Frankenstein (1910) User Reviews

Birth of a Notion

[Spondonman · 7/10 · 26 December 2007]

Over the years I've watched and enjoyed loads of early Biograph and Vitagraph one and two reelers, but this was my first time with Edison's take on Frankenstein which I understand was a lost film for decades. A century later and it's on YouTube for all, such is progress! At this time Film was changing from a collection of unconnected images to having a coherent narrative - pre WW1 many exhibitors had to use lecturers to help explain to the audience the film they were watching delightedly. In movies nowadays when cameras aren't usually static for more than a second but deliberately shaking or flying off in all directions I could sometimes do with plot explanations too - if I could be bothered.

The narrative in Frankenstein is crushingly simple: man goes to college, creates a monster, which in the end can't live with its evil self. The trick shot creation scenes hold up well, less so Frankenstein's excited peeping in at it happening through a tiny trap window. There's nice tinting for the most part, although the blue shots were very blue indeed! The final mirror scene was a pleasant surprise, although because they used to churn these shorts out from start to finish in less than 3 days I wonder if a heavy message was intended. And the ugly monstrous horror reminded me of the rock band Kiss.

Well worth spending 13 minutes sampling a slice of movie history.

Creepier in many ways than later filmed versions

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 26 November 2009]

This twelve minute adaptation of Mary Shelley's tale has an element that the later versions don't have. In this version Frankenstein apparently uses some kind of potion to create the monster in a large pot. You then get to see the monster emerge from the pot, first as a skeleton, and then skin and even clothing form over the skeleton. This was filmed by starting with a model of the monster, melting the form, and then filming the reverse of this melting as the creation of the monster.

The story starts with Frankenstein going to college. Here he never becomes a doctor, but apparently two years into his studies he has discovered the secret of life and death and is ready to create a perfect human being. Instead he forms an extremely mishapened creature. The creature then follows Frankenstein around, even becoming jealous of Frankenstein's bride-to-be. How the monster is eliminated is very odd, and I'll let you see it for yourself to find out how it ends. Just let me say that there are no crowds of villagers with torches and pitchforks in this one. Instead the ending is very Victorian and even magical.

This is very much worth looking at if you get the chance.

Before Karloff, yet largely forgotten

[TJ1380 · 7/10 · 14 March 2006]

Although the 1931 Boris Karloff film is generally remembered as the original "Frankenstein," many people don't know that this film, made by Thomas Edison's production company in 1910, is really the first adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. This is an interesting film to watch for historical reasons alone, but there are some other elements that caught my attention. First of all, the creation of the monster is handled differently from other versions; in this film the monster is created not through science (or rather science fiction) but through a technique that one could read as almost mystical. Frankenstein mixes a number of ingredients together in a large metal cauldron. The monster grows out of the cauldron in an interesting scene that was achieved by taking footage of a dummy being burned and playing it backwards. As many people know, Mary Shelley never states how the monster is created in her novel, but I'm sure she didn't intend on it being created through magic or alchemy.

The second thing that I thought was interesting was a pretty big departure from the themes of the original story. In the book, the monster starts off as a benevolent and gentle being who is driven to commit murder by the ill treatment that he receives from his creator (and everyone else, for that matter). The implication is that evil isn't innate but something that is learned from the cruelties that one experiences throughout his or her life. In this film however, it is explicitly stated that the monster is evil. The only time he feels anything other than hatred for his creator is at the end, when he vanishes after apparently being moved by how much Frankenstein loves his wife. We therefore have a transformation of a sad story about an unloved monster who becomes bitter and hateful after being rejected by the world around him into a much more simple story about the dangers of man playing God. Without the complex themes of the novel, the story is far less interesting (then again, one cannot expect any real depth in a twelve-minute film version of this story).

I guess my one real complaint about this film is that it is visually uninteresting aside from the cool monster creation scene. Most of the scenes consist of one shot from a stationary camera of the actors acting their scenes out as if they were on a stage. The monster really looks quite menacing in this film, but it comes off as far less menacing when he is shown simply walking into the same shot as Frankenstein and Elizabeth before attacking them. The only thing that keeps this film from becoming really boring in that respect is its brief length. Then again, it was made in 1910, and in the end it really is quite impressive for its time. In the end, it's still worth a look for anyone who wants to see the first true "Frankenstein" film.

Before there was Karloff and Lugosi.....

[boris-26 · 26 February 2001]

This short film version of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, made in 1910 always appeared in monster magazines, especially with the picture of actor Charles Ogle as the monster. He appears like an overweight court jester. I became lucky enough to get a copy of the film on videotape. This is like most films made before World War I, resembling filmed stage performances, with an unmoving camera. First we see the monster's creation, which takes palce in a vat, where his flesh fuses onto his bones like cotton candy on a paper cone. Next we see the monster claw at his creator, and frighten the creator's bride. No, it won't scare you (If it does frighten you, please seek therapy) but this is a unique chance to catch the actual birth of the horror film.

