Topic: Frankenstein (1931) - Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Dwight Frye

[metaldams]

      On to Universal Horror film number two with November 1931’s FRANKENSTEIN.  Back in February of the same year, DRACULA was released, Universal has a major box office success and Bela Lugosi became a star.  It’s natural another horror film is in the cards for Universal and Lugosi.  For FRANKENSTEIN, Lugosi was set to play the monster but supposedly didn’t want to do the role because of the make up and lack of dialogue.  In steps Boris Karloff as the monster, a new horror star is born and Lugosi now has a horror rival who would commercially eclipse him from day one.  FRANKENSTEIN did even bigger business than DRACULA, further opening the floodgates for a series of horror films from Universal and to a lesser degree, other studios, that would last until 1936 before resurrecting again in 1939.  FRANKENSTEIN is a horror classic, featuring wonderful performances by Karloff and Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein as well as another superb bit of art direction by Charles D. Hall - the look of these horror films being so important to their appeal.  Another behind the scenes star who emerged in FRANKENSTEIN was make up artist Jack Pierce, the man who would create the look of all the Universal monsters all the way until the end of World War II.  Any Monster Kid should give thanks to Jack Pierce.

      Let’s discuss ol’ Boris as The Monster.  The man had a lengthy career before FRANKENSTEIN as a journeyman supporting player and FRANKENSTEIN was his big break, filmed when he was 43 years old.  He’s covered in make up so his natural looks would still not be know to the public, but what a make up job it was.  Like I stated, Jack Pierce should be given tons of credit here.  Karloff was 5’11” and had a thin frame, yet he was given boots with lifts to make him appear taller and his outfit was also padded plenty, adding a lot of weight to Boris’s frame.  The flat head, the bolts on the neck, you all know the iconic look of The Monster and it started with this movie.  One thing that doesn’t get mentioned as much are the eyes, I’m not sure if it’s wax or what, but it definitely gives the monster and almost sleepy and confused look, the eyes appearing much heavier than they naturally are.  When The Monster is tied down to the table about to dissected, check out the eyes when he wakes up - very effective.

      As awesome as the make up job of The Monster is, Boris Karloff’s performance enhances the role incredibly.  The vast majority of Frankenstein films without Boris have elements in them that are more interesting than The Monster himself.  While FRANKENSTEIN certainly has other great elements, The Monster is front and center here due to Karloff.  While the story establishes The Monster was accidentally given the brain of a killer, I don’t think that totally defines him.  There is a lot of sympathy one has for The Monster, as seen in the pure joy he has from the attention of little Maria before he accidentally kills her.  Karloff acts frightened and confused throughout, squirming around as if the walls are caving in on him and a lot times, they may as well be.  Dwight Frye’s Fritz sadistically tortures The Monster with fire, bringing out his killer instinct in pure self defense.  The looks of fear and animal like moans are pure Karloff and a wonderful acting performance.  Also check out the way he slowly reacts to the light and the subtle hand gestures.  Karloff really puts his stamp on a character who in so many other films is nothing more than a slab on a table.

      As far as other actors, the tragic Colin Clive is fantastic as Henry Frankenstein.  Intense, driven and when called for, hysterically over the top.  His “It’s alive” rant is one of the signature performances in horror history and it really is a shame the man left us so soon.  He will always be immortal as Henry Frankenstein.  Mae Clarke is much more natural as a leading lady than a lot of other movies of the time and does a fine job.  Dwight Frye, while never able to top Renfield, is still fantastic here as the hunchbacked Fritz, at times comical (see the skeleton in the empty lab bit), always skittish and like previously stated, cruel to The Monster.  I always enjoyed the performance of Frederick Kerr as Baron Frankenstein.  One of those bumbling comic British types who adds some subtle humor to the film yet never distracts from the story.  I love the scene he has with Lionel Belmore’s Burgomaster.  Director James Whale always knew how to throw in the comic touches of his films.  Edward Van Sloan gets another authoritative role as the professor, piggybacking off his Van Helsing performance and does a nice job. 

