Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Frankenstein (1931) & Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

With Dracula being a huge hit, Universal Studios decided to see if lightening could strike twice with another monster. As said before, Dracula was a big turning point for using the supernatural elements in a realistic light without using any “it was a dream” twist. Thus, they turned to another famous bit of literature written by Mary Shelley which also had its run in the silent era…

The second Monster Hit that turned the year!

If Dracula was the start of Universal’s monster run, then Frankenstein perfected it. A lot of the technical issues with the famed vampire flick would be fixed and even push the boundaries of what dark fantasy was never brushed upon back then. Think about it for a moment. A movie in 1931 that examines the idea of reanimating a dead body and questioning the aspect of wither it would be done in the view of science or attempting to play God. This was very risky for Universal Studios back then to even take such a macabre subject and much like the doctor’s creation, it was set loose on the public and became a run-away hit.

Colin Clive plays Henry Frankenstein who plans on stitching together a batch of body parts in seeing if he can attempt the impossible; bring back life to something dead. You can feel the enthusiasm when he’s bringing his experiment to life and enjoy how much he relishes his success when he shouts “It’s alive!” upon seeing the cold hands twitch and move for the first time. There’s a sympathetic side to Henry as he doesn’t question the morale value of his experiment but more of how much lost he is into his work. He has a fiance on board and his friends deeply show concern for his obsession. But later on, you can see the humanity in him when he starts to wonder what good is to bring a creation to life and if its for the will of good or evil.

Colin Clive eagerly awaits his creation’s life signs in a memorable scene

Now, its here I should address how much the 1931 movie deviates from its novel. The original story by Mary Shelley had Frankenstein (first name Victor, not Henry) be repulsed by his creation causing the unfortunate being to wonder off into the world. The movie, on the other hand, does something different that I feel is better. Henry instead welcomes glory on his creature and is appreciated to see what he can do regardless of his appearance. It was a minor nitpick I had with the novel seeing it would make sense to be more pleased in your accomplishment than worry about how “ugly and hideous” your creation looks.

Speaking of which, Boris Karloff is a perfect for the Frankenstein monster. Supposedly, Bela Lugosi was intended to play the role but turned it down after a series of disastrous make-up tests. Some say he didn’t want to play the Monster because he would be unrecognizable under mounds of make-up but its up for discussion. Regardless, Karloff doesn’t just play the role but really sells it. He doesn’t have any lines outside of grunting but uses a great amount of body language that keeps us

Boris Karloff as the iconic Monster

feeling bad for the beast. With an abnormal brain installed, we are aware of what damage he can cause but can’t help ourselves to pity a being with an innocent view. He maybe a monster but sees things in a child-like perspective like when he meets a little girl and she tries to teach him about floating flower petals in the lake. Long story short, it ends in tragedy with the Monster thinking she too can float if a bunch of flowers can. Big mistake. I could go on and talk about how Karloff’s performance swings between an innocent kid to a murderous beast and how iconic it is but I think you get the idea.

Jack Pierce did the make-up work on the iconic look of the Monster. There was never a clear idea of what Mary Shelley intended with her take on the creature so obviously some liberties had to be taken. The flat-top head look is what mostly comes to mind when people like of the Frankenstein Monster. The look itself is such a wonder that its no question why this design is used today. The stitches on the face, the bolts on the neck and of course, the way the hands have a patchwork feel to them. Its a simple yet powerful take,

The other actors do a good job too with Dwight Frye performing a hunchback assistant named Fritz, Edward Van Sloan as Henry’s mentaor Dr. Waldman and Mae Clarke as Elizabeth who acts like the voice of reason. They all do a great performance because of how much they matter to the Frankenstein character. Henry is about as obsessed as ever trying to crack the mystery of life while his friends worry about how much has gone to his head. Even interesting is how Dwight’s Fritz is neither too crazy or too over-the-top. In Dracula, he really had to sell the insanity where else here his performance of Fritz comes off as a quirky character. There’s a moment where he does to answer the door and he stops for a moment to fix his sock. Its a brief but amusing moment considering how a ragged worker wants to be professional to company.

