User Reviews

This is the most interesting of Gaumont's available early, fin-de-siècle productions generally attributed to the studio's main director, producer and writer, Alice Guy. That's regardless of its uncertain dating, too, which I address in my comments for the 1896 entry of La fée aux choux (1896). To summarize, only one such film exists today, although Guy remade the cabbage-patch scenario later in "Midwife to the Upper Class" (1902) and, briefly, in "Madame's Cravings" (1906). Thus, everyone posting reviews for the hypothetical 1896 film and the c.1900 film, which perhaps is a remake and perhaps not, have seen and are discussing the same, sole film to exist today. Dating aside, then, "The Cabbage-Patch Fairy" is an amusing piece in the cinema-of-attractions mode--before the maturity of narrative cinema.

More interesting methinks than the cabbage-patch fable (like the one involving storks) on human reproduction is to consider "The Cabbage-Patch Fairy" as a fable on cinematic duplication, which others, such as Alison McMahan (in her book, "Alice Guy Blaché: Lost Visionary of the Cinema") and Jane M. Gaines ("Pink-Slipped: What Happened to Women in the Silent Film Industries?") have brought up. Having possibly been made as a demonstration film, to advertise either Gaumont's cameras or films, the cabbages, then, may be self-reflexively seen as the cinematographic apparatus and the infants as the films they birth. Moreover, the commercial distribution of films requires their reproduction--the duplication of a negative that was already a photographic copy of the scene filmed. In early cinema, especially for popular films such as these cabbage-patch ones, this also necessitated remaking the films entirely as the prints wore out--contributing to the current confusion over the dating here.

The fourth-wall-breaking fairy, the only adult character in this version, is appropriate in this respect for a demonstration film. It's a direct address to customers or spectators. She returns our gaze and, thus, invites us to partake. This is presentation of a product or spectacle instead of narration of a story and characters with psychological motivations. Fairies occupy an interesting space in early cinema. In the féeries (fairy films) of Georges Méliès, such as "Cinderella" (1899), "Bluebeard" (1901) and "The Kingdom of the Fairies" (1903), the fairy guides characters through a scenario--much like the "midwife" character does in Guy's subsequent "Midwife to the Upper Class." Whereas, here, the fairy guides us through the spectacle. In either case, the figure is something of a surrogate on screen for the filmmaker, displaying the trick-effects magic and production design of Méliès in his films, or the magic and scenery of the cabbage patch here.

It's also remarkable that Guy, the world's first female director, would choose and return to a fairy tale on human reproduction, whereas Méliès and others tended towards more masculine, or at least boyish, tales of adventure, such as knights rescuing damsels and the slaying of monsters. This focus on mothering became even more prominent with, say, the pregnant protagonist of "Madame's Cravings," as well as, even, the prominence of the mother Mary and other women in her passion play, "La Vie du Christ" (1906).

This film is a remake from the year 1900 of an 1896 film by the same woman director, Alice Guy. I was astounded when viewing this 1900 film. The 1896 original was, I was informed, the first film ever directed by a woman. One might expect a woman's touch in her own remake? Instead this 1900 version depicts what amounts to risking harm to babies, perhaps not deliberate but totally inexcusable, needless and careless!

The film is a 'fantasy' with a mother nature figure grinning inanely and posing whilst plucking babies out of the cabbage patch. It is quite clear the 1st two babies are real and when roughly picking the first one up and plonking it down the stupid and irresponsible woman - also the director, apparently - lets go of the baby's head allowing it to fall backwards onto the floor. The baby then reacts flailing its arms and appearing to cry. I can only hope the floor was thickly carpeted but it may have been hard and even this small drop could injure such a young baby. Not content with this the woman then picks the next baby up by one arm/shoulder! Anyone knows this could cause a baby pain and possible injury. She plonks that baby onto the floor still grinning inanely and posing. The third cabbage she reaches into produces something which apparently is a doll. That is haphazardly put on the floor and just looks creepy because it is immobile and so appears rather like a dead baby.

I find this film unacceptably careless and the woman would be questioned for her poor treatment of the babies nowadays. Instead she is revered as the world's first woman director! The fact this was 1900 does NOT excuse this behaviour at all. There are other early films depicting animal cruelty (such as 'Cock Fight No. 2' and the appalling 'Electrocuting an Elephant') but this so far is the only film I have seen depicting possibly dangerous treatment of babies. Ironic that the woman director and mother nature figures are the ones guilty of this. By 1900 there were impressive and innovative works of early film being produced by the likes of Georges Melies, Walter R. Booth and James Williamson which are hugely technically and artistically advanced compared to this very crude and inept film.

The 1896 film cannot be commented on or assessed at all as it is lost. It apparently had one real baby and dolls. If we assume the one baby was treated more carefully in that then it would be far better in that sense than this 1900 remake but this remake is so crude that even for 1896 it would be unimpressive. The 1896 film would be equally unimpressive as a work of art I am sure but at least would have the distinction of being the first film directed by a woman. This 1900 film has no such distinction and is poor artistically as well as being reckless in failing to handle the babies with due gentle care.