Alice im Wunderland

Well, this is the oldest movie I've ever reviewed and probably the oldest one I ever WILL review. As the first version of "Alice In Wonderland" (at least in terms of a feature length film, well by most standards) it's still nice to see where it all started out. I admit that the costumes in this are quite impressive. Even looking at movies made in the 1920's, you can tell that their special effects got better as it went on. We make a lot of progress quickly! Anyway, I feel bad for not being more familiar with the original book. I can't tell if this version is more faithful or not.

The Mock Turtle looks probably the best. There were some really creepy masks the people wore, but luckily, they only appeared for a few scenes. I'm still confused as to why Alice said she never saw a grin without a cat. The Cheshire Cat still had his head in that shot! I'm not sure if it was all meant to be a dream. It's always nice to see a lot of classic elements show up. I wouldn't quite recommend this, because it doesn't really have anything that noteworthy. It's still pretty significant. It can certainly be hard to tell a lot of story in such a short running time. **1/2 out of ****.

This very early cinematic version of the Alice in Wonderland story is well worth tracking down if you are a fan of the silent era. I don't really know the Lewis Carroll story very well so I don't know how faithful this adaption is but, like a lot of other very old movies, this one is seemingly not entirely intact and 20 minutes or so of footage has been lost. This sort of explains the fact that the story doesn't always seem to entirely make sense and it isn't always easy to follow. One of the most famous characters in the story, the Mad Hatter, only appears in the last five minutes for a very brief and seemingly irrelevant scene. He, like other characters, featured more in the original cut and his short cameo is all that's left. While it is a shame that the movie is missing a lot of material, it actually doesn't really matter that much in this case. The story is so dream-like and bizarre in the first place meaning that this truncated version just seems even weirder than it originally would. So it doesn't really harm the film too much.

Probably the best thing about this one is the effort that has been put into the costuming and creature design. They are consistently very well done and it is this more than anything that gives the fantasy world its character. The direction otherwise is a bit static, although this was quite common in these very early years of cinema. However, when you consider the sheer invention of the films of the even earlier cinema pioneer Georges Méliès, you do have to think that a little more imagination could have been brought to bear in some of the scenes. But, really, it's a little churlish to criticise this one as these ancient films have a charm that will never die. Definitely worth catching.

1915 version. Way better than the silent one with Larry Semen. Nifty characters in elaborate costumes. Don't look for blow you out of the water special effect. This was made over 100 years ago. But still it's very fun to watch.

In fact, i think it's also way better than Tim Burton's version

There are earlier versions but this one is one that is used as a measure for other versions. I watch the streaming version and contemplating purchasing a DVD-R.

Viola Savoy (at 15 years old looks like 20s) as Alice - Herbert Rice as White Rabbit - Harry Marks as The Dodo Bird - Louis Merkle as The Dormouse - Lotta Savoy as Alice's Mother - William Tilden as The Mad Hatter -

No credits for lions, owls, bears, and lizards. Not even Cheshire Cats.

No credits for the King or Queen of hearts.

The filming location is Long Island, New York, USA (wooded estate where exteriors were filmed). The only Long Island I saw looked like suburbia.

No obnoxious background music and very readable intertitles.

"Things we do and things we see shortly before we fall asleep are most apt to influence our Dreams."

Alice meets all kinds of critters just before she sleeps. Then with a little double exposure she is lured by a white rabbit carrying an umbrella. There is actually a sine pointing to Wonderland.

"She Looked along a passage into the loveliest garden you ever saw. But she couldn't get through so she cried, and cried, and then ---"

Well, we all know or should know the story so I will not give anything away.

Well alright, there is another sign pointing to the Animal convention. It is over the river and through the woods.

The version I watched had only 52 minutes. No telling what is missing. However, they did include the "Father William" Poem of which I completely forgot. As with this story that is a play on words, this poem mocks societal norms and expectations related to aging.

We get:

"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin: but never before a grin without a cat!" I know that was meant to be clever however I have a black cat and in the middle of the night see a grin without a cat.

Another one I forget and had to rewind was:

Alice - How many hours a day did you do Lessons?

Mock turtle - Ten hours the first day, nine the next , and so on. That's the reason They're called lessons, because they lessen from day to day.

Moral of the story is If you fall asleep do not be a victim of Card-iack arrest. And do not lose your tart.

Before I jump into the review, I have a confession. Although I've seen several versions of "Alice in Wonderland", I really think it's a pretty stupid story and I've never particularly enjoyed it. However, I am a huge silent movie fan and this film is available to watch for free from the IMDb link, so I broke down and watched this film. At 42 minutes, it might seem awfully short, but for 1915 that actually is a full-length film.

Unlike later versions, I will admit that this 1915 version is much more episodic--almost like vignettes strung together instead of a smooth story. However, I was VERY impressed by the film for several reasons. Using 1915 technology, it would have been hard to make a better film with better props and better costumes. I was blown away by how much the characters looked like those in the books. Because of this, it's obvious it was not just a cheap slapped-together film but one with a considerable budget for the time. While kids would probably be bored to tears by this film, old movie buffs won't and will probably appreciate this simple but enjoyable version. I still don't love the story, but this is awfully good for what it is.