While Frankenstein isn’t a true adaptation of the source material, it does carry a lot of entertainment value and a grand use of set work to keep it enjoyable. I’m amazed to see how much effort went into so much on location shooting and stage work to bring the world to life. From the electronic look of the castle to the rickety and ancient presentation of the windmill at the climax, Frankenstein easily one ups Dracula in the visual department by using a broader use of special effects and scenery. Its not a chilling atmosphere like Dracula but more like an intense adrenaline rush from the creation scene to the very climax when the angry villagers hunt down the Monster.

The infamous scene where the Monster interacts with a little girl. The second half was deemed too uspetting and was cut. Thankfully, it has been restored and still considered a famous moment.

Its no wonder why it caught on so fast with so much intense action and drama that wasn’t presented in talkies at the time. And of course, like most horror movies of the time, it was the subject of censorship during the Production Code of 1934. At the time, this movie was breaking new ground by questioning exactly how much can be seen or told. A graphic close-up of a syringe getting injected into the Monster was seen as too intense (even though it does explain how the Monster is stopped after killing Fritz) and shots of Fritz torturing the Monster were considered too frightening. But perhaps the most infamous of all is the scene with the little girl by the lake. When it was first released, certain states like Massachusetts and New York felt the second half of the scene was a bit too upsetting by having the Monster toss the little girl into the lake and having her drown upon thinking she can float. But this caused a problem seeing the father would carry her body in the town later on in the film suggesting a worse fate happened off-screen. I wonder what was the better decision here…

Another controversial edit was a line Frankenstein says after he sees his creation come to life by exclaiming, “In the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!”This was considered too blasphemous and thus the second portion of the line was edited out to include a thunder bolt to censor it. Thankfully, the following scenes where restored to home video but with the “God” line still edited. From what I could gather, the audio to the infamous line was supposedly missing from the master print until later an audio track with the unedited line was found.  Thankfully, it was restored to DVD along with the other scenes.

The sequel the stooped to conquer and also was a hit

Considering the huge amount of success it brought, Universal knew they needed a sequel. However, it would take them four years as the film’s director James Whale felt there was nothing else they could do. But after the success of  his work on another Universal Monster hit The Invisible Man, producer Carl Laemmle, Jr felt he was the only one who could deliver such a film. The result was Bride of Frankenstein which James Whales said wouldn’t top the original but turn it into a memorable “hoot.” I honestly disagree seeing how much it easily trumps the original and pushes a lot more on not just the technical work but even elaborate more on the characters as well.

Colin Clive returns as Henry Frankenstein who only wishes to focus on having a normal life and moving away from his dabble in science. Unfortunately, he is roped back in by the demented Doctor Pretorius who hopes to have Henry at his aide to recreate his experiment from the first film. Pretorius goes further to even show a creation of his own by taking dead tissue and making life but in the form of little people in jars. It sounds like a crazy idea by Ernest Thesiger really sells the performance. He doesn’t waste a single frame acting out the mad side and plays off of Henry like a devil on the shoulder. The biggest highlight comes into play later when he is drinking wine in a catacomb with some bones and comes across the Frankenstein monster still alive. Instead of shunning him, he actually welcomes him in and has a drink with him. He doesn’t care about humanity but more about how twisted and dark it is.

Oh, did I forget to mention? The Monster is back, played by Boris Karloff but this time in a bigger role. While the first film was centered on Frankenstein, his Monster takes the spotlight as he wonders the streets in search of understanding. He does come across a blind hermit that teaches him the value of companionship and even the will to speak. This is very crucial as it gives Karloff the opportunity to give the Monster a voice and a personality. No

Karloff’s make up in the Bride of Frankenstein that showed more compared to the original

longer is he an object to fear but really sympathize. One of the hardest scenes is when he gets captured by the villagers and is strung up onto a cross-like object with rope while getting pelted with rocks. This time, you really feel sorry for the Monster and see a soul and personality that was never before present. Also, extra kudos to Jack Pierce who returns to do the make-up and pays close attention to continuity here. In the last movie, the Monster is seen during a fire so Jack gives a “burn victim” look that is unique. We see head clamps that weren’t visible in the first film and even some burn marks. Interestingly enough, throughout the sequel we see the wounds and hair grow back as some form of progression. Its a clever idea.

