IMDb RATING
6.4/10
5.1K
YOUR RATING
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.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.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.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Mary Fuller
- Elizabeth
- (uncredited)
Charles Ogle
- The Monster
- (uncredited)
Augustus Phillips
- Frankenstein
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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...
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...
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!...
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!...
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.
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.
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.
Frankenstein Through the Years
Frankenstein Through the Years
Take a closer look at some of the iconic potrayals of this misunderstood monster, from Boris Karloff to Jacob Elordi.
Did you know
- TriviaSince its original release, the film had been listed as missing. No copies of it were known to exist. An original nitrate print finally turned up in Wisconsin in the mid-1970s.
- ConnectionsEdited into I Am Your Father (2015)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Frankenstein the First
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 16m
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content