Definitely Bare Bones

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 26 May 2010]

Compared to either Mary Shelley's novel or the later talkie version of "Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff as the monster, this would certainly have to be described as a bare bones effort - to be expected, I suppose, from this era and in a 12 and a half minute short.

The basics are there. Frankenstein discovers the secret of life and death (how, we're not told) and he uses that secret to create what he believes will be the perfect human being (the method of creation isn't explained) but that instead turns out to be only grotesquely human-like, rather than the perfect human. The monster (played by an actor named Charles Ogle) isn't as non-human as Karloff's version was, and there seems to be a certain sense of comedy about him. Eventually, this short becomes a story of jealousy. Frankenstein returns home to marry his sweetheart, but his monster haunts him and is overcome by jealousy against Elizabeth, Frankenstein's fiancé. The monster's demise wasn't sufficiently explained. Standing in front of a mirror, suddenly the monster disappears, leaving only its image, which also disappears after Frankenstein enters the room. The final scene shows the love between Frankenstein and Elizabeth, and I was left wondering if there really was a monster, or if this was all just a figment of Frankenstein's imagination, overcome finally by love.

This short (perhaps inevitably) left a lot of questions.

Strangely Compelling Despite Massive Flaws

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 24 September 2009]

Today both film fans and aficionados of cinema consider the director to be the so called author of a movie . Interesting to note that when a film is promoted a star name director is heavily promoted as in " A film by Steven Spielberg / Martin Scorsese / James Cameron etc etc " . Much of this comes from the French New Wave era where the director was considered to be the artistic driving force behind a movie conveniently forgetting all about the hard work the screenwriter has in the production . Perhaps the theory of the director being the author of the film would be better applied to the birth of cinema where the likes of Georges Melies and the Lumiere brothers where the magical creativity of a director made a movie work ? Add J. Searle Dawley's 1910 version of FRANKENSTEIN to this body of work

Like many movies from this period there is a very strong element of literal movie magic brought in to play . Frankenstein tries to create a perfect human and the audience see a skeletal figure gradually becoming more and more formed . It's difficult to understand how the audience would have reacted to this in 1910 but even today the creation of the monster isn't totally unimpressive though sharp eyed viewers will notice the smoke in the chamber seems to flow in to the creation which indicates the trick is done via stop frame animation and the film being played backwards

Unfortunately the screen writing rule of " Show don't tell " seems to remain undiscovered from this period . We're told via card captions that Frankenstein hasn't created a perfect human but " The evil in his mind has made a monster " which is strange because Frankenstein has done nothing evil on screen at this point , nor does he do anything evil in the remainder of the runtime . Strangely too that the monster doesn't do anything monstrous apart from turning up at his creator's wedding day uninvited . Supposedly this ties in with Mary Shelley's subtext that God's law has been broken because a mere human has created life out of death ? There's also a perplexing end where the monster effectively disappears in to thin air after seeing his reflection in the mirror

You have to understand however that in 1910 we're a very long way from The Classic Hollywood period when narrative storytelling and all its beauty such as structure , characterisation and of course dialogue hadn't been considered . In the silent period directors were something along the lines of magicians and J Searle Dawley does bring magic to the cinematic table in a film that is strangely compelling despite the flaws in the narrative

The Very Beginning of the Frankenstein Film History

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 19 May 2010]

This short film features Frankenstein leaving for college, discovering the secret of life, and then creating what he hopes will be the perfect human being. But, of course, it goes horribly wrong and instead out of his experiment comes a monster! This film is seriously pretty great. Of course, due to technology in 1910, it is very short and some of the footage is grainy. It is also silent. But this does not in any way take away from its watchability. The acting is very good, the costumes are superb, and one must single out the special effects.

The effects have Frankenstein throwing chemicals into a vat, and the vat smokes to life... half science, half magic. And then when the monster emerges, it is an effect that even today would be considered respectable. Flesh clings to bone as the flames roar from the vat... what a hideous creature comes out! The film has historical worth for a number of reasons. Obviously, it's the first Frankenstein film, but also it is a great example of early one-reel Edison filming in general. And for horror historians, it has a unique feature in the Frankenstein mythology: this version has the doctor using chemicals to create life, not spare limbs and electricity. It may be alone in that distinction.

Over A Century Later, The Original Monster Still Lives!

[eyesmalloy · 6/10 · 27 September 2019]

Twenty-two years before the brilliant James Whale classic that made Boris Karloff a star and spawned a slew of outstanding to mediocre sequels, a silent short film became the first adaptation of the Mary Shelley novel. While it cannot compare to many later versions, this surviving Edison Studios production remains an important piece of cinematic history. At only sixteen minutes, director J. Searle Dawley successfully manages to tell a coherent story as well as capture both the plight of Dr. Frankenstein and the tragedy of the monster itself.

