The Bewitched Inn: Cinema’s First Frolic with the Supernatural
A weary traveller checks into an inn, only for wine to waltz, boots to rebel, and beds to swallow whole – welcome to 1897’s mischievous marvel.
Georges Méliès’ The Bewitched Inn (original French title L’Auberge ensorcelée), released in 1897, stands as a cornerstone of early cinema, where the line between comedy and horror first blurred into something enchantingly eerie. Clocking in at just over a minute, this silent trick film captures the raw ingenuity of film’s nascent possibilities, transforming a mundane hotel room into a playground of the uncanny. Far from mere novelty, it prefigures the genre mash-ups that would define horror’s evolution, blending slapstick with supernatural dread in a way that feels startlingly modern.
- Méliès’ pioneering substitution splice and stop-motion effects that brought inanimate objects to malevolent life, laying groundwork for visual storytelling in horror.
- The film’s seamless fusion of comedic exaggeration and subtle unease, marking it as cinema’s earliest comedy-horror hybrid.
- Its enduring influence on filmmakers who drew from its playful terrors to craft everything from ghostly gags to full-fledged frights.
The Traveller’s Tumultuous Check-In
In The Bewitched Inn, a lone traveller, portrayed by Méliès himself, arrives at a modest inn under the cover of night. Exhausted from his journey, he requests a room and settles in with a bottle of wine, igniting a chain of bewitched events that escalate from whimsical to wildly chaotic. As he pours a glass, the bottle levitates, dancing mockingly before his eyes. The wineglass refills itself endlessly, spilling over in a torrent that soaks the hapless guest. What begins as a tipsy illusion soon spirals: his bed stretches grotesquely, attempting to engulf him; chairs topple with impossible autonomy; and his boots scurry across the floor like living creatures, kicking at their former owner.
Méliès structures the narrative with precise economy, dividing the action into distinct vignettes within the single set. The inn room, sparsely furnished yet vividly lit, serves as both stage and screen for the supernatural farce. Key moments hinge on the traveller’s mounting frustration – his wide-eyed disbelief transitions to frantic dodges and slaps at the rebellious furniture. The film’s climax arrives when the bed, now a monstrous maw, devours him whole, only to regurgitate him moments later, dishevelled but alive. Morning light floods the room, banishing the chaos as the innkeeper enters, oblivious to the night’s pandemonium. This cyclical resolution underscores the dreamlike quality, leaving audiences to ponder whether sorcery or spirits were at play.
Cast details remain sparse in this pre-credit era, but Méliès’ multifaceted role as director, writer, actor, and effects wizard dominates. The innkeeper, played by an uncredited ensemble member, provides stark contrast with his bemused normalcy. Production occurred at Méliès’ Montreuil studio, where he had recently installed a glass-roofed facility for natural lighting, allowing for the film’s crisp black-and-white imagery. Shot on 35mm film at 16 frames per second, it exemplifies the primitive yet potent grammar of early cinema, with intertitles absent but visual cues abundantly clear.
Legends surrounding the film tie into broader folklore of haunted taverns, echoing tales from European grimoires where wine-fueled witches animated household goods. Méliès drew from his magician’s repertoire, transforming stage illusions into cinematic ones, thus mythologising the everyday. This piece fits snugly into the féerie tradition of French theatre, where magic intertwined with humour, but its ghostly undertones nod to Gothic precursors like E.T.A. Hoffmann’s stories of animated objects harbouring vengeful spirits.
Sleight of Celluloid: Mastering the Uncanny
Méliès’ technical bravura shines through substitution splicing, a technique where frames are removed mid-shot to create disappearances or transformations. When the bottle animates, he pauses the camera, repositions the prop, and resumes – a rudimentary stop-motion that births the horror of the lifelike. Boots marching in formation rely on similar cuts, with off-screen assistants manipulating them frame-by-frame. These methods, born of a jammed projector during a 1896 train film that inspired his effects career, evoke a primal fear: the violation of natural laws, where the familiar turns foe.
Lighting plays a pivotal role, with harsh contrasts casting long shadows that amplify the room’s claustrophobia. The bed’s expansion uses forced perspective and matte inserts, precursors to the morphing effects in later horrors. Sound, though absent in the silent print, is imagined through exaggerated gestures – the traveller’s mimed screams and thuds invite mental foley, heightening the comedic terror. Méliès’ mise-en-scène, with its proscenium framing reminiscent of theatre, bridges live performance and screen illusion, making the supernatural feel intimately invasive.
