Imagine how striking the creation of the creature must have been to audiences that had seen little in the way of "special effects." Just burning a puppet and playing the film backwards was cutting-edge cinematography.
Actually, in Paris there was the Grand Guignol, which used makeup and special effects to create horrifying tableaus. But maybe you are right for U.S. audience reactions.
@@1earflapping yes, I was about to say just that. I’d also mention that HUGE advancements in stage special effects were made in the 19th century, with theater companies going to great lengths to out-do one another in that regard. Everything from Broadway to community theaters to river showboats and circuses was affected by the trend which I believe was called realism. Any list of famous examples would include the several popular stage adaptations of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. The stage-plays invariably called for very elaborate renderings of certain scenes, such as Eliza’s escape across the frozen Ohio River. When this film was released, many in the audiences would have seen very elaborate Grand Guignol stage productions of ‘Frankenstein’ and ‘Dracula’ with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects. So, many of the folks watching this film would have had at least some basis, however flawed, for judging its special effects.
This is one of those films that was thought to be lost for decades, until a film collector purchased a print in the early 1950's. He didn't realize it's value until several years later. It was revealed to the public in the mid 70's.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_(1910_film)#Rediscovery_and_preservation
She wrote amazingly well, parts of her book still feel incredibly modern. Compared to say, Dracula, which is mostly a bunch of men pissing about in drawing rooms, circle-jerking with courteous language, whilst big D is literally in the room next door fang-shagging the woman they are supposed to be protecting. The difference in the level of craft is amazing.
The creation of the monster is way more creapy than most of the "Horror movies" you see today in cinemas. And we are talking here about a simple rewind of a scene showing a burning life size doll.
Yet it's too bad that with more and more adaptations Hollywood starts to forget the whole point of Frankenstein, it's now a souless icon, just remade again and again, it's kinda funny how just like in the book, man turns out to be the real soulless creature.
Just imagine it’s 1910 and this comes out No Great War has even happened yet so many people aren’t used to disaster or horror such as this I wish horror was still as simple as it once was
When you say depictions do you mean adaptations? It sounds like you may be referring to the monster, but as everyone should know, Frankenstein is the scientist not the monster who had no name.
The evolution of movies is as always amazing to me. From early silent movies that were seemingly just a series of establishing shots with a fixed camera to late teens where movies toyed with the notion of visual narrative to the bursting epics of the 20s- and the sound snapback of the early 30s that because of technical limitations sent filmmaking back decades but only for a few years.
Barely fifteen minutes long, and it's still a masterpiece. The world's first film adaptation of my favorite book, the movie is more accurate than it needed to be. The makeup is effective and the usage of Danse Macabre (no a doubt modern choice) is downright creepy. But the absolute scariest part of the film is the insinuation that the Monster is a reflection of Frankenstein; that we all have a hideous creature within us. And that, my friends, is scary. All this from a fifteen minute movie.
The book was goreier and he used lightning too but it was a little boring so I understand adding action sequences and a creepy hunchback. Not saying they should have done it.
I like the monster better in the book, his journey is much more tragic. His creator abandons him and is terrified by him, he scares everyone he sees and he can't find a place in the world
1931 has its very special own charm, remember it is based on a theatre play so it explains all the theatrical vibe it emitts as well as its many noticable differences with the book.
The movie is short, the Thomas Edison company, who made this, only references it was made. Last I heard that any full sets of all Edison's films did not include this. It was put out on dvd several years ago. I bought 2. There is a later silent Frankenstein film lost to time. Only the lobby card exists.
I still remember being obsessed with classic horror movies in 3rd grade, seeing a picture of the monster from this movie in a book, and wanting to see it so badly yet I could never find a copy. I'm glad I can watch it now.
I too remember reading about this in a horror magazine from the U.S. mid 70's -I was around 13/14 loved the classics got the kits - posters in fact my bedroom was like the kids on the cover of creepshow dvd ! - And I turned out OK ...
Watching world's first horror film in 2024, where the world of cinematography has reached today !! Without these innovators it would have been impossible. This is not just a silent movie. It's mankind's heritage in visual anthropology. Silent movies have their own charm. 1910 was exciting for Halley's comet too and slowly technology was taking off...cars, flights, ships
This was good! The scene with the birth of the monster creeped me out, and the ending with the mirror reflection is great in a symbolic way. Thanks for uploading!
Excellent remastering on what HAS to have been a challenging piece of film, good job and thanks. I have never seen a treatment like this one, very creative, very interesting and quite good. We have to wonder what motion pictures would be like today if the Edison company had invested more time and money at this early stage of the game. I think this was outstanding!
Given its 14-minute run time, this is actually a pretty faithful adaptation. It is set in the 18th century (unlike many film adaptations that modernize the setting), the monster's creation does not fall into the trap of having been stitched together (nowhere in Shelley's book does it say that Victor stitched the creature together from body parts of different people -- that is a Hollywood invention), the creature largely fits his description (except that he is not eight feet tall), ... but the ending was just plain NUTS!
didn't the book say he literally went to the church yard to dig up body parts or something? i might've made that part up because of Hollywood influence but i do remember something along those lines.
