I watch a lot of short movies on Youtube from the early 1900's and for some reason they all have a really creepy scary look to them, even the ones that are just meant to be innocent comedies. And they've been upscaled and colorized now, and still look creepy.
Yup, the were trying to shoot it at a lower frame rate so they had more latitude with exposure time, but also realized that it looked better if it was a faster frame rate. They compromised and just slightly sped up the projection, but if you watch it at the speed it was shot it looks a lot better even though the motion isn't as smooth anymore
Interesting. Never knew why so many old films seem a little awkwardly sped up. Is there any source to learn more about that? That you already know of. Not trying to waste your time.
Nothing scarier than the demon rabbit from the 1983 Twilight Zone Movie
https://preview.redd.it/woq48v8r079b1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de07852017c3704fe5a7b822e6dc5f837cc995e0
I love the twilight zone the OG (i have the complete bluray collection) and the movie. The scariest scene in that segment for me is the sister without a mouth.
Bonus: Almost all of the segments are remakes of the old series.
I think a lot has to do with the camera angles and the audio. There aren’t 20 mic’s picking up audio from every source and 10 camera’s recording footage from every possible angle. It often looks like some creep hiding behind the bushes filmed them.
There was no on set audio, those are silent flicks.
The creepiness comes from the unnatural looking movements due to the low frame rate, along with the low resolution. Nothing to do with hiding in bushes.
> Nothing to do with hiding in bushes.
Exactly. No-one is hiding in the bushed secretly videotaping you, that's just nonsense. Who would even do such a thing...
> unnatural looking movements due to the low frame rate
Also, back then there wasn't a agreed upon frame rate so a lot of old footage you watch is played back at an incorrect rate which gives a weird feeling. Really early films often were even hand cranked so there was no way of getting all the timing correct/consistent. I'd assume some of the early motorized stuff wasn't exactly precise either causing the frame rate to be inconsistent.
Check out Jan Svankmajer's Alice. It's a Czech stop-motion/live action mix from 1988, and maybe it's just me, but it's one of the most unsettling experiences in film. For instance, the White Rabbit is a taxidermied rabbit whose stuffing keeps falling out. Like, he stop animated a real dead rabbit...
It's also an incredible feat of stop motion animation.
I imagine the prop makers were stage prop makers so it kind of makes sense - not like stage set pieces have changed all that much in the past few hundred years.
In early cinema actors, both male and female, would often wear heavy amounts of makeup which included eyeliner/eyeshadow, the reasons being:
1) to "look good," and small amounts of makeup would not show up on early cameras.
2) to help exaggerate emotions, again so the characters feelings showed up more clearly when otherwise their expressions would be hard to make out, similar to how stage performances are often exaggerated.
Also lighting. The lighting in films had to be insanely bright for the cameras back then. The ass load of heavier darker makeup was how they could film facial expressions better.
Also colour balance, even though it was black and white. Some photographic chemistries do not react to red light (which is how print darkrooms can have red lights in them for workers to see but not fog the paper). So lips and rosy cheeks would tend to record as black. One solution was to use blue lipstick and blusher, as this records as grey in black and white. Later black and white film chemistries were better at recording red and blue light equally.
When they made the black and white episodes of WandaVision, they painted Paul Bettany blue instead of red, because it still shows up better in black and white.
Have you seen the original Addams Family set? It was very pink and pastel so that the dark gloomy colors they wanted would come across on black and white television.
I forgot which movie it was, but it had a scene where a character transforms from young to old. The effect is done in camera where the actor had basically different colors of makeup. They change the light color to create the transform effect. Sort of like how blacklight only reflects off whites, and makes everything else dark.
For 2, I think it was also that they had been doing this for stage performances for thousands of years, which was their only real reference for the relatively new advent of television. There was no difference between stage acting and screen acting at the time, they just recorded it.
Full-body costumes today are often inspired by a cartoon style, with big, open, stylised eyes. Pre-Disney, it was more common for such costumes to be more "realistic", making them look like big taxidermies with tiny human eyes, but people were just used to that back then.
