|
|
Post by telegonus on Sept 24, 2017 6:58:40 GMT
I watched James Whale's 1931 Frankenstein earlier tonight and it was excellent as usual, and it struck me, not for the first time, that it was truly a classic film, an early talkie masterpiece, that it's being classed as a horror is almost unfortunate in a way, as while it's probably, even more than the only slightly earlier Dracula the movie that really put horror over as a new genre. The sets, photography were superb, as were the principal players. Only occasionally is the film discussed as a stand alone classic. Indeed, it's an early horror but as with other classic films that just happen to be genre (The Big Trail, Little Caesar, Scarface, Stagecoach, Gunga Din, The Thief Of Baghdad) it deserves more respect than I suspect it has even among classic movie buffs.
It's not particularly faithful to Mary Shelley's novel; and there are all sorts of differences between the original story and its characters, right down to their names (young Henry was Victor in the novel); and the monster could talk in Mary Shelley's telling of "a Modern Prometheus". All that aside, the movie works on its own, the way operas that borrow their stories from Shakespeare and popular novels do. I think it works nicely that the movie is set in Germany and not Switzerland; and that Henry is from a noble family with his father a baron adds to his stature in the community and also to his tragedy as a man. There are solecisms galore in the film, as the medical school appears to have electric lights but most other places in the film don't or don't seem to. The characters are dressed more or less for the early 20th century and yet there are no cars. Then there are all those torch bearing villagers (no flashlights or lamps?), apparently unarmed.
Yet all these odd aspects of the film strike me as pluses rather than minuses inasmuch as it's as much a fantasy as it is a horror. It's true to being fantastic in its setting, right down to its quaint little village so removed from the rest of the world. Not quite set in an alternate universe, Frankenstein, with its spooky science, obsessed and rather tortured young son of a nobleman as a hero, with his avoiding his very attractive fiance in favor of digging up graves with a seeming half-wit of a hunchback as his sole companion, it offers an embarrassment of riches on several levels. While not an action picture, it's far more filled with action than most films of its era, westerns aside, with people on the move most of the time, whether grave digging, running up and down stairs in an ancient watchtower, literally dancing in the streets of the village in anticipation of a wedding that shall, as we learn in time, have to be put off for a while. The confrontation of Henry and his creature in the windmill, their scuffle, the villagers torching of the windmill with the monster still inside, is its climactic sequence, and still disturbing and emotional after all these years.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Sept 24, 2017 12:29:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Sept 24, 2017 16:16:31 GMT
Thanks for posting those pix, wmcclain. They go to show that the film is still stunning after all these years.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 24, 2017 17:09:31 GMT
telegonusHow do you like Svengoolie being on two hours earlier ? Best part of his show is the trivia break. Wish that he would do more of that.
Frankenstein is a very enjoyable film and more than "just a B&W Horror".
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 25, 2017 2:23:33 GMT
Horror: the genre that don't get no respect. Oh sure, there have been the odd instances of a Fredric March Oscar win for Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde or noms for Hitchcock and Leigh for Psycho or Ellen Burstyn's for The Exorcist (not that AMPAS is the be-all and end-all of respect) but, y'know. As you suggest, how often is Frankenstein mentioned alongside, say, The Maltese Falcon or Casablanca for its archetypal visual elegance (same DP on all three, by the way: Arthur Edeson)?
I could only theorize about what sets either the individual film or the entire genre somehow apart: a "guilty pleasure" aspect that renders it beneath consideration; an iconic one so pervasive that its absorption into popular culture elevates it to something beyond "just a movie?"
Whatever the case, I recall discussions we had on the old IMDB boards about the overall "alternate universe" quality of the films of this series that not only made them difficult to nail down as identifiable places and periods, but which further differentiated each from the one before or the one to follow. You mention cars, for example: in the entire collection of eight in the Universal canon (including A&C Meet...), an auto appears in only one: 1939's Son Of... (a Peugeot, for the record). Yet, in 1935's Bride Of..., which would have taken place roughly 35-40 years earlier (in which the date of death of the girl whose skeleton is stolen from a crypt is given as "1899"), Pretorius refers to a field telephone as "this electrical device." And in '42's Ghost Of... and '43's ...Meets the Wolfman, everyone still travels about on horseback or horse-drawn carriage (there is, at least, long-distance telephony in ...Meets the Wolfman and A&C Meet, as well as a motorboat in the latter).