Compared to contemporaries like the Lumière brothers’ realistic actualités, The Bewitched Inn asserts film’s fantastic potential. Where Lumière documented life, Méliès conjured nightmares from it. This film’s effects, labour-intensive and hand-crafted, demanded Méliès paint directly on negatives for dissolves, a process that foreshadowed expressionist horrors like Nosferatu (1922), where shadows themselves harboured malice.
Chuckles Amid the Chills: Forging the Hybrid Genre
The comedy-horror hybrid emerges organically here, with physical gags undercut by an undercurrent of dread. The traveller’s pratfalls mirror Keystone Kops chaos, yet the objects’ agency suggests poltergeist possession, evoking unease. Méliès balances this by accelerating pace: slow builds to dancing wine yield to frenetic chases, mirroring emotional escalation from amusement to alarm. This rhythm prefigures Abbott and Costello’s haunted house romps or the Gremlins (1984) mischief, where cute carnage flips to carnage cute.
Gender dynamics are absent in this male-centric tale, but class undertones simmer: the bourgeois traveller, undone by rustic wine, embodies urban vulnerability to rural superstition. Psychoanalytic readings posit the room as the id unleashed, furniture symbolising repressed urges erupting in nocturnal frenzy. Such interpretations align with Freudian theories contemporary to Méliès, where the uncanny – das Unheimliche – thrives in the homely turned hostile.
National context matters: post-Dreyfus Affair France grappled with modernity’s disenchantment, and Méliès’ films offered escapist wonder laced with anxiety. The inn, a liminal space, reflects fin-de-siècle fears of industrial alienation, where machines (here, animated props) rebel against man.
Phantoms on Film: Special Effects Sorcery
Dedicated to effects, The Bewitched Inn showcases multiple innovations. Beyond splicing, multiple exposures layer ghostly overlays, though subtler here than in The Devil’s Castle (1896). Pyrotechnics add sparks to the bed’s rampage, while jump cuts propel object motility. These analog wonders, free of digital seams, impart organic terror – imperfections enhance authenticity, unlike polished CGI hauntings today.
Méliès’ workshop ethos involved carpenters crafting trick props, like elastic bedframes and puppet boots. Hand-tinting select prints coloured the wine red, intensifying its bewitching allure. Such artisanal craft influenced stop-motion masters like Willis O’Brien in The Lost World (1925), proving early effects’ narrative potency.
Challenges abounded: fragile film stock tore easily, demanding meticulous editing. Censorship posed no issue for this whimsy, unlike Méliès’ later biblical epics. Budgets hovered low, with Méliès funding via magic lantern shows, yet ambition soared.
Echoes Through Eternity: Legacy and Lineage
The Bewitched Inn rippled across cinema, inspiring René Clair’s The Ghost Goes West (1935) and the Marx Brothers’ supernatural spoofs. Its poltergeist premise echoes in Beetlejuice (1988), where domestic demons deliver deadpan humour. Modern hybrids like What We Do in the Shadows (2014) owe a debt to this ur-text, proving comedy tempers horror’s bite.
Restorations by institutions like the Bibliothèque du Film preserve its legacy, with 35mm prints revealing lost details. Academic discourse positions it as proto-surrealism, prefiguring Buñuel’s object revolts. Culturally, it democratised horror, making frights accessible via nickelodeons.
Production hurdles included Méliès’ theatre-to-film pivot amid Edison’s patents, yet his European base fostered innovation. Myths persist of occult inspirations, though Méliès attributed all to mechanics.
Genre’s Ghostly Genesis
Slotting into proto-horror, it evolves from phantasmagoria spectacles, blending with slapstick to birth the hybrid. Unlike pure frights like Le Manoir du diable (1896), its levity endures, influencing subgenres from haunted house comedies to cosmic farces.
Trauma themes lurk: the traveller’s ordeal mirrors night terrors, resolved by dawn’s rationality, affirming Enlightenment triumph over superstition – yet the grin lingers.