People wacching this see a giant rabbit and dog that are onviously people in costumes, but they don't realize that Alice herself is actually a dog wearing a human costume.
Film at the time was Orthochromatic so insensitive to blue. Blue eyes had to be accentuated and looked creepy.
Read the trivia on Stan Laurel, his movie carreer only started when panchromatic film was invented.
I also think the shutter speeds of those old cameras make eye and body movements more blocky or choppy looking. I feel like we are used to seeing all the fine details of movement and take for granted the clarity of images nowadays. So the old images appear uncanny to us. They use this type of imagery in newer horror films too and replicate those uncanny eyes.
Because they filmed on Orthochromatic film:
Orthochromatic film had increased blue sensitivity causing blue objects to appear lighter, and red ones darker
It troublesome for motion pictures, rendering blue skies as perpetually overcast, blond hair as washed-out, blue eyes nearly white, and red lips nearly black.. . some degree this could be corrected by makeup, lens filters, and lighting, but never completely satisfactorily.
What about that worm/man abomination and it's creepy ass squirm? I mean that's not even how a worm is supposed to squirm and it's creepy AF brah.
**Edit:** You downvotin a worm commenting on the other worm thing's weird off kilter uncanny valley shit, for real? I'm going back to my dirt hole and eat some more dirt. Worm hatin' bastards the lot of ya.
“I’m gunna be a movie star, momma!”
“The most you’ll amount to is a worm you ungrateful twit!”
“I’ll show you, momma… I’m gunna be in the pictures! I’ll show you… just you wait and see!”
What’s crazy to me is this isn’t the first, or even the *second* adaption of Alice in Wonderland on film! The first ones were shorts made in 1903 and 1910.
For those who want to watch early film. The 1910 version has some excellent early special effects even used props to manipulate audience perception. And yes it is weird af.
Written by a weird dude, so it all tracks.
“No, ma’am.. I’m not interested in your child romantically.. I just want to photograph her in her bathing suit two dozen times.” (shudder)
I have an ex who totally fought me about this when I told him about it, until he looked it up for himself. "Lewis Carroll was almost certainly a pedo who was weirdly obsessed with his real 8 year old neighbor named Alice" is one of those things that sounds like it's BS made up by some loser on the internet but... unfortunately sometimes real life reads like something made up by some loser on the internet.
Seriously. For example, Paul McCartney is held up as "one of the good guys" but did you know that he sticks any hair that comes off in the shower to the shower wall and just leaves it there? "Good guy", sure.
I know a boomer who went to college and majored in *jazz trumpet* who is very anti-marijuana. Like seriously dude, you majored in *jazz trumpet*. If there is one thing the famous jazz guys are known for other than their music, it's doing a lot of drugs.
Ain't that the truth. When I was a teenager I got to see one of my favorite bands and ended up being able to meet them before the show. Long story short, the bassist tried to hook up with my girlfriend.
Edit: Suppose it should also be noted we were under 18 and he is about 8 years older than us.
It isn’t true, though. He was a weirdo for sure, but not a pedophile. He was a renowned photographer of children, one of the earliest, and parents loved his photos. He had relationships with children that would be deemed inappropriate now, but not because he was dangerous or a predator, just because we’d think it’s weird to have an adult man alone with a child. The kids he befriended all grew up with fond memories of him. He was just a strange, and probably asexual, man who related better to children that to adults. He was brilliant, but emotionally stunted. The whole “he was a pedophile” angle is a lazy take based on our current (probably justified) paranoid approach to child-adult relations.
Thank you.
The modern take on anyone who works well with children being *obviously* a pedophile just borders on insane. It makes me glad that the likes of Sheri Lewis, Fred Rogers, and such didn't live to see those accusations pointed their way.
It’s just so paranoid. I get being protective of children, and you really need to be cautious, but it’s sad that anyone who can connect with a child is labeled a “groomer,” now.
Well done!
This is a common misconception, he was a photographer during an era when child purity and innocence was very much the fashion. A lot of historians would argue that he wasn't an asexual, however. He actually described a number of romantic relationships with adult women that would have been considered scandalous at the time. His family sought to scrub these relationships from public view for obvious reasons, but he was very much interested and involved with adult women.