Despite the picture quality being nearly unwatchable in parts and intertitles (title cards) that tell what's coming before each scene, this long forgotten gem is still worth a watch by horror aficionados and silent film buffs alike. As of this writing, Frankenstein (1910) is available to stream on several networks such as Halloween Flix and can probably be found on numerous websites too. In my opinion, having access to technology that enables us to view a film that is over a century old makes for a very special experience indeed.

The Dawn of a Genre...

[Alienator · 10/10 · 5 April 2006]

Produced by Thomas Edison's very own Edison Studios, J. Searle Dawley's 'Frankenstein' has been widely considered the first American horror film. Thought to be lost up until the 1970s when it was recovered from the infamous Alois Dettlaff's private collection, 'Frankenstein' has slowly established itself as one of the greatest silent shorts within the early horror genre.

The story quickly progresses, beginning with a scene of Frankenstein (Augustus Phillips) leaving his fiancée Elizabeth (Mary Fuller) to attend college. Some two years later, Frankenstein learns "the secret of life" whilst working in his study one day. He immediately writes a letter to his fiancée, telling her his intentions of creating the perfect human being. Frankenstein proceeds to perform the now-famous experiment and The Monster (played by the wonderful Charles Ogle) is born. The Monster takes shape in a giant vat, located in a sealed off room which is viewed by Frankenstein through a single viewing window. As the once lifeless monster rises from the vat, Frankenstein becomes terrified of his seemingly ghastly creation. The Monster quickly breaks out of the barricaded room and into the laboratory. After a close encounter with The Monster; Frankenstein makes the decision to return home to Elizabeth. As Frankenstein and Elizabeth's wedding begins, they become aware that The Monster has followed Frankenstein back home and a night of horror ensues.

Our beloved genre's debut is filmed in the non-moving camera fashion typical of early 1900s films, inherently giving the impression of a stage play. The plot of this little short does not closely follow the plot of Shelley's novel, nor does it reflect that of the later Universal version, but none the less a startlingly unique and entertaining outcome it is. The photography is excellent and does well to continuously and tactfully reflect the mood being established. As seen in (most notably) John Barrymore's version of 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' (1920) many of the laboratory scenes were shot using a brown tint whereas in the later part of the film, when the dark or horrific happenings begin to occur, a blue tint is used. Charles Ogle's take on The Monster is strikingly innovative and original, especially when compared to Boris Karloff's familiar 1931 portrayal. The makeup is excellent and apparently was applied by Charles Ogle himself (Ala Lon Chaney, eh?). The long fingernails, hunched back, and distorted face give Ogle's Monster quite a threatening aura as do his various facial contortions and arm-movements. Ogle's Monster is one fit for the ages and has become something of an icon of early horror cinema. Augustus Phillips does an excellent job portraying Frankenstein, with a broad range of emotions throughout the film and Mary Fuller proves to be a superb actress, playing the "damsel in distress" role superbly. One of the many qualities which stand out in Dawley's take on the tale was not only the innovative portrayal of The Monster, but the ending sequence. The defeat of The Monster is far more psychological and fantastic rather than scientific, which one wouldn't expect of a movie based around scientific advancements. Furthermore, beneath the surface of this incredible little short lies a premeditated philosophical meaning, one that is quite reminiscent of R.L. Stevenson's familiar tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Essentially, the film emphasizes the dual nature of man and his urge to unleash his inner-self. The Monster essentially represents the evil and unforgivable aspects of Frankenstein's persona. The mysterious ending sequence stresses this insightful use of symbolism. The outcome is a beautifully shot film, with convincing actors, innovative effects (for the time), excellent makeup, and a substantially intelligent and charming finale.

The very deepest roots of horror can be found in this little 16 minute gem. From the terrified look on Frankenstein's face when the first monster in U.S. cinema history comes to life, to the last moments of footage, the film leaves one captivated in its grasp. Myself being a long-time fan of the genre, thought it crucial to finally track this window into the past down. It is bewildering to look at this little atmospheric and strikingly intelligent take on Shelley's novel and to then look where the genre has come, with modern classics such as 'The Shining', 'Psycho (1960)', and 'Rosemary's Baby'. Edison Studios produced a true gem of early cinema - and the beginning of an epic genre… and what an excellent beginning it is.

Looks more like about 1810

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 7/10 · 2 October 2003]

I've only ever seen the VHS video tape of this, so I'm kind of curious what the DVD looks like (if in fact it has been issued officially on DVD). I kind of like it in its original "unrestored" state, the grain and the slightly out of focus photography adds character to it.

