O Mágico de Oz

This is a shock, at first, to view. It looks so primitive that you can hardly believe what you're seeing. It makes the 1939 version look like today's advanced technology, in comparison. The sky, for instance, looks like a cheaply painted paper mache that just moves right to left. That is supposed to indicate a windy day and looks so hokey you watch this in amazement. But, it's 1910, and the very early years of motion pictures, so I am not ridiculing it. In fact, it makes you marvel how much they advanced in just several decades of film-making after this was made.

It is interesting to note some of the differences in the story, too, such as Nebraska being mentioned instead of Kansas, but this was adapted from a stage play, not the novel (as the '39 film was). Differences aside, it was still fascinating to watch because it's almost like going to school and watching your kids in some Middle School production! Once again, I am not slamming it because I realize when it was made and appreciate the effort....and historical value of this film. Also, it's hard to get much of a story in when the film's running time is only 13 minutes.

Note: a young Bebe Daniels plays "Dorothy." You can see this movie on DVD as part of the "More Treasures From the American Film Archives, which was released in 2004.

"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is the earliest existing film of the over 60 movies adapted from the 1900 L. Frank Baum book. And that tally doesn't include subsequent television and live stage presentations. The released Oz movie on March 1910 was produced by the Selig Polyscope Company out of Chicago and adopted many of the elements from the 1902 Wizard of Oz play.

Selig was able to make the movie using the Baum book because the company was involved in the author's "The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays," a combined play/vaudeville act/movie production in 1908. (The short Selig movie played during this production has been lost). After a disastrous two months, the act bankrupted Baum, giving Selig the rights to use his Oz characters and story. Besides the "Wonderful Wizard of Oz" movie, Selig immediately made three Oz sequels within 1910--all three now lost.

In this first 1910 Selig movie, Imogene the Cow, not portrayed in the Braun book, takes the place of Toto. Imogene is a person in a cow costume while Toto the dog could not be asked to be on the 1902 stage for a couple of hours and behave. Toto does make a brief appearance in this movie, but the cow dominates as a companion to Dorothy. Also, the scarecrow is discovered by Dorothy before the tornado and accompanies her to the Land of Oz. Another added element to the movie over the play was the extended role of the Wicked Witch of the West. Just like the Judy Garland 1939 classic, Dorothy has to confront the witch to get her wish from the Wizard. But instead of water shrinking the witch, water thrown at her simply makes the witch disappear.

And it appears the cast is dancing to some music. The 1902 play did havemusic to which accompanied the actors' dance numbers--but since film hadn't advanced enough to play sound, there is no songs heard on the movie that choreograph the cast.

Dorothy, Scarecrow, and Toto bring a donkey and cow (played by Men In Suits) along with them in the cyclone (which is simulated by having them hug a big hay bale that turns around and around).

ALL THE INTERTITLES ARE IN GIANT BLOCK CAPITALS.

Toto is a real dog who turns into Man In A Suit #3 to fight the lion (Man In A Suit #4), who is not cowardly at all.

There is a line of chorus girls and another of palace guards. At the end, the guards ride in on REAL HORSES, which makes the Men In Suits (by now including #5, bug, and #6, frog, from the Wicked Witch's lair, and #7, kitty cat, who otherwise has no apparent role in the action) look really, really lame.

The cast of thousands and elaborate sets make you wonder why no one had yet thought of MULTIPLE CAMERAS, and EDITING. But that was a concept they obviously couldn't wrap their minds around, back in 1910. Who knows - maybe a second camera would have cost more than all the actors, dancers, horses, and animal costumes put together.

Okay, it's important to point out that you can't compare this movie at all to the 1939 classic--and for so many reasons. Film was just in its infancy in 1910 and full-length movies meant about 10-20 minutes. Sets and costumes were simple and often looked like they were taken right off the stage of a high school play. And, writing and acting as we know of them today, just wasn't invented yet. So I cut the early films a lot of slack and praise movies that actually had decent production values and provided some entertainment into the 21st century--most early films fail on both these counts.

The movie isn't really based on the books but on a stage musical and this at times is pretty obvious--especially when the characters start dancing for no apparent reason at all! But, aside from this odd way of telling the story, it's an adorable and interesting film--particularly as it has people in animal costumes throughout (not just the lion). It just seems very cute and makes watching this historical picture a lot easier! By the way, despite the good production values, this film is not as good as some of the full-length films by the Frenchman, Georges Méliès. His 1902 LE VOYAGE DAN LE LUNE has even better sets and tells a more coherent and watchable story--hence that is why it is rated as a 10 by me and this one only an 8.

The costumes and plot are from a stage performance of this classic. It is disjointed and sparse in its portrayal of the story of Dorothy Gale. All the regulars are there, even though we don't get to know them very well. I've not read the book, so are the brain, courage, and heart a part of the story. Also, what about the duplicity of the Wizard. All that aside, it is a memorable thirteen minutes. There are even song and dance numbers (though there is no sound). It was interesting to see Toto transformed into a huge dog so he could protect Dorothy. The scarecrow is the star of this adaptation. He has all the loose and frantic movies of his successors. The plot is a bit dense. It could have used a bit more of an acceptable story line.