20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

This may have been thrilling in 1916, but today it seems more of a curio. The Williamson brothers invented a camera to take pictures underwater, (the prologue tells us, complete with photos of them) so there's lots of shots of fish swimming, the bottom of the sea, men in diving suits and one battle with an octopus, which was a bit fuzzy. Still, the sense of watching movie history was strong, but don't expect too much in light of more modern techniques. What really bothered me was the hammy acting styles, with lots of arm motions and exaggerated facial features. It's the style that gave silent films a bad name. One who avoided this was Matt Moore, the hero of the film, and the only actor I recognized. Perhaps that is why he was still making movies in the 50's. The film uses plot elements of Verne's "The Mysterious Island" as well as "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."

When I read during the opening credits of the 1916 adaptation of Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," immediately I assumed the frame of mind that I always do when watching early films, so as not to criticize it's lack of special effects or advanced film techniques. Immediately I was immensely impressed at the transfer from book to film, as the film followed the story closely and faithfully.

Unfortunately, this only lasted for about the first ten minutes of the film, which ultimately proved to take Verne's work and butcher it in every way imaginable. Probably the most jarring change to the story is that they decided to not only adapt 20,00 Leagues, but also another Verne novel, Mysterious Island, into this film. So the result is that you have two totally different stories taking place that don't at all seem to fit together, until finally they come together in the bizarre conclusion, which makes absolutely no sense in respect to the novel.

My current theory is that because so much of the original novel of 20,000 Leagues was decades beyond the reach of the filmmakers to be able to put on screen, so they probably had to look to an entirely separate novel just to have enough material to fill a full length film. Sadly, it reminds me of those terrible songs that radio stations sometimes come up with when they combine two popular songs together that have a similar beat, resulting in something that is not quite equal to but definitely less than the originals. One such bizarre hybrid comes to mind involving Closer, by Nine Inch Nails, and Garbage's #1 Crush.

The basic, basic, basic plot structure remains, but literally 95% of the story is gone. There is rumor of a massive sea monster and the crew of the Abraham Lincoln set off to capture it. Strangely enough, at one point it passes a mere few meters from their ship in broad daylight, and the crew can clearly see the steel plated sides and the rivets holding it together, even the bridge and periscope, and yet they still think it's a sea monster.

I'll attribute that to the inability to emulate the Nautilus's movements as described in the novel, but in this way we also have to sacrifice the entirety of the ship's glorious design and function, which is not even described in dialogue. For the most part, we see a single room, which looks like an old Victorian bedroom with one wall that looks like it belongs in a boiler room.

Probably the worst crime that the film commits is in the character of Captain Nemo. Granted, Nemo in the novel is not exactly the most charming and charismatic man, but it is as if they set out in this film to create a man as far from the original description as humanly possible. As a result, we get a bizarre spectacle that looks like a disgruntled Santa Clause in blackface. And not only that, throughout the film he gives several displays of compassion that the original Nemo would have scoffed at. Indeed, at one point, he torpedoes a ship, and then afterwards and then almost faints as he worries about the safety of the victims. What the hell?? And incidentally, Verne's Nautilus didn't have torpedoes, although he did use it as a ramming weapon.

In the film's defense, the underwater photography is truly impressive given the time that it was filmed, and surely knocked 1916 audiences, most of whom had probably never seen the underwater world, out of their seats. This would certainly explain the seemingly endless lingering on these scenes. Their is also an interesting allusion to another Verne novel, as at one point in their underwater tour they come across a decayed shipwreck, which Nemo describes as "the wreck of an old blockade runner."

And the worst thing about the bizarre personification of Nemo in this film is the backstory that was invented for the film which, amazingly, is introduced with this intertitle -

"Captain Nemo reveals the tragic secret of his life, which Jules Verne never told."

What follows is the most bizarre story imaginable, which claims that Nemo was previously some kind of empirical royalty who lived in an empire "beyond the sea." One man wrongs him, which doesn't explain his subsequent disdain, and even hatred, for all of mankind of all nations, nor does anything explain why he took to the sea. And incidentally, Nemo is a man of art, science, biology, history, astronomy, etc. The transition from his old life to the one we see is totally senseless.

It may very well be that this was one of the first major films to set the trend of adapting novels to film, and while modern adaptations still make ridiculous changes to story and characters where they don't belong, at least those inexplicable liberties seem to have diminished since 1916!

This film combines plot elements of Verne's original 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Mysterious Island, then adds its own subplot involving the origin of Captain Nemo that ties everything together. I was very impressed by the writing. This was the first major film with underwater photography. The set design was impressive. I found the diving suits to be particularly interesting--essentially early versions of scuba gear. The new score fit very well into the story. All in all, a wonderful and landmark achievement in filmmaking.

I found this film extraordinary, if for no other reason than the fact, that that they used underwater photography showing divers in deep sea helmets using what looked to be rifles with spears attached (early spear guns, I imagine) actually shooting at a large group of sharks swimming around them. I also didn't see any air lines attached to any of these divers, however, if you looked closely, you could see some air bubbles come out of the helmets of the divers every so often. They must have been using some type of compressed air with a regulator, however when I queried Google, I was informed that SCUBA wasn't invented until 1939 for the US Navy and the air regulator hadn't been invented until 1943 by Jacques Cousteau. There was a device that contained compressed air in a belt attached to a diver's helmet that was invented in 1825 but that would only allow a diver to stay under 7 minutes. Were they really able to get all of the shots with the divers within that time frame. Very curious. Does anyone have the technical details for how this film was accomplished? I give this film a 9 for technology and a 5 for story line and acting for a 7 overall.

Underwater films are as popular today as ever in movie theaters. These motion pictures lend even the most of us landlubbers an idea how the ocean underneath the waves looks. The first feature movie to contain underwater footage is December 1916's "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea." This Jules Verne-based picture was the cinematic debut of screening submerged film footage, showing divers, a fake octopus, fish, including sharks and seabed scenery to amaze viewers back at a time when no one had ever seen under-the-ocean moving images before.

Brothers George and J. Ernest Williamson in 1914 made their experimental film, "Terrors of the Deep," also named "Thirty Leagues Under The Sea," using their newly-invented camera containing reflector mirrors running down a long tube to shoot underwater footage in the clear, relatively shallow waters of the Bahamas. An illuminating light next to the tube's lower end allowed the film to capture a moving world where no motion picture crew had been able to photograph before. The brothers promised investors who had put money into the project they would show a diver killing a shark. To make that happened, they dangled a dead horse over the side of their boat to attrack the predators. It worked.

Universal FIlm Company loved the Williamson film so much they made plans to base the underwater footage the brothers were assigned to shoot around an 1870 Jules Verne book, "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea," with director/actor Stuart Paton playing Captain Nemo. Actually, the movie was the merging of two Verne novels, "Leagues" and "The Mysterious Island."

The Williamsons returned to the Bahamas to shot scenes dictated by the script. Disney's 1954 film crew for its "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" returned to the same spot in the Bahamas to shoot its underwater footage. The sprawling 1916 film was expensive to make in its two-year production, which included a flashback sequence towards the end employing hundreds of extras amidst elaborate India-style sets. The movie, although extremely popular, never produced a profit, discouraging Hollywood from making another Verne film for 12 years until ironically the part-talkie, two-color Technicolor MGM's "The Mysterious Island" was released in 1929.