@@Cat_is_dead888 Yes, but for"raw materials." It never says that he stitched parts together. In fact, it says he made the creature to be oversized so that it would be easier to work. Obviously, if all he did was stitch parts together, then he must have had several 8-foot tall corpses to work with.
@@BatMite19 i see, well i went back to read that part and since it doesn't say how he connected the materials, i do understand why the best option comes to mind is stitching, since that's how you connect raw flesh after surgeries and all. it would be interesting to think of other options, but i doubt there are many practical ones. I can think of maybe 3; (don't read if you're uncomfortable by gore and details) glueing- which idk what kind of glue they had in 1818, or welding it with fire, but that could damage the materials. last option but coolest one is that he found base materials, and made kind of a "rebirth" process, like in this movie, or in a glass tank, to somehow make them connect organically, grow taller and grow it's own hair and what's not. i think that'd be more monstrous, other than zombified, and explains better his utter ugliness and distortion. otherwise he'd just look more like a huge corpse, or a zombie. which is ugly, but not as monstrous as a zombie that went through a rebirth process in a jar.
@@Cat_is_dead888 Since Shelley spent so few words on the process, I think she wanted it to be vague and mysterious. Remember, Victor dabbled not only in science but also alchemy. Anyway, the more she would have tried to describe it, the less plausible it would have seemed.
@@BatMite19 i totally agree, she even adresses the matter by Victor saying he will bury the secret with him. but since the biggest mystery in the book is meant to be unsolvable, attempting to solve it is part of the fun in my opinion. she left it to our own imagination, so we should use our imagination. that's the key to original ideas in movie adaptations (: even though,, i think the stitches are iconic for a reason haha
I'm impressed by the opulent production and costumes. Money, time and imagination were put into it. Ogle's monster seems to look like Elsa Lanchester's Bride after a really tiring party. Still, I see a resemblance with David Prouse's monster in "Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell." The Freudian ending portends "Forbidden Planet." This film is more than just a historical oddity. It's a good film all to itself.
love it! thank you for this wonderful collection..I will always love the oldies..silents and all...It takes me to a place I want to go and always have...Somewhere else....:) another time. Ever since I was a kid....Thanks again!
Wow! The beginnings of cinema! I think that cinema films is the only art that has the duty to evolve technically, and has evolved a lot in the last 100 years. Only the smell in the scenes. :)
The Frankenstein monster always scared the crap out of me when I was a kid. It didn't matter who was playing him or what movie it was. Scared me shitless but I loved my monster movies! Anyway, I don't remember how I saw this original monster (in some movie book, I guess) and, after I got over my confusion ("where's his flat head?"), I was positively freaked out! That was 40 years ago, and I still think that thing is scary!
AJAXKID123 I too saw a photograph of the monster from this film in a book like you did. I believe it was called "Movie Villains," or at least words to that effect. I noticed that this version of the Frankenstein story takes some artistic liberties with the original tale. For example, in the film, Frankenstein creates the creature by mixing a formula in a large pot over a fire; in the book by Mary Shelley, he puts his creation together from bits and pieces of corpses that he steals from graves and morgues and the like. At the end of the movie, the monster disappears after seeing himself in a mirror, thus allowing his creator to live happily ever after with his bride. In the book, the monster kills Mrs. Frankenstein as well as other friends and relatives of his inventor. Victor Frankenstein (his first name is never mentioned in this film, and neither is that of his new wife, Elizabeth) then vows to find the creature and destroy him. For months, he trails him practically all over the world, finally tracing him to the Artic, where he is picked up by the crew of a ship. By this time, however, he is too exhausted to go on with the chase and he dies. Incredibly enough, the monster appears on the ship; he speaks to his dead master, almost with pity in his voice. He then tells the captain of the ship that since there's no place in the world for such as he, his only option is to destroy himself by building a funeral pyre and throwing himself on it. He then leaves the ship for that purpose and, as the last words of the book says, he is "soon borne away by the sea and lost in darkness and distance."
I was interested in the way they solved the problem of filming opposite ends of a room with a fixed camera by using a mirror. When sound came along they had a similar problem with the microphone, and often gathered the actors into a tight grouping for delivering dialogue.
It could just be me reading too much into it but this actually seems to be a mashup of both _Frankenstein_ and _The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde_ Most of the story is obviously taken from Frankenstein but the idea of the monster being created through a chemical mixture, rather than assembling corpse body parts and being influenced by the evil in it’s creators mind seems to be more in tune with the Jekyll/Hyde story. Either way it is a remarkable piece of cinema for its day.
I thought that too. The ending is actually quite interesting from that point of view. Does Frankenstein see his own evil reflected in the mirror of his creation and so destroy it.
I think this version of The Monster was like a physical manifestation of Victor's hate and jealously for... well, everything really. And after he got married with Elizabeth, he managed to discover true love and put his evil aside, consequentially erasing The Monster from existence.
Wishing the dialogue cards had been included - would have added another 20 minutes to the movie and also given some insight into the writers' thoughts. Good to see this, though.
