Alice in Wonderland

The film I just watched runs about 51 minutes. Apparently some of the film was lost from the original. It could be chemistry or carelessness. Who knows. So we've lost some scenes. It does make the film a bit disjointed, but if you know your AIW plot, you can still enjoy it. What works here is the costuming. The creation of costumes to match the book characters works very well. Alice is flippant enough to be a bit obnoxious, which is what we want. For what starts out as a gentle little girl, can be quite formidable. I really like the appearance of the mock turtle. The use of close-ups would have helped because we don't get a full appreciation of these characters. Still and all, it was a marvelous film for such an early venture and most of it survived.

Finding a recorded copy may be hard to do, but not impossible. There are at least two versions that have survived from the original, both lasting approximately forty minutes. The original was a six-reeler, or about an hour long, which may also have included scenes from the "Through the Looking Glass" story. Minimally, what has survived is missing the defining scene early in the story where Alice grows very big and than small, then later the Mad Hatter scene. We know that these scenes were originally included because Grosset & Dunlap published a book version in 1916, illustrated with pictures from this film. This shows that in addition there was also an Oyster, Humpty Dumpty, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, chess room, and a Queen Alice Banquet scene, but whether as part of this film or another is not clear.

Viola Savoy was fifteen years old at the time, and a well known child actress for having toured the nation for several years in the road-show version of "The Littlest Rebel." Whether she was the first to perform the role of Virgie in that play, or not, clearly she was the most popular, which fact contributed to her being cast as Alice in this film. As interviewed in 1912 she had been acting since infancy in over one hundred and twenty different productions. After the "Alice" film, however, she appeared in no more than one or two more films before disappearing from the pages of history.

Attempting to evaluate the quality of a circa 1915 "photoplay" rather assumes too much. The industry was yet very young. The notion of "close-up" photography was only beginning to be experimented with and hence, more often, the camera just cranked away from a fixed position, rather like someone sitting in the audience of a typical stage play. While plenty of creativity went into the costuming and set design for this film, the camera remains conspicuous for its lack of imagination. Everything is shot from a distance, and as a result, often there is too much going on to keep track of, and the more subtle features cannot be seen. The nuances of facial expression, therefore, have a forced and exaggerated quality which does nothing to flatter the actress. Additionally, the restricted camera position forces her to be upstaged in all too many scenes. Even so, it is a hauntingly captivating film, delightful to see.

It takes some time getting used to silent movies. There's not a lot of text in this film, so the "over acting" according to today's standards, require some patience of the viewer. However, this is a well thought out version of the story, the scenes are played out with trick effects such as perspective, and remembering the year of production, it's very well made. The only thing that really bothered me was the treatment of animals, both real, such as the garden rabbit, and the (I assume) fake, such as the flamingo and hedgehog. Otherwise, a movie well worth watching, especially if you're a Lewis Carroll/Alice-fan. Time well spent.

This very early cinematic version of the Alice in Wonderland story is well worth tracking down if you are a fan of the silent era. I don't really know the Lewis Carroll story very well so I don't know how faithful this adaption is but, like a lot of other very old movies, this one is seemingly not entirely intact and 20 minutes or so of footage has been lost. This sort of explains the fact that the story doesn't always seem to entirely make sense and it isn't always easy to follow. One of the most famous characters in the story, the Mad Hatter, only appears in the last five minutes for a very brief and seemingly irrelevant scene. He, like other characters, featured more in the original cut and his short cameo is all that's left. While it is a shame that the movie is missing a lot of material, it actually doesn't really matter that much in this case. The story is so dream-like and bizarre in the first place meaning that this truncated version just seems even weirder than it originally would. So it doesn't really harm the film too much.

Probably the best thing about this one is the effort that has been put into the costuming and creature design. They are consistently very well done and it is this more than anything that gives the fantasy world its character. The direction otherwise is a bit static, although this was quite common in these very early years of cinema. However, when you consider the sheer invention of the films of the even earlier cinema pioneer Georges Méliès, you do have to think that a little more imagination could have been brought to bear in some of the scenes. But, really, it's a little churlish to criticise this one as these ancient films have a charm that will never die. Definitely worth catching.

Before I jump into the review, I have a confession. Although I've seen several versions of "Alice in Wonderland", I really think it's a pretty stupid story and I've never particularly enjoyed it. However, I am a huge silent movie fan and this film is available to watch for free from the IMDb link, so I broke down and watched this film. At 42 minutes, it might seem awfully short, but for 1915 that actually is a full-length film.

Unlike later versions, I will admit that this 1915 version is much more episodic--almost like vignettes strung together instead of a smooth story. However, I was VERY impressed by the film for several reasons. Using 1915 technology, it would have been hard to make a better film with better props and better costumes. I was blown away by how much the characters looked like those in the books. Because of this, it's obvious it was not just a cheap slapped-together film but one with a considerable budget for the time. While kids would probably be bored to tears by this film, old movie buffs won't and will probably appreciate this simple but enjoyable version. I still don't love the story, but this is awfully good for what it is.