*. Filters. Somewhere, now lost in the mists of time, there was a real King John. Then there was the mythical King John, a cultural construction (we typically think of him today as “bad King John”). Then there’s the historical King John, or more accurately the King John of the historians. Then Shakespeare’s King John, which may have been largely derived from an earlier play by someone else.
*. Shakespeare’s King John isn’t a historical figure or even the King John of myth. We don’t see him, for example, signing Magna Carta (indeed it isn’t even mentioned in the play), or losing all of his continental properties to the King of France. All in all, he’s an odd duck, and a bit of a marginal figure in his own drama, taking a back seat to figures like the pathetic Arthur and Arthur’s raging mother Constance.
*. Then there’s this film, or what’s left of this film. Time and the frailty of celluloid have proven to be another filter. This King John is a fragment, running only a little over a minute. It’s one of four short films, each of which was a heavily edited scene from the play. They were meant to be shown together but this is the only one that survives.
*. It depicts a passage from Act 5 Scene 7, which is the last scene in the play. In it we get King John dying after having been poisoned, dying on his throne.
*. It’s not even a terribly representative fragment, as the character with the largest speaking part in the play (Philip Faulconbridge, or the Bastard) isn’t here. Actually, he only appears in the last of the four films. Nothing of the play’s major theme, which has to do with the legitimacy of power, is touched on. And finally the biggest filter is the fact that it’s a silent so we don’t actually hear any of the lines. We are left to imagine John saying things like “There is so hot a summer in my bosom that all my bowels crumble up to dust!”
*. Perhaps its biggest claim to fame today is that it is the earliest surviving film based on a play by Shakespeare. It also captures a wonderful bit of stage business by the famous Shakespearean actor Herbert Beerbohm Tree who plays King John (and who was, for all you trivia fans, the father of Carol and grandfather of Oliver Reed).
*. By “business” I mean something extra to the plain text that an actor or director adds to a performance and that goes on to become a kind of trademark or part of their repertoire. Here we have Tree expiring in a wonderful manner, rolling his eyes and spreading his legs at what seem to be painful if not impossible angles. The evolution of different methods and styles of acting is another filter, and by the end of his career Tree was apparently seen as a bit of an old-fashioned ham for overselling moments like these. Still, I find it enjoyable. He might have made a great silent film star.
*. It’s interesting to see what changes and what stays the same, what is lost and what remains, when it comes to cultural artefacts. I don’t think there’s anything of interest here aside from Tree’s writhing in place. That’s enough, however, to make me wish we had more. The business might have seemed out of fashion at the time, but these things have a way of being rediscovered as the wheel turns.
Alex on Film 
1899! Harking back a few years here. Love a bit of Shakespeare, so searched this up and watched it. King John looks like he’s giving birth to a baby satan. Would of been great to hear it with audio, but the silence provides an amazing atmosphere and adds to Shakespeare’s legend. For the breadth of plays he wrote, he’s pretty astonishing.
Yes, acting in the silent era was full of big gestures. The interesting thing though is that this is likely how Tree played it on stage as well. Styles of acting change quite dramatically. I remember an interview with one old-timer commenting on a movie he’d done in the ’20s or ’30s and saying how totally ridiculous it looks today, mainly for being overdrawn, but at the time it was considered the pinnacle of screen acting.
Really, it’s fascinating how it’s changed. I think part of it is down to how we depict reality. 1920 was incredibly different to 2020, for example. And also the introduction of method acting has affected it. It’s no longer massive actions, but more real, personal ones.
Wut? You were bleating on about King Kong vs Godzilla, where is it? What’s this old rubbish? A minute long, is that as much as you can hack these days, Bunty?
Good question. Where is Kong vs. Godzilla? Not at your site. You’re doing some podcast rom-com. Guess I’ll have to stick with getting reviews of real movies from the Telegraph.
Reviewing a movie out this Friday. When is King John out?
Hmm. Care to make a wager as to whether the movie you’re going to review on Friday is still going to be talked about 120 years from now?
By some loser film critic whose idea of a new release is a one minute scrap of a silent film? No prizes for that. Have you ever seen the Telegraph? Hahahaha
I hear the Telegraph is a good paper. Apparently they have a first-rate Scottish film reviewer writing for them.
I suppose I should pay attention to obscure writing, I mean, I read your blog…
Just look at all you’re learning here . . .
Learning not waste my time. So, you’re keen to associate yourself with the neo-fascist views of the torygraph?
Just looking at that first sentence makes me think the example of my perfect prose is falling on barren ground.
Learning not to waste my time reading waffle about scraps of film from 100 years ago. Clear?
*sigh* All I can do is try. Back to your podcasts then . . .
This isn’t King John vs Godzilla? What are you raving about? Never watched a podcast…
Wow a clip from 1899 is pretty rare I should think. Interesting post!
We don’t have a lot of film that survives from this far back. I’m thinking of making Tuesday’s Shakespeare on Film days and this seemed a great way to kick things off.
I like that idea!
Thank you! More coming next Tuesday then . . .
Anything good in the Torygraph today, Bunty? Seems to be your paper of choice…in tune with your politics, eh?
Just go there to read reviews of new movies. Blogs aren’t doing a very good job of keeping up.
Reviewed Gary Oldman in Crisis a couple of weeks ago. How many stars did the Torygraph give it? Hmm?
The Telegraph reviewed Crisis? I did read their Kong vs. Godzilla review.
I’m sure you and your public school fascist pals loved it. I’ll do the serious ones for the good guys.
I did go to a public school, actually. Though that means something different over here.
So the Torygraph will be your newspaper of choice then?
Even the Guardian reviewed Godzilla Vs Kong. Admittedly, it was only a paragraph long, but the journalist is a highly respected minimalist.
Well, I call the shots here editorially, and I’m not covering franchises which have been complete duds to date. Thank u, next!