Frankenstein

This movie comes off as silly at times and brilliant at others, but it is probably considered to be one of the greatest monster movies of all time. The greatest thing to come out of this movie was the performance of Boris Karloff as the monster, it is just incredible how much emotion and feeling he was able to convey while under all that makeup. The direction of James Whale is spot on with a great use of sets and outdoor locations, in fact, the only real flaw in the film lies in the script, which has a few situations that make very little sense and because of which interrupts the films flow. But other than that, Frankenstein is a classic and very important movie, and it launched Karloff on to a great career, plus the sequel Bride Of Frankenstein is even better. 4 Beards Out Of 5 Check out my video review @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GomHi6vIds4

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.

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.

Revisiting Frankenstein is always a wonderful experience. I watch it today with the same enthusiasm and awe I did nearly 35 years ago. Everything about the film is so perfect. Acting, direction, cinematography, set design, plot, dialogue, special effects, etc. are top notch. And although each of these areas deserves to be discussed in detail (and have in the volumes that have been written on Frankenstein), I'll focus on two areas that really standout to me - Boris Karloff as the monster and James Whales direction.

Is there a more iconic image in horror than Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein monster? I sincerely doubt it. Even those who wouldn't be caught dead watching a horror film are familiar with that image. Beyond Jack Pierce's make-up, Karloff is amazing in the role. Even with the make-up, Karloff gives the monster life. We are able to see and feel the emotions the monster goes through. There is no better example than the scene with the monster and the little girl. As the monster stumbles out of the woods, there is a cautious look about him as his experiences with humans have thus far been less than satisfactory. But when the little girl accepts him and wants to play with him, the look of caution is transformed into a look of utter happiness. He smiles, he laughs, and he plays. But that emotion is replaced by one of confusion mixed with anger when he accidentally kills the girl. It's all there on Karloff wonderful face. It's this life that Karloff imbibes in the monster that makes Frankenstein a real classic.

I've always thought that James Whale's direction was ahead of its time. In an era when directors were using what I call the "plant and shoot" method of filming, Whale made his camera a fluid part of the action. Whale takes the viewer beyond just watching moving images. He uses the camera to take the viewer into the scene. A small example is the way Whale filmed characters moving from one room to the next. The camera moves with the characters. Another example is the tracking shot Whale uses as the father carries his dead child into the town. As I said earlier, it has a fluidity in the way Whale filmed these scenes that makes it seem more natural. Finally, the way Whale introduces the monster is a highlight of the film. The monster backs into the room. As he turns, Whale shows the monster with three quick, ever tighter shots, ending with a close-up of the monster's face. Every Hollywood star of that era could have only wished for an introduction like that.

While I have done nothing but praise Frankenstein, I'm not such a fan that I can't spot flaws in the film. The major issue with me has always been the way the scenes of action, horror, and violence are inter-cut with scenes of tranquility and bliss. I realize that was the way things were done in the 30s so people wouldn't, in essence, overload on horror, but it can make the film seem a little disjointed. But it's difficult to hold Whale overly responsible for this custom of the period.

Few will disagree that "Bride of Frankenstein" is in so many ways a better picture than the original. But since they both involve the same director and primary cast, I consider them as two parts of the same movie.

I have no complaints at all about "Bride". It certainly benefits from a more deeply thought-out script and an adequately bankrolled sense of delight in the macabre. The unarguable "improvements" in the sequel are often, for me, the very things that makes the original so special.

The major technical improvements during the short years between the original and sequel have made "Frankenstein" seem perhaps older than it is. The lack of a score and less showy camerawork give it almost a documentary quality, not unlike the famous Hindenberg newsreel footage. "Frankenstein" feels like this is an actual record of exactly how it looked and felt the day Dr. Frankenstein did his evil deed!

I'm not saying that "Frankenstein" seems primitive in a bad way--unlike '31's "Dracula" with it's "point the camera at the stage because we can't move the camera" lack of technique. The oldness adds to it's greatness. The graininess of the picture, the shrill sound effects and James Whale's unusual cutting style of deliberate jump-cuts (especially in the scene when the Creature makes his big entrance and, moments later, reaches longingly for the sunlight)contribute to the realness of the story and the film.

It gave me nightmares as a kid; only now, I know why.