There’s literally been hundreds of film adaptations of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. Everyone from James Whale to Terrence Fisher to Paul Morrissey to Kenneth Branagh to Marcus Nispel has taken a shot at interpreting the legend and the monster’s been played by everyone from Boris Karloff to Christopher Lee to Robert De Niro to Srdjan Zelenovic (who was pretty freaking hot and yummy for a creature stitched together out of random corpses in Flesh for Frankenstein).
However, the very first cinematic version of Frankenstein came out in 1910. Produced by Thomas Edison’s film company, this 10-minute, silent film starred an actor named Charles Ogle as the monster. Frankenstein, himself, was played by Augustus Phillips while his fiancée was played by Mary Fuller. The film was directed by a fellow known as J. Searle Dawley. Dawley reportedly directed over a hundred silent films and most of them are lost to history.
For about 6 decades, it was assumed that Dawley’s Frankenstein was lost as well. However, in the mid-70s, it turned out that one remaining print of the film still existed and was apparently sitting up in someone’s attic in Wisconsin. It also turned out that the film was still in viewable condition.
And now, thanks to a combination of YouTube and the fact that every movie made before 1922 is now in the public domain, I’ve had the opportunity to see this movie for free and even better, here’s your chance to see it for free. Understand that when I say better, I’m speaking from the point of view of someone who is fascinated by history in general and cinematic history in specific. In many ways, this film epitomizes everything that makes it difficult for modern audiences to appreciate the excitement once generated by silent film. The acting is overly theatrical and watching the film makes you appreciate the eventual development of the dolly shot and the zoom lens even more. Add to that, the music that was selected to accompany this video is way too obvious and heavy-handed. I would suggest, before watching, that you mute the video and put your own preferred music on instead.
Still, the film does have a lot of historic interest. I don’t think you can truly judge and appreciate the films of today unless you know something about the films of the past. Watching a movie like the 1910 Frankenstein not only makes you realize how far films have come as an art form but also how much of the medium’s inherent earnestness has been lost with each advance in technology.
Anyway, with all that said, here is the 1910 version of Frankenstein…
Through the Shattered Lens 
I actually love watching the early silent film-era horror films. I still consider the silent film Phantom of the Opera as one of the best horror films ever made.
I understand what you mean by muting the video. I ended up just playing some drone metal from Sunn O))) to score the video. Much, much better experience.
LikeLike
This is great. It is neat to see how they handled the presentation of certain occurrences with the effects technology available at the time – i.e. – the creation and the disappearance of the creature.
Do you know if the gold and blue colorations were part of the original film production (I assume via the use of filters), or if they are the result of some later alteration or aberration?
Believe it or not, there was a very short horror film made in 1896 – “La Manoir du Diable” (The Devilâs Castle). Even better , it has been preserved in digital form. It is only about 3 minutes long, but is quite entertaining, and features some surprisingly clever camera work to achieve several cool visual effects.
I agree with Arleigh about the Lon Chaney version of “The Phantom Of The opera”. Also classic and fantastic is the 1922 “Nosferatu”. Actor Max Schreck is one creepy vampire – surreally non-human yet “realistic”-looking – so much so that there was a rumor that he actually was a vampire hired for the role. (Check out “Shadow Of The Vampire” for a fun fictional account of that bit of apocrypha.) And there are some really effective scenes, like those on the ship bringing the vampire to America. It must have scared the hell out of audiences in 1922.
LikeLike
The tinting was actually a part of the original film. Remarkably, this previously “lost” film was apparently found in pretty good shape despite spending about 50 years sitting up in someone’s attic. The only thing that was added or “fixed” for the YouTube video was that terrible score that plays in the background. Bleh. I hate it when people try to improve a silent film clip by tacking on a random selection of music. There’s quite a few YouTubers who have decided to post some of Andy Warhol’s famous screen tests online but with music playing the background because apparently, there’s something wrong the sound of silence. Never mind, of course, that the inclusion of sound totally alters the filmmaker’s original intent in making the film in the first place.
I agree with you about Nosferatu and Max Schreck, it’s surprising how effective this film is, especially considering how often clips from it seem to turn up in lesser horror films. Seriously, I’ve lost track of how many horror films (especially slasher films) have featured a quick cut of Nosferatu playing on a television somewhere. To a large extent, I’m sure that’s because Nosferatu is in the public domain and therefore, it can be
exploitedused for free. But despite the fact that these clips usually show up in lesser films, it hasn’t diminished the impact of the original. I happen to like Herzog’s version of Nosferatu as well but the original remains one of the top ten vampire films ever made. I also like (quite a lot) Shadow of the Vampire. I caught it on cable about three years ago and fell in love with the whole idea behind it. 🙂LikeLike
I regard after-the-fact sound addition (to films intended to be truly silent) the same way as “colorized” black and white films – it’s aggravating. Those directors knew how to use light and shadow for specific effect, just as Warhol used silence. Leave it alone.
I’ve read only good things about the 1979 “Nosferatu” remake – it’s on my must-see list. And I’m glad you have seen and enjoyed “Shadow Of The Vampire”. It didn’t seem to get much attention, but I thought it was brilliant. Willem Dafoe was remarkable as Schreck.
LikeLike