Ott who WAS really the world's first movie star. With running times of 28.16 and 27.81 seconds, surely the identity of this important entertainment figure can be verified with less fuss and muss than finding all those kids with their faces on milk cartons. Without Albanese or Ott, Chaplin and Sandler would not have been possible, since one of them was the first giant upon whom everyone else is standing (which brings to mind one of those old Flying Wallenda-family pyramids, only much bigger). At any rate, MONKEYSHINES #2 removed movies forever from the elitist realm of abstract representation designed to appeal to effete snobs (see MONKEYSHINES #1), and put it in the ballpark of realism more along the lines of LITTLE NICKY or WATERBOY that the masses can enjoy.

A Slight Technical Improvement on the First "Monkeyshines"

[Snow Leopard · 9 January 2006]

In a technical sense, this second Edison Company "Monkeyshines" camera experiment represents a slight (perhaps very slight) improvement on the first movie. Paradoxically, for that reason it is actually a little less interesting (because less bizarre) to view. But its historical significance is still considerable.

As with the first "Monkeyshines" movie, this one consists of some brief footage of playful activity in the Edison Company facility. Compared with the first one, the figures are a little less ghostly and a little better defined, and the motions are slightly easier to determine. It still has the weird, surreal appearance of aliens or ghosts or abstract shapes, just not to quite the same degree.

Both "Monkeyshines" features were made when Edison was pursuing the idea of a cylindrical approach to motion pictures, by close analogy with his successful phonograph idea. The recent Kino DVD collection of Edison features has (as extras) a few photographs of the film and the equipment that were used in these early experiments, and they are quite interesting to look at for anyone with an interest in these earliest efforts to create movies.

Better than the original

[kobe1413 · 1/10 · 21 February 2014]

The second film of the three shot by W.K.L. Dickson and William Heise for the Edison Laboratories, again featuring G. Sacco Albanese. Here he is shown stretching and failing his arms in exaggerated movement, so that they new invention would be able to pick me up better. You can also see Albanese take off his hat towards the end.

There is a slight improvement upon the first Monkeyshines, but of course the quality is still very poor. Again not much of a film, but of important value to the history of film.

Again, it rates as a 2 out of 10, with its historical significance being its only redeeming quality.

Movie-making is coming to the USA

[Horst_In_Translation · 2/10 · 4 September 2013]

William K.L. Dickson and William Heise deliver what is seen by many as the first motion picture from the United States of America. There is no story to it and it's really exclusively experimental. It was the starting point for Dickson directing over 150 films in the following ten years, Heise about half as many.

The hardly recognizable person here is one of Dickson's lab workers, G. Sacco Albanese, who was never seen in motion pictures again after Monkeyshines. The only true value this has is the nostalgia. Non-cinema history buffs should stay away. And even for those interested in the early years of cinema, the mosaic-like effects and recordings and the vague contours of Mr. Albanese are probably nothing to watch more than once.

Disappointing

[thomasgouldsbrough · 3/10 · 22 February 2022]

Just like Monkeyshines No.1, it's very hard to see what is actually happening in the short film reel. As much as it's interesting seeing history from 132 years ago, Newark Athlete and the Blacksmith Scene make for far better viewing experiences, as it's the film reel is much more clear.

First sequel ever

[vukelic-stjepan · 3/10 · 9 February 2016]

First of all, and how I say in summary title, this movie is first sequel of any movie in history of movies. And that what is not a rule and it is unusual for modern times is that the movie is better that original/first part.

We can see a little improvement in camera quality compared to 'Monkeyshines no1'. We can see a more details, but some details are still not visible (contours of face, more face details...).

It is not clear to me, is that same person from Monkeyshines No2? This person looks like a woman and I can't fully agree that person in G.Sacco Albanese.

Edison: Invention of Movies

[Michael_Elliott · 31 December 2008]

Monekyshines, No. 1 (1890)

Monkeyshines, No. 2 (1890)

These two films by Edison, as well as a third one I haven't seen, are believed to be the very first to be shot in the United States. None of the three were meant to be seen by the public as Edison was just trying to test the cylinder of the Kinetograph format. William K.L. Dickson and William Heise are created with trying this experiment in June of 1889 or the last week of November 1890, experts debate which date is correct. Needless to say, outside a historic level, there's nothing much here to see. A few images flicker in front of our eyes and on the whole I'd say No. 2 is better as we can actually see the figure. The first test is pretty brutal and hard to figure out exactly what you're looking at.

A Much Better Improvement Over Monkeyshines No 1

[Tornado_Sam · 17 June 2017]

Having made Monkeyshines No 1 earlier the same year and discovering it to have failed in capturing motion and photography in the way he had envisioned, inventor Thomas A. Edison sought to improve his Kinetograph to perfection by continuing to play with the invention. Thus, after more tampering and messing, the camera was ready for the next test, which resulted as the follow-up to the earlier Monkeyshines movie. Here, it is clear changes to the instrument proved successful: the body of Albanese (if that's him again--it almost half looks like a woman) is not as blurry, more detail can be sensed and the movement is much smoother and does not make the worker look as if he's changing shape constantly.

Yet, there was still work to do. The blurriness of the character was still apparent, and, what's more, the movement wasn't quite enough refined. Ultimately, these still unsatisfactory results led to yet a third experiment, remembered now as Monkeyshines No 3. The details of this third test are, unfortunately, unknown as it either no longer exists or is simply unrestored. Nevetheless, it was presumably after this third, apparently more improved short that Edison began testing movements in other ways: the slow, smooth movements of W. K. L. Dickson as he moved his hat from one hand to the next in greeting; the quick movements of a young Newark athlete as he swung Indian clubs; the swift movements of two so-called boxers as they throw punches at eachother. By the time these experiments came around, the camera had wonderfully improved--and after another year, the Edison company would finally be able to publicize the new fad for the first time in America.

While I'm at it, let's fully explain why this trilogy of experimental shorts was given the title of 'Monkeyshines'. Since these shorts were all mere camera tests, it's quite obvious they were never really given a title at all. Drawing these conclusions (and this is only a guess) let's assume the people of the Kino International company thought to put them on the movies begin set with a proper title and settled on calling them 'Monkeyshines' since the definition of this word translates to 'mischevious behavior' (the attitudes of which the factory worker shows in his comedic prancings before the Kinetographic lens). This would thus explain why the titles of the camera tests are put in brackets since they may never have had true titles. But this, of course, is merely an assumption and unless you're a film historian or a member of the company, we'll probably never be sure.

A Slightly More Clearer Image Then No.1

[ArmandoManuelPereira · 12 June 2020]

I have an endearing respect for all these early attempts at filmaking and yet they do not all possess the same amount of interest. With Monkeyshines (whether Mos. 1 or 2) I hardly know what it is I am looking at. Though the image in No.2 is slightly more clearer.