When I was younger, before my school years, my friends and I liked to watch the Universal Studio Monster movies. "The Wolf Man" and "The Mummy" scared the love of Jesus Christ in me. I remember the first time I was "The Mummy" and the mummification scene, I took the VHS out of the VCR put the movie back in it's box and hid it until it was time to return to the video store. I didn't watch again for another 15 years! "Dracula" scared me but I felt a certain relationship with him because as my grandparents would always point out, Bela Lugosi was Hungarian (they always liked to point out who the Hungarian actors were).
"Frankenstein" however was something of a bridge. It scared me but I felt sorry for the Monster, especially at the end. Unlike Dracula or the Wolf Man, the Monster didn't always mean to cause harm, the famous scene with the young girl and the flowers is an example. He (or "it") was something comparable to a confused child. Only if he felt threatened did he attack.
"Frankenstein" was released right around the same time as "Dracula" in 1931. The style of many of these early horror films take on a Gothic look. They seem to have been inspired by German expressionism. Without knowing much about director James Whale it would be my guess he was influenced by German cinema of the time.
Three things about "Frankenstein" impress me a lot. The first thing is the opening scene is a cemetery. We are witnessing a burial while Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) hide in the shadows. But pay attention to the set design. There is a crooked branch in the background, crosses stand in front of grave sites, Frankenstein and Fritz are behind a gate with the tip of the spikes on the gate seem bent, leaning towards the right. In fact the entire scene seems to have been shot on a slant. It is jarring to look at. It appears to reflect Frankenstein's twisted mindset at the time.
I also love the look of the castle where Frankenstein works. I could almost feel a slight chill coming from it. You get get a good sense of how it might feel to be there. Everything seems damp and cold. It's always shot in darkness.
And finally the make-up used for The Monster is brilliant. You could understand why audiences would have been afraid of this movie back then. Today, we see characters split people in two, so the, what is now "simple charm" of Karloff's make-up may not have the same impact on viewers, but I'm sure make-up artist must still be impressed by it.
I haven't really went over the plot of "Frankenstein" because I assume most people know it. However, it is the story of a man who has discovered a way to bring life back to the dead. He steals bodies from graves, which explains the opening scene, he takes different body parts and assembled them into his own creation.
Most people say it is a story of man playing God. Bringing life into this world and destroying it. That is clearly one theme of the movie but Mary Shelley, who wrote the novel this is based on, said her intention was to condemn the Industrial Revolution. The Monster is a "machine" in a sense and kills people just as Shelley felt machines would take over human jobs and in a sense "kill them". Shelley was a product of what is known as the "Romantic age".
Supposedly the idea of "Frankenstein" came to her in a dream when she was 18 and pregnant. She didn't finish the novel until she was 19 and was challenged by a group of friends to write a ghost story.
But whatever Shelley's intentions may have been when she wrote her story it has little to do with what is actually on-screen. No movie, that I have seen, really gets to the heart of her intentions.
Director James Whale is probably best known for this film, though many filmbuffs believe his sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" is a better film. Whale also directed "The Invisible Man" and just so you don't believe he was purely a horror director he also did the original 1930s version of "Waterloo Bridge" and "Show Boat" (not the silent version).
Most of the cast is somewhat good. Colin Clive seems a little too campy at times. His scenes were he is "mad" could have taken as laughable. He definitely gave Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder a lot to work with when they did "Young Frankenstein". Leslie Howard was actually considered first and would in all honesty been a better choice. Though Clive's delivery of "it's alive" is now part of the American culture.
Dwight Frye is okay as Fritz, having not seen this film for many years I always thought Frankenstein's assistant was Igor. And Edward Van Sloan is Frankenstein's old professor, Dr. Waldman. Nearly every movie fan will known him as Prof. Van Helsing in the original "Dracula". Van Sloan strikes me as the kind of actor that took himself very serious. I have a hunch he thinks he is delivering a great performance. One of extreme intensity. It is a shame no one told him he isn't.
But the weakest performances I think are given by Frankenstein's bride-to-be Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and Frankenstein's friend, who is also attracted to Elizabeth, Victor Moritz (John Boles). They make the old acting mistake of believing a pause in your delivery creates both suspense and drama. For example, say this line aloud, "what are you (long pause) doing"? What neither one of them seems to realize it is tone of your voice must change as well to create emotion.
But Boris Karloff steals the show. He makes the movie. During the opening credits his name isn't even given it reads "The Monster......?" This was done so audiences would think it was real. By the closing credits though his name is given.
Does "Frankenstein" still have the ability to scare audiences? I think so, but a certain kind of audience. Mainly children. Horror films have just become too bloody and violent. We have pushed the envelop so far that it is difficult for anything to scare us. I've actually meet people who tell me "The Exorcist" makes them laugh!
"Frankenstein" is for a different audience. It is for those of us who prefer atmosphere and craft. We have yet to be jaded by society.
Posts
