Rescued by Rover

The Great War wrecked the European film market, allowing the US to become the dominant film-making nation, and it has remained so to this day. Pathé of France, for a time, was the largest producer of films, and continued to be successful during the war due to its American subsidiary. British filmmakers, however, advanced the art form the most during the early nineteen-naughts (Georges Méliès and Edwin S. Porter were, more or less, national anomalies), reaching something of a national peak with "Rescued by Rover." Cecil Hepworth managed the most prominent British film company of the period, and they managed to stay successful during the war, before being outdone in the 1920s.

From what I've read in "The Oxford History of World Cinema," Hepworth was outdone partially because the editing in his films became incoherent (fades being used where cuts should be and vise-versa). Rather odd considering that editing is part of what makes "Rescued by Rover" a landmark in film history. Hepworth and director Lewin Fitzhamon wisely use simple cuts in this rescue picture. "Rescued by Rover" was a great commercial success; so much so (again, according to the afore cited source), that Hepworth had it remade twice to supply enough prints (presumably because the negatives wore out). I watched one of the remakes. (I'll relay details to the alternate versions section of this website.) Hepworth sold 395 prints, which was very good for the era (Chanan, "Early Cinema").

The story of "Rescued by Rover" is in the early film tradition of temperance and bourgeois fear of the poor; an alcoholic vagrant abducts a baby from a neglectful nurse, so a cute dog must rescue the child. After the dog gets the aid of a man, the man uses a boat to cross an inlet. I'm not sure the man had to use the boat when two bridges are visible within the frame. I guess it's part of the absurdity and lingering of the film. A dog is the rescuer, and the camera sits around patiently for the action to proceed, which, of course, is usual for the period. That the film doesn't do anything Griffith-like to hurry up with the suspense doesn't bother me--it's a short film, after all.

The continuity of the pace is the remarkable thing. Cuts for smooth transitions, panning to keep action within frame, a match cut to a closer look in the final scene, in addition to the similarity of indoor and outdoor lighting, make for a fluent film. In contrast with the lengthy rescue shots, the first and final ones aren't long enough. There's one or two jump cuts, too, or it could be just flickers. The worst problem, however, is the missing walls. It's probably feckless to mention it; not until filmmakers like Orson Welles came about would interior spatial dimensions be explored.

(Note: This is one of four films that I've commented on because they're landmarks of early narrative development in film history. The others are "As Seen Through a Telescope," "Le Voyage dans la lune" and "The Great Train Robbery".)

Probably influenced more by Edwin Porter than D W Griffith this early chase movie shows how far film had come since the one shot actualities of the first few years of the century. Interesting studio sets, especially the arclit attic, and remarkable smooth editing. Also makes use of planting, in this case a seemingly innocuous boat, that will play an important role in the latter part of the film. Notable also for an outstanding performance by Blair, the dog, who hits every mark on cue and whose understated performance puts the hammy humans to shame.

A young woman is out for a walk in the park when a young man distracts her and allows another woman to nip in and kidnap the baby without being seen. The mother is distraught when she learns of this crime but it appears the baby is lost forever. However faithful family dog Rover sets out to see if he can't locate the tot.

Not great as a story, this film is mostly of interest because of its age and the techniques that must still have been in their infancy at this time. Rather than a static shot of an event, this film tells a dramatic story (albeit in a very simple fashion) and features multiple shots running together over time and space to do it. Yes, of course this is now such a familiar thing that to point it out seems stupid but there we have it – it is relevant. The also quite impressed me in the acting of the dog (who was actually called Blair, I don't care what the IMDb credits say). The DVD gave me the impression that this was merely the Hepworth family pet (they are also in the film themselves) but it does very well with the action and moves on cue but not in a mechanical way that over-trained dogs sometimes do. The reason for this is that the crew set out sausages for him and, where he breaks down one door after another it is because he hasn't found any so moves on! Interesting then for the technique, the manner of story telling and the way the Hepworth family dog is very effective in a key role.

The opening shot is that of Rover sitting near the baby of the family, probably just to establish that there is a close and protective relationship there.

Next the nurse is seen taking the baby for a stroll in his carriage. A woman comes up to the nurse and begs for money and is refused. When the nurse's attention is diverted, the angry woman steals the baby. The nurse is rightfully distraught and tells the mother. Rover overhears and goes out to search for the baby. In one of the first cases on film of a dog stereotyping he first searches the local tenement because he assumes a poor person did this. Not being a cop he can just bust down door after door looking until he comes upon the baby. The kidnapper shoos the dog away then gets drunk and goes to sleep. The dog then goes to get the parents so they can retrieve the baby.

It really was all in the family here. Cecil Hepworth directed the film and Mrs. Hepworth wrote the script. Cecil, his wife, and their baby star as the family in the film. Blair, who plays Rover, was the Hepworth family dog. Hepworth continued making films into the 1920s but could not make the transition into longer films with more complex narratives and his business went bankrupt in 1924.

This film does a good job of building suspense - the audience does not know where the kidnapper has taken the child or what she wants with her.

This is an interesting little film that, for 1905, is pretty good but for today's audiences it's mostly only of historical value. It excels because the film has a plot and pacing and some decent action (at times) for the times. Sure, the film isn't exactly LASSIE, but it's pretty good fare for 1905. The film is about a baby-napping and the faithful Collie who comes to the child's rescue! The problem for me, though, is that although I am a real Cinephile and love historical films, the quality of this film doesn't come close to the really wonderful short films Georges Méliès was making at the same time--with great camera tricks, better and more interesting plots and are much more entertaining today.