Going back to more subjective and routine evaluations, I'd place Karloff's transcendent and completely transformative performance in '31 above that of March in the same year, but perhaps the iconic and enduring status of both actor and character accords greater respect in the long run than any concurrent recognition granted those of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Sept 25, 2017 6:29:51 GMT
Horror: the genre that don't get no respect. Oh sure, there have been the odd instances of a Fredric March Oscar win for Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde or noms for Hitchcock and Leigh for Psycho or Ellen Burstyn's for The Exorcist (not that AMPAS is the be-all and end-all of respect) but, y'know. As you suggest, how often is Frankenstein mentioned alongside, say, The Maltese Falcon or Casablanca for its archetypal visual elegance (same DP on all three, by the way: Arthur Edeson)? I could only theorize about what sets either the individual film or the entire genre somehow apart: a "guilty pleasure" aspect that renders it beneath consideration; an iconic one so pervasive that its absorption into popular culture elevates it to something beyond "just a movie?" Whatever the case, I recall discussions we had on the old IMDB boards about the overall "alternate universe" quality of the films of this series that not only made them difficult to nail down as identifiable places and periods, but which further differentiated each from the one before or the one to follow. You mention cars, for example: in the entire collection of eight in the Universal canon (including A&C Meet...), an auto appears in only one: 1939's Son Of... (a Peugeot, for the record). Yet, in 1935's Bride Of..., which would have taken place roughly 35-40 years earlier (in which the date of death of the girl whose skeleton is stolen from a crypt is given as "1899"), Pretorius refers to a field telephone as "this electrical device." And in '42's Ghost Of... and '43's ...Meets the Wolfman, everyone still travels about on horseback or horse-drawn carriage (there is, at least, long-distance telephony in ...Meets the Wolfman and A&C Meet, as well as a motorboat in the latter). Going back to more subjective and routine evaluations, I'd place Karloff's transcendent and completely transformative performance in '31 above that of March in the same year, but perhaps the iconic and enduring status of both actor and character accords greater respect in the long run than any concurrent recognition granted those of others. Funny that you mention Fredric March's win for the Mamoulian Jekyll & Hyde. It occurred to me while watching Frankenstein last night that it ought to have been Karloff, who gave the better performance IMHO, but then I doubt he was even nominated. Yet underneath it all I also sensed that maybe that was the Academy's way of honoring the unknown Englishman, who'd appeared in mostly small and even bit parts over the years,--so they chose the more respectable March, and a Paramount picture, as Paramount was a much bigger outfit than Universal back then--and this in a way did legitimatize Karloff and maybe horror players generally (after a fashion anyway), though of course they deserved so much more. For all this, horror never did go truly mainstream in the studio era. One only has to think of the far more "upscale" careers of gangster picture stars Cagney and Robinson (Bogart scarcely needs mentioning) to those of "novelty stars" Karloff and Lugosi. Claude Rains managed to avoid horror "ghettoization" , though he returned later for the '43 Phantom Of The Opera, his years at Warners made him respectable. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Sept 25, 2017 6:34:13 GMT
telegonus How do you like Svengoolie being on two hours earlier ? Best part of his show is the trivia break. Wish that he would do more of that.