Just watched the Roger Corman version before finding this amazing short movie - I rememeber reading about this when I was around 14 in one of those horror books inported from the U.S. - Yes I was one of those young horrible horror fans - kits and all ! -And fogotton all about it until stumbling on it here !!! Thanks for sharing
The creature was an innocent newborn, superior in intellect and physicality to humans but hideous in appearance. Frankenstein cowardly ran from it and it wandered off. Encounters with humans formed it into a monster. Shelly's novel was about human nature. I read it.
@@AJAXKID123 There's no shame in that; it's totally possible to love the story but find the language a bit boring - I'm the same with Dracula. It's probably best not to force yourself to read the book if you aren't enjoying it, it'll just spoil the experience. Maybe given more time your taste will change a bit and you'll enjoy it more, who knows, but at least we have these amazing film adaptations either way
micahcareyfilms The copyright notice is on all of the title cards throughout the film indicating that they are what is copyrighted. The film is in public domain, but if someone else used this copy of Frankenstein including the inserts then that person would be using The Video Cellar's work which isn't in the public domain. The same thing with music, this being a silent production no music is included so any music you hear has been added on by someone else and could fall under the domain of copyrighted material. In this case, the music used is royalty-free from Kevin MacLeod at incompetech.com.
One has to wonder if Edison himself actually handled this print, or viewed it. Still if this film survived for 106 years then there's hope that London After Midnight might still be out there
Edison sent contact prints of his negatives to the Library of Congress to copyright his works. Those paper copies have been scanned and survived as many nitrate film prints didn't.
You got that all wrong! Alois Detlaff came into possession of a nitrate print in the 1950's and being a retired projectionist, he knew how to care for the print which is the source for the video above. I'm not sure what you are talking about, but he didn't send prints of every film frame! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
And we all thought the one from 31 with Boris Karloff was a classic ! Now this is cinematic history at it's best! (Just for the history itself because it's so damn old and actually made).
He is scarier than the 1931 Boris Karloff Frankenstein. The makeup is better and to be completely honest I feel kinda uneasy watching this, it's funny how this is one of the more scarier things I've seen in a while.
+Ratfink820 Well there was less constriction and censoring back then-- in fact I'm willing to bet none, since this was a new medium. The costume really reminds me of Nosferatu. As a special effects enthusiast, the fire scene her was just as good as the disappearing Nosferatu.
100 years later, for all the world to enjoy and see how life was like in this time. Before even our grandparents' time and their time before that! Lol! Me, born in the 1990s, acknowledges....
Yeah it was actually deemed to Scary and banned for a while , but like TBH the prop of when Frankenstein's Monster was being born was kinda spoopy it was like a melty Skeleton
@@arjunsurana8386 I remember watching the first full motion video made in our movie's class and hearing how everyone ran away from the screen since it was pretty much a recording of a train moving towards the camera but I think the camera was a bit to the right of the train. Find it hilarious how this was realistic for people while now we have VR technology and video games which can get scary to a point where you just quit after half an hour and make little progress.
Love the ending. Frankenstein: "Honey! Everything's fine now. Turns out that was me the whole time!" Elizabeth: " Yeah. Not helping. Get the f**k out."
I don't understand why Kino didn't include this in their extensive Edison set. It's all over RUclips and yet has never been released officially on DVD.
i dont know why but when I watch old movies like this i always think how every single person that had anything to do with it is long since dead, kinda creepy lol
Monster created by burning a marionette then running film backwards; monster disappears, his image lingers in mirror - this is good stuff! And pretty advanced for its time. I hope a properly restored copy is made someday soon. It could surely be made to look much better.
the monster creation was eerily scary - truly a mess of a creature. 7:35 but what was really impressive was this scene where you see most of the action through the mirror. 9:10 incredibly innovative, interesting, and entertaining film. wonder who really produced and directed this? 🎶〰️〰️ thank you so very much for all these wonderful very first films !! 🎦
This one and the version in "Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell" 1973 stand out most for me as being the most unique representations of him. In this 1910 version you see him as this thing that carries a partial human quality left in him who with limitations develops animalistic behavior to adapt. In Monster from Hell even though he was once a man, he appears more apeish in his physicality but has the raw emotion and consciousness of a human. Other versions just seem too green or lean towards The Mummy. I think Gene Wilder's Frankenstein was the only one who got the closest in being able to teach him to speak.
Crazy to think that back in 1910, this monster scared so many people, now we have movies like A Quiet Place, Don't Breathe, Halloween, Resident Evil, and so many more horror movies, that scare a lot of people. I mean, can you honestly tell me that the scene in A Quiet Place, the birth scene, didn't make you sweat and chew your nails? This made people do exactly that, now we watch in awe what entertainment looked like back then.
I understand. "Nosferatu" is more than 5x as long as this movie. But then they may not have been able to make silent movies even 30 minutes long back in 1910. The silent movies were more 'morality tales' than anything. The monster was a product of the evil of Frankenstein's mind (genius). When Elizabeth's love for him won out, the monster was faced with its own ugliness.
The same procedure of creating the monster was later used in the 1992 version featuring Patrick Bergin as Frankenstein. The monster was created in some sort of breeding/incubation chamber through alchemy instead of stitching up deceased body parts and reviving them through electricity.
