The Tempest (1908)

Pretty Good

Absolutely the worst movie.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

For an early one-reel film, this is rather good. The tableau style isn't as rigid as in some other early literary/theatrical film adaptations, with even a couple instances of continuity editing, although it's still mostly a series of shot-scenes from long-shot framing. The painted sets, backdrops and props are about as good as it got in 1908. Additionally, Shakespeare's play is an apt template to showoff the tricks of early cinema.The effects, including some good double-exposure photography to make waves appear through a cave, animation for the shipwreck and plenty of substitution splicing, were nothing new, though. If anyone holds the confusion that addiction to special effects is a recent symptom in the movie industry, they should view these early films; that is, these early trick shots had been employed in hundreds of films for a decade before "The Tempest" film and would be used hundreds of times after it. The movie stands at the cusp of the division by film historians of the early period referred to by Tom Gunning as the "cinema of attractions" and the following phase of the development of narrative films. Furthermore, Shakespeare and other sources of established literature and theatre were being adapted to cinema during this period to lend a sense of cultural legitimacy to an art that some of the middle and upper classes still frowned down on.Also interesting is that the events of "The Tempest" are reordered chronologically here, which is what I suppose they had to do to make the narrative at least somewhat fluid and to fit the story within the standard limitations of the time.

Okay, the idea of doing an entire Shakespeare play in only 12 minutes is indeed a daunting task!! And, based on the technology available back in 1908 this isn't a particularly bad movie--they actually have sets and special effects that didn't totally stink for 1908 (though by today's standards they certainly are laughable). In fact, compared to even earlier films like LE VOYAGE DANS LE LUNE (1902) or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (1903), this isn't a particularly good film (they both bad much better sets and acting). Another problem is that you really MUST be awfully familiar with the original play to have much of an idea of what is going on, as it's very confusing and very sketchy to say the least. I have got to admire them for trying and some of the scenes are very interesting to watch from a historical or kitschy point of view. However, most modern audiences would become quickly bored with this film.

Stow filmed the very first version of "Alice in Wonderland." It is a complete waste of time because all the magical absurdity is lost. Five years later the same man and some of the same players try "The Tempest" probably Shakespeare's densest work.It too depends on indirect illusion, in revisiting and inventing memories and inventing the present and future. Along the way, Shakespeare both comments on and exploits the technology of the day which he employed for his many effects.Stow has selected to unfold the story, to present happenings as they chronologically happened rather than as they are remembered. This is a big mistake I think. He does exploit the technology of illusion that film allows, but he does so without selfawareness which is the whole point of the play.But you know, watching this isn't a complete waste of time, because you really need to know the play to make any sense of it. And that's a good.Ariel is played by a little girl, who if she was the Alice in that earlier film, that project would have been much better.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This fun little short, silent movie version of Shakespeare's "The Tempest" shows its age at times, but it is an excellent effort considering all the limitations of the era. It covers much of the main plot of the play, and the first few minutes actually consist of events that had already happened when Shakespeare's play begins, and which the characters in the play refer back to - so it's interesting to see them as part of the story here.The fantasy nature of the plot lends itself well to special effects, and they tried quite a few things that were very imaginative for the time. While some of them reveal the cinematic limitations of 1908, most of them work pretty well and add some real energy to the film. According to the Milestone video, the cast list is now unfortunately unknown. Most of them are adequate, though nothing special, but the young girl playing Ariel is very entertaining, and steals most of the scenes that her character is in.If you like Shakespeare and silent films, you should enjoy this short feature.