Frankenstein is a very enjoyable film and more than "just a B&W Horror". I'd rather Sven was on later, which always seems better for horror. Where I live it was 11:00 PM, so now it's three hours earlier here. On the other hand I'm guessing that he has a kid following so the earlier time makes more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 25, 2017 15:43:09 GMT
I'd rather Sven was on later, which always seems better for horror. Where I live it was 11:00 PM, so now it's three hours earlier here. On the other hand I'm guessing that he has a kid following so the earlier time makes more sense. Oh, I hope he has a kid following, Tele. If more kids enjoy these movies when young instead of saying, "Ew, it's in black and white, too old"--if so, then, heck, there may be hope after all!  |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 25, 2017 16:20:28 GMT
Funny that you mention Fredric March's win for the Mamoulian Jekyll & Hyde. It occurred to me while watching Frankenstein last night that it ought to have been Karloff, who gave the better performance IMHO, but then I doubt he was even nominated. Yet underneath it all I also sensed that maybe that was the Academy's way of honoring the unknown Englishman, who'd appeared in mostly small and even bit parts over the years,--so they chose the more respectable March, and a Paramount picture, as Paramount was a much bigger outfit than Universal back then--and this in a way did legitimatize Karloff and maybe horror players generally (after a fashion anyway), though of course they deserved so much more. For all this, horror never did go truly mainstream in the studio era. One only has to think of the far more "upscale" careers of gangster picture stars Cagney and Robinson (Bogart scarcely needs mentioning) to those of "novelty stars" Karloff and Lugosi. Claude Rains managed to avoid horror "ghettoization" , though he returned later for the '43 Phantom Of The Opera, his years at Warners made him respectable. Nope, no nom for Boris, then or ever. Helluvit is there were only three nominees that year, and two of 'em won! Alfred Lunt in The Guardsman was the odd man out of the March-Beery tie. But nothing for 1935's The Black Room (in which Karloff negotiates what amounts to three performances: the good twin, the evil twin and the evil one impersonating the good one) or 1945's The Body Snatcher. They're both exceptionally fine work by any standard. But credit to dear Boris for never resenting any such slights, calling the monster "The best friend I ever had...he gave me a career," which included among so many other opportunities five Broadway shows (for one of which, The Lark in '55-'56 with Julie Harris, he received a Tony nom). I like your observations about Claude Rains. I've heard that he'd express disdain for Hollywood and film work, retreating to his New England home whenever he had long enough breaks between pictures and vowing never to return. A pose, perhaps, since he always did, but in spite of the prestige that his work at WB and elsewhere accorded him, it appears that when Universal called, he came running, sandwiching The Wolf Man in between Here Comes Mr. Jordan and Kings Row, or POTO between Now Voyager/ Casablanca and Passage To Marseille/ Mr. Skeffington. I like to think he felt some loyalty and gratitude to the studio for putting him on the map in such spectacular fashion with The Invisible Man. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Sept 25, 2017 23:11:02 GMT
Thanks, Doghouse. I didn't think BK was nominated. Ever. Horror people are unlucky with the Oscar people, it seems. Maybe not so much now but back in the day my sense is that a for a major studio to be producing horror movies at all was a gigantic embarrassment for them. They'd do it for the money but hated the image. MGM sort of of de-horrored their Jekyll and Hyde and Dorian Gray pix of the Forties, treating them as literary properties, which they were also, though they had to give in a little for hardcoregenre fans.
Yes, once released from his long term Warners contract Claude Rains film work was desultory. A movie here and there, then he'd skip a year or two. He was active in live and some filmed television in the Fifties, then old age really began to set in. In the wake of The Invisible Man's success Universal gave Rains better or at least more mainstream films than they gave Karloff. I suspect that Rains' Anglo name and stage reputation helped. Names like Karloff and Lugosi just sounded like horror star names. Atwill and Zucco did nicely as well, in the latter's case surprisingly so given his odd looks and manner,plus that last name.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Sept 30, 2017 2:06:53 GMT
'Frankenstein' is my favourite James Whale horror. In fact, my favourite Whale picture and he made some good ones. Fortunately his fetish doll Una O'Connor is null and void.
I watched an interview with Mel Brooks this week who's here in the U K to launch a new stage show. A clip was played from 'Young Frankenstein' (1974). Brooks made it clear he appreciated other Universal pictures, but it was the cinema of Whale that tickled him pink. 'Frankenstein' is straight-up nasty compared to Whale's other horrors. I find it brutally effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Sept 30, 2017 17:13:00 GMT
I must admit that I liked the sequel better, but if there wasn't a first movie there wouldn't have been sequel. With that said I'm not diminishing the original Frankenstein movie. There is so many memorable images in it it.
The name in the cast that usually alludes me is John Boles, who was actually a big star in the early sound period, yet few remembers that he was in it.
|
|