Dr Frankenstien creates his monster by putting some sort of an elixir into a vat. The monster emerges from said vat and terrifies his creator, who then runs off back home to his fiancée. The monster follows him, and they fight over his fiancée on their wedding night. The monster sees himself reflected in a mirror, and then disappears into the mirror.

The grain, and slightly in and out of focus camera work adds character to this movie, but also makes it a bit more difficult to follow a plot. The industrial looking sets, costumes, and make up are more eerie and effectively creepy than a lot of what Hollywood has churned out since this was released.

Frankenstein 1910

[skybrick736 · 3/10 · 8 August 2014]

Before Boris Karlof brought Frankenstein to stardom there was this particular short silent film that got the horror genre ball rolling. I'll admit I'm a tough critic on the film with a three rating but I thought two scenes dragged on way longer than what they could have, especially the scene inside the cauldron. Also, while that was going on there was a blatant few seconds of over acting by the main lead. Besides that gripe I thought the monster looked tremendous afterwards and I really dug the music and thought it flowed really well with the script. Finally, I was intrigued about the camera work and why different colors were shot at different scenes. Pretty sure there is a meaning to the hot (orange) and cold (blue) contrast as well as the typical black and white scenes. I wasn't impressed with the old 1910 Frankenstein but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Its a pretty neat film I suggest watching it if you are a horror buff.

Fascinating first version of a classic!

[jluis1984 · 8/10 · 28 March 2007]

By 1910, motion pictures already had 30 years of continuous improvement since the time of its invention. What started as simple shootings of common events in human life had turned into a brand new way of storytelling thanks to the efforts of early pioneers like Georges Méliès, Edwin S. Porter and Ferdinand Zecca. However, it was a new batch of pioneers who finally completed the creation of the new art, and gave birth to cinema as we know it. Among this new group of filmmakers, the name of J. Searle Dawley is probably not as well known as D.W. Griffith or Thomas H. Ince, however, Dawley was probably the first professional director in the history of cinema, as given his experience in theater, was hired by Edwin S. Porter specifically to direct films. And in this position, he would be the first one to bring to screen the horrors of Mary Shelley's immortal novel: "Frankenstein".

In this first version of the novel, Victor Frankenstein (Augustus Phillips) is a young student of medicine, who moves to college in order to continue his research. He is looking for the ultimate secret of life and death, and has as a goal the creation of the most perfect human being the world has ever seen. After months of constant research, he thinks he has discovered the secret and sets his final experiment in motion. With a mix of science, alchemy and black magic, Frankenstein creates his creature, but to his surprise, the creation is far from the perfect being he had hoped to make, as his creature (Charles Ogle), is a deformed monster who disgusts and horrifies the young scientist. Frankenstein decides to abandon his creation and return home hoping to rebuild his life, however, the creature has followed him, and is now envious of Frankenstein's bride (Mary Fuller).

Adapted to the screen by J. Searle Dawley himself, the story in this adaptation is very simple, although considering its short runtime (aproximately 16 minutes), it captures fairly the novel's core plot. Dawley's version of the novel introduces a notable element of psychology, as in this film the monster is literally the living physical representation of the evil in Frankenstein's soul. This original take on the novel's plot is really interesting as it not only deviates from the novel but is also completely different than the better known version done by James Whale for Universal in the 30s. While of course the movie lacks the more complex themes of the original story, this interesting addition certainly makes up for it and makes the film to stand out among other early horrors.

Being a professional of theater, it was natural that Dawley's films carried that feeling of being filmed plays; however, one has to praise the fairly original visual composition of the movie, and of course, the very inventive use he gave to the many tricks and special effects of his time. Particularly notable is the scene when Frankenstein creates his creature, as even today, almost 100 years after its shooting, remains an amazing and very suspenseful moment of silent cinema. Of course, given his background it is his work with the cast what separates Dawley's work from other pioneers. Certainly what he lacked in cinematic vision, he compensated for with a good domain of his cast, pulling off great performances from his actors.

While Augustus Phillips is perhaps a bit over the top in his role, he is quite good considering it was his debut on film, and makes a nice portrait of the Doctor as a young man. The mysterious Mary Fuller (who would leave the industry in 1917 at the peak of her fame) plays Frankenstein's bride, in one of her earliest works as an actress, and Charles Ogle completes the cast as the monster. While certainly not a Boris Karloff, Charles Ogle's performance as the Creature is extremely good, and his talent shines in many memorable scenes. Story says he also made his own make-up, as probably he had performed the Monster before on theater during the early years of his career. Ogle's performance is certainly the film's highlight, and through his interpretation one can see why this role is one of the finest horror characters ever written.

