97). The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Run Time: 75 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester and Dwight Frye
I saw this film a few times when I was younger and the DBC never got a chance to see it, but being a fan of Horror movies my whole life it wouldn't be too long until I saw it again on DVD and a few nights ago I watched the film again for maybe the third or fourth time in my life. You could see the magic that Universal had stumbled upon. A cash cow that would endure even today. A franchise in it's early stages that would take the world by storm.
Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection DVD Set on Amazon - Also Includes "Bride of Frankenstein", "Son of Frankenstein", "Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman", "House of Frankenstein", "House of Dracula" and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".
http://www.amazon.com/Frankenstein-Complete-Collection-Boris-Karloff/dp/B00L8QOYG6/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1413219219&sr=1-1&keywords=Frankenstein+legacy
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Frankenstein
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026138/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Mary Shelley Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley
Jack Pierce Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Pierce_(makeup_artist)
Universal Studios Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Studios
Roger Ebert.com Film Review from 1999:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-bride-of-frankenstein
Turner Classic Movies Articles:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/69663/Bride-of-Frankenstein/articles.html
As I did my research on this film I noticed something interesting. That since the time this was released many film critics and historians would call this film one of those sequels that is better than the original film itself. I don't think I can go that far. I'm not afraid to say they are equally as good, but to say this one is better? I don't think so.
It is true that the film manages to capture that innocence that the Monster possesses. You can tell the producers spent more money on this one. That many more lavish sets and more characters play a large part in the film. There also is an amazing attempt at capturing the 1935 insecurities of a nation that still worried about secularization and sexual tension. It turns out that right after the release of this film the censors went nuts. So the film is a lightning rod for pushing the envelope and making some bold statements about culture, spiritualism and the human experience. It does explore the child-like nature of the monster and this film also took Karloff to another level by giving him dialogue that the creature would learn from his lonely blind friend who he stumbles across in the woods. The film also explores the life and the inspiration that influenced Mary Shelley (Lanchester), when she wrote her novel Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus in 1818. But, for me, the most compelling side-story that makes The Bride of Frankenstein so interesting to watch is the back-story of Colin Clive. As I mentioned at the end of my Frankenstein (1931) post, Colin Clive stole the show and was the best part of the first film.
He returns for the second film, connived into making another monster by Dr. Pretorius (Thesiger), but Clive had some baggage by the time he got to this film. Clive would enjoy new-found fame as Henry Frankenstein in the first film. His energy and strength played a huge roll in how he executed the character and made us believe that he was a genius, God-playing scientist on the verge of insanity, who found his sanity in his new wife Elizabeth (played in this film by Hobson). Yes, it's true that the person who most benefited from the first film was Karloff, but it could have been a launching pad for Clive too. He was only 31 years old when he did Frankenstein and could have taken that career to the stars, but it wouldn't be. Clive suffered from tuberculosis and had chronic alcoholism issues, plus a bad leg that kept the alcoholism raging. There was also talk that he was gay or bisexual and his wife was a lesbian, so they had an interesting relationship (of course, this kind of thing is not an issue today, but I'm sure you can imagine how tough it was to deal with and hide back in the 1930s ..... if it was true, which most reports I read say it was not, but it was there). So, you add all of these things into the mix and you can probably see where this is going. He did enjoy a few years of leading man roles between 1931-1935, but once he got to Bride of Frankenstein you could see the toll it was taking. His bum-leg played a large part in this film. If you notice most of his scenes are lying down or sitting or shot from the waist up. That's because he could barely walk on the bad leg and some reports said he was so drunk filming his movies that the stage-hands had to hold him up for certain shots. What I noticed the most in this film was the fact that the strength and energy that he had in the first film was reduced to a crying, wussy, weak little man in this film. His character was reduced to a point where he really didn't even need to be in the movie, but it was nice having him there to bridge the two films together. In fact, along with Karloff, a couple characters and familiar faces returned for this film, but they were mostly character actors who played the villagers that they brought back from the first film, but the bridge from the first film to the second film worked (especially since the script picks up about an hour after the last film ended). Either way, I was annoyed at how Clive's character became such a pussy, but as you read more about the film the more you understand. The complications with the tuberculosis, alcoholism and the pain would eventually take its toll. Clive would die 2 years later in 1937 at the age of 37 and we would never know how big he could have been.
What really kills this film for my money is the bad insertion of comedy-relief sprinkled throughout the film. It mostly came from the mouth of Una O'Connor who played Minnie, the annoying villager lady, who would prance around screaming and making funny faces every time the monster was in the area and it was just annoying and unfunny as possibly could be. It couldn't have been acceptable in 1935? Could it? I hope not. It killed parts of this film for me. If we are going to present something serious, let's stick to it. All these insertions felt forced and contrived.
