Le fils de Frankenstein

If there is any significance at all in the third chapter of the long-running Frankenstein movie series, it is that it brought together the two most iconic and famous vintage horror movie stars and one of the greatest hero actors to oppose them. The movie stars Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes) as the—like the title suggests—the son of Dr. Frankenstein, who was played by Colin Clive in the first two movies. The son of Frankenstein, while investigating the decimated ruins of his father's old laboratory, comes upon the comatose remains of the Frankenstein monster still played by Boris Karloff. In addition, the living corpse of Ygor, played by Bela Lugosi (Dracula) keeps a close eye on his half-living, half-dead companion and uses the new Dr. Frankenstein to return life to the green-skinned creature.

"Son of Frankenstein" is not a very significant horror movie and is not in the same league as the first two movies of the series, but in comparison to a great many of the sequels that followed, it does stand out as one of the few passable entries. I enjoyed this twice as much as I did the 1994 adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein"; Rathbone, Karloff, and Lugosi are all very good in this film. I also liked Lionel Atwill as the one-armed, mustached inspector trying to find out what's going on. I also liked the touch of how the villagers have prejudicially turned on Baron Wolf Frankenstein on account of what his father created before him.

Now what I did not like, and what cost the movie what was potentially a higher rating, was the long moments of dead space in between the monster sequences. Karloff does not have very much to do in this film; he mostly just lies around or stands around. I also did not find the self-destruction approach of Basil Rathbone's character like I did the one with Colin Clive in the first two Frankenstein pictures. The most interesting thing in the movie is Lugosi as Ygor and it does rival his performance in "Dracula" (1931). It's just a shame his performance here wasn't in a better, more significant film.

Nevertheless, on the whole, I did enjoy "Son of Frankenstein" and found it a lot more pleasing than a lot of the absurdly ridiculous follow-ups that came after it. No, it's not in the same league as the original "Frankenstein" (1931) or the surprisingly wonderful "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), but very few horror movies are. But it is at the same time a missed opportunity and will probably only work for the fans. I recommend it for three things: Rathbone, Karloff, and Lugosi.

With the runaway success of the re-issue on a double bill of both "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" in the late nineteen thirties, Universal Studios decided it was time to resurrect their most lucrative property, the Frankenstein Monster, if the studio was to have any chance of surviving the fiscal year. True to form they originally intended to produce nothing more than a quick cheapie to cash in on the public's renewed interest in horror films. Director Rowland V. Lee had other ideas. He envisioned the film as a modern fairy tale with Frankenstein's Monster as the traditional giant ogre stalking a primordial landscape, and to be sure it is in this film that he first enters the realm of myth. To help achieve this goal he set Jack Otterson to create the most expressionistic sets of any horror film since "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". The universe of "Son" is a world of perpetual night and fog; rain swept castles and blasted heaths; terrifying flashes of lightening; shadowy corridors where giants lurk; hidden passage ways leading to underground crypts, where time, dust and the worm aren't the only things that move among the dead. "Son of Frankenstein" is the most visually impressive of all of Universal's horror films and George Robinson's gorgeous black and white cinematography captures every shadow, every out-sized distortion beautifully.

This would also be the last time a Frankenstein film would have a script worthy of the subject. Willis Cooper fashioned a contemporary Grimm's fairy tale in which the journey of the film's "outsiders", Wolf, Elsa, and Peter will become progressively more nightmarish the deeper they descend; where even breakfast in the morning will be overseen by a pair of monstrous gargoyles. They're journeying by train to inherit the Frankenstein estate, unknown to them a house literally at the edge of Hell, and these opening shots are the most "normal" in the entire film. They think of themselves as "explorers" and "exploring something so foreign we can't even imagine what its like." They speak of the castle being "haunted", while outside the window we see through the wind and the rain a gray expanse of desolation and dead trees. "What a strange country!" Elsa exclaims. Their passage into the subterranean netherworld of mad doctors, murderous hunchbacks and monsters has begun and will climax in a necrophilic family reunion, ("We're all dead here.") in the Frankenstein crypt, in which both grandfather and father are dead, but the step-brother, the monster and family black sheep is very much alive. "Do you mean to imply that is my brother?" Wolf asks. Igor, the true Frankenstein family retainer replies, "Only his mother was the lightening." And it is Wolf's voyage from arrogance and ignorance, ("Why should we fear anything!") to humility and wisdom, ("Never in my life have I known cold fear until that moment I felt his hand on my shoulder!") which is central to the film.

