Tarzan of the Apes

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.

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.

At this early point in American film history, Tarzan of the Apes was an instant success. Elmo Lincoln was perhaps the best actor at the time for the role. It's a fairly straight forward telling of the novel, tho Edgar Rice Burroughs was frequently on the set in an advisory role and his input was seldom utilized. In the books, Tarzan was quite the self-made scholar and this was barely touched upon in the film. For 1918, this turned out to be an excellent film, parts of which still hold up today. It's a solid 7 out of 10, and well worth seeing.

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.

This original silent version of the Lord of the Apes is perhaps the truest screen representation of the way Tarzan is envisioned in the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It is seems very crude but really isn't. It follows the first story (in as much as it can in the limited time of the feature) very closely. Elmo Lincoln, while no Adonis, is very adequate in the role. He's not Johnny Weissmuller...but then Johnny didn't really look all too much like Tarzan should have either.