The first version of "Frankenstein" is not only valuable for its enormous historical importance, but also for its artistic qualities as a version of the novel. While many may disregard it due to it's unimaginative visual quality and its stagy style, it is one of the films that show the progression of cinema as a narrative art form. Despite its short runtime, it is a very entertaining movie that still manages to be impressive after all these years. Decades before Christopher Lee and Boris Karloff, Charles Ogle became a monster and brought the immortal classic to life with terrifying power. Fans of the novel and horror fans in general, this is a must-see. 8/10

Frankly my dear, this innovation movie wasn't that good. The Adam of your labors is bit too ugly-looking.

[ironhorse_iv · 6/10 · 27 April 2016]

Mary Shelley's 1818 novel, 'Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus' has influenced popular culture for at least over 100 years. Reading a horror novel gives an opening into that scary world, into an outlet for the essence of fear itself, without actually being in danger. Weird as it sounds, there's a very real thrill and fun factor in being scared or watching disturbing, horrific images. However, this 16 minute short movie based on that book, wasn't that scary, nor barely watchable. Since its original release, the film footage had been severe damage, with a lot of dirt grain and scratches on the film frames. There are also a few burns and tears, here with some color fading or wrong choice of film tinting. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe this movie is also missing a few scenes. It's sad that this movie was neglected for so long. It got so bad, that it was somewhat listed as missing, as many thought, no copies of the film still existed. It wasn't until the mid-1970s, that an original nitrate print finally turned up in Wisconsin, allowing this film to be seen, again in years. While the film is semi-deteriorated, I do have to say, film restoration since then, help, but it doesn't help that the film, as well as all other motion pictures released before 1923, is now in the public domain in the United States. This means that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a DVD copy of this. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely or badly edited. Since many of them, come from extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation copies. Even with that, I do have to credit to Edison Studios for making one of the first horror genre films. Despite, being the first motion picture adaptation of 'Frankenstein', this movie was not the most influence film version of the source material. That acclaim goes to the 1931 Universal Studios version directed by James Whales, that help shape what audience see, who and what Frankenstein's monster is, today. Nevertheless, this silent movie directed by J. Searle Dawley is a lot more accuracy to the book, than director James Whale's 1931 version. So you can give, this Edison Studios produce film, that credited. Still, this movie is missing a lot from the original story. It doesn't have the Captain Walton's Artic Journey introductory & concluding frame narrative. Nor does the movie show, any of the Cottage scenes, where Victor's Frankenstein's creature (Charles Ogle) learn to speak, read and write. Another big scene from the book, missing in this version, is the death of Henry Clerval, whom character is absence is film, as well, as the scene where the monster commands Baron Victor Frankenstein (Augustus Phillips) to build it, a wife to love. Don't get me wrong, while, this film still tells a semi-accuracy story of a mad-scientist bringing a corpse back to life. The biggest letdown of this film is the fact, that all these events, might being played in Baron Victor Frankenstein's head. I really didn't like any of the mirror scenes, at all. The idea of Victor Frankenstein going mad is a little odd for me. It felt more like a production of author Robert Louis Stevenson's, 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', than 'Frankenstein'. Another thing that bug me, about the creature look and act, is how much, it remind me of Quasimodo from author Victor Hugo's 'The Hunchback of Notre-Dame'. When you think deep hard about it, I have to say, Lon Cheney's performance in 1923's 'The Hunchback of Notre-Dame' seem very similar to the work that Charles Ogle put out here. Maybe, this was the movie that help Cheney find his inner muse for that character. Nevertheless, I thought, the creature might look was a little more realistic to the source material than the uber-famous boxy forehead and neck electrodes, Boris Karloff one, but the acting in this film is a lot more cheesy than the 1930s version. Yes, I get that, there was no synchronized recorded sound, especially with no spoken dialogue, back in the day, and actors had to emphasized body language and facial expression so that the audience could better understand what an actor was feeling and portraying on screen, but the way, Augustus Phillips and Charles Ogle move in the small set is a bit laughable. As a modern viewer, I can't help it. Still, there were some cool moments. A good example is the creature was created by a cauldron of chemicals rather than by a bolt of lightning. It's very gruesome for a silent film era to see a skeleton reform itself. Great special effects. Still, I would love for this movie to have some sort use of electricity in its sequence, since it's the one thing that Mary Shelley talks a good deal amount. I also didn't get the sense of concerns of religion and the general public regarding the morality of tampering with God's work, like the other film adaptations. This film feels a bit lacking, because of that. Overall: While, the 1931's "Frankenstein' remains one of the most recognized icons in horror fiction. This version of the story will probably pass away, quicker than that version. In the end, Frankenstein 1910 is deader than dead. It's just not that memorable.

OK for what it is.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 18 February 2007]

Frankenstein starts as the young Frankenstein (Augustus Phillips) heads off to college wishing his fiancé Elizabeth (Mary Fuller) goodbye. Two short years later & Frankenstein has found the key to creating life which he does, however instead of making another human being he creates a monster (Charles Ogle who did his own monster make-up)...

