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.

By the year of 1907, cinema had already reached the point where it wasn't a novelty anymore to see camera tricks or actuality films. While cinema had already developed a certain narrative style thanks to the efforts of film pioneers like Edwin S. Porter and Georges Méliès, many people still considered cinema as a lesser art at best, and a mere sideshow entertainment at worst. To help the new medium to gain more credibility as an art form, the shooting of famous theater plays became a new trend in European cinema, and soon the classic works of Shakespeare and other authors began to appear on movies. While the attempt to give some "credit" to films was certainly noble, this approach soon proved to be flawed, as those movies became nothing more than mere plays put on film. However, some artists tried to use this new trend creatively in order to truly innovate cinema, and British director Percy Stow was one of them.William Shakespeare's "The Tempest" is the story of sorcerer Prospero and his young daughter Miranda. Prospero is the rightful Duke of Milan, but was deposed by his jealous brother Antonio and set adrift along with his daughter until they reached a magical island where they have been stranded for twelve years. On the island, Prospero found a spirit named Ariel, who becomes his servant after Propsero rescued her from imprisonment in a tree using his magical powers. Propsero also found Caliban, a native monster, son of a legendary witch, who helped them to survive on the wilderness but, after attempting to rape Miranda, also becomes Propero's slave, scared by the sorcerer's powers and Ariel's magic. However, another threat is near, as Propero finds out that Antonio is on a ship that is passing close by the island. It is now time for him to unleash the Tempest and consummate his revenge.This version of Shakespeare's classic is actually the very first adaptation of "The Tempest" to film, and was the second work by writer Langford Reed, who would become a regular scriptwriter in many of the movies for director Percy Stow's company, Clarendon. As written above, in those years the norm was to simply shoot a representation of the play without making any changes, but under Stow's orders, Reed made the very first attempt to actually translate the classic play to the new medium. So, knowing his limitations, Reed makes a condensed, yet very complete version of the story (although Caliban's subplot is eliminated) that truly captures the essence of the play and manages to remain faithful to Shakespeare despite the changes, ultimately proving that cinema requires a narrative of its own.Just like Langdon Reed's screenplay moves away from the stagy adaptations that were the trend in those days, director Percy Stow makes his movie version of "The Tempest" a brand new kind of way to tell Shakespeare's tale. Instead of simply shooting his actors performing the play, Stow literally makes the magic of "The Tempest" come alive by cleverly using set designs and special effects to recreate Prospero's magic island. Stow started making "trick films" in Georges Méliès' style, and again he borrows from the French master as "The Tempest" visual look owes a lot to Méliès' famous 1902 film, "Le Voyage Dans la Lune". However, Stow also uses scenes on real locations mixed with his very good special effects to achieve a style that, while fantastic, looks also realistic to a certain extent, and of course, never stagy.Sadly, the names of the cast of this first version of "The Tempest" have been lost forever, as there are no records of who played who in this early British classic. However, it still can be said that the actor who played Propsero did an excellent job in the role, as without any kind of overacting he manages to compel all the emotions that his character represents, and he can easily go from being fearsome to merciful. Still, the star of this "Tempest" is definitively the little teenager girl who plays Ariel, as she manages to steal every scene with her highly dynamic performance that clearly shows that she was trained as a dancer. This unknown young actress certainly had a lot of screen presence and Stow knew very well how to use it to portray the otherworldly nature of Ariel. The rest of the cast is good although nothing surprising, and as written above, the role of Caliban was diminished to the point that nothing is left of the highly challenging role of Shakespeare's play.While this version of "The Tempest" showed that cinema wasn't an extension of theater and in fact was an entire new art form, very few followed Stow's cinematic approach to Shakespeare and the stage-bound adaptations kept appearing during the following years. Still, Percy Stow's creative genius kept shining through the following decade in his "Lieutenant Rose" series of movies, early examples of British spy films. As the co-founder of Clarendon and director of several of the most amazing films of early British cinema (including the first version of "Alice in Wonderland"), Percy Stow's name can proudly stand next to Porter and Méliès as one of the most innovative pioneers of early cinema. 8/10

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.