While the film is a follow up to "Bride of Frankenstein", it very much stands on its own. Gone are any references to the Bride and Dr, Praetorious, both presumably "blown to atoms" at the climax of that film. Also the monster doesn't speak. All traces of speech, at Karloff's insistence were eliminated. The portrait of Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein dominates the castle's study, and recalls the earlier films. In the scenes on the train Wolf refers to the, "Blunder of a stupid assistant who gave his father's creation the brain of a killer instead of a normal one." This is of course, a direct reference to the first film. Karloff's return to his greatest role completes the linking of the three films. And consistent with the impressive visuals, the Monster is given his most striking look. Gone is the distinctly twentieth century black garb so beloved of the Universal Frankenstein films. Instead the Monster is clothed in a crude sheepskin jersey, with heavy shirt and trousers stitched together with strips of leather. Indeed, his whole appearance has become that of a giant, an ogre out of Grimm or Perrault. He even gets the traditional giant's club in the form of Krogh's wooden arm at the film's climax. As if to underscore this, Peter gives the Monster a present-a storybook of fairy tales!

The film may have the greatest horror film cast ever. There is Karloff dominating as the Monster. Given less screen time than in the previous film, his scenes are still among his most powerful. To cite just two examples, the scene where he rises like Lucifer out of the pit is like an image from Dante's Inferno while his primal howl of grief upon discovering the dead Igor is one of the Monster's greatest moments from any of the Frankenstein films. Bela Lugosi easily has his best role after Dracula as the broken neck, hunchback, Igor. Creepy, roguish, even pitiable, one is reminded of what a fine actor he could be with a role worthy of his talent. Lionel Atwill with his beautifully clipped vocal delivery and sardonic sense of humor has his definitive screen role as the one arm Inspector Krogh; he doesn't miss any opportunity for scene stealing bits of business with that wooden arm. And there is Basil Rathbone as Wolf. He doesn't have Karloff's make-up or Lugosi's broken neck or Atwill's wooden arm, but he gives a full-blooded commanding performance that refuses to get lost in this who's who of cinematic ghouls. William K. Everson once said that only a truly great actor can get away with a little deliberate ham now and then, and if Rathbone is a little over the top, it is ham well seasoned and served and adds enormously to the enjoyment of the film. Finally Frank Skinner's incredible film score would set the standard for Universal's horror films for the next decade.

"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.

When Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) arrives to take over his father's estate, the locals immediately begin to fear for the worst. Wolf's father created a monster that terrorized the community and the townsfolk want no more of that. Wolf assures everyone that he has no intentions of creating a monster. But when Wolf finds Ygor (Bela Lugosi) living in the ruins of his father's laboratory, he is soon headed down the same path of destruction that claimed his father.

Over the years, there have been volumes written on the Universal classic horror movies. Realizing that it would be foolish of me to attempt to improve or add much to the writings of these scholars, I'll instead focus on a couple of areas that make Son of Frankenstein so special to me.

1. The Acting. Son of Frankenstein features a Who's Who of the best of the classic horror actors. Joining Rathbone and Lugosi in the cast are Boris Karloff and Lionel Atwill. While each gives a noteworthy performance in their own right, Lugosi's performance is generally held up as the best of his career. And while I agree, Rathbone makes Son of Frankenstein a joy for me to watch. There are very few actors that I can think of who could have played Wolf with the same type of intelligent energy that Rathbone exhibits. He's wonderful. As for Karloff, I'm glad he decided to make Son of Frankenstein his last as the monster. By the time of the second sequel, Karloff's monster became little more that a prop for Lugosi, Rathbone, and Atwill to fight over.

2. The Sets. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the sets in Son of Frankenstein are among the best I've ever seen. The sets are amazing with their bizarre angles and shadows. Two that immediately come to mind are the dining table set and the staircase set at the beginning of the movie. They are in a class of their own.

Every fan of horror, or just good classic movies in general, owes it to themselves to see Son of Frankenstein. It may not be as well known among the casual fan as either Frankenstein or Bride of Frankenstein, but it many ways it's the equal of those two films (if not better).

'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.