Frankenstein (1931)

Boomer's Review

          Everybody knows the story of Frankenstein or at least some variation of it. Therefore, I will not take the time to recap that here. Instead, I'd like to jump right into my thoughts on the film. Frankenstein probably does not work as a straight horror film anymore. We, as movie goers, have become so desensitized my scary images--we seen them all. Instead, we crave films like Scream which rely on tight shots and figures jumping into the frames to scare us. Heck, even the blood-letting films of the late '70's and '80's make us laugh now. With that said, Frankenstein is a frightening film on a different level. The ideas behind the stroy are especially relevant in a world in which we are told that full blown human cloning is not only possible but is possible right now. For those scientists who plan on going forward in this wonderfully exciting and totally untested field, a quick trip to the videostore to rent Frankenstein should be be right up there in priority with buying beakers and flasks. Perhaps after a viewing and some deep soul searching, might those scientists understand the etical mine filed onto which they are stepping.

         Let's not distort the story of Frankenstein. Dr. Frankenstein was not an evil man. He did not create the monster in order to hurt people. There was a genuine scientific need for his experiments. There was also an ego driven desire to be the first to reanimate dead humans. Imagine the applications--a person dies of a heart attack, get a new heart, pump it with 80 gaziilion volts and viola, the person is back to life. No one can questions the utility of such a possibility. The same argumets persist from those who desire to clone humans-- a person has heart disease, take some tissue from the person, and regrow not A heart, but his heart. The impact on the medical world could not be measured. These men who claim to be able to do this have an ego-driven desire to fill a medical void just like Frankenstein. To these brilliant men of science, I would simply say, before you create something, make sure you can control it.

              Apart from the story, the film generally receives mixed reactions from most. Almost everybody is amazed at the wonderful make-up artistry. It is well known that Boris Karloff hated the marathon sessions required to make him look like Frankenstein's monster; however, even he must have been amazed by the transformation. The make-up was simply dazzling. The Frankenstein monster of the 1931 film was by far the best looking (if that's possible) Frankenstein ever placed on film.

         More people have complained about the set design. The film is clearly shot on a sound stage. Some dislike this because it detracts from the realism of the film. I liked it though because it added a surealism that fit the mood of the film nicely. The graveyard scenes, with the craggy earth and wooden crosses, were spooky and artistic all at the same time.

          The acting was basically good. I would only say that I found Mae Clark to be the worst actor in the film. Her movements were awkward and her lines were delivered mechanically. In this respect, she was probably the first horror film femme fatale as we know them from such masterpieces as Sorority House Massacre and hundreds of other schlocky, unscarry, unfunny slasher films. It doesn't change the fact that she really couldn't act.

          Overall, I liked the film a lot. In the end, it is one of a very few horror films that have attained the status of a classic. I can't give it the highest rating, however. For that, I would have liked more commentary about the society the character were living in, and I would have like to have seen how Dr. Frankenstein changed because of his own blunder knowing the pain that it caused to so many. With that said, my rating:

Koekoek's Response

Hi Jake or Boomer(?),

          Visited your classic filmsite today. Liked the reviews a lot and great those old film posters! Like the background as well. Funny icons for rating the films, however for me it would be better to use the filmreals you put on one page, everybody knows the more reals the better the film so you don't have to explain it every time. And I often download pages and explorer doesn't download pictures as well so when there are a lot of missing icons I know you think the film is very good.

          've detected two corrupt links: when I click on Frankenstein title I get thin man, when i click on the year it's fine; and when I click on Dracula I get the pimpernel page, again click on the year and it's fine.

          I've seen a lot of old films but 've seen hardly any of the films on your site. The Hitchcocks I've seen of course. And 've seen a lot of Frankenstein shit and Dracula pulp. I had to look up in the film encyclopedia if i'd seen your Frankenstein and I remembered I had a very long time ago. The scene with the drowning girl popped up in my head. Did you know this scene was censored until it was restored in 1987. What did you think of the music? I don't remember any music but I read it wasn't very good or it needed it's own music. I agree Mary Shelly was a woman with a vision. The story is very topical. Shelly was warning us with this book. But the message is getting across differently now than when she wrote it. Shelly was saying: beware, don't mess with Gods creation. Now we say: beware, how you mess with Gods creation. Like you wrote: make sure you can control what you create. You wrote in your review: 'I would have liked more commentary about the society the character were living in, and I would have like to have seen how Dr. Frankenstein changed because of his own blunder knowing the pain that it caused to so many.'

          Did you see 'Mary Shelly's Frankenstein', directed by Kenneth Branagh (he also plays Frankenstein) in 1994. With Robert de Niro as the monster and Helena Bonham-Carter as the girlfriend of Victor Frankenstein. In this film you can understand this passion Frankenstein has. He even chooses his obsession before his girlfriend. You can understand that only a madman chooses to work instead of being with Helena Bonham-Carter. In this film the monsters brain is not that of a criminal but of a mad professor (a very good role by John Cleese). De Niro isn't at all like Karloffs monster. He hardly limps, he speaks very well and can even read. The only things he lacks is responsibility and how to deal with emotions. Professor Frankenstein thinks he's killed his own creation, but the monster is still alive and wants revenge 'cause Frankenstein has created him and deserted him. When he finds him he asks to create a wife for him, because then he has someone who can understand him. In the past this was put in a different movie: 'the bride of Frankenstein'. When I saw this movie I could understand that this story was written by a woman. I never read the book but I heard it was more like the book than any other Frankenstein film. The film isn't a horror film but it's full of feelings and emotions without being a tearjerking film. It's all about people. It's filmed in a way like 'Bram Stokers Dracula'. Not surprising they were both produced by Francis Ford Coppola. But I'm not sure wat a producer actually does, always thought he only came up with the money. It's funny how people think Frankenstein is the name of the monster, but if Mary Shelly had given him a name someone would have cared for the monster and the story would be different.

          I don't think anyone has thought up a name for this film genre. I heard someone call it Barok style. So maybe we should call it Barok films but this only says something about the style of filming and not very much about the contents. What would you call it? Well it's been interesting, use this mail for your site if you like, maybe it's interesting to put at the bottom your Frankenstein page and put your response on it as well. Maybe other people want to respond to it.See ya,Koekoek