Recensioni degli utenti

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Plot

The first filmed version of Frankenstein. The young doctor discovers the secret of life, which he uses to create a perfect human. Things do not go according to plan

Cast

Unfamiliar with those involved.

Verdict

I'm somewhat of a completionist and I went through a spate of watching every single Frankenstein adaptation from the loyal to the comedic to the just plain odd and naturally being that this is the first ever filmed version is where I began.

Now when it comes to films from this period you do of course need to look at them very differently, it's not that you must lower your expectations as that's rather ignorant it's that you must adjust them and respect the limitations of the time and take it for what it is.

There are plenty of both shorts and features from this period I've enjoyed greatly and amongst the Frankenstein adaptations were some masterworks but this alas is not one of them.

I'm not a fan of silent cinema at the best of times, I do prefer it when a musical score is placed over them but even then I tend to find their choices very distracting and usually ill fitting.

Frankenstein here is undeniably historic, unquestionably a pivotal moment in cinema history but let's not create a bias for ourselves and convince one another that means that it's good.

Frankenstein (1910) is bland, ugly and lacks entertainment value in this age.

Rants

I think that's something people need to get past, just because a movie is a "Classic" or even "Cult" doesn't mean it's good by default. People raise such things as if they're untouchable and cannot be criticized, they can and they should be. Nothing should be as such, nothing should be free from subjectivity.

The Good

Undeniably a breakthrough for its time

The Bad

Boring Questionable score Nothing more than a forgettable stepping stone.

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

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 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...

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.

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.

Even though this is the first known film adaptation of Frankenstein, it still came out almost 100 years after Mary Shelly's novel was published. This self-professed liberal adaptation of the story is only 12 minutes long, which means that a lot of the story is cut out and some plot points were changed. What really impressed me, though, is the creation scene. It's delightfully horrific and features what must have been cutting-edge special effects for 1910. I bet that scene thrilled audiences who watched it back then. This is a simple movie, but it was interesting to see the first Frankenstein film.

Imagine yourself watching this in 1910. This Edison production features a terribly emotional Dr. Frankenstein who goes off to school and comes back with the idea of creating life. In a series of sequences moving forward in time, we see the monster born out of a vat as Dr. F looks through an opening in an enclosure. Unfortunately, what he thought would be a new Prometheus is a big ugly lunk with huge hands and feet and hair all deranged. He comes to know quickly that he isn't going to fit in very well. As usual, Frankenstein, the ultimate careless arrogant jerk, can only flop around in despair at what he has created. The monster runs off and everything is hunky dory for the time being. But the big guy keeps coming back. How the monster is ultimately dealt with is absurd and Frankenstein gets way more than he deserves.

While aesthetically this film leaves a lot to be desired, for 1910 it's actually a very good film with decent special effects. Sure, if made just a decade later the film would have been A LOT better, but for 1910 it's just fine. And it's super important to the history of film as this recently re-discovered film is the earliest horror film known. For that reason alone it is a great and super important film.

Unfortunately, I knew that the story itself would be a problem when the movie began because it said it was a "liberal interpretation" of the original Mary Shelley story. In other words, it bore almost no similarity to the story! This unfortunately set the pattern that has persisted and the central message to the book is completely forgotten! As an interpretation of a literary classic, it truly stinks! The "monster" in the story originally was probably the doctor himself and the creation was evil only as a result of many stupid choices made by the doctor.

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.

Edison's production of Shelley's _Frankenstein_ is, for its time, groundbreaking. While it doesn't have the ingenuity of some of its predecessors, _A Trip to the Moon_ comes to mind, it is nonetheless a short that attempts to make effective use of lighting, smoke, and splicing. Thematically, it offers a Faustian approach to Victor Frankenstein. The actor who portrayed the Monster was, of course, overacting and part of that is due to the fact that this film is a silent feature that relies more on physical out-takes than dramatic monologues. I gave the film 9 out of 10, basing most of this score upon its clever use of effects and interesting (although only somewhat effective) use of themes.