      Speaking of James Whale, he was given a wonderful set to work with and knew how to get the camera to show it off.  Charles D. Hall’s sets included a spooky graveyard with all manners of religious symbolism, both Christian (the cross, Christ on a crucifix) and dark (the grim reaper); an olde European village, dark and winding mountainsides and best of all, that wonderful Frankenstein stone tower with all that iconic electrical equipment that would show up in tons of movies after this.  The tower itself was heavily inspired by THE MAGICIAN (1926), a film I’ll get to one of these days I’m sure.  If parts of DRACULA were a filmed stage play heavily reliant on the actors, FRANKENSTEIN is a pure film without any hints of the stage.  Notice the depth of the shot when Henry faints and Elizabeth runs to him.  Really shows off the rooms in the tower.  Same when they’re dragging The Monster on the ground in the tower, great depth and angles with the window in the background.  Some scenes where the characters go from room to room has the camera follow through the halls, again a great way to be visually interesting showing off the house.  However, the camera is best in the most horrifying scene in the movie - the father carrying his dead daughter across town, every person in the background suddenly stopping in horror as he passes.

      As for criticisms, there are a few if I’m being logical but I’ve learned to accept them as they don’t take away my enjoyment of the film.  John Boles gets a really thankless role as a guy who yearns for Elizabeth but can never have her.  Yes, David Manners is puppy eyed in DRACULA as well but at least his role serves a more important purpose than giving Henry Frankenstein a character to occasionally yell at.  There’s also the whole idea of how does the father know The Monster murdered Maria when as far as we know, no one was there to witness it and how coincidental The Monster just happens to find the right house Elizabeth is in.  Eh, I forgive all of this, especially since explaining the whole how they figured out The Monster did it would have given this film an un needed mystery element. 

      Another absolutely classic Universal Horror movie.  This time we’re given the gift of Boris Karloff, the iconic look of The Monster and a movie generations can enjoy.  Yes folks, this movie, it’s alive.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Fully restored after decades of unfortunate censorship cuts, director James Whale's "Frankenstein" (1931) has lost none of its chilling power. The rough-edged production values and lack of a music score work in the movie's favor. Boris Karloff gained celluloid immortality with his classic portrayal of the Monster — a multifaceted performance that does not overshadow Colin Clive's brilliant intensity as Henry Frankenstein. Special kudos to makeup genius Jack Pierce and the influential art direction of Charles D. Hall.

Thanks to Whale's gothic flair, this Universal adaptation of the Mary Shelley novel helped define the horror genre while cementing its place in cinema history.  A film you must watch late at night.

10/10

[Shemp_Diesel]

While Dracula started the genesis of American horror in the sound era, many feel Frankenstein (and perhaps, rightly so), cemented the horror genre in ways that the Lugosi film apparently lacked. I've always been ambivalent about that viewpoint considering I'm more pro-Dracula than Frankenstein, but I only limit that opinion to just the 1931 films. On the whole, I might say the Frankenstein franchise for both Universal and Hammer were better than the Draculas--but maybe that's beside the point.

As for the '31 original, I still feel that although this was Karloff's star making role, the monster still feels limited to me in his screen time and his character development, due to the somewhat scant 70 minute runtime & no doubt my own beliefs that Boris was much more rounded in the superior sequel with the Bride. Be that as it may, Boris still adds depth to the monster, where he's more than just a 1-dimensional prop like the House movies.

Colin Clive gets advertised as the star & he no doubt earns that as only Peter Cushing could slightly top him as the mad doctor Frankenstein. Also loved the symbolism as the doctor flings a big shovel full of dirt in the face of the Grim Reaper as he defiles a grave. I almost feel bad saying this is just a "Good" movie, but again, considering what Whale did in 1935, I stand by my somewhat "low rating."

7.5/10....

