Arthur Pillsbury's tiny world is actually pretty cool

If you are looking for a plot or characters, you should probably just go watch The Actress instead. This isn't that kind of movie. It’s a science reel from the silent era, and honestly, it’s worth watching if you just want to zone out and look at weird shapes.

It’s for people who like those slow-motion nature videos on YouTube. If you hate old, grainy footage, you will probably hate this with a passion.

I found myself staring at the screen trying to figure out if I was looking at a plant or an alien. Arthur C. Pillsbury was the guy behind the camera, and he was apparently a big deal with time-lapse stuff back in the day.

The microphotography here is wild considering how old it is. You can see these tiny single-cell things just floating around like they have somewhere important to be. 🦠

The way the plants grow in this film feels like it's happening in fast forward. It’s almost creepy. You see a sprout push through and it looks like it’s stretching after a long nap.

There is a specific moment where a cell starts to split. It’s messy and slow. I kept waiting for something to go wrong, but it just keeps doing its thing.

The film is pretty short, which is a blessing. It doesn't overstay its welcome or try to explain too much with big words.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Reproduction in Plants and Lower Animals (1930) through its definitive frames.

I wonder how long Pillsbury had to sit in a dark room to get these shots. The lighting is weirdly dramatic for a bunch of moss and amoebas.

The title says "lower animals," which sounds a bit mean. But I guess back then, that's just what they called anything that wasn't a dog or a person. 🐚

The quality is obviously not great because it’s ancient. There are scratches on the film that sometimes look like part of the organisms.

It reminded me a little bit of the weird pacing in The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks. Not because they are the same genre, but because both feel like they are experimenting with what a camera can actually do.

I think the most interesting part was the flowers opening. It happens so smoothly that you almost forget you're looking at something that usually takes days.

Some of the "lower animals" look like they are just vibrating. It’s kind of funny to watch them bounce around the frame with no real goal.

I've seen some weird stuff lately, like High Heels, but this is a different kind of weird. It’s quiet and a bit lonely.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Reproduction in Plants and Lower Animals (1930) through its definitive frames.

Things I noticed while watching:

• The dust on the lens is almost as interesting as the plants.
• One cell looks exactly like a fried egg for about three seconds.
• The flickering of the light is enough to give you a headache if you watch it in the dark.
• There's no music, so I played some lo-fi beats in the background and it fit perfectly.

You can tell this wasn't made for entertainment. It was made for people to learn something, but now it just feels like art.

There’s a shot of a root growing that looks like a hand reaching out. It’s a bit unsettling if you think about it too much.

I wouldn't say you need to rush out and find this. But if it pops up on your feed and you have ten minutes, give it a look. It’s better than scrolling through Twitter.

It makes you realize that even back in the 1920s, people were just as obsessed with "seeing the invisible" as we are now. Pillsbury was basically the original tech geek with his custom cameras.

The whole thing feels very human despite there being zero humans in it. It's just someone's curiosity caught on a strip of plastic. 🌿

I did find myself wishing there was a bit more variety in the organisms shown. After the third plant, you kind of get the idea.

Still, it’s a nice break from movies that try too hard to be deep. This is just life, literally, under a microscope.