Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" is a movie that needs to be re-evaluated.
It also may be one of those films that just needs all the help it can get, which it does get in a pristine print with a brilliant soundtrack by Robert Israel, via WarnerVideo.
So far as I can find, there is only ONE source for this version: The Wizard of Oz (Four-Disc Emerald Edition) (2006) "70th Anniversary", selling on Amazon for a mere $13.58.
Being interested in early cinema fantasy, I bought this set specifically for its inclusion of the 1910 Oz movie (pretty good, by the way). I wanted to compare that to what Melies was doing around then.
After watching the 1910 and all the 1914 versions (also on this set), I then put on the Semon film, intending to watch just a few minutes and then go to bed. Immediately, I was captivated by the engaging full-orchestra title music. Then the film proper came on and I was amazed at the beauty of the image. Sparkling clear and clean! Comparable to the most recent Kino release of Keaton's "The General". Semon's big production values are finally fully visible. Further, imaginative and gorgeous tintings with no loss of detail give the effect of a full-color movie. It was stunning. I couldn't take my eyes off the film!
Add to all this, Robert Israel's beautiful music, comedically but sensitively set to the action in perfect synchronization. It may be Israel's best work (and may prove how utterly critical it is to have a superior musictrack to a "silent" film). And with Semon's imaginative cinematography, the movie was playing out like a classic. There was no way to stop watching
Now, forget about the title. Frank Baum himself re-wrote the basic Oz story many times. In his own movies he sets up the same characters and just revises the same story over and over. So if you're unhappy with the "fidelity" of this film to the book (or the 1939 movie (c'mon, get over it)), just call it "Semon in Oz" (oops... heh... I mean, y'know, like "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood"). What's wrong with that? Do NOT think about this as THE Wizard of Oz.
I realize that slick appearance does not make up for poor content, but as Pauline Kael once said about a W.C. Fields movie, So what if everything is "all gummed up"? Story-logic doesn't always matter; sometimes I'm more interested in the comic riffing
So I watched the whole movie, and was continuously delighted, even laughing out loud. Then I was surprised to note that it had been 72 minutes long. I thought it had only been about 45 minutes!
Well, there is a whole lot more I could write, and anyone can point out the weaknesses of this movie. But suffice it to say that I was thoroughly engaged and entertained from start to finish, and I am one who has a BIG problem sitting through movies over 20 minutes long. I can barely sit still long enough to slog through the labored stories of silent drama ("A Child of Paris", "Sunrise", D.W. Griffith melodramas), or comedies of Coleen Moore, Mary Pickford, and D. Fairbanks, which have me itching for the fast-forward button; even Keaton and Lloyd occasionally dawdle too much for me. (On the other hand, Melies is never too long, nor is Chaplin or Langdon; or, once front-and-center, Laurel & Hardy.)
Now I am curious to show this version of this movie to others to see if they enjoy it. Or conclude that I've just finally lost my mind from watching "Ridolini" too many times.
It also may be one of those films that just needs all the help it can get, which it does get in a pristine print with a brilliant soundtrack by Robert Israel, via WarnerVideo.
So far as I can find, there is only ONE source for this version: The Wizard of Oz (Four-Disc Emerald Edition) (2006) "70th Anniversary", selling on Amazon for a mere $13.58.
Being interested in early cinema fantasy, I bought this set specifically for its inclusion of the 1910 Oz movie (pretty good, by the way). I wanted to compare that to what Melies was doing around then.
After watching the 1910 and all the 1914 versions (also on this set), I then put on the Semon film, intending to watch just a few minutes and then go to bed. Immediately, I was captivated by the engaging full-orchestra title music. Then the film proper came on and I was amazed at the beauty of the image. Sparkling clear and clean! Comparable to the most recent Kino release of Keaton's "The General". Semon's big production values are finally fully visible. Further, imaginative and gorgeous tintings with no loss of detail give the effect of a full-color movie. It was stunning. I couldn't take my eyes off the film!
Add to all this, Robert Israel's beautiful music, comedically but sensitively set to the action in perfect synchronization. It may be Israel's best work (and may prove how utterly critical it is to have a superior musictrack to a "silent" film). And with Semon's imaginative cinematography, the movie was playing out like a classic. There was no way to stop watching
Now, forget about the title. Frank Baum himself re-wrote the basic Oz story many times. In his own movies he sets up the same characters and just revises the same story over and over. So if you're unhappy with the "fidelity" of this film to the book (or the 1939 movie (c'mon, get over it)), just call it "Semon in Oz" (oops... heh... I mean, y'know, like "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood"). What's wrong with that? Do NOT think about this as THE Wizard of Oz.
I realize that slick appearance does not make up for poor content, but as Pauline Kael once said about a W.C. Fields movie, So what if everything is "all gummed up"? Story-logic doesn't always matter; sometimes I'm more interested in the comic riffing
So I watched the whole movie, and was continuously delighted, even laughing out loud. Then I was surprised to note that it had been 72 minutes long. I thought it had only been about 45 minutes!
Well, there is a whole lot more I could write, and anyone can point out the weaknesses of this movie. But suffice it to say that I was thoroughly engaged and entertained from start to finish, and I am one who has a BIG problem sitting through movies over 20 minutes long. I can barely sit still long enough to slog through the labored stories of silent drama ("A Child of Paris", "Sunrise", D.W. Griffith melodramas), or comedies of Coleen Moore, Mary Pickford, and D. Fairbanks, which have me itching for the fast-forward button; even Keaton and Lloyd occasionally dawdle too much for me. (On the other hand, Melies is never too long, nor is Chaplin or Langdon; or, once front-and-center, Laurel & Hardy.)
Now I am curious to show this version of this movie to others to see if they enjoy it. Or conclude that I've just finally lost my mind from watching "Ridolini" too many times.