In this early short film from the pioneering Abel Gance, a scientist playing around with some white powder in his lab, begins either changing his body or how he sees the world, I couldn't figure out which. Regardless, this allows Gance to use trick mirrors to distort the picture. Then more people wander in, more powder gets thrown around, more distortion (until 80% of the screen is incomprehensible), until things are finally restored to normal. Then everyone sits down to champagne. This movie has no point except to fool around with technique, and since it's six minutes long, that's all right. But it's really more bizarre than cool. It can be found on the New York Film Annex's series of Experimental Films on Video under #18.
10 Reviews
Experimental nonsense
rbverhoef3 August 2006
'La Folie du Docteur Tube' only exists to try some new techniques. The story tells of a professor in a lab inventing a weird powder that disfigures living creatures. First he tries it on an animal, then on himself and the boy that helps him. In a parallel story we see men approaching two women. The women want to fresh up before going on something like a date and they also end up covered in the professor's powder. With make-up they try to conceal their disfigurement but lucky for them the two men below the window are also covered with the powder. In the end everything turns up back to normal where they share a drink.
I liked Albert Dieudonné who plays the professor. His way of acting is actually quite funny. The story itself is not interesting at all, only an excuse for director Abel Gance (who would go and make the great 'Napoléon') to use trick mirrors to distort the picture. He plays this trick too long; after a minute we understand what he wants to show us but he keeps things like that for five minutes more. I am glad to have seen it since it comes from an important figure in the cinema, but that would be about the only reason to recommend it.
I liked Albert Dieudonné who plays the professor. His way of acting is actually quite funny. The story itself is not interesting at all, only an excuse for director Abel Gance (who would go and make the great 'Napoléon') to use trick mirrors to distort the picture. He plays this trick too long; after a minute we understand what he wants to show us but he keeps things like that for five minutes more. I am glad to have seen it since it comes from an important figure in the cinema, but that would be about the only reason to recommend it.
a slight but fun little quickie about "funny" powder
Quinoa198410 May 2016
You know what's strange? At first I didn't get the connection that I should've, which is that Dr. Tube - who comes complete with a small(ish) but noticeable cone-head and the kind of facial gestures that babies probably discern from their parents making googly eyes at them - is making a form of cocaine. Is it exactly that? Maybe, or maybe not, either way it's a powder that creates, shall we say, MAGIC for everyone who comes into its path. It helps also, especially, if mirrors are in the immediate vicinity so the camera capturing all of the characters shenanigans can, in layman's terms, bug out (first the dog, then the doctor and his little black friend, then the two women who come to the room and get high immediately, and then the two gentlemen with the ladies who get doused with the powder and then come up-stairs.
There's distortion with the lenses, basically a primitive form of what Spike Lee would go on to do in Crooklyn and Terry Gilliam for like half of his films, and it makes clear the influence is that of a funhouse: take your friends, look at yourself made wide and flat and extra-squeezed-out skinny and have a big laugh. Why it suddenly stops near the end and everyone goes back to normal, albeit the two men and two women and that deranged f*** of a doctor are still happy and high on life, is not explained. There's no real exact point to this except to show people having fun and having a good time, and by proxy we'll have fun watching them.
It is fun to watch, up to a point, though it gets repetitive and is so nonsensical that the lack of anything close to characters makes it difficult to think about watching again, at least any time too soon (outside of if it was on at some bar or club as background filler). It's innovative and clever, but there's not much of a greater point to it (i.e. why the doctor created the powder in the first place, what he'll do with it next), and it's more of a situation than any kind of story. I'm glad I watched it, but even at 10 1/2 minutes it runs a little long.
There's distortion with the lenses, basically a primitive form of what Spike Lee would go on to do in Crooklyn and Terry Gilliam for like half of his films, and it makes clear the influence is that of a funhouse: take your friends, look at yourself made wide and flat and extra-squeezed-out skinny and have a big laugh. Why it suddenly stops near the end and everyone goes back to normal, albeit the two men and two women and that deranged f*** of a doctor are still happy and high on life, is not explained. There's no real exact point to this except to show people having fun and having a good time, and by proxy we'll have fun watching them.
