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...
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...