** 1\2 (out of ****)
"The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957) is a British horror movie brought to us by the famed Hammer Film Productions and was not only their first Frankenstein movie but also their first foray into remaking the equally famed Universal Monster movies of the 1930s.
It begins with a confession as Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) is in prison about to meet an untimely death. A Priest has been summoned for by Victor to tell his story to. Victor claims he is not a religious man but wants to tell his story to the Priest hoping others will believe his tale if it comes from the Priest's mouth. Despite whatever Victor may say about his lack of faith this gesture provides the most direct correlation between "Frankenstein" and morality I have ever seen in a movie. Even more so than the 1931 version with Boris Karloff. And it is further punctuated by the fact that Victor is in prison - even if for a different crime - awaiting his execution.
Yes, "Frankenstein" is a tale of man playing God, creating life, but what of the moral implications and ultimate judgement to be brought upon a person for such an act? In the 1931 version Dr. Frankenstein doesn't die but here Dr. Frankenstein must sit and confront his actions. Yes it seemingly leads to his death but the waiting aspect is what I find most intriguing. It adds a new dimension to the story. To have time and intellectualize what you have done and to have time to face the consequences of your actions. That can be horrifying. Does it result in guilt? Regret? Or possible affirmation? These are deeper questions not always explored properly in the various "Frankenstein" movies.
It is the digging deeper aspect that I enjoy most in the Hammer horror movies. For example in "The Mummy" (1959) the issue of Westerners not respecting other cultures and holding anti-science viewpoints is brought up. It is a driving force of The Mummy origin story but I'd never heard it so directly addressed as in this version.
In the 1931 version we first see Dr. Frankenstein as a grave robber. He is immediately presented to us as a questionable figure and a "mad scientist" however in the hands of Peter Cushing his Dr. Frankenstein is mild mannered. We get to see a gradual descent into madness. We briefly see Dr. Frankenstein as a child and later as an adult with his tutor and later colleague, scientist Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart). Together they have engaged in experiments concerning the re-animation of dead issue. Their greatest success has been bringing a dead puppy back to life. Dr. Frankenstein believes they should go further in their research however before notifying others of their achievement. They have the power, he believes, to create life and suggest assembling a man by collecting body parts from various corpses. While this slip into madness happens a bit too abruptly for my taste it does enforce the movie's central moral theme by having the character Paul as a constant voice of reason standing as an obstacle in Dr. Frankenstein's way. That voice was absent in other movies but here it provides a clear contrast and cements the idea Dr. Frankenstein is knowingly making immoral decisions and he must be put in a position to rationalize his actions.
However I must admit I didn't find Cushing to be a great Dr. Frankenstein. Perhaps the slip into madness happens too suddenly but there is never a contrast in the performance. Cushing is playing the same character throughout. It never felt like there was a true transformation in the character. I appreciate that he doesn't go off the deep end into campy territory but I felt as if Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein" (1974) and Basil Rathbone in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939) did more with their interpretations. Cushing's performance comes off as monotone. He is only really playing something different in the bookend prison sequences.
"The Curse of Frankenstein" spends more time than I remember the original - I say original in reference to the 1931 version but do want to point out there is a silent version from 1910, which is sometimes credited as being the first horror movie (!) - focused on Dr. Frankenstein collecting body parts off of dead corpses to create his man. It is all an attempt to build up the anticipation for what this creation/monster (Christopher Lee) will look like. I must confess however, I wasn't that eager for the big reveal.
To remake such a well known and classic movie like "Frankenstein" is to set yourself up for comparisons with the original - especially for whoever plays the Monster. In a side by side comparison most would have a knee jerk reaction and say Boris Karloff's performance was the better of the two. They wouldn't be open to giving Christopher Lee's performance a second look. Not because of anything necessarily Lee may have done with his performance but because we have seen Karloff's performance first and therefore it is the standard bearer. This is not to suggest Karloff's performance isn't wonderful. Lee however is doing something much different. It isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Watching Christopher Lee's performance I felt it had more of a child-like interpretation. Pay attention to how the character walks for example. Karloff had the slow, zombie-like pace but Lee's Monster seems unsure if he will be able to hold his balance while standing - exactly how does this whole walking thing work? Everything is fresh and new to his eyes. It takes the Monster a while to register what he is seeing and even then he doesn't understand what it is. This is attributed to Paul damaging the brain Victor was going to use when the two men get into a fight. This leads to great resentment on Victor's part, blaming Paul for what his creation has turned out to be. It reminded me of two parents arguing and one of them saying - "this is your fault. Your side of the family has bad genes." It also adds an element of homosexuality to their relationship. Not quite at the level suggested in "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) however.
Lee's performance however took away all sense of horror for me. I didn't fear this version of the Monster. The Monster doesn't have the aim of frightening the townspeople - which is now in Switzerland. This Monster is all but directly implied to be special needs. Karloff had a sense of innocence to his Monster as well but his gestures and the make-up scared the bejesus out of me as a child. The zombie walk and look had a true sense of the dead coming back to life. I felt more pity for Lee's Monster than anything else by contrast.
What I like best about "The Curse of Frankenstein" are the ideas and themes presented. It is interesting seeing different interpretations of these well known characters. But the movie lacks a true sense of horror. This material is more dramatic than horrific. To some that may be an improvement. The movie has its defenders and was a box-office success spawning several sequels and further remakes of the classic Universal Monsters. I'm slightly torn between the movie but in the end if I had to chose which version of Frankenstein I would rather watch right now, I'd have to pick the 1931 version for its impressive sets and production design, Karloff's performance and the overall atmosphere the movie creates. "The Curse of Frankenstein" has its strengths but feels just a peg below the 1931 version.
Posts
