The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

To a new world of Gods and Monsters

I feel I’m starting to become a bit of a connoisseur of Frankenstein movies.  Though, as I’ve said before, I was spoiled early on by seeing Danny Boyle’s stage production starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller.  Both versions (the two leads swapped roles of Frankenstein and the monster) were fabulous and were closer to the source material than any of the movies I’ve seen yet.

The Bride of Frankenstein is the sequel to the original 1931 Frankenstein, again starring Boris Karloff as the monster and Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein.  The film begins with some rather unnecessary exposition involving Mary Shelly, her husband and a Lord Byron who is ridiculously pompous and overacts.  The point is to remind us of the events of the first film, but despite some nice camera transition zooms, it’s a rather clumsy way to start the movie.

When the story properly begins it follows on immediately from the first film and we discover that the monster isn’t dead.  There is a certain amount of knees bent running about involving some more rent-a-lynch-mob action; but crucially the victimisation of the monster is far more convincing than in the first film.  The introduction of speech increases this misunderstanding.  Apparently Karloff thought that if the monster spoke it would ruin its “charm”, but I feel that the introduction of the blind man that helps him begin to communicate helps create empathy with the creature as he becomes more self aware.  In this scene in particular I thought Karloff showed his skill and really managed to create a sense of sadness and generate sympathy with the monster.

Aside from Karloff, the other crucial characters are Henry Frankenstein (still don’t know why he was renamed) played by Colin Clive, and Ernst Thesiger as Dr Pretorius.  Colin Clive has a great manic energy that he continues from the first film and improves on; even when he is refusing to do the experiments his guilt is rather eccentric.  Dr Pretorius is a calm collected counterpoint to Frankenstein, and is the driving force behind the new experiments.  His introduction is a touch bizarre; he shows Henry several live homunculi he has created, complete with individual personalities and squeaky voices.  It sounds better than it actually is, but I can understand the reason behind introducing Pretorius’ skill, and at least the special effects are surprisingly good.  Clive and Thesiger work really well together, and it is their relationship that helps drive the film to its conclusion.

This conclusion is of course the creation of the monster’s bride, and is a wonderful blend of glorious sets, brilliant lighting and dynamic direction.  As in the first film, James Whale makes excellent use of light and shadow, and nowhere is this better seen than when lightning is striking the creation. Frankenstein and Pretorius are filmed from above (looking down at them from the gods?) in shadow and their excited faces are suddenly lit by flashes of lightning.  It is a far more dramatic creation scene than the first film, and indeed Hammer’s Curse of Frankenstein.  It then culminates in Colin Clive’s iconic “It’s alive!”.  After all this superbity (new word), the final scene is a bit of a let down, and a self-destruct lever in the lab seems like a quick fix end to the film.  Shame.

A vast improvement over the first film, apart from a clunky beginning and a quick fix end, The Bride of Frankenstein captures far more of the spirit of the novel; both Frankenstein and his monster are victims, and Karloff’s performance generates real sympathy with the misunderstood creature.  The story demands less leaps of faith than the original film, and James Whale’s direction is sharper and more creative than before.   But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Frankenstein (1931)

Having enjoyed Mary Shelly's novel, and having seen and loved both versions of Danny Boyle's stage production, I was really looking forward to what I think is regarded as the definitive film version.  I'm afraid to say that I was quite disappointed.  I'm really not sure why the story had to be so much of a departure from the book.  One of the key aspects of the story is that the monster is a victim, he didn't ask to be created, and we should feel sympathy towards it; something wonderfully conveyed by both Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller on stage.  This is mostly missing from Boris Karloff's performance; but I think this is mostly due to a wayward script.  There is a moment when the monster encounters a young girl playing by a lakeside, and her reaction is not one of revulsion, rather she sees him as a person; but that's really the only moment of empathy I had with it.  Dr Frankenstein should also be a victim, but of his own ambition as he regrets ever going down the road to his reanimation experiments.  There is some regret in Henry's character but it is by no means explored fully.

I also couldn't understand why the main character (Dr Victor Frankenstein) was renamed Henry, and his friend was renamed Victor!  At least Elizabeth retained her name.  I also couldn't understand why "Henry's" father Baron Frankenstein, kept referring to his son as Frankenstein!  Not Henry, or son.  There is also a moment when a father finds his murdered daughter (of course killed by the monster, but he doesn't know that), yet he turns up at the Frankenstein residence demanding justice, and a hunt is organised for the monster.  We don't see anyone find out about the monster, but magically everyone instantly knows that it killed the girl.  I feel this is just sloppy script writing.

What I did like was the way that James Whale used light to create shadows throughout the film.  When we first see the monster walk into a room towards Frankenstein, there is a huge shadow cast by a hidden light, in such a way that the ominous shape towers over Henry.  There are many other instances of this (such as steep staircases disappearing into shadows) , giving the film a very striking visual style.

Unfortunately I think that for all this style there is too little substance.  All of these Universal classic horror films are about 70 minutes long, and while The Wolfman managed to tell a great story I can't help but feel that if Frankenstein had been longer then a better approximation of the source material could have been reached.  This would have made a far greater impact and made a much better film in my opinion.

The Mummy (1932)

This is the first telling of the love story between the ancient Egyptian Prince Imhotep (buried alive 3000 years ago) and the woman he loves, Princess Anck-es-en-Amon; a love story that spans thousands of years as well as death itself. I'm guessing that most people are likely to be more familiar with Stephen Sommers' 1999 version, so the best way of describing this film is as an abridged version, and with a run time of only 70 minutes it really crams a lot in.

There is quite a minimal cast who are all much of a muchness, that is of course excepting the enigmatic Boris Karloff. As the Mummy, his performance is very understated but perfectly pitched; he opens doors with such a sleight of hand that it appears that they just open before him. His movements are all slow and deliberate as his presence dominates all his scenes. The main thing that bugged me, however, was that having been revived, Imhotep then waits ten years before trying to revive Anck-es-en-Amon. This could be because he was waiting for another British expedition so he can direct them to dig where Anck-es-en-Amon is buried, but this isn't satisfactorily explained. In the mean time, Imhotep has found himself gainful employment in the museum in Cairo and obviously been integrated into society for all this time!

Karl Freund’s direction is very careful and deliberate and makes great use of light, particularly on Boris Karloff, however the film is very dated. Some of the dialogue is very clunky and the ending in particular is very unsatisfactory. Having said that, the film is still enjoyable and worth checking out for Karloff’s performance.