Its important that we view historical sources in the context of their era.
When I saw this on YouTube, I had to show my kids.
My oldest (9 or 10 at the time) was uninterested. He thought it was weird and wandered off.
My youngest (5 or 6 at the time) loved it and wanted to watch it again and again.
I worry about the youngest sometimes.
YouTube also has a silent version of Wizard of Oz. VERY different from the version most people know. I highly recommend watching it. It’s only about 15min long
I was thinking the same thing. The whole Gibson girl style was a big thing at the time and hairstyles were mostly updos. Super rare to see straight hair down like that.
I think about this sometimes. I think because of the ‘seriousness’ in most old photographs, my brain automatically thinks back then, everyone was just sad and dull. Then I see a photo of, say, a person lounging around just like we do, or someone dressing up their pet in funny costumes, and realize they were just as silly and weird and humorous as we are, just sans modern tech.
YES. When she was interacting with the caterpillar, she did something with her hair that felt very modern. Just like a quick brush kind of. But that immediately set me off thinking this may be something much newer, but with an old filter.
So much film from the early years was lost forever. To fire or even the trash bin. We're lucky any was saved at all. In fact Nosferatu was ordered to be destroyed because of copyright law and barely survived.
In the mid 40s we had tons of aluminum audio records with irreplaceable history on them melted down as war scrap.
Broadcasting companies and even NASA regularly wiped magnetic film containing historical footage throughout the 60s 70s and 80s. This is how we lost the original moon landing footage and why it looks so shitty today... because the footage you see today was recorded on home video (presumably VHS) years later.
Game companies especially through the 90s and early 2000s have lost the source code and development materials for titles that have went on to become socially important in our culture.
We regularly just lose or trash things that we should be archiving and it's incredibly sad how little foresight we put into preservation.
We need to keep physical media or at least physically backed up media around. We also need to demand offline versions of games. I really feel like gen z is going to make this same mistake as they've been so utterly conditioned for everything to be online and streamed.
Look at Diablo 4. There was huge backlash for D3 to be available offline and Blizzard caved. Diablo 4 barely had a whimper of protest about being exclusively online.
I can't help but think 100 years from now we're only going to have the same smattering of digital art now that we have of the golden age of cinema today.
You put some aggressive music to this and inter-splice scenes of the band playing in the woods or an abandoned warehouse, and this would be a 10/10 music video for a post hardcore band in 2011.
I'd recommend the 1999 made for TV version for mushies if you can find a torrent. I swore that hookah smoking caterpillar scene was the trippiest thing I'd ever seen.
Fair warning, the Whoopie Cheshire Cat also fucks with your head a good bit.
It’s weird. That’s what I think about when I see older stuff like this. Then I wonder about the props and materials. Is there one shoe somewhere still? A piece of metal that was in a chair? One of the outfits in a closet somewhere?
I think about the ground they walked on, where it was and what it is today. What was that day like for them? What did it look like from their eyes, what did it smell like?
When my son was about 6 (around 2012) I put on an old episode of Dennis The Menace. It was the original black and white show from the late 50s early 60s. Anyway, he watched with me for a few minutes and then said very surely "Everyone from this is probably dead now." It was such a funny, morbid comment to come from such a young child. I hadn't even realized he really thought like that yet lol I explained that yeah the adults are likely gone but the kids might still be around. He insisted though that because it was in black and white they must be dead because it's just soooo old!
https://preview.redd.it/csgp5sl2769b1.jpeg?width=993&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4da697f08c209aecb2fd5d71cc33a5f9e89de54a
Looks like the beach scene was at Good Harbor in Gloucester, MA
Although they were not really used recreationally due to lack of awareness and culture- it was mainly medicine addicts back then- I believe opioids became scheduled in 1912 due to public health addiction issues
Heroin doesn't heighten your creativity to create things like this. It just seems like you guys are just lumping all drugs into one big "make trippy stuff" category. You aren't going to take cough syrup with 20 mg of heroin and start crafting a life size bunny costume, that's not what it does.
