As are most people, I was only aware of the famous, 1939, MGM classic, Judy Garland film, "The Wizard of Oz", as being the first. I was amazed to find out, that there were nine completed "Oz" movies (8 films, 1 animated), made before the 1939 classic ever debuted. Of those 9 films, three are lost films, so we still can see six of these films today. This film is the first of the "Oz" films still known to exist. For the first 20 years of filmmaking, from about 1895 to about 1915, just before heading into the World War 1 era, our pioneering filmmakers were still stuck on the stage play or theater-type of entertainment, that came before the movies.
Filmmakers were shooting a lot of their films, as if they were recordings of stage plays or theater acts. Most of this probably had to do with the stationary camera issue, of not having handheld cameras or an option of shooting different camera angles. That concept wouldn't start to change until the 1920s, although D. W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin and some of those guys, started going beyond the stationary camera-look, as early as 1914. So, being a 1910 film, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910), isn't much different as those films, that came before it. It still looks like it was shot as a stage play, even though they used a lot of interesting backdrops, sets and some special effects, outside of the theater-play approach. Still, it looks like one camera with no movement. That's not a bad thing. It's just how things were at this point in the evolution of motion pictures.
The original, Baum book was released in 1900. This version, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910), is more loyal to the book, than what the famous 1939 MGM classic was. It also took a lot of influence from the Broadway play that was popular at this time. The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodsman look slightly different, but you can clearly tell it's them. The rest of the characters look a lot different, even Dorothy. Her look is different from the Judy Garland version you are used to envisioning. This film looks more like a George Melies' experimental film, until you realize it's an Oz film.
This film is not that great. It's not terrible either, but it was panned when it first came out. The early 20th century fans of L. Frank Baum's novel, did not respond to the film well. They felt it did not capture the true feeling of Oz. Looking at it from today's perspective, it's not a technical thing or a recording-of-a-stage-plays, thing. It's just a weird, uninteresting plot, that needed more reward in its design, then what it was trying to sell in 1910. It needed 1939 to come around. In the 21st century it is an artifact of film, that needs to be seen.
5.9 (D MyGrade) = 6 IMDB.
Filmmakers were shooting a lot of their films, as if they were recordings of stage plays or theater acts. Most of this probably had to do with the stationary camera issue, of not having handheld cameras or an option of shooting different camera angles. That concept wouldn't start to change until the 1920s, although D. W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin and some of those guys, started going beyond the stationary camera-look, as early as 1914. So, being a 1910 film, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910), isn't much different as those films, that came before it. It still looks like it was shot as a stage play, even though they used a lot of interesting backdrops, sets and some special effects, outside of the theater-play approach. Still, it looks like one camera with no movement. That's not a bad thing. It's just how things were at this point in the evolution of motion pictures.
The original, Baum book was released in 1900. This version, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910), is more loyal to the book, than what the famous 1939 MGM classic was. It also took a lot of influence from the Broadway play that was popular at this time. The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodsman look slightly different, but you can clearly tell it's them. The rest of the characters look a lot different, even Dorothy. Her look is different from the Judy Garland version you are used to envisioning. This film looks more like a George Melies' experimental film, until you realize it's an Oz film.
This film is not that great. It's not terrible either, but it was panned when it first came out. The early 20th century fans of L. Frank Baum's novel, did not respond to the film well. They felt it did not capture the true feeling of Oz. Looking at it from today's perspective, it's not a technical thing or a recording-of-a-stage-plays, thing. It's just a weird, uninteresting plot, that needed more reward in its design, then what it was trying to sell in 1910. It needed 1939 to come around. In the 21st century it is an artifact of film, that needs to be seen.
5.9 (D MyGrade) = 6 IMDB.