[metaldams]

While Dracula started the genesis of American horror in the sound era, many feel Frankenstein (and perhaps, rightly so), cemented the horror genre in ways that the Lugosi film apparently lacked. I've always been ambivalent about that viewpoint considering I'm more pro-Dracula than Frankenstein, but I only limit that opinion to just the 1931 films. On the whole, I might say the Frankenstein franchise for both Universal and Hammer were better than the Draculas--but maybe that's beside the point.

As for the '31 original, I still feel that although this was Karloff's star making role, the monster still feels limited to me in his screen time and his character development, due to the somewhat scant 70 minute runtime & no doubt my own beliefs that Boris was much more rounded in the superior sequel with the Bride. Be that as it may, Boris still adds depth to the monster, where he's more than just a 1-dimensional prop like the House movies.

Colin Clive gets advertised as the star & he no doubt earns that as only Peter Cushing could slightly top him as the mad doctor Frankenstein. Also loved the symbolism as the doctor flings a big shovel full of dirt in the face of the Grim Reaper as he defiles a grave. I almost feel bad saying this is just a "Good" movie, but again, considering what Whale did in 1935, I stand by my somewhat "low rating."

7.5/10....

I agree Cushing slightly tops Clive, with no disrespect towards Clive.  The reason being when I think the early Universal films, the first thing I think of is Karloff’s Monster.  When I think the Hammer series, the first thing is always Cushing’s Frankenstein, never the monsters.  This backs up a point I made in my initial review.

[Shemp_Diesel]

One thing I forgot earlier: the humorous touches added to the Universal horrors. I think they are prevalent in virtually all of them from the 30s and 40s and I've always found them to be a pleasant mix to the proceedings. People that other fans may find annoying like Martin from Dracula, or the hilarious Una O' Connor who was one of Jimmy Whale's favorites, from what I understand.


And the humor from this film doesn't detract from the serious stuff in my view. Maybe Witchfinder General could've have used some levity or would it have been out of place, given the very grim subject matter....

[Umbrella Sam]

It’s been a while, but I recall being slightly disappointed with this film when I saw it. I suppose when looking at it as its own film and disassociating it from the book, it is an effective horror film, but I’ve always been fascinated by the original book and found that this was not really a good representation of it.

The major issue, as Shemp_Diesel mentions, is that the monster’s character development is very limited in the film version. In the book, the character’s personality is established due to his experiences. Frankenstein is immediately disgusted by his creation and abandons him without even giving him a chance, and almost everyone else’s reaction is the same. His personality is established by his interactions with others, and it could be argued that he wouldn’t have done the things he did if he had been allowed to experience true love or friendship. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN does capture this tone, which is why I like that movie so much. The 1931 FRANKENSTEIN, though, handles the plot very differently. First, it’s made clear that the brain that was used for the monster was one that had previously belonged to a criminal, thanks to Frankenstein’s assistant Fritz dropping the healthy brain. Then, later, Frankenstein does not immediately abandon his creation; instead, Fritz for some reason decides to torture the monster by waving a torch around. The monster kills Fritz and then Frankenstein gives up on him. So rather than being the result of constant rejection and loneliness, the monster is the way he is because Fritz is an idiot!

That’s my biggest issue with this film, and it is big enough of an issue to throw off the tone of the entire movie. Again, I think it could be argued that it’s supposed to be disassociated from the book in this way; the monster is much more intelligent in the book and the creation of the monster’s bride is also a huge factor in the book. For what it’s worth, Karloff’s makeup is definitely impressive, and Colin Clive definitely does make a good Frankenstein; he’s someone who comes off as crazy enough to do this kind of experiment, yet also sane enough to regret his actions as soon as he sees the consequences. I’m not saying I dislike the movie really, but I think because I did read the book first and liked it so much, that it did kind of change my expectations going in. As a horror film, I can see why it works; it certainly does have dark moments and a lot of suspense throughout. As an adaptation, though, it just did not meet my expectations...but, hey, lots of adaptations are like that, and I consider this far from the worst movie adaptation ever.