Written & directed by J. Searle Dawley I suppose you could call this 1910 version of Frankenstein based upon Mary Shelley's novel the granddaddy of all the filmed adaptations that have followed & is alright for what it is but I'm not quite sure who it would appeal to these days. The script tells the basic Frankenstein story although this time he uses a potion to create his monster rather than body parts, the film only lasts for 13 minutes so it's hardly deep or meaningful but it tells it's story competently enough. Obviously it's a silent film so there's no spoken dialogue instead the version I saw used intermission cards.

I'm not sure whether it's down to the fact that the print used for all existing versions came from a private collection but the colour shifts about a lot going from black and white to a orange tint to a blue one, there are also lots & lots of print damage with constant scratches, jumps & pops. There are some early special effects which are alright considering the films vintage.

Since it's original release Frankenstein had been considered lost until a print was found in Wisconsin of all places during the 70's. Would the world be a poorer place had this stayed lost? Well, not really in my opinion to be honest. The newly composed music is quite good though.

Frankenstein is really only of historical interest these days, it's not particularly good & none of it's slight 13 minute running time really entertain that much. For film historians only, give me Peter Cushing in a full blooded British Hammer horror any day of the week...

Whence "Frankenstein" (1910)?

[jeffoc_99 · 25 April 2006]

The first time I had viewed excerpts from this film was a re-broadcast of the 1970s British anthology series "The Amazing Years Of Cinema," hosted by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. It had been produced before the AFI listed the Edison Company's "Frankenstein" on its Top-Ten "Most Wanted" list. I taped a number of episodes of this series in the mid-1980s from the Discovery Channel, on the Beta format (anybody got a Beta VCR they can spare?). Viewing the creation scene was beyond fascinating, and has imprinted itself upon my mind even to this day. I presumed that eventually the film would be archived, restored, and made available upon home video (the then-current, and future formats), but was dismayed in the early years of this century to find this was not so. Even the video/DVD "releases" of the late 90s were (from what I understand) of such horrible quality (the imposition of "time codes," for starters) because Aldois Detalff refused to make the print available to professional celluloid preservationists...he was paranoid about not being paid enough to have this important cinematic document claimed and preserved into perpetuity, so he hoarded the battered print, gave it only sparse public screenings, and refused any bid under $1-2 million to relinquish it into the hands of those better qualified to save this work.

Now, Alois Detlaff is dead (as of 2005). Which (at risk of sounding cold and disrespectful) begs this question....

What will become of the sole remaining "Frankenstein" print? If there are any silent film buffs or insiders that have knowledge to this question, I would very much appreciate an answer and/or updates. I really, really hate to say this, but sometimes (for human history's sake) the survival and fate of one very, very important physical artifact should place priority over "respecting" the misguided ego of the last person known to have shielded it from the rest of the world (especially if the concern was largely about money, collector ego, and a mild strain of blackmail/greed).

It would be tragic if the only source print of this film were kept under lock and key until it disintegrates beyond repair because of its final owner's rapacious whims.

Again, any feedback is more than welcome...

Boris did it better, but this is still a solid effort.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 6/10 · 2 December 2021]

I hate to say it, but Boris did it better. In all seriousness, though, 'Frankenstein (1910)' is the first adaptation of Shelley's novel and it's an admirable effort. It heavily truncates its source material and makes some major alterations to its story, primarily having its monster appear to be some sort of manifestation of its doctor's hidden evil (ala 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)'). It features some striking imagery that still resonates today, so imagine how it would have played when it was released over 100 years ago. In fact, it was apparently banned due to its disturbing content, which includes a still-impressive birthing sequence that calls to mind Frank's rebirth in 'Hellraiser (1987)'. It's a solid effort overall, with a decent pace and an appropriate atmosphere. 6/10.

Silent short loaded with ghastly imagery

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 19 July 2016]

This short has a place in film history, due to the fact that it is the first filmed version of the FRANKENSTEIN story. The piece will be familiar to any horror fan, with the creator making his creature which then terrorises lover Elizabeth.

The acting is over the top and the film is crudely simple, yet it holds a certain charm due to the period in which it was made. Although the special effects are extremely primitive, there is a spooky moment of a flesh-covered skeleton waving at Frankenstein out of a creation bath.

The Monster is a strange looking beast, played in a stilted manner typical of the era by Charles Ogle, and its appearance is unlike any other screen monster, the bushy hair and dirty clothing a total contrast to Karloff's black-clad and deathly pale figure. Although this film is too short to summon up anything other than some ghastly imagery and a few moments of atmosphere, it's a must for horror fans interested in the evolution of the genre.

