FRANKENSTEIN

In anticipation of Halloween and in celebration of the recent blu-ray release of the classic and iconic “Universal Monsters” series, I have decided to review each title individually in chronological order, and the latest review of the series is for “Frankenstein” that was directed by James Whale and premiered on 21 November, 1931.

Let’s get this out into the open immediately; James Whale is an absolute genius and his film “Frankenstein” is nothing short of brilliant.  Although the general consensus appears to be that the sequel “The Bride Of Frankenstein” is the better film, I have always been more partial to the original film.  After my latest viewing of “Frankenstein” I have once again been made aware of just how good this film really is.

The story of “Frankenstein” revolves around a brilliant scientist, Dr. Frankenstein, who after being frustrated by the confines of modern science decides to begin his own experiments which mainly have to do with bringing life back to the dead.  The more he becomes obsessed with his experiments the more his mental health fails him until all he can think about is his work, shutting everyone else previously from his life out.  Finally, Dr. Frankenstein thinks he has worked it all out and goes about finding the bodies he needs to prepare for his experiments.  The last thing he needs is a good functioning brain, however when his assistant Fritz attempts to steal a brain from the local university, he accidently drops it ruining it in the process.  The sound of broken glass alerts people of the presence in the classroom and in his haste to escape Fritz steals the other brain on the table before fleeing the scene.  Unbeknownst to him, this specimen is the brain of a criminal.  When the stormy night Dr. Frankenstein needs to revive his stitched up lifeless body arrives, the experiment begins in earnest, but what sort of monster will be born if at all, and if so will Dr. Frankenstein be ready to deal with the responsibility that comes with creation?

The thing that immediately jumps out at you when watching “Frankenstein” is just how well made a film it is.  Director James Whale is always in total control of the film and his storytelling abilities are just masterful.  It is amazing coming off watching the two “Dracula” films from 1931 before watching Whale’s film because there is no way you would have ever guessed that these two films would have come from the same year.  “Dracula” seems so dusty and lifeless now, while even today “Frankenstein” feels incredibly modern and was well ahead of its time.  The majority of early sound pictures were victims of dialogue in as much as characters (or the camera) could not move around too much due to the fact that the actors needed to be near enough to a microphone hidden somewhere on set catching their performances.  You can feel this in “Dracula” but it is never present at all in “Frankenstein”.  Whale is constantly and brilliantly moving his camera including an amazing sequence late in the film when the monster is being searched for at a wedding, with the camera passing through decorated set walls onto the next set.  Speaking of his camera movement or placement, I was always impressed by Whale’s compositions; he just seemed to always place the camera in exactly the right place even if it included angles rarely used in the 30’s.

The biggest misconception about the film “Frankenstein” is that most people think that the monster himself is the titular character.  This automatically brings thoughts that the film is going to be a “monster” movie when in actual fact Frankenstein is the doctor who makes the monster and therefore the film is more of a “mad scientist” film.  This is important to note because it deals a lot more with humanity and what it means to be human compared to just been about a monster running around killing people.  Actually, in reality “Frankenstein” deals with a lot of issues under the guise of a horror film.  Ultimately the story is about the consequences a man must face after defying God and bringing life back to a dead soul.  In a sense Dr. Frankenstein becomes a parent of this hideous monster and therefore all responsibility lies with him in its own wellbeing and the wellbeing of anybody it comes into contact with.  Then it looks at how someone deals with the realization of exactly what they have done and given up to make it all possible.

Speaking of the monster, it is interesting to note that he is really no monster at all, rather a creature that is terrified and abused constantly in its short existence.  Although the monster does some terrible things he mostly does these out of fear or in self defense, and instead of being terrified by him we feel a huge sympathy for the poor creature.  Even during the infamous drowning of the little girl, this is not a deliberately malicious act by the monster and you can see how scared and unhappy he is when the girl does not resurface.  The iconic performance by Boris Karloff in the role of the monster is simply amazing.  It is a role completely free of dialogue barring the grunts and growls when he is threatened, and yet Karloff is able to emote so much and bring such humanity (ironically) to the role.  He plays the monster as if he was a young child experiencing the world for the first time, and yet there is a constant sadness in his eyes.  This is a creature that never asked for this type of existence and you can really feel that he is in a lot of pain.  Karloff also used his height to great advantage when it came to scenes of physical violence.  His grand stature towered over the rest of the cast giving the monster a feeling of immense power, that he was a real threat if pushed too far.