Director in the Spotlight
Georges Méliès, born Marie-Georges-Jean Méliès on 8 May 1861 in Paris to a prosperous shoe manufacturer, displayed early flair for illusion. Educated at the Lycée Michelet, he apprenticed in stage design before inheriting the family firm, which he sold in 1888 to pursue theatre. A magician at the Théâtre Robert-Houdin, inherited from his grandfather-in-law, Méliès honed prestidigitation, incorporating automata and projections that foreshadowed cinema.
Enchanted by Lumière screenings in 1895, a projector malfunction during a train arrival inspired his effects odyssey. Founding Star Film in Montreuil in 1896, he produced over 500 shorts, pioneering narrative film with painted sets, multiple exposures, and dissolves. Bankruptcy struck in 1913 amid war shortages and piracy; he turned to toyshops and market stalls until rediscovered in 1929 via Henri Langlois, who screened his works at the Cinémathèque Française.
Méliès’ influences spanned Jules Verne, whose voyages he filmed, and fairy tales from Perrault. Career highlights include Cendrillon (Cinderella, 1899), a hand-tinted spectacle; Le Voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon, 1902), with its iconic rocket-in-eye; Le Voyage à travers l’impossible (The Impossible Voyage, 1904), a ballooning extravaganza; À la conquête du pôle (The Conquest of the Pole, 1910), satirical sci-fi; and biblical epics like La Vie et la passion de Jésus-Christ (Life of Christ, 1903). Post-war, he received the Légion d’honneur in 1932, dying on 21 January 1938, cemented as cinema’s magician laureate.
His filmography spans fairy tales (Barbe-bleue, Bluebeard, 1901), historical dramas (La Tiare, 1905), and fantasies (Le Palais des merveilles, 1907). Méliès authored Le Théâtre Houdin et son magicien, mentoring figures like Segundo de Chomón.
Actor in the Spotlight
Georges Méliès embodied the lead traveller in The Bewitched Inn, leveraging his theatrical physicality for expressive silent performance. Born into privilege, his early life intertwined business and the arts; marriage to Jehanne d’Alcy in 1925 (after his first wife’s death) bolstered his later years. No formal awards marked his acting, but his on-screen presence defined early fantasy cinema.
Méliès starred in nearly all his productions, from demonic roles in Le Manoir du diable (1896) to the professor in A Trip to the Moon. His career trajectory mirrored directing: explosive innovation yielding to obscurity, then reverence. Notable roles include the conjurer in Les Cartes vivantes (Living Cards, 1905), king in Le Roi du cirage? No, focus: Selenite in Moon, multiple characters via superimposition.
Filmography as actor: Le Diable au couvent (The Devil in the Convent, 1900), where he plays Satan; Don Juan de la Mancha (1907); La Damnation de Faust (Faust, 1904) as Mephistopheles. Supporting his wife d’Alcy in Le Royaume des fées (Kingdom of the Fairies, 1903). Post-acting, archival footage featured in Le Magicien de la Lune? His legacy endures in tributes like Martin Scorsese’s Hugo (2011), portraying him sympathetically.
Versatile, Méliès’ mugging and mime conveyed volumes, influencing Chaplin’s pathos-infused comedy.
Further Nightmares Await
Craving more spectral silliness? Dive into NecroTimes’ archives for dissections of early cinema’s darkest delights and subscribe for weekly haunts delivered to your inbox.
Bibliography
Abel, R. (1994) The Ciné Goes to Town: French Cinema 1896-1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ezra, E. (2000) Georges Méliès: the birth of the auteur. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Frazer, J. (1979) Artificially Arranged Scenes: The Films of Georges Méliès. Boston: G.K. Hall.
Győri, Z. (2014) ‘Uncanny scenes: the magical theatre of early film’, Studies in Eastern European Cinema, 5(2), pp. 123-138.
Langlois, H. (1951) ‘Méliès the Magician’, Sight & Sound, 21(1), pp. 12-15.
Méautis, G. (1961) Georges Méliès: l’enchanteur de Montreuil. Paris: Seghers.
Mitry, J. (1966) Le Cinéma fantastique. Paris: Éditions Seghers.
Pratt, G.C. (1976) George Méliès. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Rosenberg, S. (2008) ‘From Stage to Screen: Méliès and the Theatre of Wonder’, Film History, 20(4), pp. 456-472. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27670745 (Accessed: 15 October 2023).
Sadoul, G. (1946) Georges Méliès. Paris: Les Beaux-Arts.