User Reviews

For a series of films made in 1896 this is pretty much ahead of its time. Think about it, cinema was less than twelve months old, Porter's Great Train Robbery - generally (if probably inaccurately) considered the first narrative film - was still seven years in the future, and yet here's a doughty old chap named Joseph Jefferson indulging in a few exaggerated gestures as he takes on the role of Rip van Winkle (a role I believe he was famous for playing on stage). By today's standards the film is amateurish, but for its day it's first class. You have to laugh at their interpretation of a dwarf though - a normal sized man crouching as he waddles around with a barrel on his shoulder. Definitely worth a look if you're interested in cinema's infancy.

This film is actually a compilation of 8 films: Awakening of Rip (1896), Exit of Rip and the Dwarf (1896), Rip Leaving Sleepy Hollow (1896), Rip Meeting the Dwarf (1896), Rip's Toast to Hudson (1896), Rip's Toast (1896), Rip Passing Over the Mountain (1896) and Rip's Twenty Years' Sleep (1896).

The serial—filmed at Joseph Jefferson's summer home in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts in August 1896—was filmed in wide shot with a one or two camera setup in 68 mm format with an aspect ratio of 1.36:1. American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. registered the copyright on February 4, 1897. The actor selected scenes that were largely pantomimed, eliminating the need for explanatory titles.

Although the films are each simple and very little happens, they work because people are familiar with the story. I suspect they were even more familiar at the time. Together they make something of a narrative. Not perfect, but enough to appreciate what was being accomplished.

First of all this movie was SHOT in 1896 but not released until 1903. Have no idea why. It's actually six separate clips each with it's own title like "RIp and the Dwarf"

It's really horrible.

Example -- the "dwarf" is 6 foot tall man stooping.

It's truly worse than the super 8 movies i made as a kid.

The only thin of interest is it's age.

For 1898, when each individual portion of this film was made, this was an amazing set of films. That's because many films from before the 20th century are dreary little snippets with no attempt to tell a story--such as showing people getting on a train or showing a storm battering the coast or having a mother feeding her baby. At least here the artists were trying to make something different and tell a story. Unfortunately, when it was made, films like we know them today were not yet developed. So instead of telling one longer and coherent story, this film actually is made up of several very brief scenes from the story of Rip Van Winkle--each as a separate film. But even when placed together several years later, it does not tell the whole story--just bits and pieces like a highlight film. But given when it was made this made sense and in many ways this was a work of art like an Ansel Adams print or a Remington statue. With these limited expectations, it's excellent and actually shows costumes, outdoor sets, etc.--innovations, of sorts, for 1898. Unfortunately, while it is very important historically speaking, most viewers will no doubt be bored long before the four and a half minute film ends.

Apparently, this film is comprised of eight shorter films from 1896, which were not copyrighted until 1902, hence the date discrepancy. As such, I can't understand why IMDb users have been so hard on this film. Afterall, this appears to be one of the first films with a plot, produced in an age when films consisted of no story - simply men sneezing, families walking around a garden or the electrocution of an elephant. Why such a low rating, then?!

Perhaps it is the lack of car chases, explosions and gun fights. 'Rip Van Winkle' might just appear dull and boring to today's audiences, its historical significance forgotten. I - for one - enjoyed it. This film had a story to tell, unlike many of its time, and, despite the primitive production values, it told the story reasonably well.

Rip Van Winkle (1903)

*** (out of 4)

This film is a rather interesting one as it takes eight movies made in 1896 and edits them together to try and tell a complete story. I'm going to take a guess and say this was released after The Great Train Robbery so as an early example of a "plot" driven film this works as a great piece of history. It's interesting to view the film today because it plays perfectly as something you'd expect to see in the day but there's no getting around the fact that all of this stuff was filmed and released in 1896. That makes the original movies all the more impressive since they were telling a story years before it became the normal thing. The Great Train Robbery gets credit for being the first film to tell a story but perhaps historians should rethink that and take a closer look at those eight shorts.

Considering this movie was originally made in 1896, (despite IMDb's date) I would assume that it was not only the very first telling of the Washington Irving story, but maybe the oldest film with a story to tell in general. However, because at this point in history films consisted of only one shot, single scene clips, W. K. L. Dickson was forced into making not only one film, but eight, thus directing the first film serial in history. You can read the title of each thirty-second clip and pretty much guess what happens in that segment, i.e. "Rip Meeting the Dwarf", "Awakening of Rip", since all the segments take a particular event and film it within the constraints of the run-time.

Nowadays, it looks laughably absurd. Barely anything happens onscreen a lot of the time and each clip begins about as quickly as it ends. But considering the time, it's actually pretty advanced for 1896 and all the segments were probably projected in sequence to achieve the look Dickson wanted. Likewise, today the way the serial as a whole was supposed to look is lost if you view each segment separately; they must all be put together to create a story and none of them can be judged on their own level. The disjointed look of it all is probably the reason why Biograph decided to edit them together to make a 'full-length' film in 1903, since by then they could fully reach the look they wanted without having the projectionist pause to load the next segment.

Nonetheless, I'd recommend you see Georges Méliès's 1905 adaptation of the story if you're looking for fantasy and more elaborate storytelling. This is entertaining from a historical perspective and worthwhile for fans of early cinema, but not really something the average movie-watcher of today would enjoy.