Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) A skirt was lifted in this 1901 film by notable movie pioneer Edwin S. Porter. The movie runs for roughly 90 seconds and that is already too much I would say for the content. The times where we would be happy with watching people in the streets are over in the film industry. There needs to be something more by 1901 already to keep the masses entertained. The final plot twist that answers the question in the titles wasn't bad, but it also wasn't very great to make up for the boredom from before. I cannot say that this is one of the best films from its time, although it's probably among the more known ones looking at the number of votes the title has. This may be because it's somewhat sexually explicit going by the standards of the early 20th century. Not enough though. Not recommended.

rgcustomer I don't know if anyone has put music to this, but I saw it plainly silent.It's actually a pretty interesting film. You see the busy life of the street as people mill about the road and sidewalk. There is some horse-and-buggy and trolley traffic in the road too, and some boys with a cart.The thing that stands out first is the teenage boy (or short man) midway down the sidewalk, staring directly at us, hands behind his back, hardly moving at all, unlike anyone else we see.Why is he looking at us? What's he looking for? After a minute, we learn the reason, as the star couple walks over the grate just in front of us, and she gets her Marilyn Monroe moment.Once they pass, though, it just that boy again, staring at us, walking slowly in our direction, now shown to be carrying a lunch-box sort of thing in his right hand, and smaller parcel in his left. It's actually kind of creepy at this point, as other than the change in his hands, he seems entirely unaffected by what we all just saw.

zpzjones Of all the short films in the four disc Edison/Kino set this is the one I liked the best. And it's amazing it's from 1901. The majority of the films from the historic Edison Co. survived only in a paper print form. That is each frame of a particular film was printed on photographic paper and deposited in the LOC(Library of Congress). It's a very good fortune that these films were randomly deposited in this manner else they might have stayed lost forever. The paper prints, fortunately, were one or two steps away from the clarity of the camera negative, thus the pictorial quality on some of these early gems is quite clear as opposed to the murky/muddy quality we're used to seeing on films of this very early vintage.WHAT HAPPENED ON 23RD STREET, is valuable as it documents a section of New York City that could probably be matched up today to the very point where the cameraman was filming. This film also has fun at tempting the sexual attitudes of it's time. Looking at it today you basically see people going about their daily affairs, though one can't help wondering if a taping measure or mark-off point has been told to the people to stay away & not look at the camera. Anyhow no one looks at the camera nor gets near it until the close of the film. Then the 'starring' couple walks up and the young woman in long skirt walks over an air duct and parts of her skirt fly up just above the knees. The lady and her male friend get a kick out of this but they would've understood the moral implications of this. They walk off laughing trying to play it off that she didn't know that there was an air grate on the sidewalk and that her dress would rise high up to her head.It's hard for us today to believe that this was being risqué. But there was a time in America that if a woman showed her legs in public it could throw men into a frenzy. And no doubt many a man enjoyed this flick for the sexually stimulating experience of seeing her skirt go up and viewing her legs. Another thing is that this film must have been available in some kind of form in the 1950s since the same type of scene is virtually aped by Marilyn Monroe in the movie The Seven Year Itch. But to less effect if you ask me.

Snow Leopard This miniature feature works well enough in carrying off a rather amusing premise, and it also would have been worth seeing just for the photography. Besides successfully executing a simple but effective visual punch-line, it also provides some interesting footage of the New York City of over a century ago.The film starts out as if it were one of the actualities, or footage of real life shot for its own sake, that were common in the earliest years of cinema. And even as such it would be worth seeing. The camera field is set up effectively, so as to catch a view of a rather lengthy stretch of 23rd Street, with some of the street traffic, a lot of action on the sidewalk, and a good view of many of the surrounding buildings. Like many of the features that survive from this era, it is invaluable in conveying the atmosphere of the times, in a way that no recreation today can match.The actual highlight of "What Happened on 23rd Street", while hardly requiring great imagination or sophistication, is funny enough, and the two performers who carry it off seem to have enjoyed doing so. The commentary on the National Film Preservation Foundation video also gives some background to the simple but no doubt popular gag.