Son of Frankenstein

'Frankenstein' and 'Bride of...' pretty much told a complete story. And the story was fashioned in such a way that the viewer is watching the events as they unfold. As the events unfold, the story shifts from the torment of the creator, Frankenstein, to the torment of the creation, the Monster.

Now in 'Son of...', the emphasis is shifted back to the scientist. And Karloff no longer has a monopoly on the role of the 'Back From the Dead'; he shares that with Lugosi's 'Ygor'. Nor does he have the monopoly on the 'Artificial Human'; he shares that spot with Atwill's one-armed 'Inspector Krogh'. Nor does he possess his personality that was gradually evolving in the first two entries. The Monster has been reduced to a hulking henchman bound to the will of the evil Ygor.

The 'Monster turned pawn' had actually begun in 'Bride of...' as Pretorious used him to force Frankenstein to create the Monster's mate. You could almost say that the Monster was used as a tool for Henry Frankenstein to play God; a tool for Pretorious' dream to create a new race; and a tool for Ygor's desire for revenge on the jurors who condemned him to the hangman's noose. The difference in 'Son of...' is that the Monster no longer evolves and the character is left with no where to go.

But this is still a fascinating film. Director Lee replaces realistic sets and background with surrealism. Details from the first two films are abandoned for light background and twisted, gargantuan shadows. And much of some great action set-pieces have already occurred off screen, before the movie begins. Which means we're left with alot of talk of 'what was' and 'what happened before'. Which kind of fits into the definition of what a legend constitutes. Fortunately, the actors doing the talking are Rathbone, Lugosi and Atwill. Even Rathbone's over the top performance can be forgiven, knowing his next film(?) was his signature (& debut) role as Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound of the Baskervilles', a role he was absolutely brilliant in.

Even though Karloff has a much reduced role, the gigantic sets, dead trees and slanted architecture compels the viewer to be constantly aware of his lurking menace. It is this approach that, standing on its own, makes this a fine film. The viewer is forced to rely on imagination more than the first two movies put together. It is certainly a more polished film than the original. And Lugosi and Atwill's support acting are leagues above the wooden Mae Clarke, John Boles and Valerie Hobson.

Like the Monster; "tis better to have been made, than never to have been made at all". We would have missed out on all that fun.

7 out of 10 ! One of my favorite 'Frankenstein' films.

Series note: I strongly recommend that you watch the Frankenstein films to this point in order. Each builds on the events of the previous entry and will have much more meaning and significance if watched in order. The first film is Frankenstein (1931), and the second is Bride of Frankenstein (1935).

The third film in Universal's Frankenstein series, Son of Frankenstein is set after the first two film's Henry Frankenstein has passed away. Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone), Henry's son, is on his way to claim his inheritance from his father, and receives a not-too-warm welcome from the small German town that has been frightened out of its wits by Henry's doings with monsters. While staying at the family castle, Wolf opens a box containing his father's research records and a note from his father encouraging him to follow in the same footsteps. He initially believes he's not worthy of such encouragement, but becoming a "mad doctor" may be easier than he thinks.

In both the overall tone of the film and in the tone of Boris Karloff's last turn as "The Monster", Son of Frankenstein is much more closely allied with James Whale's first Frankenstein film, rather than the camp-fest that was Bride of Frankenstein. New series director Rowland V. Lee has everything played various seriously, even Bela Lugosi's Ygor, which could have easily become funny, intentionally so or not.

Adding to the atmosphere are the sets, which are just as grand in their own way as anything in either of Whale's two Frankenstein films. This time around the expressionist influence is at its strongest, but it is combined with a prescient minimalism. While the first two films had strong surrealist visual touches combined with their expressionism, Son of Frankenstein dispenses altogether with any concerns of approaching realism or naturalism. The idea here instead is to create starkness and shadows, often with a maximum of intentional artificiality. It's an appropriate approach that both pays homage to the earlier films and reflects the plot of the present film--shadows are an offspring of their parent objects, and the monster is an artificial man. The production and set design of the film is even more remarkable when one realizes that art directors of the era routinely worked on many films at once. Son of Frankenstein's Art Director Jack Otterson, for example, worked on over 50 films in 1942 alone!