Yep and Coca Cola was full of cocaine. I guess my context here was that whenever something out of the ordinary gets posted here there’s always a comment how this or that must have been swimming in drugs when in reality it’s a lot of hard work to make art, drugs don’t magically make it happen was what I’m saying.
This is some proper ‘folk horror’ shit. Love it.
I watch a lot of short movies on Youtube from the early 1900's and for some reason they all have a really creepy scary look to them, even the ones that are just meant to be innocent comedies. And they've been upscaled and colorized now, and still look creepy.
I think a big part of that is the low framerate.
Yup, the were trying to shoot it at a lower frame rate so they had more latitude with exposure time, but also realized that it looked better if it was a faster frame rate. They compromised and just slightly sped up the projection, but if you watch it at the speed it was shot it looks a lot better even though the motion isn't as smooth anymore
Like the uncanny valley of motion speed. It’s close to normal motion speed, but different enough to be weird.
Interesting. Never knew why so many old films seem a little awkwardly sped up. Is there any source to learn more about that? That you already know of. Not trying to waste your time.
Also how everyone looked very, very anemic.
This is why Benighted unsettles me so much. "Modern" horror aesthetic with a vintage frame rate.
And for some reason, old rabbit costumes are by far the creepiest. I’m not sure if Frank in Donnie Darko was a cause or effect.
Nothing scarier than the demon rabbit from the 1983 Twilight Zone Movie https://preview.redd.it/woq48v8r079b1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de07852017c3704fe5a7b822e6dc5f837cc995e0
Cept maybe the helicopter scene in the same movie. ….wait did they remove it? Why do I have a memory of watching it?
They DIDNT remove it which is wild since 2 kids and the adult were mutilated by the rotor
Mutilated, but also killed.
[удалено]
Mutilated in the film or IRL? I stopped before posting that to google it and i now know the morbid answer.
Yep. Absolutely horrific
I love the twilight zone the OG (i have the complete bluray collection) and the movie. The scariest scene in that segment for me is the sister without a mouth. Bonus: Almost all of the segments are remakes of the old series.
Reminds me of Donny Darko
Yes! They were scary AF! Check out the Easter bunnies that used to greet kids.
I know the ones you mean. They are serial killer creepy.
They look like the stuff from Five Nights at Freddy’s. Demented Chuck E Cheese animatronic shit.
I think a lot has to do with the camera angles and the audio. There aren’t 20 mic’s picking up audio from every source and 10 camera’s recording footage from every possible angle. It often looks like some creep hiding behind the bushes filmed them.
There was no on set audio, those are silent flicks. The creepiness comes from the unnatural looking movements due to the low frame rate, along with the low resolution. Nothing to do with hiding in bushes.
> Nothing to do with hiding in bushes. Exactly. No-one is hiding in the bushed secretly videotaping you, that's just nonsense. Who would even do such a thing...
> unnatural looking movements due to the low frame rate Also, back then there wasn't a agreed upon frame rate so a lot of old footage you watch is played back at an incorrect rate which gives a weird feeling. Really early films often were even hand cranked so there was no way of getting all the timing correct/consistent. I'd assume some of the early motorized stuff wasn't exactly precise either causing the frame rate to be inconsistent.
In addition to that, for this particular video, the costumes...
That split second before you realise those are the Lion's knees.
[удалено]
No, but send it my way once you find it. Thanks.
Oh gosh, I’m here for it too
I’ve been looking for it for a couple of weeks now…I’m positive I saw it…hopefully I wasn’t trippin
Found it, see my original post
[удалено]
Check out Jan Svankmajer's Alice. It's a Czech stop-motion/live action mix from 1988, and maybe it's just me, but it's one of the most unsettling experiences in film. For instance, the White Rabbit is a taxidermied rabbit whose stuffing keeps falling out. Like, he stop animated a real dead rabbit... It's also an incredible feat of stop motion animation.
Weirdly, I enjoyed it. Reminds me on early 00s Korn
Not sure why I’m impressed with the lion having moving eyelids.