Imagine how striking the creation of the creature must have been to audiences that had seen little in the way of "special effects." Just burning a puppet and playing the film backwards was cutting-edge cinematography.
Well, the puppet was ractually there, TYPE O NEGATIVE, so yes, it is much more realistic :v
My thoughts exactly!
Really. It is creative for the time due to the lack of technology.
Actually, in Paris there was the Grand Guignol, which used makeup and special effects to create horrifying tableaus. But maybe you are right for U.S. audience reactions.
@@1earflapping yes, I was about to say just that. I’d also mention that HUGE advancements in stage special effects were made in the 19th century, with theater companies going to great lengths to out-do one another in that regard. Everything from Broadway to community theaters to river showboats and circuses was affected by the trend which I believe was called realism. Any list of famous examples would include the several popular stage adaptations of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. The stage-plays invariably called for very elaborate renderings of certain scenes, such as Eliza’s escape across the frozen Ohio River.
When this film was released, many in the audiences would have seen very elaborate Grand Guignol stage productions of ‘Frankenstein’ and ‘Dracula’ with state-of-the-art (for the time) special effects. So, many of the folks watching this film would have had at least some basis, however flawed, for judging its special effects.
Frankenstein leaves for college.
Two years later Frankenstein has discovered the secret of life.
God I love this thing.
You could learn a lot in college in those days.
Well, why not? After all, the novel is set in good ol' Germany. ;-) Göttingen, Heidelberg, Breslau etc. Universities, though.
Nope it's set in Switzerland :)
asmoth360 Frankenstein was born in Switzerland but studied in Germany.
Education was better back then.
*Victor:* "Life! Life, do you hear?! I have created.... LIFE!!!"
*Skeleton:* Just chillin'
Skeleton: What about me tho
@gspendlove. Yeah, he made no bones about it... Ta-Dom!!
Who else finds it incredible that this movie is 108 years old! Wow!
Me it's so good to know about historical masterpiece movies 😊❤ and also now it's 112 years old 😊
This is one of those films that was thought to be lost for decades, until a film collector purchased a print in the early 1950's. He didn't realize it's value until several years later. It was revealed to the public in the mid 70's.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_(1910_film)#Rediscovery_and_preservation
"Danse Macabre" was an excellent choice for the theme music and score. The music fits the film as if it was composed especially for it!
And its being played on a theatre organ added immeasurably to the effect.
The novel was nearly 100 years old by the time this way made. Really puts it in prospective how far head Shelley was when she wrote it.
I'm amazed too that Shelley wrote a story like that in 1818..........incredible!
She was 21 when the book was published!
Did you mean was made and ahead and perspective? Just wondering.
She wrote amazingly well, parts of her book still feel incredibly modern. Compared to say, Dracula, which is mostly a bunch of men pissing about in drawing rooms, circle-jerking with courteous language, whilst big D is literally in the room next door fang-shagging the woman they are supposed to be protecting. The difference in the level of craft is amazing.
Even dracula wasn't written untila nother 80 years later.
The creation of the monster is way more creapy than most of the "Horror movies" you see today in cinemas. And we are talking here about a simple rewind of a scene showing a burning life size doll.
I don't even know how they rewound footage in mid-film back then!
@@michaelflores9220 they got the tape of the footage and put it in the movie player thing in reverse
I thought it was stop motion.
@@michaelflores9220 Maybe they cut every single frame and glued It back
You should check out Hellraiser. There’s a really similar scene accomplished in a similar way.
200 years of Frankentein in 2018! Thank you so much Mary Shelley!
Moon Door math please
@@R_candy it is 200 years bc of the book. culture pls
@DeprecatingMemes not always
Yet it's too bad that with more and more adaptations Hollywood starts to forget the whole point of Frankenstein, it's now a souless icon, just remade again and again, it's kinda funny how just like in the book, man turns out to be the real soulless creature.
@@b.d6642 Get that same feeling about turning Kong into just another kaiju. They lost the heart of the story.
Just imagine it’s 1910 and this comes out
No Great War has even happened yet so many people aren’t used to disaster or horror such as this
I wish horror was still as simple as it once was
World War U Mean
@@MrSeb81 Back then they called it the Great War most commonly, or even "The War to End All Wars." And then it got a sequel lol.
Horror and disaster didn't start with World War I, Tommy.
What a masterpiece! This has got to be one of the earliest depictions of frankenstein on film. Wonderful to see.
Not just ONE of the earliest. It is in fact the earliest.
When you say depictions do you mean adaptations? It sounds like you may be referring to the monster, but as everyone should know, Frankenstein is the scientist not the monster who had no name.
Adam
@@metalmark9276, the earliest poem I can recall is 'Fleas'- Adam had'm. !
@@TheOldsbfan frankenstein is the last name of both victor frankenstain and his monster adam frankenstein
105 years old today! Respect!
That it is!
109 years
No its 109 years old that today
110
Well if that's true, then now we have 110 years.
Fun fact: Frankenstein (1910) is one of the rarest movies ever made, only one actual copy of it survives, the rest have been lost.
The evolution of movies is as always amazing to me. From early silent movies that were seemingly just a series of establishing shots with a fixed camera to late teens where movies toyed with the notion of visual narrative to the bursting epics of the 20s- and the sound snapback of the early 30s that because of technical limitations sent filmmaking back decades but only for a few years.
