This is the 3rd original production (after Peter Pan -1924 and Zorro - 1920) that would be later adapted by Disney without having seen it by the way. The only fact i know from this fairy tale is from Bettelheim extraordinary book that put this tale as the future of the teen girl. Honestly this movie is visually rich: there is a try in technicolor, the costumes and sets feels Middle Age and the special effects are not that ridiculous: I liked the princess escape in this huge castle because there is a good sense of deep. I noticed that the charming prince kisses her hand (and not her cheek or lips to wake her!). Sure the movie is fast but i tried to read the original tale and it's not a novel either! In a way, we have become slave of long movies by forgetting that some stories can be indeed short and that it's better to have a condensed, bare movie in which every shot is worthy than endless production with holes and decent acts...
5 Reviews
A Hundred Year Nap for the Princess -- Ten Minutes for the Audience
boblipton17 September 2010
First let's go over the good points of this one-reel movie from 1908 -- a long movie for that year. The production values are enormous, elaborate sets, large cast, no expense spared in special effects -- the DP, Segundo de Chomon was Melies' only real rival in that area and the print I saw was a a beautifully stencil-colored example of the form.
Next, a cultural issue: this is a now-antique cinematic form, basically an illustrated text, as each title serves to tell the familiar story and then the movie illustrates it. This was standard for this period, although it would disappear within half a decade as cinema became its own art form.
However, the real issue is that this is enormously padded. We get a good minute of the princess wandering through the castle, which could have been severely cut -- even if there is one nice, slow pan to show the scale of castle and illustrate its reality. The acting is hopelessly antique and people stroll and hold real-time conversations which we cannot hear.
Even though the audience of 1908 might have been spellbound by the lavishness of production and the pageantry of the images, the padding and inappropriate acting still make this a bore. Too bad.
Next, a cultural issue: this is a now-antique cinematic form, basically an illustrated text, as each title serves to tell the familiar story and then the movie illustrates it. This was standard for this period, although it would disappear within half a decade as cinema became its own art form.
However, the real issue is that this is enormously padded. We get a good minute of the princess wandering through the castle, which could have been severely cut -- even if there is one nice, slow pan to show the scale of castle and illustrate its reality. The acting is hopelessly antique and people stroll and hold real-time conversations which we cannot hear.
Even though the audience of 1908 might have been spellbound by the lavishness of production and the pageantry of the images, the padding and inappropriate acting still make this a bore. Too bad.
Sleeping Beauty review
JoeytheBrit11 May 2020
Colourful, elaborately staged, but straightforward version of the famous fairy tale. Exterior shots are particularly effective, both for creating a sense of scale lacking from the proscenium-style interiors and an eerie atmosphere as the prince passes amongst the sleeping staff in the bewitched castle.
I really liked this one.
planktonrules14 February 2014
Albert Capellani and Lucien Nonguet apparently directed this one. This took me by surprise since the film starred Julienne Mathieu--the wife of prolific director Segundo de Chomón.
The story is that of Sleeping Beauty. It really helps to be familiar with the tale unless you can read German (my ability with German is, at best, fair to poor) as the copy I found from archive.org had German intertitle cards. Now having intertitle cards in ANY language this early in cinema is unusual, so it is far ahead of most films of the time that relied instead on pantomime--and often it was highly exaggerated. I have no idea if other copies are out there in other languages or if anyone has any plans on translating it into other languages.
The film sticks closer to the original telling by Perrault than the later Disney film. This is a plus, but the picture has many pluses. The biggest is the use of natural sets--including the use of a castle instead of lots of studio sets. It also has decent coloring added cel by cel by assembly lines of female workers at the Pathé company. It's not the cleanest and best looking of their colored films but still looks pretty good. Additionally, the costumes and special effects were quite nice. The overall production for 1908 is truly special and makes the film worth seeing---even if you don't know German.
The story is that of Sleeping Beauty. It really helps to be familiar with the tale unless you can read German (my ability with German is, at best, fair to poor) as the copy I found from archive.org had German intertitle cards. Now having intertitle cards in ANY language this early in cinema is unusual, so it is far ahead of most films of the time that relied instead on pantomime--and often it was highly exaggerated. I have no idea if other copies are out there in other languages or if anyone has any plans on translating it into other languages.
The film sticks closer to the original telling by Perrault than the later Disney film. This is a plus, but the picture has many pluses. The biggest is the use of natural sets--including the use of a castle instead of lots of studio sets. It also has decent coloring added cel by cel by assembly lines of female workers at the Pathé company. It's not the cleanest and best looking of their colored films but still looks pretty good. Additionally, the costumes and special effects were quite nice. The overall production for 1908 is truly special and makes the film worth seeing---even if you don't know German.
First telling of "Sleeping Beauty" I've seen from the silent era
Tornado_Sam25 April 2018
Though many YouTube uploadings credit Segundo de Chomón as the director of this film, I think IMDb is right by saying Albert Capellani and Lucien Nouguet were in charge. This is because the film is carried on in the typical stagy style of filmmaking--and Chomón would often use closeups and medium closeups in his films, and was more up-to-date then others.
Since most people know the story of "Sleeping Beauty", following the action in this film should be no problem. Still, I will admit it does have some problems. For one, the beginning part, in which the celebration of the child's birth takes place, we never actually see the witch appear and cast the spell. This is because a long stretch of film--a very long stretch, in fact--in missing, so this scene lasts only several seconds. Another problem is certain details are a bit difficult to understand, such as some random guy coming after the Princess with the king's soldiers. I have no idea who he was at all. And, as the other reviewer said, several unnecessary scenes of the Prince wandering through the castle.
However, the film is very nice to look at. It is colorized and while certain scenes have more color than others, it all looks nice. While some there are some sets, there are also plenty of scenes shot outside, which is a step up and doesn't make the film as stagy looking. It all looks pretty nice, as well as being probably one of the earliest adaptations of "Sleeping Beauty". With flaws, but not at all bad and a very nice film from the silent era.
Since most people know the story of "Sleeping Beauty", following the action in this film should be no problem. Still, I will admit it does have some problems. For one, the beginning part, in which the celebration of the child's birth takes place, we never actually see the witch appear and cast the spell. This is because a long stretch of film--a very long stretch, in fact--in missing, so this scene lasts only several seconds. Another problem is certain details are a bit difficult to understand, such as some random guy coming after the Princess with the king's soldiers. I have no idea who he was at all. And, as the other reviewer said, several unnecessary scenes of the Prince wandering through the castle.
However, the film is very nice to look at. It is colorized and while certain scenes have more color than others, it all looks nice. While some there are some sets, there are also plenty of scenes shot outside, which is a step up and doesn't make the film as stagy looking. It all looks pretty nice, as well as being probably one of the earliest adaptations of "Sleeping Beauty". With flaws, but not at all bad and a very nice film from the silent era.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