[metaldams]

It’s been a while, but I recall being slightly disappointed with this film when I saw it. I suppose when looking at it as its own film and disassociating it from the book, it is an effective horror film, but I’ve always been fascinated by the original book and found that this was not really a good representation of it.

The major issue, as Shemp_Diesel mentions, is that the monster’s character development is very limited in the film version. In the book, the character’s personality is established due to his experiences. Frankenstein is immediately disgusted by his creation and abandons him without even giving him a chance, and almost everyone else’s reaction is the same. His personality is established by his interactions with others, and it could be argued that he wouldn’t have done the things he did if he had been allowed to experience true love or friendship. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN does capture this tone, which is why I like that movie so much. The 1931 FRANKENSTEIN, though, handles the plot very differently. First, it’s made clear that the brain that was used for the monster was one that had previously belonged to a criminal, thanks to Frankenstein’s assistant Fritz dropping the healthy brain. Then, later, Frankenstein does not immediately abandon his creation; instead, Fritz for some reason decides to torture the monster by waving a torch around. The monster kills Fritz and then Frankenstein gives up on him. So rather than being the result of constant rejection and loneliness, the monster is the way he is because Fritz is an idiot!

That’s my biggest issue with this film, and it is big enough of an issue to throw off the tone of the entire movie. Again, I think it could be argued that it’s supposed to be disassociated from the book in this way; the monster is much more intelligent in the book and the creation of the monster’s bride is also a huge factor in the book. For what it’s worth, Karloff’s makeup is definitely impressive, and Colin Clive definitely does make a good Frankenstein; he’s someone who comes off as crazy enough to do this kind of experiment, yet also sane enough to regret his actions as soon as he sees the consequences. I’m not saying I dislike the movie really, but I think because I did read the book first and liked it so much, that it did kind of change my expectations going in. As a horror film, I can see why it works; it certainly does have dark moments and a lot of suspense throughout. As an adaptation, though, it just did not meet my expectations...but, hey, lots of adaptations are like that, and I consider this far from the worst movie adaptation ever.

I think The Monster is acting on a combination of what little experience he has - his treatment by Fritz, and instinct.  The tragedy is his body and physical mannerisms mature much quicker than his mental capabilities.  He’s strong already, but by the next film, he dabbled in what amounts to baby talk.  He’s strong enough to throw little Maria in the river but not smart enough to realize the harm this will cause.  The whole point to me is that he should not have been created in the first place and it goes back to again a religious theme, as much as Henry Frankenstein would like to, he can’t create life as well as God.

As far as the Shelley novel, I haven’t read it in well over twenty years.  I approach these films more as a monster film nerd than a literary guy, but if a person’s main source is the Shelley novel, I can understand having a different point of view.  Have you seen the DeNiro version?  I haven’t and should, I understand it’s closer to the book.  I have seen Bram Stoker’s Dracula, though it’s been years.  I should watch both soon.

[Shemp_Diesel]

I've heard many who admire Shelley's novel have misgivings about the film versions of Frankenstein--be it Karloff or any of the other versions. Myself, the only classic monster novel I have read is Bram Stoker, many years ago & I know that movies are always going to take some liberal adjustments with a book--it would seem impossible not to.

I believe Arthur Lennig brought up a point in his book & I tend to agree (he's not the only critic who points this out) that the plot point of the "Criminal brain" is kinda hokey & may be what many dectractors point to as far as the monster being a tragic victim or losing some of his empathy because he had an abby normal brain instead of being more "Sinned against than sinning." Usually I overlook it, and still enjoy Karloff's portrayal.


There's more conjecture I wanted to add to this about how eventually, even Karloff in some ways gets reduced to playing almost an automaton of a monster in the Son film & how I thought Lon brought some of the monster's empathy back in Ghost, but maybe I'll save it for future threads.

