Jack and the Beanstalk

. . . BOTH Jack and the Beanstalk (1902) AND Fractured Fairy Tales: Jack & the Beanstalk (1959) in order to provide meaningful insights about either picture. Obviously, the Fractured crew was intimately well-versed about the earlier Edison\Porter flick, as they make on-screen references to how megalomaniac Old Tom Edison stole the Goose Laying Golden Eggs and the Singing Harp from Jack's late father, as well as filching a bulging sack of gold coins from the beleaguered Beanstalk clan. Such Edison victims were Legion, as the Ogre of Men-Low Park swiped everything in his sight. Fracture pictures Old Tom as an elderly senile doddering colossus, which seems particularly apt.

Jack and the Beanstalk (1902)

*** (out of 4)

Nice version of the famous story from Edison with direction by Edwin S. Porter who was close to making his landmark film THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY. The story is about as well-known as you can get but young Jack (Thomas White) trades his cow for some magic beans, which end up growing high into the sky. He ends up climbing up where he encounters the bad guy who he must destroy. If you're looking for anything ground-breaking then you're not going to find it here. I'm sure many people will look at this 1902 film and see it as hokey but it's doubtful these people would be overly interested in the history of film. Those who are interested will find this to be a pretty interesting version of the classic story. Porter does a very good job at telling the story, although without any title cards they're certainly expecting you to already know the story. I really loved the visual look of the film including the special effects of the beanstalk growing. The "vine" used for the stalk was even attempted to look realistic, which wasn't always the case in this early films. The cow in the story is a man in the outfit, a common practice for the day and I can't help but feel this adds a bit of surrealism today.

This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.

We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.

There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.

Watch something else.

I'm writing a book about "folding" in film, a situation which in its simplest form is seen as a movie within a movie.

This is the earliest example I know. The movie itself is about 12 minutes long. There are no dialog cards because presumably all viewers would know the story in detail already. Modern audiences will find the presentation pretty hokey.

But there are two episodes within this that have an interesting effect. There is a fairy godmother which to my knowledge is not in the original story. She is invented just for the movie. She manipulates events somewhat. Among her interventions are the creation of visions for our hero.

The first time is in a dream, and the second in "real life" (or perhaps a dream). Both illustrate what is to come. These are presented in the movie as a movie that the fairy "projects" onto the background. At the end she appears again to merge the two worlds. Ted's law of abstraction holds even in this early example: the distance between our world and the world of the movie is the same as that between the movie and the world of the movie within.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

One reviewer referred to this film as "pathetic" but I am not sure that this is really fair. Sure, by the standards of 2006, this is a pretty bad film. However, given when it was made, it's a truly exceptional film and should be compared to its contemporaries--not today's films with our great special effects and film techniques.

In 1902, almost every film was less than five minutes long. Plus, sets were often pretty non-existent and the same could be said about writing. Often, actors just got up and gesticulated madly or seemed to have no idea what to do until the director yelled out instructions--and it was pretty obvious at times. Films where everything was planned and scripted and told a good complex story were a real rarity. Because of all this, I am very charitable towards JACK AND THE BEANSTALK. Sure, the backgrounds look like painted backdrops (which they were) and some of the props were less than stellar, but for 1902 it was a real marvel! The film told the story very well and was even better than such films as THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ or FRANKENSTEIN (both from 1910)--films which also had props, sets and were well-planned but were also made almost a decade later! So, this wonderful curio is a great piece of history that might just make many of you laugh at its production values, but I still thought the film was quite charming and we owe a lot to such monumental films--after all, the care and quality that went in to this film really encouraged other film makers to try harder.