Bride of Frankenstein follows the second half of the novel where the Creation roams the Earth and after much venture, seeks his creator to make a mate. This is the basis for the second half and if I were to give anything away would ruin any interest. I will not elaborate too much but when the “Bride” is made, we do get to see something interesting. Its one of the most iconic monsters that may have appeared for a short time but still gets easily recognized and is popular today. Ella Lanchester dons the role with a curious bird-like and hypnotic look. She too has the child-like acting that Karloff gave in the previous film but for different reasons. I’d go deeper into why but again, it would ruin the ending.

Even though it is a superior sequel, it still has some problems. Once in a while, some comic relief is tossed in that gets a good chuckle or a brief groan. A good example is Una O’Connor as the maid Minnie who really doesn’t layer anything subtle. When she sees the Monster for the first time, she goes haywire on the reaction. Its funny but at the same time irritating and over-the-top.  Even E. E. Clive as the Burgomaster gets a few eye roles. No wonder seeing both actors came from The Invisible Man and deliver the same performance. Dwight Frye also returns as as Pretorius’ assistant named Karl who is demented but feels off to the side at times and underused. Supposedly, his character was meant to have a bigger role with a subplot where he kills his uncle and blames the Monster for it. But I feel this was wisely cut as it doesn’t add too much to the movie seeing how complex it already plays out.

Henry and Dr. Pretorius await the reaction of the two “love birds” in this famous scene

And its no surprise to see it was attacked with censorship; pre-production and post. A line where Pretorius compares the Bible to fairy tales was changed as a scene where the Monster sees a Jesus on a cross figure and tries to “rescue” him was never filmed under objection. Even the opening prologue with Ella Lanchester as Mary Shelley talking about her story was significantly trimmed down. Not because of the dialogue but because it showed a lot of close ups of her and her dress…and the censors rejected to how much of her “cleavage” was present. Talk about strict. Either way, the 15 minutes of cut scenes is considered lost to this day but thankfully the power of the film remains.

Much like the Monster, we too question how accepted we feel by another and strive for the company of another. We sympathize with the Monster much more for how he wants to be something and accepted. Behind that look beats the heart of someone that only wants society to love him like a son. Its this reason only I feel “Bride” is superior but both movies are highly recommended. Sure there was sequel after sequel but I feel the first two are more close together seeing how much gets wrapped up and continued.  Its almost like the Godfather movies of its time with Part I setting up the world of Frankenstein and Part II showing more of his creation. What more can I say but see these two for yourself and you’ll know why there will never be another Frankenstein as good as this.

Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon: Dracula (1931)

 

Welcome at long last, to the first annual Horror-Wood Blog-a-Thon. All of October, we are looking at many classic horror movies ranging from the 1930’s to even today. Its 31 days of horror classics and some cult classics on the side. Consider this a personal “Horror Movie Guide” for the perfect scary flick to view for the Halloween season. On the side, I’ll also toss in a film franchise or two and even look at a few remakes as well. So enough dwelling, lets get started with the one that started it all.

The one that started it all

Almost everyone is aware of the original 1931 version of Dracula. Regardless if you have seen it or heard of it, this is the one that normally comes to mind when someone thinks of the Bram Stoker classic about a vampire set out in London to find a couple of fresh victims and falls in love at the same time. A basic story that has been adapted countless times but this is the one most people tend to remember the most. So the big question is why is that when we got the Hammer version and Coppola’s notorious take?

Directed by Todd Browning of countless and famed silent films, he brings a dark, eerie and grand scale to this take sets that feel like they are taken from an opera that complement the quiet yet chilling atmosphere. Even though they are in the first third, the sets of Dracula’s castle are very impressive even for a 1930’s film that it nearly undermines the rest of the film. For the rest of the movie, we spend time in the Harker household and nothing else on a grand scale as earlier with the exception of the climax.

