Tarzan chez les singes

Whenever I watch a silent film, I try to view it in the proper context (time it was made, technology, etc.). I got a kick out of this film. I imagined what wonder there was in viewing giraffes, rhinos, elephants, pythons, and a host of jungle life. I particularly enjoyed the young man who played Tarzan as a child. His face was continually full of wonder and life. For me, the movie took a downturn when Elmo Lincoln showed up. For a guy who obviously spent his time running through the jungle, climbing trees, wrestling critters ten times his size, he looked like one of the guys that used to sit next to my father at his favorite watering hole. He has that huge paunch and those fleshy white legs. I was very aware that this Tarzan was in continual danger of falling off a branch (possibly breaking it) and doing himself harm. Let's face it: he also wasn't exactly going to win any beauty contests. If Jane hadn't had a bad experience with he fiancé, would she have given him a second look. Jane, no great prize herself, gets together with him, but I couldn't help but wonder what they would be doing, other than the obvious. All that aside, it was fun seeing this. I had heard about the film for years and decided to purchase a copy for myself. It was worth it for the novelty.

This is the first and oldest Tarzan movie ever made, as far as I know. Interesting mainly for that point. For the rest, I will always prefer Johnny Weissmuller as the Tarzan character, and I suppose I am not the only one to think like this. Elmo Lincoln could have been replaced by a more convincing actor, more athletic. OK, it tries to speak of the true, genuine story of Tarzan, according to the Edgard Rice Burrough's novel, as Hugh Hudson did in 1984. This is a good point that can justify to watch this rare item, xanks to TCM. This is also a shame that so many features fromt he silent era are now lost forever.

Shot amongst the luscious vegetation of... Louisiana... this is actually quite a decent effort at telling the story of "Tarzan"; of his family, youth, rescue and - of course - his falling for "Jane" (Enid Markey). It seems to be intercut with archive of some of the animals you might expect to find in the jungle, though some are also clearly folks in costume - but it's over 100 years old, and frankly the narrative flows far better, with a score that conveys the mood well, than the pretty mediocre version told with special effects a plenty in 2016. Gordon Griffith has something of the wonder about him as the child, and Elmo Lincoln the capable, honourable adult. The pace is consistent and the fight scenes quite realistic looking (plenty of gymnastics) - and if you are at all interested in the development of cinema, as well as of this oft told story, then this is well worth 70 minutes of your time. Helpfully, the inter-titles don't get in the way of the acting; they are there - but sparingly.

If someone watches this film and starts looking for shortcomings, they'll probably find a reasonable amount. However, considering the film was made in 1918, it's an amazingly good film--even with its few mistakes and cheesy touches--which, relative to other films of the day, were few.

This original Tarzan film was made in Louisiana. I live in Florida and I could tell by looking at the plants that it was filmed in this part of the USA, but considering that many later Tarzan films were filmed with houseplants all over the set, the backwoods of Louisiana (with all its Spanish moss) was a good choice for a domestic production. As far as the wild animals go, it was a mixed bag. Unfortunately, the elephant was an Asian elephant but I can't blame the film makers too much--the African variety are a lot nastier and dangerous. What I can blame them for, a bit, are the apes that adopt Tarzan. They are clearly people in cheap ape costumes--that look neither like gorillas or chimps--just people in ape costumes! But once again, given the technology of the era, it isn't that bad--plus, Stanley Kubrick did the same thing in "2001" and it's considered a masterpiece!! As for the plot, aside from the addition of a character and a few other small changes, it is essentially Edgar Rice Burroughs' book come to life. It's actually much more accurate than many of the later versions and because it stays closer to the book, it is more interesting and watchable...and less silly. In fact, as far as the writing, direction and acting go, it was all very, very good for such an early full-length film--and a lot better than the gobs of Tarzan films from the 1950s and 60s.

Overall, very good and very interesting.

...because of his already established reputation as a Hollywood strong man (e.g. his role as the Mighty Man of Valor in the 1916 DW Griffith classic "Intolerance").

Also, the image of Tarzan in 1918 was not that of a lithe gymnast like Christopher Lambert in "Greystoke", but of a man powerful enough to wrestle lions. Strength equalled bulk.

There's an interesting piece of trivia attached to that movie and Uganda (that's in East Africa) where I'm now based. There's a popular myth around here that the 1918 version of "Tarzan of the Apes" was filmed on the northern shores of Lake Victoria. In fact it was shot, I believe, in Louisiana.