Barely fifteen minutes long, and it's still a masterpiece. The world's first film adaptation of my favorite book, the movie is more accurate than it needed to be. The makeup is effective and the usage of Danse Macabre (no a doubt modern choice) is downright creepy. But the absolute scariest part of the film is the insinuation that the Monster is a reflection of Frankenstein; that we all have a hideous creature within us. And that, my friends, is scary. All this from a fifteen minute movie.
💯
It's interesting that a 13 minute silent film is more acurate to the novel than the 1931 Universal flim.
The book was goreier and he used lightning too but it was a little boring so I understand adding action sequences and a creepy hunchback. Not saying they should have done it.
universal is still better
Yeah like the part in the book where the monster is trapped inside of a mirror and then disappears into thin air
I like the monster better in the book, his journey is much more tragic.
His creator abandons him and is terrified by him, he scares everyone he sees and he can't find a place in the world
1931 has its very special own charm, remember it is based on a theatre play so it explains all the theatrical vibe it emitts as well as its many noticable differences with the book.
Thank you for saving this part of History. I've been looking for this clip for 15 years p. Thank you for your hard work
The movie is short, the Thomas Edison company, who made this, only references it was made. Last I heard that any full sets of all Edison's films did not include this. It was put out on dvd several years ago. I bought 2. There is a later silent Frankenstein film lost to time. Only the lobby card exists.
The cooking scene was pretty creepy. I was impressed by that mirror scene.
Timestamp anyone?
I still remember being obsessed with classic horror movies in 3rd grade, seeing a picture of the monster from this movie in a book, and wanting to see it so badly yet I could never find a copy. I'm glad I can watch it now.
Your parents our messed up for letting you watch these at 3rd grade my mom wouldn't let me watch stuff like this until I was at least eleven
Same here
I too remember reading about this in a horror magazine from the U.S. mid 70's -I was around 13/14 loved the classics got the kits - posters in fact my bedroom was like the kids on the cover of creepshow dvd ! - And I turned out OK ...
...Apart from howling at the moon now and agan !!!
@@sullivanr.9038 try seventeen
Watching world's first horror film in 2024, where the world of cinematography has reached today !! Without these innovators it would have been impossible. This is not just a silent movie. It's mankind's heritage in visual anthropology. Silent movies have their own charm. 1910 was exciting for Halley's comet too and slowly technology was taking off...cars, flights, ships
Did you know for a long time this footage was actually lost
Idk man George MIileis may have beat this film to "first horror film". Infernal Cauldron maybe??
This was good! The scene with the birth of the monster creeped me out, and the ending with the mirror reflection is great in a symbolic way. Thanks for uploading!
Excellent remastering on what HAS to have been a challenging piece of film, good job and thanks.
I have never seen a treatment like this one, very creative, very interesting and quite good.
We have to wonder what motion pictures would be like today if the Edison company had invested more time and money at this early stage of the game.
I think this was outstanding!
For its time this movie is absolutely amazing with the special effects. Very good movie
It’s a little short. Could use some camera movement and sound. But otherwise it’s a top flight motion picture.
Given its 14-minute run time, this is actually a pretty faithful adaptation. It is set in the 18th century (unlike many film adaptations that modernize the setting), the monster's creation does not fall into the trap of having been stitched together (nowhere in Shelley's book does it say that Victor stitched the creature together from body parts of different people -- that is a Hollywood invention), the creature largely fits his description (except that he is not eight feet tall), ... but the ending was just plain NUTS!
didn't the book say he literally went to the church yard to dig up body parts or something? i might've made that part up because of Hollywood influence but i do remember something along those lines.
@@Cat_is_dead888 Yes, but for"raw materials." It never says that he stitched parts together. In fact, it says he made the creature to be oversized so that it would be easier to work. Obviously, if all he did was stitch parts together, then he must have had several 8-foot tall corpses to work with.
@@BatMite19 i see, well i went back to read that part and since it doesn't say how he connected the materials, i do understand why the best option comes to mind is stitching, since that's how you connect raw flesh after surgeries and all. it would be interesting to think of other options, but i doubt there are many practical ones.
I can think of maybe 3; (don't read if you're uncomfortable by gore and details)
glueing- which idk what kind of glue they had in 1818, or welding it with fire, but that could damage the materials. last option but coolest one is that he found base materials, and made kind of a "rebirth" process, like in this movie, or in a glass tank, to somehow make them connect organically, grow taller and grow it's own hair and what's not. i think that'd be more monstrous, other than zombified, and explains better his utter ugliness and distortion. otherwise he'd just look more like a huge corpse, or a zombie. which is ugly, but not as monstrous as a zombie that went through a rebirth process in a jar.
@@Cat_is_dead888 Since Shelley spent so few words on the process, I think she wanted it to be vague and mysterious. Remember, Victor dabbled not only in science but also alchemy. Anyway, the more she would have tried to describe it, the less plausible it would have seemed.
