Studio: Edison. Runtime: 12 mins Director: J. Searle Dawley. Main Cast: Charles Stanton Ogle, Augustus Phillips, Mary Fuller.
Despite Frankenstein being an 1818 book, so much of what we think about Frankenstein or his monster today comes from the 1931 movie version. That film is a major influence on how we visually picture anything from the classic horror tale, even for those who have never seen it. Because of this it may come as a shock to a modern audience to watch the 1910 film version of the classic tale. Despite this jarring-ness though there is a lot to like about this movie.
Though the opening title of those movie advertises it as "a liberal adaption from Mrs. Shelley's famous story for Edson production," the story is still very recognizable. A scientist named Frankenstein sets out to create life. Once he creates a living creature he is horrified by its ghastly appearance and flees in terror. After this the creature sets out to get revenge on his creator.
While this film may seem mild for modern horror movie fans, it still has an eerie feel to it that is very effective. There is even one brief scene that is still quite creepy today. This is the scene of the creature forming, starting with a really creepy looking skeleton emerging and dissolving into the design the creature will have for the rest of the film. This scene while brief is fine example of horror filmmaking. The design of the creature is wonderful. Though he does not look like how we picture the character today (thanks again to the 1931 movie version), he is effectively creepy and other worldly. The sets in this film are also wonderful giving the movie a delightfully atmospheric feel.
While telling the story of Frankenstein in this short of a runtime may keep it from having the depth or complexities that later feature film versions may have, this film does a surprisingly good job considering. Condensing a novel or a stage play to a short runtime was quite frequent at this time, before feature length films became the main part of a movie program. So at the time of this film's release audiences would have accepted this as a normal practice. To a modern audience this film holds up better than many of its similar contemporaries. Many of these films required a previous knowledge of the source material (it was a time when, let us be honest, many people were better read) and simply showed popular scenes from the story. This movie competently tells a story itself and if someone has never read the book, they will still be able to understand the story easily. Today when film adaptions are excepted to tell a cohesive story from start to finish (whether it is faithful or not), this movie feels more accessible to modern audiences.
Despite Frankenstein being an 1818 book, so much of what we think about Frankenstein or his monster today comes from the 1931 movie version. That film is a major influence on how we visually picture anything from the classic horror tale, even for those who have never seen it. Because of this it may come as a shock to a modern audience to watch the 1910 film version of the classic tale. Despite this jarring-ness though there is a lot to like about this movie.
Though the opening title of those movie advertises it as "a liberal adaption from Mrs. Shelley's famous story for Edson production," the story is still very recognizable. A scientist named Frankenstein sets out to create life. Once he creates a living creature he is horrified by its ghastly appearance and flees in terror. After this the creature sets out to get revenge on his creator.
While this film may seem mild for modern horror movie fans, it still has an eerie feel to it that is very effective. There is even one brief scene that is still quite creepy today. This is the scene of the creature forming, starting with a really creepy looking skeleton emerging and dissolving into the design the creature will have for the rest of the film. This scene while brief is fine example of horror filmmaking. The design of the creature is wonderful. Though he does not look like how we picture the character today (thanks again to the 1931 movie version), he is effectively creepy and other worldly. The sets in this film are also wonderful giving the movie a delightfully atmospheric feel.
While telling the story of Frankenstein in this short of a runtime may keep it from having the depth or complexities that later feature film versions may have, this film does a surprisingly good job considering. Condensing a novel or a stage play to a short runtime was quite frequent at this time, before feature length films became the main part of a movie program. So at the time of this film's release audiences would have accepted this as a normal practice. To a modern audience this film holds up better than many of its similar contemporaries. Many of these films required a previous knowledge of the source material (it was a time when, let us be honest, many people were better read) and simply showed popular scenes from the story. This movie competently tells a story itself and if someone has never read the book, they will still be able to understand the story easily. Today when film adaptions are excepted to tell a cohesive story from start to finish (whether it is faithful or not), this movie feels more accessible to modern audiences.
This film was directed by J. Searle Dawley, who was one of the finest directors at the Edison Studio at this time. Here he would work on some truly wonderful films including a similarly well done short film version of A Christmas Carol (1910). His work after leaving Edison is also fantastic. Of special note is his movies with actress Marguerite Clarke, which would include Snow White (1916) and Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1918). He also directed The Old Monk’s Tale (1913), which has the first known appearance of silent movie legend, Harold Lloyd. Charles Ogle, who played the creature, had a pretty good film career himself. He would appear in Dawley’s A Christmas Carol (1910), with Mary Pickford in Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1917), in James Cruze’s landmark western The Covered Wagon (1923), in a popular adaptation of Treasure Island (1920) and in Cecil B DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1923). Though Mary Fuller is not as well remembered today as she should be by 1914, she was rivaling Mary Pickford in popularity. Strangely though by 1917 she could not get a job either in the movies or on stage.
This film can be found on YouTube.
This film can be found on YouTube.
No comments:
Post a Comment