It's definitely one of my many non-flattering qualities, but here goes: for the most part, black and white horror films bore me to tears. With the exception of some of Alfred Hitchcock's older work, I've always found these films to be a somber, even lifeless experience, with no semblance of relativity to the modern world. Hell, even the very LOOK of B&W serves as an instant insomnia cure, since the plain color(less) scheme has this very dreamlike quality that soothes me and gets me into a trancelike state. Considering that I do the majority of my horror movie watching when I'm dead tired, it's no wonder why I don't partake in a lot of the classic monster movies and 1940s and 50s mystery killer movies. This flick, however, is an exception. The story of Frankenstein is something that virtually every child hears about; it's like the origin of Superman. Everybody knows the basics - Dr. Frankenstein's obsession with creating a living entity from a nonliving entity, or entities, the wave of death that follows, and the tragic ending when the creature causes the master's destruction. There have been virtually dozens of film adaptations of Mary Shelley's classic novel, varying wildly in quality. The one that follows the novel closest is "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein," released in 1994 and starring Robert DeNiro as the monster. While ol' Travis Bickle does a hell of a job, as usual, and the special effects are definitely more relevant in today's CGI-encrusted world, this movie has always felt flat to me. Maybe it's just that I'm in a bad mood every time I watch it, but I've never seen the unparalleled masterpiece-ness of what many consider to be the holy grail of Frank-O flicks. There's also "The Bride of Frankenstein," released in 1935, which appears on just about every "Best Horror Movies of All Time" list. And that one...also feels a little flat to me. Nope - I'm a purist. At least a film purist, since this movie is about as far away from the novel as you can possibly get while still having the gall to call itself "Frankenstein." Nonetheless, this remains my favorite version of the story ever told.
Since there's sufficient differences between the book and 1931 film versions of "Frankenstein," let's review the nuances of this B&W classic, shall we?
THE MOVIE!!
Dr. Henry Frankenstein, played by an appropriately bookish Colin Clive, is an eccentric scientist obsessed with the curious theory of death begatting life. Along with his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye), he begins making his theory - which of course gets him much scorn and ridicule in the scientific community - a reality. They rob graves in the middle of the night and piece together as many spare body parts as they can from various resources, with the primary goal of creating an artificial body out of the parts and granting it life through electricity. As the horrific body nears completion, however, Fritz makes a terrible mistake, swiping the brain of a violent criminal for use in their creature.
Meanwhile, we are introduced to the movie's secondary protagonists. First and foremost is Elizabeth (Mae Clarke), his long-suffering fiancee, ever supportive of her mate despite his obsessive tendencies and long hours spent locked away with his work. There is also Dr. Waldman (Edward Van Sloan), Henry's former medical professor, who agrees to make an attempt to pull Dr. Frankenstein away from his work and toward a life of suitable normalcy with Elizabeth. Unfortunately for them, they're too late - they arrive at Henry's clock tower laboratory just as he begins the final stages of his experiment. The body of the creature - a grotesque being with bolts in its neck, abnormally large and with a face that only its creator could truly love - is raised toward the ceiling. Henry's electrical machines whir to life, and the creature begins stirring on the table...
Boris Karloff is the legendary actor who portrays Frank (as I'll call the creature from now on - either that or "the monster"), and not to beat that proverbial redundant hat in the sea of reviews out there, but he does an amazing job. He went on to play Frank three more times after this movie (including the wildly praised and aforementioned "Bride of Frankenstein"), but I still believe this to be his best portrayal, despite some of the more complex - and wordless - emotional scenes contained in "Bride." He's instantly menacing - his appearance alone is more than effective in giving that impression - but Karloff has such an uneasy presence about him that grants such a simple character excellent depth. Almost immediately, Fritz accidentally scare the bejesus out of the poor brute with a torch. Karloff's reactions, while overly theatrical in the style of early-1930s cinema, serve their purposes well, and NEVER make modern audiences laugh. So three gold stars for Boris Karloffoffice (ten points if you get that reference).
The torch incident with Fritz turns out to be the impetus of what comes in the film. Frank interprets the action to be hostile, leading to the death of Fritz as the creature strangles him to death. Henry and Dr. Waldman immediately realize that they have created an abomination, and hatch a plan to inject the monster with a powerful drug and destroy it. Through a series of coincidences, the monster escapes, and immediately sets out to make its creator's life a living hell. Henry Frankenstein, meanwhile, is preparing for his long-awaited wedding day, completely unaware that the thing that he tried for so long to create is now on the loose, and completely untethered by his precious science...
"Frankenstein" is a relatively simple story, but its value isn't in a bunch of plot twists, or ultra-realistic acting. Its value lies in looking at the moral philosophy of Henry Frankenstein, of how quickly he creates a truly inhuman being without a care in the world, and of how quickly he realizes that it must be destroyed. The moral of the story, it seems, is that we, as humans, need to think before we act. Particularly considering what happens in the movie's very best scene - Frank, while wandering the countryside, happens upon an innocent little girl, the first human he has met to not recoil in horror upon seeing him. He even plays a game of rock skipping with her, but in his infinite simplicity, he throws the girl into the lake, accidentally drowning her. Watching this scene, even today, has a very potent affect on the viewer; despite the fact that this movie is damn near 80 years old, our heart bleeds for this creature, whose inability to understand the properties of human life has destroyed the closest thing to a friend it will ever know.
Because of scenes like this peppered throughout this seemingly ancient film, "Frankenstein" rises above the constraints of its time period and becomes, in my humble opinion, a damn fine and essential film for any movie fan. It's a textbook example of a simple story told well. As an added bonus, it contains fantastic performances by Karloff as the monster and Clive as the foolish Dr. Frankenstein, in addition to stylish and snappy direction from James Whale, who would later go on to film 1933's "The Invisible Man." It may not rank particularly high on the vomit meter, but Joe Bob would still implore you to check this one out.
No comments:
Post a Comment