However, that is the only positive thing I can say about this documentary film from 110 years ago. It runs for 5 minutes, way too long and for over 4 minute we see only the back of a subway train in a tunnel. It's really boring. The ending then is the train arriving at its target location and we finally see something else, namely said station and also a whole lot of people. The film's director is G.W. Bitzer and it's probably a good thing that he wasn't really a prolific filmmaker. However, he was one of the most prolific cinematographers of all time. His credit list there looks almost never-ending. I just hope he did better there than he did when it comes to making films himself. Really weak effort here. Not recommended.

New York Subway (1905) ** 1/2 (out of 4) When people think of G.W. Bitzer they think of him being the cinematographer for D.W. Griffith on his landmark pictures but before teaming up with the future legend, Bitzer made a career out of being a director. This 5-minute film is such an example. There's really not too much going on but we see footage being shot of a train as it goes through the tunnels and stopping at various points to pick up more people. Yes, that's all that happens for five-minutes but it's important to remember that movie crowds back in the day loved movies with trains. If you start watching these early pieces of cinema you're going to notice a lot of movies deal with trains in regards to story lines or simply showing how they work or move. For the most part this is a pretty dull short because we just keep seeing the same thing over and over for the entire running time. What makes the film worth viewing is that it gives us a great look at the train system back in 1905. Sure, Hollywood could re-create this today using CGI but why bother when you have the real thing right here on full display? I really enjoyed seeing the structure of the tunnels, the look of the train and of course the type of clothing that people were wearing back in the day. Fans of early cinema and those who just want to see 1905 should certainly check this out but others might want to stay clear. It's also worth noting that the cinematography is rather remarkable considering the era.

The first impression you get from this film shot in the tunnels of the New York subway over 100 years ago is an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia. The walls of the tunnels through which the trains travel are only inches wider than the carriages in some places, and anybody with a fear of confined spaces would no doubt be discouraged from going anywhere near the underground if they watched this.As Snow Leopard has noted, it must have taken no small amount of resourcefulness on the part of Billy Bitzer to make this film. The lighting from the train that runs alongside the subject train casts an eerie glow that adds to the faintly unsettling atmosphere. The trains don't seem to travel very fast - although they might have been travelling slower than normal so that Bitzer could catch the action without too much jerking or vibration.

Although early cinematographer G.W. 'Billy' Bitzer is usually remembered for his work on D.W. Griffith's epics, this short feature - a solo effort by Bitzer - might be an even more impressive display of his skill. To accomplish such clear, detailed photography of a moving underground subject, given the equipment of the time, must have taken considerable talent and planning.The end effect seems straightforward in itself: the movie shows a view of a subway car, taken from another one, as it makes a trip through the tunnels under New York City. On a few occasions, another car carrying the lighting, running along a parallel track, can be glimpsed. But the timing, the coordination, the light level, and many other challenges involved make it a real achievement for its day.The 'ride' effect itself is interesting for a while, at least for those of us with limited experience riding subways. There is not all that much to see, so that after a while it's mostly more of the same thing, but every detail that there is to see is rendered clearly. It's hard to see how it could have been improved upon.