Frankenstein

'Frankenstein', like Todd Browning's 'Dracula' released earlier the same year (1931, a landmark year which also saw the release of Fritz Lang's dazzling serial killer thriller 'M'!), is an important movie and should be compulsory viewing for any SF/horror fan, but it isn't a dull movie to be studied, it is a wonderfully entertaining movie to be ENJOYED. Okay, the modern viewer has to try and watch it without jaded and cynical eyes and take it in its historical context to really appreciate it, but that isn't difficult. The acting is often hokey, the special effects, which were astonishing 70+ years ago, may look a little primitive by our standards, and the movie isn't anywhere near as terrifying to us as it was to 1930s movie audiences, but even so, I can't see how anyone can not LOVE this movie! Director James Whale was a lot more sophisticated and original than Todd Browning, and as much as I enjoy 'Dracula', 'Frankenstein' is a much better movie, and the best from this era, not counting its brilliant sequel 'Bride Of Frankenstein' which to mind mind actually surpasses it. Talented character actors Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye, both from 'Dracula', reappear in different but similar roles, and Colin Clive is fine as Henry Frankenstein, the prototype mad scientist, but the real star of the show, and the main reason this movie has lived for so many years, is the utterly superb performance by the legendary Boris Karloff as The Monster. I think Karloff is amazing in this and doesn't get the respect he deserves because many dismiss it as "just a horror movie". 'Frankenstein' is one of the most important and influential movies ever made, and is one movie I NEVER tire of no matter how many times I watch it, and James Whale is one of the most underrated directors of all time, looking at his innovative work in this, 'The Invisible Man', and especially 'Bride Of Frankenstein', the greatest sequel in the history of motion pictures. What a movie! What a director!

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

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.

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.

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.