The Tempest

Shakespeare, eh? What a rich seam of material he has provided for filmmakers around the world. Almost as soon as films were being made the Bard's works were being plundered. Here we have a compact telling of The Tempest made in 1908. In its mercifully brief running time it attempts to tell the entire story, using titles to explain the plot rather than provide quotations from the play. Even with these titles I had trouble keeping up with who was who and what was going on and there's no doubt that, even with explanatory titles, the makers assume the viewer possesses a little knowledge about the play. The film is a mixture of location shooting and stage sets, as if it can't decide whether it wants to present a filmed version of the stage play or to free itself of its confines. Settling for a combination of the two isn't the right choice, however – it merely proves to be distracting.

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.

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.

Tempest, The (1908)

*** (out of 4)

Another Shakespeare adaptation works perfectly well and delivers a very magical feel. Part of this is due to the dreamlike camera work but the special effects are also quite good for their time.

King John (1899)

*** (out of 4)

've been told this was the first Shakespeare adaptation and if so it isn't too bad for what it is. Running just over three minutes this here takes the final pages of the play as King John dies.

Midsummer Night's Dream, A (1909)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Yep, more Shakespeare early style. The actual "story" never really comes across here and the title cards just make things even more confusing but the interesting thing are all the technical stuff. Every shot of the film takes place outdoors and all the locations are very nice. The camera angels are also all set up to perfectly capture the mood of the 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.