Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

veronikastehr Working of machine resulted here due to the ''clarity'' of choice of motifs and photographs in an abstract contemplation about energy and eternal cosmic circular change. Painstakingly elaborated compositions of each shot stimulate the viewer to perceive the exactness according to which function various parts of every machine speaking at the same time about the way how the director Ralph Steiner works – avant-garde filmmaker active in the early 20th century. The same as in the working of machine, in this film Steiner left no room for improvisation. It is however interesting that the work as a whole looses the harshness of cold mathematical approach and gives the effect of visual poetic dedicated to the epoch of machines – constructed mechanisms that produce energy, invisible omnipresent power.

bob the moo I was fortunate enough to get some time recently to visit MoMA during a work trip where I diverted into a few days in Manhattan. In one of the rooms was a series of works which drew on mechanical engineering and design, whether it be drawings or short films like this one from the silent era. As others have said here this is a very simple film in some ways because for 10 minutes we are shown a series of gears working together. We don't see the bigger picture of the machine they are part of, because the camera focuses very much on the individual sets of teeth and cogs moving in their set rotation. We maybe have 20 seconds or so on each one, so over 10 minutes you see a lot.It is a very simple film but I found it hypnotic and very satisfying. I'm not a practical man so I appreciate the engineering behind making things work and the gear mechanisms here are beautiful. Some of them are very complex with variety of teeth and shapes of the cogs while others are very traditional, two round cogs with interlocking teeth – simple but still beautiful in their precision as they fit together. Maybe it doesn't work as well on Youtube as it does in the quiet dark space of a gallery, but for me I really loved this. That said 10 minutes was probably enough and it wasn't perfect – the proximity of the camera to some of the mechanisms occasionally meant it was hard to see what was occurring, but for the most part the approach is simple and the camera allows enough view and enough time to appreciate the mechanical beauty of each repeating pattern of operation – precise and perfect.

MartinHafer This film is from disc 7 of the collection entitled "Unseen Cinema: Early American Avant-Garde Film 1894-1941". It's a very esoteric collection of mostly art films and films of historical interest from the early days of film. It is NOT the sort of collection that the average person would consider even watching--which, I guess, makes me a weird guy.The film consists of cross-sections of various rotary and piston engines at work. The shots are all closeups and are set to music that seems quite fitting to the slow-speed action. It's all a bit hypnotic (or boring depending on your perspective) but certainly NOT a film that most folks would rush out to see. As it really defies my ability to give the film a numerical score, I'll just say that it was different...

ackstasis One might consider 'Mechnical Principles (1930)' to be the converse of Ralph Steiner's most well-known work, 'H2O (1929).' The latter film was a close-up examination of water, focusing intensely on the reflection and refraction of light by the liquid surface, an entirely natural substance that mesmerises through the sheer poetic randomness of its movements. There's nothing random about the mechanical movements of the former film. Cogs turn, pistons pump – repetitively and relentlessly, Mankind's constructions continue to carve perfect geometric circles. It's a bit like watching mathematics in motion. The transition between each shot is wonderfully smooth, the film constructed as a sort of mechanical waltz. Around this time, Hollywood directors like Busby Berkeley were engineering extravagant musical numbers in which dancers were utilised as mere cogs in a machine, each movement dependent upon the ability of the individual dancers to perform their role without error. In 'Mechanical Principles,' this perfection is assured, for Man has never been able to replicate the precision of his machines. I've always found it fascinating how two men can view the same thing through very different eyes. There's something almost affectionate about how Steiner frames the perfectly-weighted movement of the factory machinery, and yet this is the same sort of industrial monotony against which Charles Chaplin campaigned in 'Modern Times (1936).' Maybe both artists are right. 'Mechanical Principles' is surely a mesmerising ten minutes, but, had it gone on for much longer, I might have ended up as hopelessly deranged as Chaplin's Little Tramp.