All in all, this is again a masterpiece in early film. The mood, the artistry, the technical achievements, the acting, even the crazy idea that Mary Shelley looks just like the Bride (oh geez, spoiler alert, but this film is 79 years old and if you didn't know that by now for shame on you). It truly is a great film to watch. The story of the monster and his blind peasant friend is brilliant. The introduction and establishment of Dr. Pretorius is very cool, although the explanation of his experiments seemed kind of silly and not believable at all (little people he grew from skin tissue that he has living in little bottles was a stretch). The monster learning to speak is quite good and there isn't a dull moment. As I said before, comparing this to the original and saying it was better is a little bit of a stretch. For me the first one was the masterpiece and this one is a masterpiece, but with too much money and too much pop-culture thrown in, but still something that is great fun.
Phil's Grade: B+
So, here we are. As I mentioned in my Dracula (1931) post I wanted to explore all 12 of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolfman Universal Pictures Monster Series and of course, not all of these films made the 1001 Movie List. So, the next film on the 1001 Movie List is The Wolfman (1941 - #153), but I also wanted to talk a little about the films that came between Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and The Wolfman. So, if you ever wanted to do this yourself I would watch Dracula (1931) first, Frankenstein (1931) next and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) third. Here are the next group of films to watch on your way to The Wolfman (1941):
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Run Time: 71 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Lambert Hillyer
Starring: Otto Kruger, Gloria Holden, Marguerite Churchill, Gilbert Emery, Irving Pichel and Edward Van Sloan
Trailer on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/E_2YyzNAT98
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027545/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula%27s_Daughter
Gloria Holden Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Holden
This film, very loosely based on a Bram Stoker short story named Dracula's Assistant, that was finally published by his widow in 1914, starts off immediately after the events seen in Dracula (1931). Since the short story and this film didn't involve anything with Dracula himself, no signs of Bela Lugosi are seen in this film, but to bridge the gap between the two films and in order to have them look like they were part of the same universe, my hero from the first film, Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing returns for this film. Universal always had plans to involve Bela, mostly through flashback scenes involving Dracula and his early days in the 14th Century, but that eventually would fall through the cracks and he was written out. It seems this film went through a lot of re-writes, mostly due to the censors over-sensitive feelings involving lesbianism and Drac's Daughter Marya's thirst for torture and it was changed many times until they finally settled on this final product. It also sounds like the script wasn't completed before filming started. One really cool version has Van Helsing returning to Dracula's castle to kill the three vampire chicks from the first movie and he accidentally misses a hidden fourth coffin that has Marya in it. That idea was scrapped and this final version, albeit, not as great, does actually attack an idea that is actually pretty believable and needed to be addressed. How does a man (Van Helsing), explain to the world why he drove a stake through a man's heart in a world that doesn't believe in vampires? So, this film starts off where Van Helsing just finished killing Dracula and he walks out of the room and is arrested for murder and taken to Scottland Yard.
Meanwhile, a new lady appears in town, Marya (Holden). Marya gets her hands on Daddy's body and burns it up hoping that it will release her from her vampiric attributes, but as it turns out she has no luck and turns her attentions on psychiatry and trying to curb her "addiction". Unfortunately, that turns out to be tough too and the horror and drama ensues with Van Helsing finally getting the trust that he deserves and the battle begins.
Again, another film, which also over the first 30 years since the film came out (it has been scrutinized a lot more in recent years for it's way over-the-top acting and dragging script), was hailed by the early critics and historians as being better than the first film and that is just plain crazy. Right of the bat, while the cops take Van Helsing away, the movie takes a bad turn, when we get a look inside Dracula's coffin of a really bad Bela mannequin. My research has told me that Bela actually made three times more money for just being molded into a wax dummy for this film than he made for the entire first film, plus the Universal executives felt he deserved a little cash for inconveniences involving an ever-changing script and since Bela did the first film for lunch money and a big break, he was now a star and Universal wanted to keep him happy, so congats' to Bela for getting good cash for nothing. I do not know if this is really true or not, because if you ask me, the dummy in the coffin looked nothing like Bela and it probably would have been better if they didn't show it at all, because it does knock the integrity of the film right off of it's tracks early, but everything I have read says it is true and, I guess, it was just a bad dummy. What also kills the film is this great idea of putting Van Helsing on trial, possibly the death penalty and then acceptance, is handled badly and the cool, tough, old guy hero from the first film is reduced to an old man, who wanders around the film saying lines with his cool accent. And, that is about it. Van Helsing gets wasted in this film.