It is fun to watch, up to a point, though it gets repetitive and is so nonsensical that the lack of anything close to characters makes it difficult to think about watching again, at least any time too soon (outside of if it was on at some bar or club as background filler). It's innovative and clever, but there's not much of a greater point to it (i.e. why the doctor created the powder in the first place, what he'll do with it next), and it's more of a situation than any kind of story. I'm glad I watched it, but even at 10 1/2 minutes it runs a little long.
Decent Short
Michael_Elliott20 June 2008
Folie du Docteur Tube, La (1915)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Strange, early French film from director Abel Gance has a mad scientist creating some sort of white powder, which he, his dog, his assistant and a couple others take and then start to see strange objects. I'm really not sure if the white powder is suppose to be something like cocaine but that's the impression I got and I guess I'd go even further as to say this is an early "strange trip" type of film. Apparently the only reason this was made was so that Gance could try new things with the camera. The film has all sorts of strange images, the type of stuff you'd expect to see in a funhouse. Various tricks are done with mirrors in order to make things appear smaller or out of shape. The film certainly has a surreal quality to it and I respect the attempt to do something new but in the end the film feels long even at only eleven-minutes.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Strange, early French film from director Abel Gance has a mad scientist creating some sort of white powder, which he, his dog, his assistant and a couple others take and then start to see strange objects. I'm really not sure if the white powder is suppose to be something like cocaine but that's the impression I got and I guess I'd go even further as to say this is an early "strange trip" type of film. Apparently the only reason this was made was so that Gance could try new things with the camera. The film has all sorts of strange images, the type of stuff you'd expect to see in a funhouse. Various tricks are done with mirrors in order to make things appear smaller or out of shape. The film certainly has a surreal quality to it and I respect the attempt to do something new but in the end the film feels long even at only eleven-minutes.
La Folie Du Docteur Tube (Abel Gance, 1915) **
Bunuel19764 October 2008
It’s ironic that, of Gance’s more celebrated Silent work, this should be the one I watch first: it’s a one-reel short about a mad scientist – hence its inclusion in the “Horror Challenge”, though the tone throughout is distinctly comical! The titular figure is played by Albert Dieudonne – later the incarnation of Napoleon in the director’s eponymous epic of 1927 – and who’s fitted here with an exaggerated domed head, which he finally shelters inside a cage!
Even so, its raison d’etre is Gance’s use of the wide-angle lens in depicting the disorientating effect on people when subjected to a drug (in the form of dust particles) concocted by the protagonist. However, this gimmick – which actually prevents one from following what’s going on! – is kept up for an inordinate length of time: consequently, even at a mere 10 minutes, the gimmick outstays its welcome…
Even so, its raison d’etre is Gance’s use of the wide-angle lens in depicting the disorientating effect on people when subjected to a drug (in the form of dust particles) concocted by the protagonist. However, this gimmick – which actually prevents one from following what’s going on! – is kept up for an inordinate length of time: consequently, even at a mere 10 minutes, the gimmick outstays its welcome…
I guess we can all waste a few minutes to see something this pointless
Rodrigo_Amaro5 June 2013
I don't know if 11 minutes are sufficient enough to do wonderful things, save a life or find happiness, therefore I can't be much stressed about seeing this nonsense experience. I won't say I wasted my time but something was wasted on the way. I couldn't feel a thing over it, not a single burst of joy or amazement, not a tear was shed. I got nothing from here except maybe, maybe some ideas about the little importance this might have had with future generations when it comes to illustrate bad trips with drugs. "La Folie du Docteur Tube" tells about a doctor making some experiments with a powerful drug. Mr. Abel Gance provides us bizarre and twisted images, everything is completely modified, blurry and enlarged followed by the psychodelics sounds of Karlheinz Stockhausen - the latter came from a remastered version released a few years ago.
So, Gance was testing - just like the doctor in the movie - new ways to compose images, editing techniques and all. I'm fine with that. But where's the high purpose? Where's the entertainment or the higher knowledge? It's so empty and dull you watch this with a straight face thinking "Uh huh, so...? Oh that was it? What's the big deal?". I'm giving two stars. Why? Here's a little anecdote to connect with and a good answer to such question. A known director while making his earliest films at college asked his master, the great John Houseman, about his thoughts on his thesis film. Houseman, who had seen plenty of those that day and none of them moved him, replied to the young filmmaker: "Well, at least it didn't made me sleep". Case closed. 2/10
So, Gance was testing - just like the doctor in the movie - new ways to compose images, editing techniques and all. I'm fine with that. But where's the high purpose? Where's the entertainment or the higher knowledge? It's so empty and dull you watch this with a straight face thinking "Uh huh, so...? Oh that was it? What's the big deal?". I'm giving two stars. Why? Here's a little anecdote to connect with and a good answer to such question. A known director while making his earliest films at college asked his master, the great John Houseman, about his thoughts on his thesis film. Houseman, who had seen plenty of those that day and none of them moved him, replied to the young filmmaker: "Well, at least it didn't made me sleep". Case closed. 2/10
To quote Colin Mochrie, "it's crap!"
