King John

This film purports to be KING JOHN, though you'd really not recognize any of the great bard in this film. Like all the films you would have seen in 1899, it's very, very, very brief (at about three minutes, it's actually longer than many contemporary films). The problem is you really can't do a Shakespeare play in three minutes!! And it's obvious that the director really didn't try to encapsulate the entire film--just one long and very over-done scene. In fact, all the film consists of is a guy dressed like a king apparently writhing in pain (I think he's trying to pass a kidney stone or something). And that's it!!! No plot, no action apart from the writhing and no relationship to KING JOHN or any other play by Shakespeare!

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.

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.

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.

While not especially detailed or action-packed, this short movie is quite an interesting piece of cinema history. It affords a look at the renowned stage actor Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, in what must have been his first screen role, and it is also one of the very earliest screen adaptations of classic literature. In itself, it is not bad at all for material that is not particularly well-suited for a silent movie.

The footage comes from the last scene of Shakespeare's "King John", and depicts the king (Sir Herbert) in agony, both mental and physical. It's the kind of scene that offers a stage actor some fine opportunities for dramatics and the like, but it's something of a curious choice for early movie footage, compared with some of Shakespeare's other, more action packed works. Yet at that, it does not work badly.

While Sir Herbert's style is clearly based on the stage, he nevertheless convincingly portrays King John's torment, and if you read some of John's lines while watching the footage, it fits together. Prince Henry's vain efforts to comfort his father also come across believably. The setting and background likewise are stage-like, and yet they work in adding a little detail and atmosphere.

All in all, this is worth seeing for a number of reasons.

It's a silent movie but it's also labeled as the 1st Shakespeare adaptation ! For me, it's a bit illogical ! Shakespare wrote plays so dialogues whereas here you have just the characters without their lines ! And for sure, as it's still 1 minute time, you can imagine that the action is very condensed ! I didn't read the play but watching those sixty seconds, i suppose King John is dying in company of dear friends and soldiers. But it's not peaceful as he seems very tormented, nearly crazy ! However to shoot a play was a bit intelligent back then because the camera still doesn't move and the stage is reduced to a big backdrop and a few props. So baby cinema was just like that: a play like in the real theater but with no sound!