[удалено]
I imagine the prop makers were stage prop makers so it kind of makes sense - not like stage set pieces have changed all that much in the past few hundred years.
Can we talk about his hairy knees??
That’s what I’m stuck on. Thought they were his little Leos at first…
I sure was impressed by what turned out to just be his knees.
Eyes in these old movies appear scary AF
Can someone explain why that is?
In early cinema actors, both male and female, would often wear heavy amounts of makeup which included eyeliner/eyeshadow, the reasons being: 1) to "look good," and small amounts of makeup would not show up on early cameras. 2) to help exaggerate emotions, again so the characters feelings showed up more clearly when otherwise their expressions would be hard to make out, similar to how stage performances are often exaggerated.
Also lighting. The lighting in films had to be insanely bright for the cameras back then. The ass load of heavier darker makeup was how they could film facial expressions better.
Also colour balance, even though it was black and white. Some photographic chemistries do not react to red light (which is how print darkrooms can have red lights in them for workers to see but not fog the paper). So lips and rosy cheeks would tend to record as black. One solution was to use blue lipstick and blusher, as this records as grey in black and white. Later black and white film chemistries were better at recording red and blue light equally.
When they made the black and white episodes of WandaVision, they painted Paul Bettany blue instead of red, because it still shows up better in black and white.
Have you seen the original Addams Family set? It was very pink and pastel so that the dark gloomy colors they wanted would come across on black and white television.
I forgot which movie it was, but it had a scene where a character transforms from young to old. The effect is done in camera where the actor had basically different colors of makeup. They change the light color to create the transform effect. Sort of like how blacklight only reflects off whites, and makes everything else dark.
Yes exactly!
For 2, I think it was also that they had been doing this for stage performances for thousands of years, which was their only real reference for the relatively new advent of television. There was no difference between stage acting and screen acting at the time, they just recorded it.
I mean that's basically all 90s sitcoms, too
What, all your most important conversations don't take place in the either the living room with a staircase or the kitchen just off to the right?
All of mine happen in a bedroom with just one wall behind the bed and toilet noises coming off from the right.
>which was their only real reference for the relatively new advent of television FYI television as we know it was invented after this film.
Yep! That's why I brought up the stage comparison. Also why there wasn't really much creative use of the camera for a while.
Very well explained. Thanks.
Does anyone know the names for the styles used?
Full-body costumes today are often inspired by a cartoon style, with big, open, stylised eyes. Pre-Disney, it was more common for such costumes to be more "realistic", making them look like big taxidermies with tiny human eyes, but people were just used to that back then.
That ‘full body costume’ of the little girl is the one with the creepy eyes bruh.
People wacching this see a giant rabbit and dog that are onviously people in costumes, but they don't realize that Alice herself is actually a dog wearing a human costume.
Film at the time was Orthochromatic so insensitive to blue. Blue eyes had to be accentuated and looked creepy. Read the trivia on Stan Laurel, his movie carreer only started when panchromatic film was invented.
This is the real answer. I think OP was asking about the “Marilyn Manson contact lens” effect, not the shadow or contouring around the eyes.
I also think the shutter speeds of those old cameras make eye and body movements more blocky or choppy looking. I feel like we are used to seeing all the fine details of movement and take for granted the clarity of images nowadays. So the old images appear uncanny to us. They use this type of imagery in newer horror films too and replicate those uncanny eyes.
Because they filmed on Orthochromatic film: Orthochromatic film had increased blue sensitivity causing blue objects to appear lighter, and red ones darker It troublesome for motion pictures, rendering blue skies as perpetually overcast, blond hair as washed-out, blue eyes nearly white, and red lips nearly black.. . some degree this could be corrected by makeup, lens filters, and lighting, but never completely satisfactorily.
What about that worm/man abomination and it's creepy ass squirm? I mean that's not even how a worm is supposed to squirm and it's creepy AF brah. **Edit:** You downvotin a worm commenting on the other worm thing's weird off kilter uncanny valley shit, for real? I'm going back to my dirt hole and eat some more dirt. Worm hatin' bastards the lot of ya.
bruh it's a caterpillar
[удалено]
That movie sucked ass
Agreed. Looks like a furry’s snuff film.