planktonrules23 August 2006
Although director Able Gance became world famous after producing his four-hour epic film NAPOLEON, everything he touched was not cinematic gold. In the case of this film, it wouldn't even approach cinematic lead or cardboard! It seems that the director was experimenting with camera tricks--something he put to great use in NAPOLEON--featuring a "tryptic" view on the screen of three separate scenes in this film and many odd camera angles. In the case of this short, he tried using a very, very distorted lens that made things look like of like a fun-house mirror. The final product appears totally distorted and annoying--unless you are a die-hard film historian or you are 100% drunk! Then, perhaps, you'll find SOMETHING to enjoy about this mess. I give it a score of 2 out of charity--for at least trying something different. But the film is just stupid and insults your mind and intelligence. Nice try, but NOT one of your film successes, Abel!
Does not hold up well, if it ever was good
peefyn10 September 2016
The best thing about this movie is how short it is, the second best is the over the top, clown like performance by Albert Dieudonné as Dr. Tube. After that, naming any quality would be stretching it. There's barely a plot at all. Dr. Tube invents a powder that distorts the reality/vision of the people using it. He tries it on himself and others. It wears off after they settle down, and the it's over.
As most commenters point out, it is most likely made solely to experiment with distortion of the picture, making it look like a magic mirror. The warping effect might have been a bit fun then, but now, a hundred years later, it's only annoying. It's sad though, because I'm sure a movie like this could have been a cult film amongst drug users, as it does feature a "trip", but it's just not interesting enough. Except as a piece of film history.
As most commenters point out, it is most likely made solely to experiment with distortion of the picture, making it look like a magic mirror. The warping effect might have been a bit fun then, but now, a hundred years later, it's only annoying. It's sad though, because I'm sure a movie like this could have been a cult film amongst drug users, as it does feature a "trip", but it's just not interesting enough. Except as a piece of film history.
Experimental film from Abel Gance
jamesrupert201410 February 2020
A 'mad-scientist' in cinema's worst bald cap scatters a powder that distorts reality (although the film implies that the powder is applied to the subject, not the viewer, undercutting the obvious assumption of a drug metaphor). Of interest only for the very early application of distorting lenses and mirrors to simulate altered states (hallucinations?). The film must have seemed very strange when first released to a public and goes on much longer than the gimmick requires.. The bald cap is so ridiculous and unnecessary that perhaps it was an inside joke.
Cagey Space
tedg29 March 2006
I'm doing my homework for an anticipated viewing of "Napoleon" and "I Accuse" though I suppose I'll have to settle for now with bootleg versions on small screens.
Toward that end, I begin with this little thing. Let me describe it. A mad scientist is working in his lab, with a black servant. The scientist is mad, and has an extreme extension to his bald head.
He has invented some sort of powder that alters space when sprinkled on beings in that space. The distortions of space may have been accomplished with bent mirrors, or perhaps lenses. Its a bit perverse and ends with the doctor putting his head in a cage. This last bit is inexplicable and quite disturbing.
The whole deal lasts 6 minutes or so. It seems to fold what the doctor sees as he becomes drug addled with what we see. That much is clear immediately, which is why the head in the cage is so very spooky.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
Toward that end, I begin with this little thing. Let me describe it. A mad scientist is working in his lab, with a black servant. The scientist is mad, and has an extreme extension to his bald head.
He has invented some sort of powder that alters space when sprinkled on beings in that space. The distortions of space may have been accomplished with bent mirrors, or perhaps lenses. Its a bit perverse and ends with the doctor putting his head in a cage. This last bit is inexplicable and quite disturbing.
The whole deal lasts 6 minutes or so. It seems to fold what the doctor sees as he becomes drug addled with what we see. That much is clear immediately, which is why the head in the cage is so very spooky.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