@@BatMite19 i totally agree, she even adresses the matter by Victor saying he will bury the secret with him. but since the biggest mystery in the book is meant to be unsolvable, attempting to solve it is part of the fun in my opinion. she left it to our own imagination, so we should use our imagination. that's the key to original ideas in movie adaptations (:
even though,, i think the stitches are iconic for a reason haha
I'm impressed by the opulent production and costumes. Money, time and imagination were put into it. Ogle's monster seems to look like Elsa Lanchester's Bride after a really tiring party. Still, I see a resemblance with David Prouse's monster in "Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell." The Freudian ending portends "Forbidden Planet." This film is more than just a historical oddity. It's a good film all to itself.
Historical, almost 112 years ago, it's incredible, and it's actually interesting and good, I enjoy it thanks!
These old films are so fascinating.
Man the way Frankenstein is slowly formed in this is cool and I didnt exspect that from 1910 at all
Frankenstein is the scientist not the monster!
@@TheOldsbfan it’s a surname so technically they’re both named Frankenstein
It's so cool that Thomas Edison produced the first Frankenstein movie ever.
Yeah ! Too bad he screwed people over!
Noname Nolast no
*Knowing Edison stole credit for so many other things:* _X to doubt_
@@thecloaker7962 what did he steal?
@@Frozo-nt2ky many light bulbs were invented before him
The monster looks like Gene Simmons from KISS.
I was thinking Dee Snyder
How mean! The monster isn't THAT ugly.
Lol! He does!
Mean but I see
Better.
Magnificent! Excellent effects and make up. Great acting by Charles Ogle.
love it! thank you for this wonderful collection..I will always love the oldies..silents and all...It takes me to a place I want to go and always have...Somewhere else....:) another time. Ever since I was a kid....Thanks again!
It's really remarkable that this piece of film was recovered, as it was believed to be lost for many years.
I like how closely it sticks to the book until the end where the monster just goes into the mirror dimension for some reason.
"Ehh, we're out of ideas. I guess just end it here."
To imagine how audiences must have reacted when they saw this in theaters
If I'd been a kid watching this in 1910, I'd have been TERRIFIED.
Wow! The beginnings of cinema! I think that cinema films is the only art that has the duty to evolve technically, and has evolved a lot in the last 100 years. Only the smell in the scenes. :)
Thank you so much for uploading this. I did not know that high definition existed in 1910.
The Frankenstein monster always scared the crap out of me when I was a kid. It didn't matter who was playing him or what movie it was. Scared me shitless but I loved my monster movies!
Anyway, I don't remember how I saw this original monster (in some movie book, I guess) and, after I got over my confusion ("where's his flat head?"), I was positively freaked out!
That was 40 years ago, and I still think that thing is scary!
AJAXKID123 I too saw a photograph of the monster from this film in a book like you did. I believe it was called "Movie Villains," or at least words to that effect.
I noticed that this version of the Frankenstein story takes some artistic liberties with the original tale. For example, in the film, Frankenstein creates the creature by mixing a formula in a large pot over a fire; in the book by Mary Shelley, he puts his creation together from bits and pieces of corpses that he steals from graves and morgues and the like. At the end of the movie, the monster disappears after seeing himself in a mirror, thus allowing his creator to live happily ever after with his bride. In the book, the monster kills Mrs. Frankenstein as well as other friends and relatives of his inventor. Victor Frankenstein (his first name is never mentioned in this film, and neither is that of his new wife, Elizabeth) then vows to find the creature and destroy him. For months, he trails him practically all over the world, finally tracing him to the Artic, where he is picked up by the crew of a ship. By this time, however, he is too exhausted to go on with the chase and he dies. Incredibly enough, the monster appears on the ship; he speaks to his dead master, almost with pity in his voice. He then tells the captain of the ship that since there's no place in the world for such as he, his only option is to destroy himself by building a funeral pyre and throwing himself on it. He then leaves the ship for that purpose and, as the last words of the book says, he is "soon borne away by the sea and lost in darkness and distance."
Who would know the most faithful design of Frankenstein's monster to the book would be the first cinematic adaptation of the novel.
"creates a monster.." Apparently, in very large "easy bake oven". Ah regardless, still a great story and a cinematic treasure.
I was interested in the way they solved the problem of filming opposite ends of a room with a fixed camera by using a mirror. When sound came along they had a similar problem with the microphone, and often gathered the actors into a tight grouping for delivering dialogue.
This movie was shot closer in time to the publishing of the novel than to the year I am watching this.
That is mind-blowing indeed.
It could just be me reading too much into it but this actually seems to be a mashup of both _Frankenstein_ and _The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde_
Most of the story is obviously taken from Frankenstein but the idea of the monster being created through a chemical mixture, rather than assembling corpse body parts and being influenced by the evil in it’s creators mind seems to be more in tune with the Jekyll/Hyde story.
Either way it is a remarkable piece of cinema for its day.
I thought that too. The ending is actually quite interesting from that point of view. Does Frankenstein see his own evil reflected in the mirror of his creation and so destroy it.
Victor study alchemy, this can be a hint for that
I think this version of The Monster was like a physical manifestation of Victor's hate and jealously for... well, everything really. And after he got married with Elizabeth, he managed to discover true love and put his evil aside, consequentially erasing The Monster from existence.
