The Gay Shoe Clerk

Edwin S. Porter and the Edison Company's "The Gay Shoe Clerk" demonstrates the influence of British filmmaker George Albert Smith. This film is essentially a remake, or reworking, of Smith's "As Seen Through a Telescope" (1900); it uses the same three-shot plot, including a close-up in the middle, and the joke of a man being punished for looking at a woman's ankle while she lifts her dress. The setting was changed from a man outside using a telescope to view the leg in Smith's film to the inside of shoe store. Porter would've presumably seen Smith's film through the duping practices of the Edison Company, who stole Smith's film and distributed it as "The Professor and His Field Glass". Historian Charles Musser ("Before the Nickelodeon") says that Porter may have also been influenced by a Biograph subject, tellingly titled, "Don't Get Gay with Your Manicure" (1902/03).

More interestingly are the differences between the close-ups in Porter and Smith's films. The one in "As Seen Through a Telescope" is a masked point-of-view (POV) shot. Porter's view is not masked and is not a POV from any character's perspective, but is an ordinary ("invisible") close-up, matching-on-action, which isn't explained within the narrative, as a POV shot is. Standard film-making nowadays, but not in 1903. Yet, not even this use of the close-up was Porter's invention. The same fellow Smith had used the same kind of insert close-up in the middle of his three-shot film "The Little Doctors" (1901) (now a lost film), which he remade as "Sick Kitten" (1903). Additionally, Porter had previously inserted a close-up of a fire alarm being pulled in "Life of an American Fireman" (1903).

"The Gay Shoe Clerk" is imitative, but not deplorable as were the dupes and shot-for-shot remakes also made by the Edison Company and other studios. It remains well made for 1903 and an amusing exploitation of cinema viewing's voyeuristic nature, with the punitive gag of the character being repeatedly hit for looking at the woman's leg, while we moviegoers get away unscathed.

The Gay Shoe Clerk (1903) offers early romantic comedy as the clerk in question tries to get a little too friendly with his young female client, only to be clopped on the head by her severe mother. The timing was good, and there is a subtle eroticism in the way his hand slowly pushes up her skirt to reveal her stockings...

The copy I watched was from the "Treasures of American Cinema", Volume I (first disc), and like everything else on the set is impeccably transferred and well-scored, with excellent documentation. To the lover of early cinema, or anyone who wants to explore the byways of American film in general, it's an indispensable set.

For some reason or another, I happened to catch this little flick somewhere not too long ago.

It is basically a shoe salesman that is seduced by a women customer's good looks (who, by today's standards, really doesn't look that great at all) and proceeds to help her try on shoes. Part of the woman's dress slips and shows a third of her leg, which then the camera cuts to the man's face showing a really goofy suprised look on his face. Then the manager comes around and smacks him with an umbrella. Ouch!

Judging by the fact it was mildly amusing to watch this one minute video today, I'm sure it was absolutely hilarious about 100 years ago. Pretty decent camera work considering that no one back then was really a professional "cameraman." The whole thing seems pretty Chaplin-ish. Your typical short goofy comedy. Consider it a decent camera experiment, as that's all it really is. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

With a title that suggests a Channel 4 documentary film, this short is actually a quick sketch that is all very cheeky and funny I'm sure but hasn't really stood the test of time at all. It features a bit of a build up and some good facial expressions and finishes with the clerk of the title getting rebuked (with an umbrella) for taking liberties with his customer. It is very short and is done with just a static camera shot so I was wondering what the lasting value of it was other than being part of a bigger history. I didn't find it particularly clever or funny and, with other UK silent shorts I could be watching to see how they built the foundations, I didn't think there had been much point in seeking this one out.

The birth of cinema came to be for the pure value of a viewer having the capability to escape to another world without actually travelling there in real-time. As cinema evolves so does its various techniques. Films started out as series photography which Edward Muybridge perfected. With the emergence of cinema, many directors who were photographers previously came to play in the field of cinema. Directors however thought of new ways to amplify their techniques to create an even better form of visual pleasure for their films. How is this film not relevant? This is first multi-shot film with 3 full shots and it uses a Point of view shot as one of them. People need to really think before they talk. This film is a great achievement at the time.