 

[Umbrella Sam]

I think The Monster is acting on a combination of what little experience he has - his treatment by Fritz, and instinct.  The tragedy is his body and physical mannerisms mature much quicker than his mental capabilities.  He’s strong already, but by the next film, he dabbled in what amounts to baby talk.  He’s strong enough to throw little Maria in the river but not smart enough to realize the harm this will cause.  The whole point to me is that he should not have been created in the first place and it goes back to again a religious theme, as much as Henry Frankenstein would like to, he can’t create life as well as God.

As far as the Shelley novel, I haven’t read it in well over twenty years.  I approach these films more as a monster film nerd than a literary guy, but if a person’s main source is the Shelley novel, I can understand having a different point of view.  Have you seen the DeNiro version?  I haven’t and should, I understand it’s closer to the book.  I have seen Bram Stoker’s Dracula, though it’s been years.  I should watch both soon.

I agree that that is the message of the book, and that Frankenstein shouldn’t have been messing around with the idea in the first place. However, I also like that the book is a bit more complex with how it makes you think about that message. Like I said, the monster’s personality is entirely shaped by his experiences, and it does make me wonder what would have happened had he been more easily accepted instead of turned away as he was. It didn’t feel like a one-dimensional issue; there are a lot of factors involved. The big issue with the movie is this:

I believe Arthur Lennig brought up a point in his book & I tend to agree (he's not the only critic who points this out) that the plot point of the "Criminal brain" is kinda hokey & may be what many dectractors point to as far as the monster being a tragic victim or losing some of his empathy because he had an abby mormal brain instead of being more "Sinned against than sinning." Usually I overlook it, and still enjoy Karloff's portrayal.

Fritz torturing the monster is ridiculously stupid (why would anyone think that’s a good idea?), but everything ties back to that whole brain issue. In this case, the argument would be that if they had used the right brain, then everything that happened could have been avoided. It doesn’t feel like the monster’s experiences here were that important; by introducing the corrupt brain, they imply that the monster’s rage would have been set off anyway because that brain was chosen. It does still capture the basic message of the book, in that the monster shouldn’t have been created in the first place, but I feel it loses a lot of the complexity by handling it this way and makes it a bit too straightforward.

I haven’t seen the DeNiro version, but I would be interested in seeing it at some point if it is closer to the book.

[Dr. Mabuse]

I caught the "Dracula/Frankenstein" double feature yesterday (sans intermission). It was the first time I saw "Frankenstein" on the big screen and it really comes alive in a darkened theater. The digital projection was excellent — showcasing the brilliance of Charles D. Hall's set design as well as the intensity of Karloff and Clive.  I noticed a few production flaws this time around:  the insert shots of the electrical machinery are out of focus (the same goes with a brief close-up of Mae Clarke at the 26-minute mark); the clouded-sky backdrops look even more wrinkled; and the doubles for Clive and Clarke in the final scene are painfully obvious.  After watching "Frankenstein" on television for the past 40 years, my first theatrical viewing of this landmark film was a genuine eye-opener.

[metaldams]

I caught the "Dracula/Frankenstein" double feature yesterday (sans intermission). It was the first time I saw "Frankenstein" on the big screen and it really comes alive in a darkened theater. The digital projection was excellent — showcasing the brilliance of Charles D. Hall's set design as well as the intensity of Karloff and Clive.  I noticed a few production flaws this time around:  the insert shots of the electrical machinery are out of focus (the same goes with a brief close-up of Mae Clarke at the 26-minute mark); the clouded-sky backdrops look even more wrinkled; and the doubles for Clive and Clarke in the final scene are painfully obvious.  After watching "Frankenstein" on television for the past 40 years, my first theatrical viewing of this landmark film was a genuine eye-opener.

Glad you got to see it on the big screen, and fascinating observations.

I saw Frankenstein on a double feature with Bride years ago on the big screen.  Also saw Dracula double billed with its Spanish counterpart.