Wishing the dialogue cards had been included - would have added another 20 minutes to the movie and also given some insight into the writers' thoughts. Good to see this, though.
The creation scene has a lot less lightning than I'm used to
Just watched the Roger Corman version before finding this amazing short movie -
I rememeber reading about this when I was around 14 in one of those horror books inported from the U.S. - Yes I was one of those young horrible horror fans - kits and all ! -And fogotton all about it until stumbling on it here !!! Thanks for sharing
Man, film has come a really long way.
The creature was an innocent newborn, superior in intellect and physicality to humans but hideous in appearance. Frankenstein cowardly ran from it and it wandered off. Encounters with humans formed it into a monster. Shelly's novel was about human nature. I read it.
Man, I’m ashamed to admit it, but I tried so many times to read it yet I couldn’t get past a few pages. I was bored. Sigh, I think I’ll try again.
@@AJAXKID123 She wrote it in the 1700's so the language is difficult but not impossible. If you want a better challenge read Ridley Walker.
@@AJAXKID123 There's no shame in that; it's totally possible to love the story but find the language a bit boring - I'm the same with Dracula. It's probably best not to force yourself to read the book if you aren't enjoying it, it'll just spoil the experience. Maybe given more time your taste will change a bit and you'll enjoy it more, who knows, but at least we have these amazing film adaptations either way
@Tomken8d2 Actually, she wrote it in 1818. Shelley was born in 1797...
@@DavidVJones Thanks, I didn't know that. I guess I did at one point....off by 18 years. 🙂
Now Frankenstein's monster is in the mirror world where he is infinitely more powerful!
pffft come on polnareff. theres no such thing as a mirror world.
That destroyed the monster's physical body, but Frankenstein had to confront the evil that created it. The love he now has erased that spirit of evil.
What's with the idiotic copyright notice? The film was made in 1910. It's fully in the public domain!
micahcareyfilms The copyright notice is on all of the title cards throughout the film indicating that they are what is copyrighted. The film is in public domain, but if someone else used this copy of Frankenstein including the inserts then that person would be using The Video Cellar's work which isn't in the public domain. The same thing with music, this being a silent production no music is included so any music you hear has been added on by someone else and could fall under the domain of copyrighted material. In this case, the music used is royalty-free from Kevin MacLeod at incompetech.com.
Never getting over the fact that love made a flesh and bone creature vanish into thin air
One has to wonder if Edison himself actually handled this print, or viewed it. Still if this film survived for 106 years then there's hope that London After Midnight might still be out there
snakes3425
I think they found that.
Nope, just a rumor. They found a few frames cut out of the trailer.
Edison sent contact prints of his negatives to the Library of Congress to copyright his works. Those paper copies have been scanned and survived as many nitrate film prints didn't.
They? You mean I found them. Search my name and "London After Midnight" if you think I'm fibbing! :)
You got that all wrong! Alois Detlaff came into possession of a nitrate print in the 1950's and being a retired projectionist, he knew how to care for the print which is the source for the video above. I'm not sure what you are talking about, but he didn't send prints of every film frame! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
And we all thought the one from 31 with Boris Karloff was a classic ! Now this is cinematic history at it's best! (Just for the history itself because it's so damn old and actually made).
He is scarier than the 1931 Boris Karloff Frankenstein. The makeup is better and to be completely honest I feel kinda uneasy watching this, it's funny how this is one of the more scarier things I've seen in a while.
+Ratfink820 Well there was less constriction and censoring back then-- in fact I'm willing to bet none, since this was a new medium.
The costume really reminds me of Nosferatu. As a special effects enthusiast, the fire scene her was just as good as the disappearing Nosferatu.
I find it not scary or any movie for that fact, just interesting...movies cant scare you they are NOT real.
Yeah, scary in a very creepy way.....
The makeup looks better because this was recorded on a potato.
What makes it creepy is the old film with no sound or inflection of the actors dialogue. It creates something unpredictable and dark.
It's interesting how the director expands the scene using a mirror, instead of moving the camera, simplificating the filming through witty resources
This movie is brilliant for a 112 year old movie, I pass it with flying colours, superb. 🎼🎧🎹🎬😎👍
WoW! This was as startling to me as when I actually read the book!
100 years later, for all the world to enjoy and see how life was like in this time. Before even our grandparents' time and their time before that! Lol! Me, born in the 1990s, acknowledges....
I see where the inspiration for the look of Edward Scissor hands came from
That's the weirdest Frankenstein I've seen, audiences must've shit themselves when this was first shown 107 years ago
piplup2009 people fainted when they first saw the phantom of the opera later than this so yeah they probably did shit themselves 😂
Yeah it was actually deemed to Scary and banned for a while , but like TBH the prop of when Frankenstein's Monster was being born was kinda spoopy it was like a melty Skeleton
@@arjunsurana8386 I remember watching the first full motion video made in our movie's class and hearing how everyone ran away from the screen since it was pretty much a recording of a train moving towards the camera but I think the camera was a bit to the right of the train. Find it hilarious how this was realistic for people while now we have VR technology and video games which can get scary to a point where you just quit after half an hour and make little progress.