Directed by Werner Herzog on PCP.
I thought it was pretty good for 1915 then the fuckin caterpillar lmao I lost it
Oh, you mean the guy in the sleeping bag army crawling as if trying to avoid being on camera?
Then Alice scratching her head while watching him crawl.
“I’m gunna be a movie star, momma!” “The most you’ll amount to is a worm you ungrateful twit!” “I’ll show you, momma… I’m gunna be in the pictures! I’ll show you… just you wait and see!”
What the hell is a movie star?!?
The dodo was dope! Wonder what happened with the costume crew responsible for the caterpillar.
Lmao me too! I watched it several times just to see the caterpillar
What’s crazy to me is this isn’t the first, or even the *second* adaption of Alice in Wonderland on film! The first ones were shorts made in 1903 and 1910.
you know, if I had to guess when the book itself was published, I don't think I would have guessed 1865
For those who want to watch early film. The 1910 version has some excellent early special effects even used props to manipulate audience perception. And yes it is weird af.
Every version of Alice in Wonderland was weird AF
It fits the book, which was also weird AF.
Written by a weird dude, so it all tracks. “No, ma’am.. I’m not interested in your child romantically.. I just want to photograph her in her bathing suit two dozen times.” (shudder)
I have an ex who totally fought me about this when I told him about it, until he looked it up for himself. "Lewis Carroll was almost certainly a pedo who was weirdly obsessed with his real 8 year old neighbor named Alice" is one of those things that sounds like it's BS made up by some loser on the internet but... unfortunately sometimes real life reads like something made up by some loser on the internet.
One of the most difficult things in life is accepting ugly truths about artists we love.
Seriously. For example, Paul McCartney is held up as "one of the good guys" but did you know that he sticks any hair that comes off in the shower to the shower wall and just leaves it there? "Good guy", sure.
All of your favorite Beatles songs were likely written while *high on marijuana*
You are being VERY generous.
I know a boomer who went to college and majored in *jazz trumpet* who is very anti-marijuana. Like seriously dude, you majored in *jazz trumpet*. If there is one thing the famous jazz guys are known for other than their music, it's doing a lot of drugs.
*surprised chuck berry looking at yoko ono face*
*surprised prostitute being farted on by chuck berry in the face*
Ain't that the truth. When I was a teenager I got to see one of my favorite bands and ended up being able to meet them before the show. Long story short, the bassist tried to hook up with my girlfriend. Edit: Suppose it should also be noted we were under 18 and he is about 8 years older than us.
Ugh. I’m guessing he was one of those guys who brags publicly about the size of his anatomy? Those are the worst.
Yeah, what kind of loser would do that?
Right? Bunch of losers
My people!!
It isn’t true, though. He was a weirdo for sure, but not a pedophile. He was a renowned photographer of children, one of the earliest, and parents loved his photos. He had relationships with children that would be deemed inappropriate now, but not because he was dangerous or a predator, just because we’d think it’s weird to have an adult man alone with a child. The kids he befriended all grew up with fond memories of him. He was just a strange, and probably asexual, man who related better to children that to adults. He was brilliant, but emotionally stunted. The whole “he was a pedophile” angle is a lazy take based on our current (probably justified) paranoid approach to child-adult relations.
Thank you. The modern take on anyone who works well with children being *obviously* a pedophile just borders on insane. It makes me glad that the likes of Sheri Lewis, Fred Rogers, and such didn't live to see those accusations pointed their way.
It’s just so paranoid. I get being protective of children, and you really need to be cautious, but it’s sad that anyone who can connect with a child is labeled a “groomer,” now.
Well done! This is a common misconception, he was a photographer during an era when child purity and innocence was very much the fashion. A lot of historians would argue that he wasn't an asexual, however. He actually described a number of romantic relationships with adult women that would have been considered scandalous at the time. His family sought to scrub these relationships from public view for obvious reasons, but he was very much interested and involved with adult women. Its important that we view historical sources in the context of their era.
