The Wonderful Wizard of 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.

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.

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.

TCM showed this silent short one night while showcasing their Treasures of the American Film Archive, and at 13 minutes, this version of THE WIZARD OF OZ is quite engaging. I can only wonder, though, at the reactions of an audience, circa 1910, going to theatres and watching this version of a story that 20 years later would become one of the most enduring classics not only for children but adults alike, because seeing the events portrayed here just only shows how little we had back then, how much we have now... and why these little shorts are worth preserving. On that basis alone I'd recommend viewing this version devoid of preconceived notions of modern cinema, but as an intellectual ride.

Although it is a rather unrefined movie, it's still fun to watch this early film version of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", and it has plenty of energy and ingenuity that make up for its rough edges. It is certainly of interest historically, and for anyone who enjoys the films of the early 1900s, it also works well enough as entertainment.

The story differs considerably both from the book and from the well-known 1939 classic, in large part because it was adapted from a stage production of the story, rather than from the original novel. But most of the characters are easily recognizable, and it's also quite interesting to see a very young Bebe Daniels as Dorothy.

The scarecrow and the tin man probably get the best roles, and in a number of scenes they engage in some amusing antics, making it worth looking for them even when they are not the main focus. It's apparently uncertain who played the scarecrow, which is too bad, because he is pretty funny, and his performance is not unworthy of being compared with Ray Bolger's performance in the wonderful Judy Garland version.

The adaptation does have a very stage-like look, but given that approach, most of it works all right. Some of the camera effects are pretty good for 1910, and even the ones that seem more obvious are at least interesting to watch.

In watching this now, it probably benefits from the endearing qualities of the Oz characters, which are so familiar from other sources. But its original audiences probably enjoyed it as well for its own sake, since it has plenty to offer, and it tells the story with lots of liveliness.