Onlinewsma
Absolutely Brilliant!
Tayloriona
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Kimball
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
cricket crockett
. . . which I saw in a double feature today after seeing this original version--which is perhaps a technological advance for its time, but totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint. In this 1902 version of Jack's story, produced by the infamous robber baron Thomas Edison, Jack dresses like a girl, disobeys his mom to climb the beanstalk, spies on the Abraham Lincoln-sized "giant," steals his valuables, and finally kills the taller than average crime victim as he's descending the beanstalk to recover his valuables. Jack is egged-on, aided & abetted at every turn by a magic wand-waving fairy godmother, who turns Jack & his mom into royalty at the close, heaping further riches upon this thief (not all that different from how Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, & Edison himself were able to loot America and lord it over everyone else at the turn of the 20th Century, before the U.S. enjoyed modern business regulations). JACK THE GIANT SLAYER, on the other hand, is about a nice boy who knows his place, only kills giants (actual ones, not a 6' 4" guy!) to save humanity, and does not have a larcenous bone in his body. With no nudity, little swearing, & few scenes of graphic violence, the latest remake is perfect for the 8 to 80 demographic. Though JACK THE GIANT SLAYER runs 104 minutes longer than this cluttered original, it is much easier to sit through, and is NOT the hard-core homage to criminality that is the elephant-electrocuter's morally reprehensible 1902 mash-up.
Cineanalyst
The Edison Company's "Jack and the Beanstalk" is another example of Georges Méliès's deep and widespread influence throughout the world of early cinema, but it's also remarkably innovative in itself for its time. Méliès largely introduced the story film to cinema with his adaptations of fairy tales, including "Cinderella" (1899), "Bluebeard" (1901), "Little Red Riding Hood" (1901) and other Féeries (fairy films). These films added narrative and new filmic storytelling devices to the editing and camera effects he had founded in his trick film attractions. For "Jack and the Beanstalk", Edwin S. Porter with George S. Fleming inserted an Anglo fairytale instead of the Charles Perrault stories used by Méliès, but otherwise almost exclusively imitate the style and techniques found in Méliès's Féeries. In England, Robert W. Paul and Walter R. Booth had already done essentially the same sort of Anglicization of Méliès with their film "The Magic Sword" (1901).One of the outcomes of this imitation is that the Edison Company produced what was probably the most advanced narrative film made in America as of then; certainly no other US film from before it that I've seen or heard of quite compares. Albeit, America at this time was lagging behind France and Britain in the development of the story film; and, as historian Charles Musser has pointed out ("Before the Nickelodeon"), for a few months between 1901 and 1902, Edison legally monopolized the production of motion pictures in the states. With 10 scenes (or tableaux) and 625 feet of film, running over 10 minutes, "Jack and the Beanstalk" is comparable in length to Méliès's early Féeries while being far ahead of any motion picture previously produced in the US.Technically, the use of dissolves as a transition between scenes and the substitution splices (stop-substitutions) and superimposition trick effects are all borrowed from Méliès. The superimposed vision/dream scene-within-a-scene conjured by the fairy in the fourth and seventh tableaux were based on similar scenes in Méliès's "Cinderella", "Bluebeard" and other films; notably, George Albert Smith, in England, was also an early pioneer of multiple-exposure photography and created scenes-within-scenes in his films as early as 1898, such as in "Santa Claus". Moreover, the interpolation of a fairy into the "Jack and Beanstalk" tale is straight from Méliès's Féeries, which generally feature a fairy godmother who manipulates the narrative and guides the hero—sometimes by projecting visions, serving as the filmmaker's on-screen surrogate by directing such films-within-the-film. The stagy, painted decors; the sudden, irrelevant appearance of dancing girls; and the theatrical final tableau pose were all classic Méliès trademarks, too.Additionally, the story seems to use Joseph Jacobs's non-moralizing version of the fairytale, so Jack simply intrudes on the giant's home, engages his wife against him, steals his wealth and kills him out of greed. Looking back at such an amoral narrative is rather refreshing, at least nowadays, when a moral seems to be incumbent upon most stories. The Edison Company catalogue, however—which may have served as a guide to live lecturers who would add further description for audiences back then, as was common practice—gives the Benjamin Tabart moral treatment by making the Giant the villain.Regardless of the demonstrative overriding influence of Méliès on "Jack and the Beanstalk", it remains a significant production for the time and place it was made. It's a mostly self-contained narrative and is more complex than were most films before it: linking scenes and achieving continuity of action across shots and between exteriors and interiors and, at least, having some production values. These early story films were an important advance; they claimed editorial control for producers and away from exhibitors, who had afore arranged the single shot-scene films into programs. From here, Porter made such other early story films as "Life of an American Fireman" and "The Great Train Robbery" (both 1903).