Thus, if the visuals are not strong, what is? The answer of course is the acting. Bela Lugosi as Dracula is the film’s strongest asset here. Everyone very much is aware of how iconic this portrayal is. The thick Hungarian accent that feels welcoming but yet sinister. The way he moves in a ghost-like by balletic way. The commanding power in his eyes that makes you feel like your being hypnotized. This is what keeps this take on the Count from being swept under with the others. Bela is no stranger to the role as he has done the part of the Count before on a Broadway show and it shows. He knows every step in being charming while carrying a menace.

Bela Lugosi casts a spell on not just his victim but even the audience

The other actors do a good job as well. Dwight Frye nearly one-ups Bela with his performance of Renfield, a servant of the Count who goes insane and is reduced from a business man to a man serving evil while being rewarded with insects. He goes beyond crazy with a manic expression, wide eyes and a laugh that is neither too over-the-top or soft to be creepy. Dwight is the total opposite of Lugosi who is calm and quiet as Dracula. The best remembered moment has to be his soliloquy about being offered to serve his “Master” with rats to dine on in return. The way he gets excited when he mentions the word “rats” really sends a chill imaging how hungry he is for rodent.

Edward Van Sloan’s take on Van Helsing is also notable in its own right. You can tell he knows so much about the occult and supernatural that he is prepared for what’s coming. You can tell from the way he studies the vampire guest that he knows all the myths and legends to prove just how more of a monster he is. This man is truly determined even the point of putting his life on the line in a famous scene where he comes face to face with the villainous Count but yet the Transylvanian is defeated with a simple cross.

The only negative I can think of it is the depiction of Mina and John Harker. David Manners and Helen Chandler do a decent job as the love interests but nothing really stands out about the two. Perhaps seeing how much attention is focused on the antagonist, crazy lunatic and resourceful professor  so much that we feel more adjusted to them and less of our two love leads. I do want to see Mina be cured from Dracula’s curse and John have his happy ending but the romantic chemistry between the two doesn’t stand out to me. Its nowhere near the comedic yet charming feel of King Kong’s Fay Wray and Bruce Cabot and far from feeling tried and cliched. It just has a standard feeling to it that doesn’t feel like there is much in peril.

The cast of Dracula looking up its source in this publicity still

Overall, Dracula may not be strong in the storytelling department but what sets it apart is the performances. There’s an overall quiet feel to the movie that works when we see the Count’s catacombs but at times it drags in spots. Its a slow paced movie that is strong in atmosphere and acting that a strong narrative. I can probably point my finger onto the fact that this “adaption” has more than one source in play. True, it is loosely based from the novel but its blueprints came from a stage play that was Americanized in 1927 for Broadway. It almost feels like your watching a recorded stage performance considering the way the actors are placed and the open living room of Mina’s house and Dracula’s dinning room feels almost like it was built for a stage performance. And to top it off, some of the screenwriters took influence from the 1922 German expressionist film Nosferatu, so there is a lot plugging in here behind this film that doesn’t go credited.

I find it more strange hearing that this movie was marketed as a romance film and yet had some implications of horror in the poster or none at all. Its ironic seeing it did come out Valentine’s Day nationwide and yet on its premier two days before, there was some nervous tension as reports of fainting viewers at the Roxy Theater in New York were being spread. Still Dracula proved to be a huge gamble and it payed off well. In fact, if it wasn’t for the Count, we wouldn’t have other Universal Monster Classics like Frankenstein or the Wolf Man. Of course, this wasn’t the first thriller placed on the market but this was the first straight up horror movie that had no comic relief of twist ending to ensure the supernatural elements where fake and that is where the scares of the time came in. Thanks to its success, it showed you can do horror with natural supernatural elements and none man-made.

If you are curious to see this movie, I highly recommend checking it out. Not just to see where it all started or how important it is in horror history, but because this is a good movie overall. Sure it can be slow in the pacing but seeing it was made when talkies were making a rough transition, exceptions can be made. The silence almost settles in the eerie dark tone and add that with Bela’s haunting delivery and you have one truly memorable picture.