The cinematic debut of a pop culture icon

[ToxicJug · 7/10 · 23 December 2020]

Frankenstein (1910) is often forgotten about being that it's competition is Boris Karloff's iconic take on the monster from the 1930s. While this film is Frankensteins "official" film debut, many tend to overlook it which is a shame. This film is genuinely creepy to me and manages to freak me out with its intense music alone, not to mention the frightening imagry that can be seen especially for the time of this Era of filmmaking. While this film holds up just about as well as you'd expect a silent film that's well over 100 years old to hold up, it is still a very important film in the history of cinema none the less.

The Very First Frankenstein Movie

[springfieldrental · 6/10 · 16 February 2021]

There are listed 112 movies on or dealing with Frankenstein and his monster. The very first film on Frankenstein was Edison Studio's "Frankenstein," released March 1910. Using the basis of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel, this J. Searle Dawley written and directed film goes more for the psychological aspects of the monster and his creator rather than the true horror killings of the book.

Unlike its successors, this debut of Frankenstein has the monster created not from body parts but chemically-prepared and made from scratch. The monster then rises up behind a sealed room rather than electrically charged on a gurney like we're familiar with in the 1931 classic. And instead of the monster running amok throughout the countryside terrorizing the villagers, the Frankenstein monster here exists largely in its creator's imagination. Many credit this movie as the first horror film in cinema. They may be correct in labeling the movie as the first existing horror production that can be viewed, but the first acknowledge horror movie made was William Selig's 1908 sixteen-minute "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as well as the Sidney Olcott's version of Dr. Jekyll in the same year. Both films, however, are lost.

1910's "Frankenstein" was considered lost for decades until emerging from a private collection in the mid-1970's. Only forty copies of the movie had been made by Edison Studios, and once they were shown, the reels were sent back to the studio to be melted down for the films' silver content--all except for one. Somehow a solitary reel was saved and remained practically in the dustbin until an inheritor of the movie eventually publicized its existence. Thanks for recent restorations, "Frankenstein," the grandfather of them all, can now be seen.

Before Universal made Frankenstein what we all know it

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 24 November 2016]

The two amazing things about this first adaptation of Mary Shelley's book about the "Modern Prometheus" is seeing how Frankenstein is created here, and what he looks like and how he's portrayed. It's impossible to watch this without remembering what James Whale did with showing Dr. Frankenstein's process (aka as Gene Wilder would discover: "How I Did It") where Frankenstein gets the corpse up on a gurney, raises it up to face outside, and with wires and special connectors uses a lightning strike to reanimate the body so "IT'S ALIVE!"

But the thing is this scene, which has influenced so much of popular culture, is a pure creation of Whale and his team - the Shelley book doesn't have a description of how Dr. Frankenstein brings his creation to life, it's skipped over because the good Doctor doesn't want anyone to copy him or to know the secret. So here, we have via J Searle Dawley a unique interpretation of showing this 'creation' had no description in the source: here, it's like the Monster is made in an oven, piece by piece and limb by limb, with the Doctor looking through a tiny window on the monster being made in slow but deliberate fashion. It's a wonderful sequence not just because I can finally get a different perspective on this iconic thing, but because it holds up over a century later as being genuinely creepy - it's a Frankenstein cake or something.

The other thing is the actor playing the Monster, Charles Ogle, who is also not at all how we all picture a Frakenstein Monster to be ala Karloff: this guy looks more like a character that one might've seen being thrown out on his ass from Mos Eisley Cantina in Star Wars: a freakishly haired man with a giant forehead and radical features, hunched over (in a strange way it's almost like Igor, who isn't a character here by the way), and I thought it funny how the character of the Monster seems to be talking with Dr. Frankenstein (because, you know, silent movies did that). He's a true MONSTER, and he makes him a scary but vulnerable thing on screen: he comes into the room at one point and seems like a stumbling child more than some existential threat (the way he hides behind the curtain so the future wife won't see him for example).

So a lot goes in 12 minutes of (today grainy which is what we can get and take) silent film, though it's obviously streamlined to the bare essentials, like a super-Cliff-Notes version of this story. I liked it a lot for being a totally alternative version of this story than seen before, and for fans of Frankenstein I highly recommend it.

Nice

[rosco-61834 · 7/10 · 19 September 2018]

This film or short film doesn't have a complete history like other versions, but, it have things like the feelings of the monster and the problems of Victor F., etc. Making this tape one of the most outstanding among many of them.

Sometimes being the first just isn't enough

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 15 July 2015]

This Frankenstein version is no less than 105 years old and probably the oldest one existing on screen. The writer and director is J. Searle Dawley and all in all he did a good job. There is just one problem with it. This is horror and the class of a horror film is usually measured by how scared you get watching the film. And I was not scared at all watching these 13 minutes. The makeup on the monster was pretty spectacular, but he looked really more like a mix of human and lion and I don't know. That's really not the way I imagines Frankenstein's monster. Anyway, this is black-and-white (tinted) and a silent film, even if they added music for it later on. If you love horror films, this one is worth a watch for historic reasons, otherwise you really don't need to give it a go. You're not missing much.

