Peau d'âne

In 1970, Jacques Demy made a movie out of one of the strangest fairy tales I've ever read. "Donkey Skin" was a very good movie...with a donkey that crapped out jewels and a King who wanted to marry his daughter! Yeah, it's pretty strange. And, this strangeness is a problem for most modern viewers, as they aren't familiar with the story and they might have no idea what's going on in this 1906 silent version. It's just all that clear and lacking intertitle cards makes it more so.

Now this isn't to say that the film is bad. For 1906, Albert Capellani managed to make a very nice looking movie...similar in style to those of Albert Capellani or Albert Capellani...who were both famous for making fanciful stories in the early days of cinema. The sets are lovely, the costumes are really nice (though there is a mixture of Medieval sorts of clothes and more modern clothes in the film) and the cinematography is good as well...with various indoor and outdoor shots.

Overall, I strongly recommend you read the story or see the sound version...and then try this 1906 version. Unless, of course, you DO know the story and would therefore understand what you're seeing on the screen.

Long before Jacques Demy made his masterpiece,"Peau D'Ane "was the subject of two silent movies.This one is currently available as part of the bonus of the Demy movie DVD.

Made in 1908 by Albert Cappellani,this version lacks a sense of wonder;the characters are dressed as if they were living in the Renaissance era ,which dates badly the story which is supposed to happen in a magic kingdom,long ago and far away,at a time when fairies turned princes into toads.Besides the donkey skin is much too small and makes the princess look as a Breton or an Alsatian woman wearing their traditional costumes.The princess seems old ,the donkey is killed before our eyes,the prince's mother and father are absent and the fairy reduces expenses to a minimum.A curio.

This early movie version of the fairy tale story is quite an expensive-looking effort. With its cast of dozens, elaborate sets and costumes, and effects that were difficult to achieve, it must have cost a pretty penny, or perhaps a lots of sous for Albert Cappelani. Yet, looking at this, it often seems obscure. One of the reasons is that it is based on a French fairy tale with lots of details that seem awkwardly joined; if you know the story, the movie makes perfect sense. If not, not.

Another of the reason that this movie seems strange is its use of mixed film and stage techniques for grammar. When the fairy steps out of a chest, that is clearly shooting the scene with the chest empty, stopping the camera, having the actress step into the chest, and restarting the camera. To the audience, poof! She appears! When she appears later by stepping out of a cabinet, the interior of which changes from the inside of a camera to an elaborately scalloped shell, that is clearly achieved by a mechanical apparatus.

Is this a movie or a stage show? At the time, there was no clear demarcation. Cinema was evolving rapidly, everything was being tried out, and this effect was already familiar to the audiences because of its use in live performances. It wuld linger for some time..... but be gone by 1912.