It's a rare treat to have three genre icons the caliber of Rathbone, Karloff and Lugosi together in one film. They mesh exquisitely, managing to enhance each other's performances with no one upstaging anyone else. Lionel Atwill, as Inspector Krogh, easily holds his own with the trio (although any fan of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein (1974) is sure to laugh at occasional moments involving Krogh, since he is so perfectly spoofed in Brooks' film), as does the beautiful Josephine Hutchinson as Frankenstein's wife Elsa (named after the woman who played The Bride in the previous film, Elsa Lanchester) and Donnie Dunagan as their son Peter.

Lugosi's Ygor was supposedly improvised then written into the film--Lugosi was originally slated to play a policeman. This is remarkable in that his shepherd character and relationship to The Monster are so well integrated. The Monster symbolically wears a heavy woolen vest/smock, and has a deeply symbiotic relationship with Ygor that is the core of the film. Ygor is also "undead" in his own way.

While Son of Frankenstein is not nearly as epic as the first two films, it should not be. Its aim is to unfold more like a stage play, with highly abstract, symbolic sets and finely integrated performances from a skilled cast. As such, it is every bit as good as the first two films in the series.

"Baron Wolf von Frankenstein" (Basil Rathbone) is a decent young man who just wants to start a new life with his beautiful wife, "Elsa von Frankenstein" (Josephine Hutchinson) and son in the castle bequeathed to him upon his father's death. Upon entering the laboratory he encounters a rather unsavory character named "Ygor" (played by none other than Bela Lugosi) who shows him a secret room which contains the crypt of his father and his grandfather. It also contains the live body of the monster known as "Frankenstein" (Boris Karloff) who has been seriously injured. After a thorough examination, and at the urging of Ygor, he decides to bring the monster out of his comatose state. Things begin to spiral quickly out of control after that. Anyway, this is the third film in this series and while it might not be up to the same high standards of "Frankenstein" and "The Bride of Frankenstein", it still packs a decent enough punch. All of the actors did well and the story contains enough suspense and drama to keep things moving along quite nicely. Definitely worth a view for fans of classical horror.

Usually the third film in a series shows signs of decline either in quality or inventiveness. Even the third 'Godfather' was significantly less than its predecessors. Universal's 'Frankenstein' series that began in the early 1930's was no exception and showed some wear by the end of the decade when 'Son of Frankenstein' was released. Under the sensitive direction of James Whale, the original 'Frankenstein' was a classic, and, in the first sequel, 'Bride of Frankenstein,' Whale even managed to better it. However, while Whale was not involved with 'Son,' the third installment turned out to be a surprisingly good movie even if it failed to match the two preceding films. Perhaps the major reason for the success of 'Son' was the casting of Basil Rathbone as Wolf Frankenstein, the original Baron's son. Rathbone is a fine strong actor, and his characterization certainly exceeds Colin Clive's somewhat colorless portrayal of his father in the preceding films. Rathbone holds the viewer's attention throughout as he becomes immersed in the legacy of his father and fails to comprehend the consequences of what he is doing. Boris Karloff returns for a third time as the monster. Although he does a fine job, there is less opportunity for the actor to show the range of emotion in this film that he displayed in 'Bride.' Another aspect of 'Son' that raises it above the ordinary is the set and lighting design, which owes a debt to German expressionism. The sets have bold diagonals in their construction, and the cameraman has lit them to cast equally bold shadows against bare walls and create abstract patterns that often recall 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.' The lighting and design of one particular section of a cave under the Frankenstein laboratory could have been blown up and framed as an expressionist photograph. Although it does not reach the heights of the Whale films, 'Son of Frankenstein' is a worthy successor and an engrossing film in its own right.

Definitely the most underrated of the three "Karloff-as-Monster" films. To my mind, it's the one that plays best today. Bela Legosi gives his finest, most understated performance as Ygor. The cinematography is spectacular. Lionel Atwill's performance is my favorite of his (and one of the few times he didn't play a villain). I could go on and on ad infinitum, but I don't see the reason to. The film speaks for itself. It gets one of my highest recommendations.