Now, I should address that there exists a couple of different versions of this film for those curious. Originally, Dracula premiered at a length of 85 minutes but later was re-edited in 1936 when the Production Code was being enforced. Many horror movies at this time where being forced to be chopped down or censored to accommodate for certain things they couldn’t allow. Currently, the film runs at 75 minutes with no news on what was cut in terms of major scenes. However, there were two bits of sound that were muted in the 1936 reissued that included Renfield’s screaming as he was being strangled and Dracula’s death groans that were thankfully restored for home video. This “restored” cut with the re-instated sounds is what exists today. And on a stranger tidbit, the 2004 Legacy Collection set has these “infamous sounds” muted but can be heard when selecting different audio options. Talk about a weird DVD Easter Egg.

In 1998, Dracula was give a new score by Philip Glass and conducted by the Kronos Quartet. This version was the first one I saw and I honestly wish it wasn’t. The original was absent of a film score save for two bits of “Swan Lake” music in the opening credits. On its own, the Philip Glass score is interesting to listen to but not as part of the movie. The quiet atmosphere added a unique eerie element to the film and now it was being overpowered by loud violin strings. There are moments when the music fits like when we see Dracula for the first time but then there are moments when it either doesn’t fit the mood or dominates the delivery of one’s lines. It doesn’t even take a break and keeps scoring scenes that feel like they have no intention to have music and thus things like Dracula seducing Lucy or the first carriage scene loose impact. Not a bad score but I still recommend watching the movie without it first.

The Spanish-language version that is surprisingly superior

Lastly, there also exists a Spanish-language version but its talk here is very crucial. Its not really a foreign-language dub but more of “on the set” remake. Back then, it was common for studios to have a crew film a foriegn-language versions on the spot with the same sets and costumes. The day would be reserved for the American crew and the other crew would film their version at night. As it turns out, the crew working on the Spanish version had access to see dailies of the Lugosi version in plans to “top” it. As a result, we got a version of Dracula that was sleeker and even “sexier.” Ok, the dress for the Mia and Lucy characters were more “revealing” exposing some cleavage but you probably get the idea.

Surprisingly, I had the opportunity to view this version in preparation of this blog-a-thon and I have to admit, its marginally superior. The camera angles and the lighting are a vast improvement while also extending the running time for more character development. For example, when we see Dracula for the first time in the Lugosi version, its a simple static shot of him walking down the steps. In the Spanish version, the camera dollies into him up the steps giving more dramatic tension. There’s even some extra shots that make clear of Helsing testing the mirror trick in the Spanish cut while in the Lugosi version, we get the idea but its not clear enough.

The performances are also appropriate for this version with Carlos Villarías’ Dracula being creepy and intense with his wide-eyed stare and Pablo Alvarez Rubio’s Renfield also a delight with his over-the-top manic expression and crazy performance. They both bring the best out of their characters as everyone else has a different take to separate it from the Lugosi version. Its funny seeing both versions share the same script but are executed differently. Even there’s more violence in the final act that I’m sure censors of 1931 wouldn’t allow and elements like vampire Lucy killing kids by offering candy (that is mentioned off-screen via newspaper) that wouldn’t even be used back then. While the original Dracula is highly iconic and memorable, this one is to but in its own right. Blu-Ray purists will be happy to know it has been beautifully restored with the exception of a damaged Reel 2 print cleaned up as good as possible.

To think the monster craze really started with this horror classic even after the run of the silent era with Phantom of the Opera or London After Midnight. It was probably the first horror talkie of its kind to break new ground that no other would do. By bringing the fantasy elements to a real state without the “its a dream” twist really was new in those days and made viewers question just how realistic can a movie like Dracula be. Perhaps it’s best said from the film’s original epilogue (that is unfortunately missing and can be partly seen on the DVD’s documentary) when Edward Van Sloan first stepped out from the curtain telling the audience that if they were to walk on home and find themselves alone in the dark, just remember “there really are such things as … Vampires!”