Jack and the Beanstalk

The Edison Company's "Jack and the Beanstalk" is another example of Georges Méliès's deep and widespread influence throughout the world of early cinema, but it's also remarkably innovative in itself for its time. Méliès largely introduced the story film to cinema with his adaptations of fairy tales, including "Cinderella" (1899), "Bluebeard" (1901), "Little Red Riding Hood" (1901) and other féeries (fairy films). These films added narrative and new filmic storytelling devices to the editing and camera effects he had founded in his trick-film attractions. For "Jack and the Beanstalk", Edwin S. Porter with George S. Fleming inserted an Anglo fairytale instead of the Charles Perrault adaptations used by Méliès, but otherwise almost exclusively imitate the style and techniques found in Méliès's féeries. In England, Robert W. Paul and Walter R. Booth had already done essentially the same sort of Anglicization of Méliès with their film "The Magic Sword" (1901).

One of the outcomes of this imitation is that the Edison Company produced what was probably the most advanced narrative film made in America as of then; certainly no other US film from before it that I've seen or heard of quite compares. Albeit, America at this time was lagging behind France and Britain in the development of the story film; and, as historian Charles Musser has pointed out ("Before the Nickelodeon"), for a few months between 1901 and 1902, Edison legally monopolized the production of motion pictures in the states. With 10 scenes (or tableaux) and 625 feet of film, running over 10 minutes, "Jack and the Beanstalk" is comparable in length to Méliès's early féeries while being far ahead of any motion picture previously produced in the US.

Technically, the use of dissolves as a transition between scenes and the substitution splices (stop-substitutions) and superimposition trick effects are all borrowed from Méliès. The superimposed vision/dream scene-within-a-scene conjured by the fairy in the fourth and seventh tableaux were based on similar scenes in Méliès's "Cinderella", "Bluebeard" and other films; notably, George Albert Smith, in England, was also an early pioneer of multiple-exposure photography and created scenes-within-scenes in his films as early as 1898, such as in "Santa Claus". Moreover, the interpolation of a fairy into the "Jack and Beanstalk" tale is straight from Méliès's féeries, which generally feature a fairy godmother who manipulates the narrative and guides the hero-sometimes by projecting visions, serving as the filmmaker's on-screen surrogate by directing such films-within-the-film. The stagy, painted decors; the sudden, irrelevant appearance of dancing girls; and the theatrical final tableau pose were all classic Méliès trademarks, too.

Additionally, the story seems to use Joseph Jacobs's non-moralizing version of the fairytale, so Jack simply intrudes on the giant's home, engages his wife against him, steals his wealth and kills him out of greed. Looking back at such an amoral narrative is rather refreshing, at least nowadays, when a moral seems to be incumbent upon most stories. The Edison Company catalogue, however--which may have served as a guide to live lecturers who would add further description for audiences back then, as was common practice--gives the Benjamin Tabart moral treatment by making the Giant the villain.

Regardless of the demonstrative overriding influence of Méliès on "Jack and the Beanstalk", it remains a significant production for the time and place it was made. It's a mostly self-contained narrative and is more complex than were most films before it: linking scenes and achieving continuity of action across shots and between exteriors and interiors and, at least, having some production values. These early story films were an important advance; they claimed editorial control for producers and away from exhibitors, who had afore arranged the single shot-scene films into programs. From here, Porter made such other early story films as "Life of an American Fireman" and "The Great Train Robbery" (both 1903).

This early version of Jack and the Beanstalk may look, to the modern eye, as if it is a simple stage play, but it is hardly that. In reality it mixes grammars from three different forms of entertainment: the stage, Georges Melies' film grammar (which at this stage used a good deal of stage techniques, but also included stopping the camera to allow things to appear and disappear) and magic lantern grammar.

Notice how the story is structured so that some of the visions appear as a circle in the center of the screen. That is straight out of standard magic lantern productions, which were still enormously popular in this period. Indeed, this particular bit of magic lantern grammar survives in occasional use today. I have noticed it most recently in Jeunet's A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT, in which the main action appear over most of the screen, but thoughts of the lost love appear in the upper righthand corner.

Films were just starting to find their way at this point. It was an enormously exciting period in the movies as many techniques were tried out.

This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.

We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.

There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.

Watch something else.

One reviewer referred to this film as "pathetic" but I am not sure that this is really fair. Sure, by the standards of 2006, this is a pretty bad film. However, given when it was made, it's a truly exceptional film and should be compared to its contemporaries--not today's films with our great special effects and film techniques.

In 1902, almost every film was less than five minutes long. Plus, sets were often pretty non-existent and the same could be said about writing. Often, actors just got up and gesticulated madly or seemed to have no idea what to do until the director yelled out instructions--and it was pretty obvious at times. Films where everything was planned and scripted and told a good complex story were a real rarity. Because of all this, I am very charitable towards JACK AND THE BEANSTALK. Sure, the backgrounds look like painted backdrops (which they were) and some of the props were less than stellar, but for 1902 it was a real marvel! The film told the story very well and was even better than such films as THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ or FRANKENSTEIN (both from 1910)--films which also had props, sets and were well-planned but were also made almost a decade later! So, this wonderful curio is a great piece of history that might just make many of you laugh at its production values, but I still thought the film was quite charming and we owe a lot to such monumental films--after all, the care and quality that went in to this film really encouraged other film makers to try harder.

For its era, this was rather an ambitious and creative attempt to film the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" with as much visual detail as possible. Certainly, few of the camera effects are going to impress anyone now, but they are not at all bad given the limitations. It's really a children's story, and any children who saw this in 1902 would probably have enjoyed it more than enough to justify the effort of making it.

For all that the technical limitations are obvious, and the visual effects in the rudimentary stage, this version does clearly communicate the basic story in a generally entertaining fashion. To be sure, even in 1902 there were pioneers such as Méliès who were already doing more impressive things. But this one is by no means bad, and features like this, while their defects are obvious, still hold their appeal for those of us who enjoy seeing what the earliest movies were like.