The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Don't Believe the Hype

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

I suppose the best thing that could be said about this primitive kiddy one-reeler from 1910 is that it's cute or somewhat interesting. As noted elsewhere, this adaptation is based more so on Baum and Julian Mitchell's 1902 play rather than on the original book by Baum. Everyone's familiar with the 1939 Judy Garland musical (if you're not, why are you here?), so this 1910 film can be interesting as comparison. Baum himself supervised three adaptations of his stories in 1914, beginning with "The Patchwork Girl of Oz"; all three have been available on video, as has a 1925 "The Wizard of Oz".This 1910 Oz is very theatrical, and most of its tricks are theatrical, too: moving backdrops and strings for flying. A couple stop-substitutions are about the only thing cinematic here. A static camera, tableau style and staginess are to be expected in a film this early that was adapted from the stage. This film, however, features annoying spastic performances—even more so than in the 1914 trilogy. The filmmakers didn't have to do any cramming for a 13-minute adaptation, nor use lengthy title cards to explain the basic plot; in fact, much of the picture is spent by characters jumping around as though they're hopped up on sugar, including some dance interludes probably held over from the stage version. Furthermore, this edition was followed by two subsequent Dorothy Oz installments, which are now lost. I wouldn't recommend this kiddy flick, but, apparently, some like it.Among the cast is a young Bebe Daniels as Dorothy. Daniels later worked in a few silent films by Cecil B. DeMille and is now mostly famous for her role in "42nd Street" (1933). Reportedly, Alvin Wycoff, who would be DeMille's longtime cinematographer during his early career, which included the innovatively photographed "The Cheat" (1915), also has an on screen role in this production somewhere.

Wizard of Oz, The (1910) *** (out of 4) Nice if strange version of the classic tale. The production values here are actually pretty nice and it's a rather strange trip seeing humans in outfits playing the various animals including the lion.Magic Cloak of Oz, The (1914) *** (out of 4) The fairies of Oz create a magic cloak, which will give one wish to the person who wears it. Once again the production design is very good here with wonderful and magical sets. The story is quite touching and I'm sure kids would love this version just as much as adults. The highlight of the film is the scene where a horse (played by a human in an outfit) is scratching his butt up against a tree and tries to teach a monkey how to do it.Wizard of Oz, The (1933) *** (out of 4) Pretty good Technicolor cartoon based on the book. The animation is rather nice and the scarecrow and tin man are pretty funny here as well. This was the first version to show Kansas in B&W and then Oz in color.

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.

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.