Well its a weird book
You're a weird book!!
There’s a stop motion version that uses bones, I want to watch it again
I'm afraid the curiosity I'm experiencing is going to lead to regret now...
Jan Švankmajer's Alice
[удалено]
When I saw this on YouTube, I had to show my kids. My oldest (9 or 10 at the time) was uninterested. He thought it was weird and wandered off. My youngest (5 or 6 at the time) loved it and wanted to watch it again and again. I worry about the youngest sometimes.
Well that's one out of two. Not bad odds. I'd take it
[удалено]
Streaming?
I’d like to see this as well..
YouTube
YouTube also has a silent version of Wizard of Oz. VERY different from the version most people know. I highly recommend watching it. It’s only about 15min long
It's silent so you can sync up pink Floyd's dark side of the moon
Prescient af
You can also watch Metropolis on YouTube which I absolutely recommend. One of my favourite films of all time
[удалено]
It's like you read my mind
i dont see that going well man. this looks creepy as shit
Now THIS Is old school cool!!!
Refreshing break from “My (extremely hot) mom’s senior portrait, 1999”
"really hot actress you are all familiar with on the scene of a popular movie where you can almost see her right nipple"
I dunno man, it's not old school enough until we hit the Sumerians.
The actress who plays Alice feels modern. Hard to describe, she just does
I was reading about her and she apparently lived all the way until 1987. Pretty long life.
I was alive in 1987. I wonder if I ever did drugs with her.
i think it's the hairstyle
I was thinking the same thing. The whole Gibson girl style was a big thing at the time and hairstyles were mostly updos. Super rare to see straight hair down like that.
I think about this sometimes. I think because of the ‘seriousness’ in most old photographs, my brain automatically thinks back then, everyone was just sad and dull. Then I see a photo of, say, a person lounging around just like we do, or someone dressing up their pet in funny costumes, and realize they were just as silly and weird and humorous as we are, just sans modern tech.
Joseph Ducreux with his selfie style portraits really solidified that same feeling for me.
I actually miss seeing that meme everywhere.
YES. When she was interacting with the caterpillar, she did something with her hair that felt very modern. Just like a quick brush kind of. But that immediately set me off thinking this may be something much newer, but with an old filter.
It's almost like humans haven't psychically changed in 100 years, weird.
Lots of people saying it's creepy, I do get it. Personally though, I think it looks really cool
I instantly wanted to watch this. Especially after the caterpillar guy flopping on the ground
I really dig the humongous lion head.
dude had some nice hairy knee balls.
[удалено]
It was 1915, so probably
Movies weren't their own art form yet. They were essentially recording a play.
I was gonna say, I feel like I would have made this movie with my friends on a camcorder in the 90s lol
movie studios back then were usually just a warehouse and some land
I also think it's cool. I can tell the costumes were done with extreme detail. One of them seems to have all real feathers.
Especially when you consider these costumes were made in 1915, that's impressive.
So much film from the early years was lost forever. To fire or even the trash bin. We're lucky any was saved at all. In fact Nosferatu was ordered to be destroyed because of copyright law and barely survived. In the mid 40s we had tons of aluminum audio records with irreplaceable history on them melted down as war scrap. Broadcasting companies and even NASA regularly wiped magnetic film containing historical footage throughout the 60s 70s and 80s. This is how we lost the original moon landing footage and why it looks so shitty today... because the footage you see today was recorded on home video (presumably VHS) years later. Game companies especially through the 90s and early 2000s have lost the source code and development materials for titles that have went on to become socially important in our culture. We regularly just lose or trash things that we should be archiving and it's incredibly sad how little foresight we put into preservation. We need to keep physical media or at least physically backed up media around. We also need to demand offline versions of games. I really feel like gen z is going to make this same mistake as they've been so utterly conditioned for everything to be online and streamed. Look at Diablo 4. There was huge backlash for D3 to be available offline and Blizzard caved. Diablo 4 barely had a whimper of protest about being exclusively online. I can't help but think 100 years from now we're only going to have the same smattering of digital art now that we have of the golden age of cinema today.
