Frankenstein

Count me as one member of the "Star Wars" generation who as a teenager loved this movie at first sight and has watched it with renewed pleasure a dozen times since. A small but loyal number of movie fans my age and younger feel the same way about "Frankenstein" (and other Universal Horror pictures); but for those struggling to appreciate it I offer a few suggestions.

Cast your mind back to 1931 and imagine that you—like the audiences at the time—are seeing the now overfamiliar monster makeup for the first time. You probably haven't read the Mary Shelley novel on which the film is based; and you've never seen one of the stage productions based on the novel. This is a fresh experience for you. You don't know what the monster is going to look like and you don't know what it's going to do.

Don't take the film for granted. We live in pedantic times when sci-fi fanboys complain that it's unrealistic for Spider-Man to spin webs from his own physiognomy rather than from metal contraptions as in the comic books; that the actress playing Storm in "X-Men" is the wrong shade of black. In this age of irrelevant concerns, "Frankenstein" can't hope to survive our dull-witted scrutiny; so don't be like the mob. The film's many defects are minor, easily ignored, and sometimes part of the fun. In some ways it is technically crude, but director James Whale and his crew have a sense of artistry and a knack for storytelling that surpass that of most modern filmmakers. Props and hand gestures frequently change between shots, giving the film the weird beauty and stitched-together quality of the monster himself. John Boles and Mae Clarke (as Henry Frankenstein's friend and fiancée respectively) are dull and stiff. Some plot details are implausible: Why doesn't Dr. Frankenstein notice that he's using an inferior brain? Why does the script insist that the brain is a criminal one at all when it's clear that the monster means no one any harm—at least before people attack him? The final scene is irritating. It's an attempt to end on a light-hearted note for those too easily frightened and upset by unpleasantness.

Use your imagination. Modern movies have dulled our ability to know a profoundly disturbing tale when we see one, unless buckets of blood and gore are hurled at us. Remember this is the story of a scientist who brings to life a dead body created from pieces of human corpses; it's the story of a creator who betrays his own creature, condemning him to a short life of being hated and reviled. If this story inspires no fear or pity in you, you've lost your ability to feel.

Boris Karloff as the Monster is worth a thousand CGI monsters; his pitiful reaction to seeing light for the first time would be unforgettable in a movie one-tenth this good. Colin Clive (as Henry Frankenstein) has a rich, musical voice and an intense concentration that makes his performance as alive as Frankenstein's creation. Weird and wonderful support is provided by Dwight Frye as the hunchbacked assistant and Edward Van Sloan as Frankenstein's former professor.

If you believe this film is inferior to more modern movies, I would only half-agree with you: "Bride of Frankenstein," released four years later, is even better than the original.

Though not as spectacular as one would expect of such a classic, this loose interpretation of Mary Shelley's oft-told tale delivers. The familiar story focuses on Dr. Victor Frankenstein, the reclusive, stereotypical mad scientist obsessed with creating new life from stitched-together corpses. But something goes terribly wrong when the brain he uses turns out to be that of a criminal. The film starts out slow but redeems itself with time, particularly the windmill climax scene that by 1931 standards is nothing short of stellar. In one of filmdom's all-time great performances, Boris Karloff plays the monster as a sort of tragic figure unable to comprehend right from wrong, and the audience is left feeling more sympathetic than frightened by him.

To clear the air on certain misconceptions that may arise from what I say here, I've read the book. I've liked the book. I realize that the movie truly has nothing in common with it aside from the fact that an artificial man is brought to life in both. But none of the above took away from my enjoyment of James Whale's rightly considered classic film. The tacked on introduction scene and the obligatory happy ending are indeed laughable when one thinks of what is horrific in this day and age, but I was hooked from the surreal credit sequence on. To me, the real ending of this film will always be at the burning windmill, an ending of an all-too-believable tragedy.