"I have discovered the secret of life and death, and in a few hours I shall create into life the most perfect human being that the world has yet known."

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 25 March 2007]

The first adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic horror novel, 'Frankenstein,' this 16 minute short by Edison Studios remains a hidden cinematic gem, brimming with imagination and clever production values for its day. The film was considered long-lost for many decades, the only remaining traces of its existence emerging in 1963, when a plot description and stills were discovered in an old Edison film catalogue. However, in the mid-1970s, it was revealed that a Wisconsin film collector, Alois F. Dettlaff, had been sitting on a print of the film since the 1950s, unaware of its rarity. Though deteriorated to a certain extent, the print was completely viewable, and included the original tints and titles. Nowadays, with the advent of the internet and the digital age, "Frankenstein" (1910) can be seen and enjoyed by a wider audience of film buffs.

Though keeping with Mary Shelley's basic premise, the film deviates quite significantly from the source material. A young, brilliant student, Victor Frankenstein (Augustus Phillips), returns from college, fascinated with the concepts of life and death. It isn't long before he has discovered the secret of life, and so he attempts to create the "most perfect human being that the world has yet known." Unlike later adaptations, this 1910 version is unique in that it is the only film in which the Monster is truly created; as opposed to being constructed from various assorted body parts, he is formed from a bubbling mixture of chemicals or "potions." The birth of the Monster itself is a surprisingly frightening spectacle. As Frankenstein observes expectantly through a hole in the chamber, the hideously-disfigured shadow of the Monster rises ominously from the fiery cauldron, wreathed in flames and flailing violently amidst the heat. This scene was created by filming a monster-dummy burning, and then playing the footage in reverse. The look of sheer terror upon Frankenstein's face, as he realises that his experiment has gone so horribly wrong, memorably signposts the beginning of cinematic horror – a terrifying and exciting genre has just been born.

The Monster (Charles Ogle) breaks free from its fiery prison, and Frankenstein flees in horror. As the stunned scientist gathers his nerves on the bed, the Monster emerges from behind a curtain, and we receive our first solid glimpse of the creature. The use of makeup effects is stunning, and the Monster, somewhat reminiscent of John Hurt's "The Elephant Man" Merrick (1980), is revealed to be a non-violent creature, attempting in vain to comfort his master and creator. As Frankenstein faints to the floor, his Monster retreats out of view. Some time later, Frankenstein returns to his home to marry his sweetheart, Elizabeth (Mary Fuller). To his horror, however, his faithful Monster, driven by love and devotion, has followed him home. There is a poignant moment in the film when, during a violent scuffle between the two, the Monster glances up to peer at his own reflection in the mirror. Horror-stricken by his appearance, the Monster recoils from the reflection and flees the room.

The film's carefully-planned final scene, played out in front of the same mirror, is also very memorable. Rejected for the final time by his "father," the hideous Monster stands before the mirror with its arms wide, as if imploring the reflection to consume him. He eventually fades from existence, though we can still clearly see his likeness in the mirror's reflection. Frankenstein rushes into the room and peers into the mirror, stunned to discover, not his own likeness, but that of his Monster, suggesting the tantalising possibility that his Monster represents the "evil" side of the scientists' personality, the monster within the man, almost as in the "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde," by Robert Louis Stevenson (1886). Welcome to the horror genre!

(UPDATE: I've since discovered the existence of an earlier horror film, Otis Turner's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1908)." I am unable to find a copy of it, though...)

Frankie comes to the screen

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 26 July 2018]

The very first screen adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel only contains the most important scenes, and even depicts the doctor using chemicals to create the monster! 1910's "Frankenstein" will look quite dated to us in the 21st century, but it's still worth seeing as a historical reference. The monster looks like Danny DeVito as the Penguin in "Batman Returns" (remember, this was 21 years before the modern image of Frankenstein's monster came about).

Not any sort of masterpiece, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Of interest only to cinema fanatics or historians

[arturmachado-29588 · 4/10 · 23 August 2017]

Being a film so old that it is a mark and part of the cinema history, I know I should be more benevolent in my evaluation, but this film only served the greedy interests of Thomas Edison and 15 minutes are not enough to report the Frankenstein story. Having such a tycoon and his own film studio behind it, I expected something much better produced, reported and detailed. I know it was the beginning of cinema and somehow it had to start somewhere so this adaptation would be made sooner or later, but I did not find anything scary or environmental, unlike the 1931 version, but that's another story. Even the performances are too theatrical and comical, and the monster looks more like a vagabond from the woods than some scary creature. The scene of the creation of the monster in the cauldron, yes, was innovative for the time but nothing more. Of interest only to cinema fanatics or historians.