@Leandro Aude To be fair because of how realistic CGI is it's much more noticable when it's off
They didn't shit but they pissed a little bit.
Honestly this Frankenstein monster is probably the scariest looking...
Love the ending.
Frankenstein: "Honey! Everything's fine now. Turns out that was me the whole time!"
Elizabeth: " Yeah. Not helping. Get the f**k out."
She seriously should have reacted like that, really.
I don't understand why Kino didn't include this in their extensive Edison set. It's all over RUclips and yet has never been released officially on DVD.
It's been released on DVD, back in 2003 as a matter of fact. www.silentera.com/video/frankensteinHV.html
Every copy of Fred weibel's book on Edison's Frankenstein comes with a free DVD copy in the back sleeve.
first frankenstein movie? so old that it's actually creepy
i dont know why but when I watch old movies like this i always think how every single person that had anything to do with it is long since dead, kinda creepy lol
@@JohnSmith-fq7hj I don't see that bugging me considering there's a lot of people that are dead lol, we're all a lil weird tho.
@@JohnSmith-fq7hj bro that's literally me too, if it's an old horror movie it makes it even more creepy for me since everyone who made it is dead
Literally.
@@trevthekidd it dont bug me its just kinda strange and slightly creepy lol I really get that way with ww1 videos
Monster created by burning a marionette then running film backwards; monster disappears, his image lingers in mirror - this is good stuff! And pretty advanced for its time. I hope a properly restored copy is made someday soon. It could surely be made to look much better.
Danse Macabre on the soundtrack. Excellent.
Thank-you. I finally got too see it. Wonderful film.
Amazing quality for as old as it is.
I am curious however of the filters
which were used.
Thank you for this public domain very old movie of Frankenstein =)
Thank you for posting! This is great to see.
This is probably the most important pieces of film in history.....
For me, it’s magical that we are seeing something from more than 110 years ago
the best movie of all time. friday night-popcorn and coca cola. YEAAAH Love this shit. every friday i watch this.
Why
@@weegee7676 What do mean "why?" , you love it, you watch it, that's it
Must Be Scary As Hell
@@aleisterlowenstein9526 :(
I dont know why classic movie like this seems creepy for me. But its trully legend, Frankenstein
its kind of eerie looking at the old films
Better than any Netflix original movie or series.
That Moment you realize this is over 100 years old!
I heard somewhere that Charles Ogle's makeup in this film helped inspire David Prowse's makeup in the Hammerstein film Frankenstein Monster from Hell
Surprisingly good visual effects for 1910, IMO.
the monster creation was eerily scary - truly a mess of a creature. 7:35 but what was really impressive was this scene where you see most of the action through the mirror. 9:10 incredibly innovative, interesting, and entertaining film. wonder who really produced and directed this? 🎶〰️〰️
thank you so very much for all these wonderful very first films !! 🎦
This one and the version in "Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell" 1973 stand out most for me as being the most unique representations of him. In this 1910 version you see him as this thing that carries a partial human quality left in him who with limitations develops animalistic behavior to adapt. In Monster from Hell even though he was once a man, he appears more apeish in his physicality but has the raw emotion and consciousness of a human. Other versions just seem too green or lean towards The Mummy. I think Gene Wilder's Frankenstein was the only one who got the closest in being able to teach him to speak.
Neat little piece of Movie History! :D
Thomas Edison’u araştırırken karşıma Frankenstein 1910 çıktı bu filmi bu sekilde izlemek çok güzel ve özel teşekkürler
The look of Charles Ogle in this is fucking terrifying
Everyone was obsessed with cauldrons in early film years (1890s-1910s).
Love that it opens with "Dance macabre"
Wow cant wait for this to come out
My god , I finally found a proper tinted *not* cropped ("wide screened") version !!!!
This footage was lost but than found again
Starting at 3:56: the original Thriller dance.
Best Frankenstein Monster I've seen yet!
Crazy to think that back in 1910, this monster scared so many people, now we have movies like A Quiet Place, Don't Breathe, Halloween, Resident Evil, and so many more horror movies, that scare a lot of people. I mean, can you honestly tell me that the scene in A Quiet Place, the birth scene, didn't make you sweat and chew your nails? This made people do exactly that, now we watch in awe what entertainment looked like back then.
Then just twentyone years later Boris Karloff would make the Frankenstein monster one of the most iconic horror movie characters of all time.
I understand. "Nosferatu" is more than 5x as long as this movie. But then they may not have been able to make silent movies even 30 minutes long back in 1910. The silent movies were more 'morality tales' than anything. The monster was a product of the evil of Frankenstein's mind (genius). When Elizabeth's love for him won out, the monster was faced with its own ugliness.
The same procedure of creating the monster was later used in the 1992 version featuring Patrick Bergin as Frankenstein. The monster was created in some sort of breeding/incubation chamber through alchemy instead of stitching up deceased body parts and reviving them through electricity.
I wish it could be restored!
This Frankenstein's monster is way creepier then the Boris Karloff one.
My grandparents were born in 1910, so as the great first moving pictures were born, maybe even a little earlier. ❤❤❤😊😊😊
I remember watching this when it was first released.
Then you'd be dead
I think he meant on YT