User Reviews

Ok-ish execution aside, it's getting really tireful to watch Chomón "borrowing" (stealing, but let's be generous) ideas from Méliès. Let me emphasize: I have no problem with that, fundamentally. One can copy an idea, and do something with it, exceeding the merits of the original. But Chomón wasn't that kind of a creator. He just plagiarizes, and adds nothing to it. That's his whole know-how, and the whole production: one unoriginal idea, utilized again and again and again.

There are two narratives in my mind to explain this whole situation: the first one (less hurtful one) is that Chomón is basically Antonio Salieri from the movie Amadeus, who desired greatness and envied the genius of Méliès, but were only able to produce mediocre art. While according to the less romanticized version, he was a profiteering and cynical businessman, who deliberately stole the ideas of Méliès, and in general made minimal effort products to maximize income. I wanna belive the first one, I really do, but... after seeing more and more of his work, I kinda leaning towards the second.

Segundo de Chomón is really working at his best in "Easter Eggs". While the film might have a few rough edges where he started and stopped the camera, much of this was done rather seamlessly and it's one of his better efforts. It didn't hurt that the nice hand-stenciled work by the women at the Pathé studio's assembly line did a terrific job of painting portions of the film to make it appear colored--or at least partially colored.

Julienne Mathieu (the director's wife) stars in this one. She walks out on a nice little stage and begins making giant eggs appear out of no where. Then, she opens each one to reveal dancers who do a nice little dance in costume. The tricks are really lovely and the only complaint I have is that at four minutes, perhaps it went on too long and might have improved with a couple less dances. Still, it's an incredible film to see today and ample proof that some real artists were at work in the early cinema.

A couple of Spanish filmmaker Segundo de Chomón's films contained elements which were previously used by his competitor, Georges Méliès, in many earlier films, but were used for a different effect. Having seen all of Méliès's available output, I should know what I'm talking about. Here, Chomón borrows the legendary french filmmaker's ideas of dancing midgets appearing in place of eggs (which had been used in Méliès's "The Dancing Midget" from 1902). The midgets do dance here, but instead of the egg exploding to reveal the midget, the magician (Julienne Mathieu, Chomón's wife) opens up the eggs and the dancers come out. Essentially, this idea is much better then what Méliès did.

As many films of Chomón's work are, this film survives stencil-colored and as such looks very good. The superimposition work is excellent for the period and isn't shaky one bit, as opposed to Méliès's films where the superimposed bit of film would shake a lot and give away the effect. In addition, the cuts are also seamless for the most part and the film certainly achieves the look it was going for.

The above does not at all mean Chomón was above stealing from other directors, however. A year later in 1908, Chomón did also did a film called "Microscopic Dancer" which also starred Julienne Mathieu and, from the title, seems to have been a complete ripoff of Méliès's short. No comparison can be made there, however, as it is unavailable online and is probably a lost film.