Frankenstein
The
university in my hometown (University of Aalborg) has a faculty of
bioengineering. One of their specialties is to develop prosthesis controlled by
electric signals in the functioning nerves. You should basically just think
that you want to move and the prosthesis moves. You can volunteer for their
experiments in which they will send electricity through your body and it is
supposed to be rather painful. In order to advertise for new students to the
faculty they made a commercial video featuring Frankenstein crying “IT’S ALIVE,
IT’S ALIVE!” while electric current pours into his animated monster.
Nobody will
even for a second wonder about this reference. Show me someone who does not
know of Frankenstein and I will claim you found him in an ice crevasse, frozen
down for centuries. The story of Frankenstein and his monster is iconic beyond
the usual usage of the term and is not at all outdated today. I am only
wondering why Hollywood in its craving for easy surefire plots has not made a
remake since 94 of Frankenstein. Not that it is necessary at all. I am quite
satisfied with the original from 1931.
Of course I
love the above mentioned scene where the monster gets animated. It is every bit
as satisfying as its iconic status promises. All those gadgets frying with
electric current, tesla balls and all, and above a thunderstorm raging to set
the stage. Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein and Boris Karloff as the monster are
perfect in this scene. Colin Clive is full of insane fire and has that wild
look in his eyes. Perfectly believable. And Karloff owned that monster.
In fact
these two actors carry the movie all the way through. The general performance
of the cast is very mixed. I am not too fond of Frankenstein’s girlfriend
Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) or his friend and many of the extras are outright
annoying. I am a bit undecided about Edward van Sloan’s Dr. Waldman. While
certainly better than van Helsing in “Dracula”, there is still something
artificial Teutonic about him that I cannot come to terms with. Dr. Frankenstein’s
father, the baron on the other hand is superbly played by Frederic Kerr. His
no-nonsense straight talk and attitude is a perfect counterweight to the lofty
and rather insane attitude of his son. Though is very Irish manner may be
clashing with he supposedly Germanic origin
But no
matter, this is a movie entirely borne by the two leads.
The
comparison with “Dracula” is unavoidable. They came out shortly after each
other and are both iconic horror movies. They even have some of the cast in
common. The difference between the two is that Frankenstein works and Dracula
does not. James Whale managed to set the exact right gothic ambience right from
the opening with Frankenstein and his assistant, the hunchback Fritz (Dwight
Frye) rummaging through a cemetery looking for leftover body parts. I just
cannot think of a better opening to a gothic horror movie. Also the tower used
as Frankenstein’s laboratory is a perfect pick. Dark and damp stones, yeah! Light
years ahead of “Dracula”. But also in the direction here works so much better.
While “Dracula” suffers from being uncomfortable with the sound technique, “Frankenstein”
uses the technique instead of being afraid of it, the action flows much more
naturally and is not limited to a simple stage with people coming in and going
out. No, Frankenstein survives even today.
The eternal
question when it comes to “Frankenstein” is if the monster is truly an evil
character begotten by an unholy experiment or if he is a misunderstood and
mistreated child in a giant’s body, forsaken by his creator. The film generally
takes the former opinion. Dr. Frankenstein is repenting his deeds and the
monster is vilified as a murderous monster and hunted down by a mob with
pitchforks and torches and finally burned alive to stamp out this evil.
But Karloff
suffuses the monster with empathy and childlike attitudes. It is primal in its
fears and anger and joy and when it is sitting by the water with the little
girl we see that it is just a kid with too big a body. It terrifies and saddens
it that the girl is afraid and drown, but he is confused, does not know what to
do and runs away.
This position
becomes a lot in focus in the follow up, “Wife of Frankenstein”, but more on
that when it gets time for that movie.
The monster
seeks his maker, but he rejects it and wants nothing to do with it, which of
course angers the monster. That is also a classic theme.
Frankenstein
as the irresponsible scientist is a warning that there is a limit as to how far
you can go, but I think more a lesson to be responsible and stand by what you
do. He created the monster, it is his responsibility. To just abandon it is the
real crime here.
One day I
should go over to the bioengineering department and see if they are truly
creating a monster and if they will be more responsible than Dr. Frankenstein.
I agree that this classic monster film works, while Dracula mostly doesn't. One thing that no Frankenstein movie has gotten right (to my knowledge) is that in the book the creature does not stay a frightened child, but becomes a well-educated and urbane being. It's also Dr. Frankenstein himself that ends up going after the creature, even to the Arctic ice, not townspeople with torches. (Hence the reason the book is titled "Frankenstein" for the main character, not for the monster.) Every subsequent version seems to use this movie as the story template, though. The closest to getting it right was the 1994 version, which almost no one saw.
ReplyDeleteWell, including me. I did not even know there was a 94 version till I looked it up. I should like to see a version more in line with the plot you describe.
DeleteI'm definitely in agreement that Frankenstein holds up far better than Dracula. Nice write up of the monster. Karloff does such a great job here in a very sympathetic performance.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I must admit that I was greatly inspired by your review.
Delete