The Tempest (1908)

Admirable film.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

For an early one-reel film, this is rather good. The tableau style isn't as rigid as in some other early literary/theatrical film adaptations, with even a couple instances of continuity editing, although it's still mostly a series of shot-scenes from long-shot framing. The painted sets, backdrops and props are about as good as it got in 1908. Additionally, Shakespeare's play is an apt template to showoff the tricks of early cinema.The effects, including some good double-exposure photography to make waves appear through a cave, animation for the shipwreck and plenty of substitution splicing, were nothing new, though. If anyone holds the confusion that addiction to special effects is a recent symptom in the movie industry, they should view these early films; that is, these early trick shots had been employed in hundreds of films for a decade before "The Tempest" film and would be used hundreds of times after it. The movie stands at the cusp of the division by film historians of the early period referred to by Tom Gunning as the "cinema of attractions" and the following phase of the development of narrative films. Furthermore, Shakespeare and other sources of established literature and theatre were being adapted to cinema during this period to lend a sense of cultural legitimacy to an art that some of the middle and upper classes still frowned down on.Also interesting is that the events of "The Tempest" are reordered chronologically here, which is what I suppose they had to do to make the narrative at least somewhat fluid and to fit the story within the standard limitations of the time.

Okay, the idea of doing an entire Shakespeare play in only 12 minutes is indeed a daunting task!! And, based on the technology available back in 1908 this isn't a particularly bad movie--they actually have sets and special effects that didn't totally stink for 1908 (though by today's standards they certainly are laughable). In fact, compared to even earlier films like LE VOYAGE DANS LE LUNE (1902) or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (1903), this isn't a particularly good film (they both bad much better sets and acting). Another problem is that you really MUST be awfully familiar with the original play to have much of an idea of what is going on, as it's very confusing and very sketchy to say the least. I have got to admire them for trying and some of the scenes are very interesting to watch from a historical or kitschy point of view. However, most modern audiences would become quickly bored with this film.

Released in 1908, the year D.W. Griffith became a film director, Percy Stow's version of THE TEMPEST is shot in a mix of film grammars and to the modern, informed eye, poses the question: which film grammar will be the film grammar of the future: will it be the magic-lantern-inspired editing in use at Edison? Will it be the progression of ideas invented by George Albert Smith? Will it be the Proscenium Arch stage illusion of George Melies, the Zecca-Chomon-Feuillade model popular in France, or something altogether different? Well, today we know that Smith won, so it may seem like a foolish question. Yes, national differences still live on. You can tell if a movie was shot by a French crew, an Italian crew or a Japanese crew by more than the actors involved. But although the vocabulary of cut and framing derives from many sources, the grammar is Smith's.The reason I find this movie so interesting is that it makes an effort -- and I think it is a successful effort -- to combine two of the grammars meaningfully. Prospero lives in a Melies world, bound by the theater's arch and with the scenery painted -- very appropriate, for a magician to live in a stage-magician's world. The others, however, live in a naturalistic world. The edge of the frame is what bounds their world, and they can and do walk right past the edge.Is this a metaphor for the future of cinema? Is the naturalistic grammar of Smith simply better, more expansive? Maybe. Am I reading too much into this? Definitely. But the idea amuses me and, I hope, you. And that's why we look at these old movies: to be amused.

Stow filmed the very first version of "Alice in Wonderland." It is a complete waste of time because all the magical absurdity is lost. Five years later the same man and some of the same players try "The Tempest" probably Shakespeare's densest work.It too depends on indirect illusion, in revisiting and inventing memories and inventing the present and future. Along the way, Shakespeare both comments on and exploits the technology of the day which he employed for his many effects.Stow has selected to unfold the story, to present happenings as they chronologically happened rather than as they are remembered. This is a big mistake I think. He does exploit the technology of illusion that film allows, but he does so without selfawareness which is the whole point of the play.But you know, watching this isn't a complete waste of time, because you really need to know the play to make any sense of it. And that's a good.Ariel is played by a little girl, who if she was the Alice in that earlier film, that project would have been much better.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.