Snow Leopard
For its era, this was rather an ambitious and creative attempt to film the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" with as much visual detail as possible. Certainly, few of the camera effects are going to impress anyone now, but they are not at all bad given the limitations. It's really a children's story, and any children who saw this in 1902 would probably have enjoyed it more than enough to justify the effort of making it.For all that the technical limitations are obvious, and the visual effects in the rudimentary stage, this version does clearly communicate the basic story in a generally entertaining fashion. To be sure, even in 1902 there were pioneers such as Méliès who were already doing more impressive things. But this one is by no means bad, and features like this, while their defects are obvious, still hold their appeal for those of us who enjoy seeing what the earliest movies were like.
wmorrow59
I'd like to take this opportunity to salute Edwin S. Porter's Jack and the Beanstalk on its 100th birthday. This short film is one of America's earliest surviving narrative motion pictures. Perhaps it goes without saying that we're lucky this film can be viewed in the 21st century, seeing as how so many of its neglected contemporaries are gone forever. In watching this film today we have not only a rare opportunity to witness a great advance in cinematic storytelling, but also to peer into a lost world of Victorian theater, specifically children's theater. Where filmmaking is concerned, Jack and the Beanstalk does not represent the thrilling quantum leap forward that Porter's Great Train Robbery (made the following year) most certainly would, but it's a charming work in its own right, and can be viewed as a necessary step in the director's development towards his famous achievement.Strictly speaking, this film is a photographed stage play in which the special effects are stage effects, but that in itself was something of a novelty in 1902. Many of the earliest films of the 1890s and early 1900s consisted of only a single shot, representing what we would call 'actualities' filmed in natural locations: trains rolling past, ocean waves, street scenes, etc. The actors of Jack and the Beanstalk perform in full costume, and emote before painted backdrops as the familiar story is related in several lengthy shots presented in a methodical fashion. Although Porter's production lacks the verve that France's Georges Méliès was bringing to similar material around this same time, it does boast a moment or two of cinematic (as opposed to theatrical) wit. I like the early scene where Jack falls asleep and the Good Fairy 'directs' his dream, which is enacted for us, and includes such details as dancing bags of money and a woman hatching out of an egg. There's also a nice moment later when, after climbing the beanstalk, Jack takes another nap and the Good Fairy once more appears to him in a dream, this time treating him to a magic lantern show concerning the giant he's about to face.Someone who posted about this film previously called it "pathetic," and asserted that the filmmakers lacked imagination. I suggest in return that a certain amount of imagination is required to appreciate exactly what filmmakers were dealing with in 1902 when this medium was brand new. We're all so accustomed to going to the movies and having TVs in our homes, popping in videos & DVDs whenever we like, but what about the people who made these first films? In 1902 most people had never seen a movie or a movie camera. This was an entirely new technology, and there must have been numerous problems for the filmmakers, e.g., simply moving those bulky cameras, loading the (incredibly flammable) film itself, technical difficulties with lab work, etc. Making motion pictures was still a brand new, experimental process. Mechanical breakdowns and disappointments must have been a common occurrence for the pioneer producers. But we should also consider how much fun it must have been to be present at the birth of a new art form, the thrill of making discoveries that advance that art form, and the great excitement experienced by the original audiences who saw these films when they were new. In short, it takes imagination simply to view and appreciate a film like Edwin S. Porter's Jack and the Beanstalk, and we should count ourselves as fortunate that we can still do that.