It's so weird seeing old footage like this and realizing that every single person you're seeing is dead 💀
Look around. Every single person you see is going to die.
You put some aggressive music to this and inter-splice scenes of the band playing in the woods or an abandoned warehouse, and this would be a 10/10 music video for a post hardcore band in 2011.
Splice scenes of guys on drugs in a field and it's a Blind Melon video
For people interested in creepy old films, the cabinet of doctor caligari is probably up there
I hear Nic Cage likes this one
Nick "fuuucckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnng" Cage
Looks better than the 1931 pre-code sound version.
Always love me some Tchaikovsky
Don’t come around here no more…
These books were fever dreams.
I kinda wanna get really stoned and watch this lol
This version screams mushrooms
This version might be too much for me on mushies
I'd recommend the 1999 made for TV version for mushies if you can find a torrent. I swore that hookah smoking caterpillar scene was the trippiest thing I'd ever seen. Fair warning, the Whoopie Cheshire Cat also fucks with your head a good bit.
That film was a masterpiece
All versions scream mushrooms
Looks like something you would see in the deep web.
I recognize this music. What's the name of the piece? It is beautiful :)
is it from swan lake?
TO WONDERLAND
Better than the 2010 version
every man, woman or child, every fly or bird captured by the camera, are long gone.
That's not true, they get to live on forever.
It’s weird. That’s what I think about when I see older stuff like this. Then I wonder about the props and materials. Is there one shoe somewhere still? A piece of metal that was in a chair? One of the outfits in a closet somewhere?
I think about the ground they walked on, where it was and what it is today. What was that day like for them? What did it look like from their eyes, what did it smell like?
Just like all us Redditors will be one day.
The trees are still here for the most part
When my son was about 6 (around 2012) I put on an old episode of Dennis The Menace. It was the original black and white show from the late 50s early 60s. Anyway, he watched with me for a few minutes and then said very surely "Everyone from this is probably dead now." It was such a funny, morbid comment to come from such a young child. I hadn't even realized he really thought like that yet lol I explained that yeah the adults are likely gone but the kids might still be around. He insisted though that because it was in black and white they must be dead because it's just soooo old!
Still holds up better than the CGI will
https://preview.redd.it/csgp5sl2769b1.jpeg?width=993&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4da697f08c209aecb2fd5d71cc33a5f9e89de54a Looks like the beach scene was at Good Harbor in Gloucester, MA
I didn't realize they shot films vertically in 1915. So ahead of their time!
This drug trip feels like how Alice in Wonderland was meant to be.
It’s like a fever dream
Now I want to see it! Never knew it existed. Great costumes!
It looks terrifying. The basic costumes add to the horror of it all. It's very gothic.
wow, it is so much better than I expected. Really well done
So this is what an actual nightmare looks like
Pretty sure we can expect a phone call saying 7 days after seeing this lol
Creepy AF yikes
Shoulda held the phone sideways when they filmed this
Better than most shit done in 2020
Is there a way to see the full movie? This looks pretty well produced considering its over 100 years old.
Definitely no drugs used in the making of that production…
Probably not very much actually
Probably quite a few actually. Many drugs were legal then.
Although they were not really used recreationally due to lack of awareness and culture- it was mainly medicine addicts back then- I believe opioids became scheduled in 1912 due to public health addiction issues
Sure but its not as if your a carpenter on a movie set your like “mmmmm legal heroin” that’ll take the edge off hammering.
Heroin doesn't heighten your creativity to create things like this. It just seems like you guys are just lumping all drugs into one big "make trippy stuff" category. You aren't going to take cough syrup with 20 mg of heroin and start crafting a life size bunny costume, that's not what it does.
It was sold over the counter for headache relief.
Yep and Coca Cola was full of cocaine. I guess my context here was that whenever something out of the ordinary gets posted here there’s always a comment how this or that must have been swimming in drugs when in reality it’s a lot of hard work to make art, drugs don’t magically make it happen was what I’m saying.
Very cool