Manhatta

This short film by Sheeler and Strand is the father of American avant-garde cinema.

It contains beautiful shots of Manhattan shown intertwined with excerpts of a Walt Whitman poem. All of the shots are thought out, and very photographic in nature. But that is expected with Paul Strand behind the camera.

This film is probably the first American avant-garde film, and if it isn't, it is definitely the first influential avant-garde film. A guideline for future American avant-garde filmmakers to follow.

A true visual treat, even for today's standard.

Manhatta (1921)

**** (out of 4)

Cinematographer Paul Strand and painter Charles Sheeler teamed up to make this movie, which was their attempt to show their love for the city of Manhattan. The say they achieved in showing that love would be an understatement because this 11-minute movie is extremely well-made and contains some downright break taking visuals. The semi-documentary film has various images of the city put together in no real order nor do they try to tell a story out of the images. Instead we just see various items from the city, ranging from haze rising over buildings to various ships on the water. All of these images make for an incredible film because it really seems like you're watching a science-fiction film with a bunch of fake images. It's rather amazing at how well the cinematography is here because unlike many, or perhaps any film, this one here puts you so close to what you're looking at that it's nearly impossible to remember you're watching a movie. This is certainly one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen and perhaps the start of what would become avant-garde film and one has to wonder if Stanley Kubrick saw this and learned from it.

Preface: Due to the nature of such a short film, any valid review will contain some evidence of a "spoiler." This review is no exception.

Paul Strand's "Manhatta" is more than just the simple, pioneering piece in early cinema. "Manhatta" is a representation of New York City through the eyes of a still photographer. Strand uses the format of motion picture to create a sense of life. Similar to his New York still photography, each moving image frames city life, angles, and other objects with semi-avant-garde detail. Strand's own "mentor," Alfred Stieglitz, greatly appreciated the new form of city photography, publishing it in "Camera Work" and in his gallery 291.

In the movie, the blowing smoke, walking people, moving ships, and other objects in motion are what separate the motion picture from a photo album. Instead of portraying New York as an iconic, prosperous city, Strand has been able to portray New York City as an organism that contains a immigrant working class.

In my opinion, "Manhatta" commands the respect of many early motion pictures, influencing many great, more popular films.

This experimental movie of Paul Strand about Manhattan is extremely important to the future generations of directors. Paul Strand is like a bird in Manhattan, showing the daily life and the most characteristic points of it. Manhattan is shown in a Bird's eye shot(I think that it's the name in English, kind like the public was God himself. I never went to Manhattan, but in 10 minutes I visited, understood and felt Manhattan. It is amazing how in such a short time, he can illustrate, in a interesting and original way, this mediatic place. Paul Strand is like a magician that takes photos of Manhattan and give life to them. A great short that definitely is a mark on cinema's experimental history.

MANHATTA is an unusual short film. It's like the merging of a travelogue with a poem. So, as the camera moves artistically about the city of New York, the scenes are punctuated with intertitle cards that have poetic verse on them that make it all seem grand and majestic.

While much of this won't appeal to most viewers, the film is still worth seeing for two important reasons. First, the short is a wonderful historical record of the city. In other films of the era, New York is incidental, in a way. You might see bits and pieces of the city, but the city is not the star. Here, however, you see so much of the town that you wouldn't see otherwise--and much of it is gone today. Second, the film is very artistic in its cinematography--with wonderful aerial shots as well as nicely frames shots of the Brooklyn Bridge and the like.

Perhaps not exciting, but a rather important document. And, despite the original negatives being missing and only one print in existence until it was restored, the print looks great!