Frankenstein (1910)
What exactly, was the first movie ever made? Most people point to the Lumière brothers' 1985 short subject 'Workers Leaving a Factory'. (Hoo-boo, is that a real barn-burner!) A much harder question to tackle is; what was the first horror film? A common response is to cite George Méliès' 1896 'Manor of the Devil'. However, while many of Méliès' short films featured such characters as devils, dancing skeletons, and "ghosts", some balk at calling these films horror. Insomuch as these bugaboos appeared as a demonstration of film's magical optical properties, they were intended to amuse, not actually strike fear into the audience. To some, Edison's 1910 adaptation of 'Frankenstein' would be considered the first true horror film. There is also unfortunately a problem with this thesis, as the Edison Company made a concerted effort to remove any shocking aspect from the film's plot. (Thought this may have had more to do with the narrative limitations of the day's medium than any concerted effort of censorship, the net result is the same.)
Therefore, if I were pressed into making a decision, I would not be able to proclaim 'Frankenstein' as the first true horror film. Though Méliès' films were intended as magic spectacle rather than disturbing narrative, many of them were far more atmospheric than their American counterparts. (And for anyone hung up on such matters, I would point to Méliès' 1901 'Bluebeard' as being a far bloodier and ookier narrative than Edison's sanitized short.) Despite any flaws, the 1910 version of 'Frankenstein' is still a fine example of early filmcraft, and if not the world's first horror film, I'd still feel safe in proclaiming it a groundbreaking work. Thought to be lost for many years, only a short snippet of the film (featuring the creature's creation) was known to have survived . However, a one of a kind reel was discovered in the collection of one Al Detlaff. Unfortunately, instead of releasing the film to a historical society for preservation and distribution, the reputedly eccentric Detlaff attempted to copyright his print and make some cold hard cash off it. (Some come down very hard on the old man for doing so, but others are more inclined to cut him a break, citing the cost of reproduction and distribution. Let's give the ol' coot the benefit of the doubt.) Of course, you cannot copyright something in the public domain no matter how exclusive your print is, and any attempt on the part of Detlaff's successors to prevent the free distribution of this film are so much hot air. This lost film, arguably the first horror film ever made, can now be freely viewed by anyone who wants to do so. (Including, right here on Google video among other places.) My review below might contain spoilers, as they are, so if you'd like, you can watch the film first.
From a technical point of view, Frankenstein
is rather advanced for its age. The sets are just lovely; the lab in particular
with its requisite piles of esoteric equipment and eldritch tomes does quite
well in establishing a heady atmosphere. The special effects are likewise
impressive. The creature's creation, realized by burning an articulated dummy
then reversing the film, is actually rather gruesome looking. The technique of
color tinting selected frames to set mood (a process that would be used in such
later films as 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari') is another nice touch. The only
technical complaint I might have is that the monster's makeup is rather under
whelming, more akin to earlier stage work than the type of true monstrosity film
is capable of portraying.
Acting is a bit hammier than I would like, a common complaint for film of this
era and pedigree, but rather accentuated due to the fact that this is basically
the prototypical mad scientist tale.
Examining the narrative and thematic aspects of the film is a bit more
troublesome. As I previously mentioned, the more troubling points of the story
are glossed over. Of course, this is de' rigueur for the time period; Elizabeth
survives, the monster disappears into a mirror, and all has a happy ending. Oh
yeah, about that mirror trick; the monster is put forth as the physical
embodiment of the evil in Frankenstein's mind, it cannot exist once pure love
erases the blight created by the doctor's hubris. However, as its final act of
malevolence, the monster appears in Frankenstein's mirror, replacing his
reflection with its own. This symbolic duality of creator and creation (often
stressed in latter adaptations) would appear to be a brilliant touch, but I'm
left wondering if it wasn't just a quick way to end the picture. Unfortunately,
my biggest problem with the film is that it breaks ground in another direction.
While characterization is a bit weak all around (Not to niggle. You just can't
hold a silent film to the same measure as modern works. Try to establish
character in a 6-minute reel without using dialogue sometime.) my only real
gripe is that the monster is so damn bland! Save for a brief mention of his
jealousy regarding Elizabeth, he really doesn't seem to have much of a
personality at all. This of course foreshadows any number of latter adaptations,
from the fourth-tier Universal sequels, to the universally overrated Hammer
piffle, in which the monster is simply a mute, loping, force of destruction.
However, due to the primitive nature of the film, and the fact the very few have
even ever had the opportunity to see the frickin thing, I don't really think I
can blame it for creating the precedent. (Even such a lazy and distasteful one.)
Considering the limitations faced by its makers, and the groundbreaking nature of their work, I really can't come down too hard on the film's failings. The original 'Frankenstein' a fun, earnest piece of work, if not overly engaging,
7.5