Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world
RSS Feeds:All posts by this author|All comments for this post

Frankenstein (1931)

Paul Moore
By Paul Moore posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon

Dave and I visited The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin to catch a movie and a beer. The Alamo Drafthouse is a restaurant/movie theater. More theater than restaurant, they’ve devised simple ways for film lovers to eat a meal, have a beer, and watch a film without those three experiences interrupting eachother.

Playing that night was Frankenstein (1931), part of a week long build up of Monster movies before Halloween. Dave and I ordered a pitcher of Dos Equis without ever having to speak to a waiter, and sat back to enjoy this classic. Last time I saw Frankenstein was probably on a Saturday afternoon when I was a kid. I recently read the book and found it far more insightful than my memories of the movie, but it sounded like fun to watch 70 minutes of a big dead guy chasing people.

Not at all.

In fact, I believe if one scene were removed, Frankenstein would probably never be shown as a horror film. The scene begins with Victor Frankenstein conspicuously locking his fiance in the parlor (where the Monster scares her with a painfully tongue-in-cheek “rarr”) then ends in a cut to a peasant carrying his drowned daughter through the village. Those few minutes are the only whiff of a genre Boris Karloff would be typecast in for the rest of his life: The B-movie Horror.

IMDb lists Karloff as an actor in 172 movies. Among the titles several jump out as ridiculous. The winner for me is The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (1960). In 1931, the year Frankenstein was made, he appeared in 17 movies alone.

Karloff as The Monster in Frankenstein is so nuanced, and the direction is so deliberate that within minutes of The Monster’s creation, the screen was blurring from tears welling in my eyes. In a strange strand, I connected Frankenstein (1931) with Steve James’ documentary Stevie (2002). Both Stevie and the Monster are unwanted creations. Stevie grows up in foster care, the Monster in a dungeon. Victor Frankenstein made his creation out of obsession, not love. The Monster is a fresh newborn who’s first need is affection. Then confusion swells as his needs are met with a torch in his face and a locked door. Ultimately, bitter disillusionment is forged and the Monster realizes that he will never be loved. Much like in Stevie, despair breeds futility and futility breeds a criminal. The closing scene reveals the true horror in Frankenstein is the people of the village.

I am by no means the first to be moved by the film. It is a critically acclaimed classic. What bothers me is how I came to sit in a theater expecting to watch a “monster movie,” in the corny, Saturday afternoon programming sense. It makes me think of the conflict between commercialization and art. Frankenstein, in my opinion, is art commercialized with the stigma of corny horror flick. I would love to remove some of the tarnish promoters looking to turn a buck have put on great films like Frankenstein. Hopefully I’m doing that a little bit with this post.

Add your comments

  • Nat Dykeman said

    Wow.

    I was going to mention in the PBR post how hard it is sometimes to make an analogy. You never know when you’ll lose someone personally, because they had a personally bad experience or whatever.

    And then you go and compare Stevie (the person) to a monster. If I had been a dog, and read that first sentence, the hairs on my back would have been standing up.

    But, I thought about it a little more, and I guess you didn’t really do that. Frankenstein’s monster isn’t REALLY a monster, as we’re all supposed to know. And neither, really, is Stevie.

    If you’re looking for a modern movie to compare to Frankenstein, I think Edward Scissorhands is an obvious choice. The difference is that in both of these films the creation IS wanted. Maybe not by the outside world, but that can be forgiven if at least your creator wants you. And they both have power. The power to hurt, and cause damage. Stevie doesn’t have that power, it’s given to him by the people who decided to have him babysit, just as all of us have the power to kill when we get behind an automobile. It’s not an inate power like Frankenstein and Edward Scissorhands.

    And, if you’re looking for a movie to relate to Stevie with, I always say Monster (also on my top 10 list that same year). Both are tales of kids that were born, and were just never given a chance. They seem to have come into this world with no one to love them.

    Nat

  • dvd said

    And remember, Bride Of Frankenstein is just as good, if not better….

  • Stephanie said

    Well said. I don’t think I would have connected Stevie with Frankestein, but you make a compelling case. It makes me want to watch Frankestein right now, this minute. You’re right. Up until reading this post, my insight drew a circle around the movie, delegating it to my memory as one of those it’s-Saturday-afternoon-nothing-else-is-on-and-it’s-raining-outside movies. Thanks for making me think about it a little harder.

  • Edmund Yeo said

    Ah, Halloween has ended over here at Perth, but I’ve rented myself Bride of Frankenstein and Gods and Monsters, watch a film by James Whale, and then watch a film about James Whale, wonderful.

  • Paul said

    To Nat’s point, I totally saw the Frankenstein Monster as this kid who came into the world with nobody to love him. Maybe he came more deliberately, as the product of a science experiment rather than a romp in the hay, but both Stevie and the Monster were born into a place where care and nurturing were withheld and they were considered burdens instead of humans.

    And to Stephanie, I’m glad I could create a hankering for seeing this film fresh, just like dvd has created a hankering in me to see The Bride of… (This is when I roll my eyes and get frustrated with the stack of envelopes from Netflix I don’t seem to have time to work my way through)

    About Netflix, my relationship with them is peculiar because by the time I get to sit down and watch the film they’ve sent me, I’m craving a different film. But I feel obligated to watch the one I’ve got because what if I send it back and a month from now I regret not watching it when I had it?