By 1903, Zecca had been a director for some years, so his purported appearance in front of the camera is an oddity. However, this is the sort of movie that Georges Melies made many times: the man takes off his clothes before bathing. As soon as he gets down to his polka-dotted underwear, a new set of outwear appears on him. Melies not only directed (and wrote and painted the sets; if ever there was an auteur in cinema, it was Melies), he starred in his movies.
So it was quite appropriate for director Zecca to appear in this one. It is the appearance of Alice Guy as director that becomes a matter of interest. Assuming that she directed -- there are lacunae in the records -- why was she needed?
It suggests that at the more industrially organized Gaumont, the value of a director was appreciated. Melies had begun as a stage performer. He could gauge the impact of his performance by looking at the audience. This gave him a sense of what would work when he made movies. While Zecca undoubtedly had this, there is too much risk in relying on self analysis. When the performer and the directorate one, the ego becomes involved. It was better, it was felt, to have another director serve as the audience's surrogate. Who better than the firm's senior director?
