Avis des utilisateurs

This early adaptation of the tale of Rumpelstiltskin makes for moderately enjoyable viewing for silent film buffs, and for anyone interested in the fantasy genre, but it doesn't hold up nearly as well as some of the better known works of the period. (Translation: don't expect Nosferatu or Dr. Caligari). This rendition of Rumpelstiltskin is more of a transitional work, halfway between the primitive "trick films" of the early 1900s and the more polished features of the '20s. The influence of 19th century stage technique remains very strong here, although the sets are certainly more convincing than the obvious painted flats of the earliest movies. The proper function of title cards hasn't been worked out yet, for the filmmakers have an unfortunate tendency to tell us what's going to happen in the next scene before it happens, undercutting any element of surprise. On the plus side, however, the director has learned to bring the camera -- thus, the viewer -- into the action, among the actors, instead of parking it a mile away. There are some nicely composed outdoor scenes, and natural light is used creatively at times, as when a beam of light falls through a window and illuminates the interior of the Miller's cottage. The Grimms' tale itself was altered somewhat for this film; strangely, the best-remembered detail (i.e. that the heroine must guess Rumpelstiltskin's bizarre name in order to save herself) has been eliminated, while other fairy tale characters such as Simple Simon and King Cole have been interpolated into the story. Over all, however, the production values and atmosphere feel right for the material.

The acting is a major liability, however. The performances are old-fashioned in the worst sense, suggestive of the Victorian stage or opera house, with a lot of histrionic posturing, mugging, and gesticulating. It's the kind of ham acting that gives silent movies a bad name, though you won't find it in, say, Sparrows or The Wind. I don't know, maybe it's because this film was intended for children, but the actors (especially the romantic leads) come off like performers in a grade school pageant, while Clyde Tracy in the title role reminds me of Sheldon Lewis' ludicrous turn as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. After a while we adjust to the over-playing, but this is not a film I'd want to share with viewers unaccustomed to silent movies.

Even so, and despite its drawbacks, the 1915 Rumpelstiltskin does have its merits, and is worth a look for the viewer with an appreciation of film and/or theater history, an interest in the fairy tale & fantasy genres, or simply a taste for something offbeat.

The movie has a somewhat different plot than the American standard version of Rumpelstiltskin and elements of some other fairy tales elements have been added (for example, a magic carpet and Simple Simon).

Acting is not of the best and often done for comedy. Sets and costumes are more fun than fashion.

Quite suitable for children, though the special effects are cheesy by modern standards and someone may have to read them the titles.

The New York Museum of Modern Art restoration is quite nice despite a few scenes that seem out of place. It looks much better than most restored films of the period.

A four reel fairy story, apparently of German adaptation, from Grimm's Fairy Tales and other sources. Clyde Tracy plays the wicked dwarf, who stirs up all the trouble; Kenneth Browne and Elizabeth Burbridge appear as the Prince and the miller's daughter. The story is indeed beautifully presented and nothing could be desired in costuming or scenic effects. Many of the familiar tricks of fairyland are employed to keep things going; Simple Simon is turned into an enchanted pig. The miller's daughter is abducted and then found by the Prince-lover. A good fairy aids the pair with a magic carpet, and the dwarf is finally brought to a well deserved fate. A very delightful production of its type. - The Moving Picture World, May 15, 1915