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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.