Watch Fire! For Free

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

If you've ever heard (or seen) Edwin S. Porter's "The Life of an American Fireman" from 1903 then you should know that this earlier drama from Williamson clearly inspired Porter's film. Not only does it tell a story that would've excited audiences, it also takes 5 minutes to do so which is, undeniably, long for its time. Because of this, I'm giving it a 7.The story is very simple: the typical rescue of a family from a burning building premise. The film uses 5 scenes to tell it: the first scene is when the cop discovers the burning building, the second the firemen leave to go to the rescue, the third a shot of the racing firemen, the fourth scene is the rescue of the man, and the continuation of the events continue in the last scene, a shot of the outside of the house.Also, note that firemen rescue scenes were very popular in cinema's first years. In 1896 the Lumiere brothers filmed a street scene of firemen racing to the rescue (A Fire Run), and even before that was an early Edison short depicting a rescue scene ("Fire Rescue Scene"). Filmmakers really must've found firemen to be an exciting subject for early dramas. While the story really isn't involved enough, for 1901 it was exceptional and the film is one that would actually be interesting to see today.

I am fairly certain that the 1901 movie "Fire!" was much more effective to watch 115 years ago than it is today. A fire starts, a man is in his house and can't get out, but the firefighters come and rescue him. He is happy. This is basically the storyline. Unfortunately, a fire is one of these occurrences which were really hard to depict in silent films. You do not hear the people scream. You do not see the bright colors of the fire. You do not hear the noises from the fire or from the wood that is burning. Quite a challenger for Scottish film pioneer James Williamson. Still, I have to say, he did a fairly decent job all in all I guess. It's not a bad watch by any means, but it's not among the best films of its time either. Maybe among the longest at 5 minutes.

For an early film, this one is actually pretty good. In this silent movie, the crew re-creates a fire and shows the firemen doing their job--starting with leaving the firehouse all the way through rescuing all the victims. It's sort of like a documentary of their job that is done by re-staging what looks an awful lot like a real fire. Unlike some similar films, this one looks authentic enough that it both entertains and gives us insight into the profession in 1901. I particularly liked seeing the horse-drawn fire wagon as well as the people jumping out the window into the trampoline-like device the firemen use. Pretty good stuff and a pretty good historical record to boot!

This exciting rescue drama is a film milestone, the first to use an edited series of interlocking scenes to create a narrative. One would have been blase about this in 1903, never mind a century later; look at the early films consecutively, however, noticing how they develop basic film grammar, and the effect is thrilling, cutting from the fireman and victim moving from inside the house to outside on the ladder, a telling glimpse of cinema's power and immediacy.The plot's simple enough - a house goes on fire and the firemen come to quench it and rescue the inhabitants. The fascination lies in the details. The way the fire's smoke swirls and obscures the view, a subversive element that undermines cinema's clarity, it's claim to record things - the firemen are not just extinguishing a fire, or restoring order, the primacy of property and family, but retrieving cinema's purpose, which here betrays interesting tensions.The preparations of the firemen, laborious because the engine is still horse-drawn, and the animals are a little stroppy - the proud tumescence of a very phallic wheeled ladder is startling, suggesting that hazards to the social order can only be solved by the Men that run it. The gallop through gorgeous turn of the 20th century Brighton streets, eerily old (to us) and empty, the horses speeding towards the camera before veering to avoid it. The fire itself - the not very patriarchal hysteria of the father who just cries like a big girl without doing anything practical, particularly surprising when we discover he has a wife and child.After he is rescued he waits in agoinising panic for someone: when his child is brought out and restored to him, the feminisation or maternalisation (sic?) of the father is unusual for the period. We assume his wife is dead, as he wanders off the screen, removing his child from the bourgeois home-haven that suddenly became so treacherous. When we see the wife rescued to her family's general indifference, it's shocking.the breach in the film's form from the documentary-like preparations and rescue, and the flagrant artifice of the interior settings and the wild overacting results in an interesting tension that filmmakers like Murnau, Welles and Godard would later explore, and which echoes the film's ideological tensions, the vulnerability of the bourgeois myth.Rounding off this brilliant film is the closing scene, a long shot of the smoking house with the firemen below it. There appears to be a huge peeling of the wall's paint, suggesting the house's age, which is visually startling, a visual violence matching the destructive fire. We discover that this is actually water from the hose - so that the saviours within the narrative create a breach in the film's form.