Colin Clive is a little bit overblown as Herr Frankenstein, but he does a capable enough job with the title role (something that is usually tacked onto the monster instead). Edward Van Sloan, a favorite of mine from the Universal stock company, does quite well himself as Frankenstein's old teacher, Dr. Waldmann. As for Karloff...*exhale in admiration* what can I say? I first knew him as the narrator and voice of the Grinch in Dr Seus' "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (I didn't find this out until years later, but find out I did). "Frankenstein" marked the first time that I'd ever seen him on the screen for real. From the stiff walk to the eternally mournful face, he made the misunderstood monster his for the ages (it is also telling that, in spite of this, Karloff went on to a long, illustrious, if underappreciated, career).

Two other facts that stick in my mind about this movie: the creation sequence and the naming of two of it's characters. The heavy-industrial machinery used to create the monster was inspired by the silent Fritz Lang classic, "Metropolis" (indeed, many films, from the original "The Mummy" and "Bride of Frankenstein" to "Dark City" and "The Matrix" owe a debt to this excellent science fantasy), specifically the grafting of Maria's image onto the android. This machinery, I am told, would later go on to a return engagement in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein". Fact #2: anyone who has read the novel will know that the first name of Frankenstein is Victor and his best friend's Henry. Apparently the play (or perhaps the screenplay writers; I've no way of knowing) switched these two around to where we know have HENRY Frankenstein and VICTOR his best friend.

The only thing that has "sucked" about "Frankenstein" is its imitators vainly trying to make lightning strike twice (pun intended). But don't bet the house on any ever coming close. A hundred years from now, this brilliant alternate work will still stand as truly classic as the book that helped to inspire it.

James Whale's original FRANKENSTEIN is a short but memorable horror classic that has influenced so many other fright flicks, it should be considered the Godfather of Horror Movies. This was the first of Universal Studios' moody screen adaptations of literary Gothic horror (the other being Dracula). Put all thoughts regarding Mary Shelly's novel aside and see this original work of art, with Boris Karloff bringing the ultimate monster to life.

The sets are a pure spin off of German Expressionism. The good Doctor Frankenstein's castle is twisted and distorted and seems to be not of this world. He is played by Colin Clive in a delightfully freakish performance. And, of course, the well-proportioned Fritz is there to help. Notice the signposts of evil in the opening grave robbing scenes. It is a prop-master's dream and the black and white photography displays a theatrical sense of spookiness. "It's Alive!" will live forever as one of the cinema's most familiar lines and the picture begins to sparkle as Karloff is brought to life. The influence of Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS is evident during the dazzling scene of the Monster's birth.

Boris Karloff is and always will be the prototypical Monster. The closeups of his face are truly frightening after all these years. He is walking death, however, Karloff gives him a hint of sadness, of a creature who was not meant to be. The flower-toss scene with the little girl was so controversial at the time of the film's release, it was cut from many versions. The new, restored print available on video has it.

I know FRANKENSTEIN has been spoofed many times and is wide-open to criticism regarding its dated look. Mel Brooks went so far as to use the actual props from Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory in his hilarious send-up, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Be sure to keep an open mind and watch it in the dark. Boris Karloff and James Whale have created a monstrously fun film.

A brilliant young scientist creates life from the dead but lives to regret it when his creation goes on the rampage.

Though inevitably dated and primitive by modern standards, Frankenstein remains a tremendously impressive film and a tribute to its still somewhat under-rated director, the eccentric Englishman James Whale.

Where so many early talkies were static and wordy, Frankenstein skips unnecessary dialogue and exposition and drives through its plot at a speed that seems almost indecent nowadays. Compared to overblown remakes like Kenneth Branagh's 1994 version, Whale's work now seems like a masterpiece of brevity and minimalism. His constantly moving camera, incisive editing and dramatic use of close-ups are a mile ahead of anything far more prestigious directors were doing at the time. Expressionist photography and eccentric set designs lend atmosphere, menace and help augment some rather ripe performances; a foretaste of the paths Whale would tread in the sequel Bride of Frankenstein four years later.

And then of course there's Karloff. With comparatively few scenes and no dialogue he nonetheless manages to create a complex, intimidating, yet sympathetic creature - one of the great mimes in talking cinema and thanks in no small degree to the freedom given to him under Jack Pierce's iconic make-up.

A historic piece of cinema, and one that still stands the test of time as both art and entertainment.