Skip to main content

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein
(1931)

(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

For a picture in which Edward Van Sloan (Dr Waldman and Van Helsing in the earlier Dracula) considerately comes on to offer a “friendly warning” of the terror to come, it’s curious how unguarded the screenplay is in setting out its store of what is going on, why and how the characters happen upon it, as if it’s in a hurry to get all that ungainly exposition out of the way. We’re located in the Bavarian Alps, courtesy of a soundstage, except when clearly sunny Californian exteriors – with added lederhosen – are doubling for it, and the supporting characters are already fully aware that Henry Frankenstein – the name Victor is reserved for the not-actually hero played by John Boles, even though he comes on as if he’s destined to be – is unhinged and doing something untoward. And when they rock up at his abandoned watchtower, it takes very little for Henry to confess all (and then somehow persuade Waldman to hang around).

If the story construction is on the sloppy side, though, this is leaps and bounds ahead of Dracula as a production. It also helps that the central casting is so vital, Colin Clive bringing a twitchy theatrical zeal to Henry that’s entirely appropriate to the tone and atmosphere (he’d played Stanhope in director James Whale’s stage and film productions of Journey’s End). His “He’s alive!” is justly iconic, possibly more so than the creature itself (okay, maybe not that), and he’s only lessened ultimately by the strictures of the script in corralling him into a nominal hero role for the final act, during which he heads out to put an end to the creature with an entourage of villagers. Before that, when he announces “Now I know what it feels like to be God!” he’s exactly the kind of maniacal genius you want to spend time with.

Then there’s Karloff, (or “?” as the credits fail to announce), now the indelible vision of the monster and at once crazed and violent and sympathetically innocent. Enough of the picture has been so closely spoofed by Mel Brooks in Young Frankenstein (the abnormal brain of a typical criminal most redundantly, as it already plays like farce here) or homaged (the scene with the little girl is still kind of shocking, but gave rise to The Monster Squad’s less downbeat version) that it can be difficult to see this with unspoiled eyes, but this monster still feels entirely afflicted and tormented in a genuine way. At times very literally, courtesy of Dwight Frye’s Fritz (Frye being another fugitive from Dracula, and much more impactful there; here he’s little more than a stooge sadist).

Mae Clarke as Henry’s fiancé is less than fully engaging, however, while Frederick Kerr’s Baron Frankenstein is so bizarrely out of his element – in a bumbling duffer, Nigel Bruce sense – that he’s in danger of bringing the entire edifice down around our ears, in much the same manner as the villagers bring down the monster at the climax, setting alight a windmill (a hugely impressive sequence). The Baron ends up with the last word, and it feels rather like a sop to send viewers home without a trace of terror in their hearts.

And yet, even though the confluence of events, such that the monster’s on the loose (having killed Waldman) on the same night as Henry’s nuptials, becomes progressively more ungainly, the picture retains a sporadic power. Waldman being on the verge of dissecting the monster when it strangles him is strong stuff, as is the creature throwing the little girl into the lake, expecting her to float, and she singularly failing to do so. Whale brings a twisted, pre-Hayes Code poetry to the material that’s still potent.

Generally, I wonder if it’s deceptively difficult to make a good Frankenstein film. Whale managed to improved on himself with his follow up, but the likes of Hammer and Sir Ken haven’t come close. The best is probably Brooks’ spoof, and that’s so indebted to Whale that he’s still, almost ninety years on, the last word in the making of the monster.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).