With that already simmering in my head, the film moves onto the plight of Marya. How she accepts her fate. How she runs into her psychiatric friend, Jeffrey (Kruger) and his jealous assistant, Janet (Churchill - why he has eyes for Holden over Churchill is beyond me, because Churchill is very cute, I didn't believe that either), and we meet Marya's evil assistant Sandor (Pichel) and the man trying to convict Van Helsing, Sir Basil Humphrey (Emery). Holden gives a very convincing performance as Marya, but from the sounds of things, that may have been an accident. Some of my research indicates that she hated horror films and felt that they were below her. She also was terrified of type-casting and already noticed what it was doing to Bela in just five short years, so she was fearful of that happening to her if she did horror. So! She may have been doing her lines as an angry, uninterested, Universal employee. Either way, it works.
This film does have an opportunity to be great. Even though it is not a very special effects laden film, the scenes that do require effects look pretty good (the burning scene is cool). They actually do return to Transyvania and use some of the original set-pieces and outdoor locals from the first film. A good scene involving Holden and up-and-coming actress Nan Grey has the vampire luring an unsuspecting runaway into her home, asking her to pose for her painting and then attacking (albeit off-camera), but this is the scene that sets the tone, giving this film it's identity and driving the censors crazy with it's latent lesbian insinuations. But, if you add in the wasting of Van Helsing, the nonchalant attitude of Holden, a cast of over-actors, a script that starts off good and sputters (Ok, now can I say, "Vampires and psychiatry - come on" - Don't really care if this film inspired Ann Rice, it still was silly), the absence of Lugosi and a let-down of an ending, it amazes me that anyone would say this was better than the first one - BS! - Grade: C
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Run Time: 99 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Rowland V. Lee
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Josephine Hutchinson and Lionel Atwill
Short Clip on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/iMzbgLftYro?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031951/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Of_Frankenstein
Behind-The-Scenes Photos on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/KdwoJkOmtAM?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
Rivals: Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/T-IKpz--YMk
Basil Rathbone Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Rathbone
It is true that Mel Brooks got most of his material for Young Frankenstein (1974), from this film. Gene Wilder's Dr. Frankenstein is clearly modeled after Basil Rathbone's Wolf Frankenstein and you can see how Lionel Atwill's wounded ex-soldier Krogh could easily be subjected to a caricature of itself 35 years later, but I feel for this film, being as it was 1939, those pieces removed from the film and satirised, are the strongest points to the film. I also want to make a note that this film was originally going to be in Technicolor, but after a few test shots were taken it was agreed that the film should stay in Black and White. The producers probably already noticed back then that the green hue make-up did look a little silly, as noted in Young Frankenstein (1974).
Universal Pictures 1939 Color-Test on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/g3f-zm2jyFo?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
I will also go out on a limb and confess that Son of Frankenstein (1939) is my most favorite of the "trilogy". I use that word loosely, because there would be more Frankenstein films after this, but these first three Frankenstein films are the original "trilogy". The quality and tone would take a serious turn after this film.
Set 25 years after Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Henry Frankenstein's son, Wolf (Rathbone), is enticed by his father's past and coerced by the evil Ygor (Lugosi), to return to Frankenstein Castle in an attempt to save the life of the Monster, who Ygor found in a coma under Wolf's father's laboratory and the horror and the drama ensues. Universal wasted no time finally pairing up Karloff and Lugosi in a genuine Frankenstein film (they already did a couple of other films together, but this was the first time they got together for a big budget Classic Monster film), plus you throw in Rathbone and Atwill and you have an amazing group of actors assembled for the final curtain call for Karloff, as the monster. This film would be hailed as Bela Lugosi's crowning acting achievement. He should have been nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Ygor. In fact, the best part of this movie is the acting. Rathbone gives a perfectly excellent performance as a egotistical genius with a good heart. A loving father and husband, who just wanted to make life better for his family's name, who also gets caught playing God, whooops. Watching him running around the house searching for the Monster, protecting his son, dodging Ygor's treachery and having to give explanations to Krogh, while keeping a straight face is fantastic. As they did with "Bride", they kept with the tradition of muttering the words "it's alive" and it was used beautifully in this one. Karloff came back for one final Frankenstein appearance, his third and you could clearly tell he had it figured out.
For me, this one was a streamlined version of the first two films. The first two are masterpieces. They are cinematic and technical achievements, as well as politically and culturally charged commentaries on the world we live in. They are linchpins that created a sub-genre (monster movies), that endures to today. What the first two films did the third one added the cream on the top, by streamlining it with great acting and a script that covered everything. The technical achievements and the cinematic devices are there too. The most eye-popping being the way Director, Rowland V. Lee, Art Director, Jack Otterson and the Director of Photography, George Robinson set up the scenes inside the castle. Not, the creepy parts of the castle, but the one-dimensional, abstract, bare-wall areas of the kitchen and dining room areas. It was very plain but gave the feeling of loneliness. It screamed at the audience that this bland safe area of the house could still imbue danger and loneliness. That these people are not in a home that they should be in and danger lurks in the dungeon or the laboratory or even inside the walls. - Grade: A- Now we can finally move onto The Wolfman (1941).
