Frankenstein

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

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.

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.

Having watched this silent, short version of FRANKENSTEIN several times, it is obviously of both artistic and historic interest / value. It's wonderful to see what was done so long ago on film!

The special effects are fantastic, taking into account the vintage and what was available at that time. The creation scene is well-realized, getting the point across that a monster is in the making, and the understandably scant story is sufficient.

Hell, considering some of the lemons that have rolled out of "modern" Hollywood over the years, this movie is quite an achievement!...

I'm putting this on my list of films you must see. It is short and at first glance completely uninteresting.

But look again.

Here's what happens: Young Frankenstein goes to college where he discovers the secret of life. Interesting that the filmmakers would think it cinematic to watch a man think and then have a eureka moment. The rest of the thing is highly cinematic (or so we would judge today) in all its choices, so this is the first remarkable event of the thing.

Then we get to see him create the creature. No lightning and dials here, instead a MacBethian cauldron in a sealed chamber. He peeks through a hole and as he does, we see the creature form. Its a remarkable effect for the time. I imagine it was done by playing backwards a film of a manikin being dissolved by acid. Here's the second interesting event.

You know, witchcraft wasn't associated with cauldrons until MacBeth. And this opens up a whole world of possibilities of magic and film along the lines of the magic of Shakespeare. Unfortunately by the 30s this was all but extinguished by the association of magic 9and science) with technological gismos that spark, have dials and gages, the cauldron image relegated to bubbling flasks.

But then — after some business with the new wife which is a bit confusing if you don't know the story — we have the bit with the mirror. This trick, friends is why I am directing you to this.

The existence of the mirror is introduced early and is linked to the image of the wife, who we see first as a reflection.

Then the mirror plays a role as the monster encounters himself and is appalled.

Then, later, the monster gets depressed ("overcome by love") and decides to kill himself. He does so by standing in front of the mirror and willing himself out of existence. First, he disappears but his image in the mirror remains.

The scientist comes in and sees the monster in the mirror. Then after the monster's image acknowledges the scientist's presence, it too disappears and is replaced by the normal reflection of the man.

Now, this requires a pretty sophisticated cinematic logic of about 100 years ago, and of a completely new medium. So radically new. The filmmaker clearly thought this would make sense to the viewer. Think about this a minute. Nowadays effects like this are automatic for most filmmakers because the vocabulary is so solidly settled.

But then (and with our best visionaries today) the filmmaker had to decide from scratch the cinematic notion to be used.

Here's the folding notion: the relationship between the scientist and his monster is folded into the notion of us the viewers seeing images in a magical lookingglass. And further into the magical cauldron.

Wow. Who is being this clever today?

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.