The rest of the cast are all sensational also.  I think Colin Clive in the titular role of the mad scientist is truly spectacular especially during the scene of his great triumph of bringing the creature back to life.  His manic cry of “Its Alive! It’s Alive! IT’S ALIVE!!” has gone done in cinematic history as one of the great moments.  As much as I loved Dwight Fry as Renfield in “Dracula”, he is even better here as Fritz, Frankenstein’s hunchbacked assistant.  At first I could not believe I was watching the same actor, his range is immense, and he seemed to revel in portraying the disturbing aspects of his character when he was abusing the poor monster.  If you remember I really disliked Edward Van Sloan’s portrayal of Van Helsing in “Dracula” but thought he excelled here as Dr. Waldman, Frankenstein’s former teacher.  Gone is the arrogance of the previous role and instead in its place is a sense of caring, understanding and curiosity.  While Mae Clark is certainly beautiful as Frankenstein’s fiancé, she really isn’t given that much to do and to be truthful she is a little annoying when on screen.  The actor that steals the movie, however (besides Karloff) is none other than Frederick Kerr who plays the Baron Frankenstein.  He is absolutely hilarious with his sarcastic humour and quick witted tongue, but what he really does is bring a level of reality to the picture.  While his screen-time may be limited, he makes the most of every minute he is on screen.

While all these people have all helped in making “Frankenstein” the memorable classic it is today, there is one man who may have had the biggest impact on it all and that was make-up artist Jack Pierce who came up with the now iconic design for the Frankenstein monster.  He went totally against the description of the monster in Mary Shelley’s original novel and using Boris Karloff’s physique and his own intuition, he came up with his own interpretation.  His creation which saw the monster with a square head, sunken eyes, heavy eye lids and the two electrodes protruding from his neck, has since become the definitive version of the monster and is instantly recognizable as Frankenstein’s monster.  From the moment Pierce’s design premiered onscreen, it was to become the version that everyone else would follow.  Kids today without having seen the original movie can recognize Pierce’s design as “Frankenstein’s monster” which is an amazing legacy for any artist to have.

I just want to briefly mention James Whale’s achievements a little more before I finish up this review because the success of “Frankenstein” is really due to this man.  He was a special director who took this material and gave it life.  He imbues the film with an atmosphere so palpable, you can just feel it.  The opening sequence in the graveyard is the perfect example of this, the atmosphere is so rich and foreboding and you immediately feel the tone of the picture.  This sequence also has one of my favourite visual moments of the film when Fritz and the doctor are digging up the fresh grave, and Dr. Frankenstein flicks a shovel full of dirt into the visage of the grim reaper, almost as if he is saying “you can take him, but I can bring him back”.  It is a fantastic moment.  In fact the film is full of these moments and that is what makes Whale so special, he cares about the little details.  Another example is when Fritz is running up the stairs but stops to pull up one of his socks, it adds little to the plot, but so much to the movie itself.  Visually, Whale has created a very dark film full of deep and very dark shadows.  Characters can often be seen in silhouette also.  I love the set design of Dr. Frankenstein’s workplace because it harkens back to the era of German Expressionism during the silent films of the 1920’s, particularly “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”.  Whale also knows how to give a character an entrance, just check out Karloff’s appearance as the monster for the first time and see if it does not take your breath away.

Overall, “Frankenstein” is an amazing film, and I love, love, love (almost) every moment of it.  It truly is one of the greatest horror films of all time.  It is also an incredibly sad film and one with a lot of heart and heartache.  If you do not feel something while watching this film, you are probably dead.  This is one of those rare films where it seems like everything came together at exactly the right time and cinematic gold has been produced.  Great performances by everyone, iconic make-up design by Jack Pierce and simply sublime direction by James Whale.  “Frankenstein” is an absolute masterpiece.

5 Stars.

DRACULA [SPANISH VERSION]

In anticipation of Halloween and in celebration of the recent blu-ray release of the classic and iconic “Universal Monsters” series, I have decided to review each title individually in chronological order, and the latest review of the series is for the Spanish version of “Dracula” that was made simultaneously as the American version by director George Melford, and premiered on 20 March, 1931in Spain, and on 24 April, 1931 in the U.S.

Instead of the methods of subtitling or dubbing we use so frequently in today’s cinema, back in the 1930’s there were certain film projects that were simultaneously made in different languages featuring completely different casts.  The 1931 version of “Dracula” was such a movie and luckily for audiences today, both versions have survived.  Amazingly, there is a huge number of fans for this version of “Dracula” who often boast that the Spanish version is the superior of the two 1931 films.  While I agree that from a technical point of view this assertion is indeed true, but this version has faults of its own.  The story goes that both versions were shot on the same day, with the American cast and crew having access to the sets in the day, while the Spanish the night.  The advantage the Spanish crew had was they were able to see what the American’s had done and then attempt to better it (whether this is in fact true, it is still a great legend).

Both versions have the same story so please excuse my following cut and paste job from my (other) “Dracula” review, but again here is a brief summery.  After securing the sale of a property on the outskirts of London, Count Dracula leaves his castle in Transylvania and charters a ship to his new abode.  Upon arriving in town, he immediately starts to prey upon his neighbours of the adjoining property (which houses a sanitarium on its grounds as well as the residence of the head psychiatrist and his family), particularly that of the young and beautiful Eva.  After a number of deaths and strange going-on’s in the neighbourhood, a specialist is brought in, Dr. Van Helsing, to work out what is exactly happening as well as to find what is the cause for the sudden deterioration in the health of poor Eva.  Van Helsing, who has a firm belief in the supernatural, comes to the terrifying conclusion that everything that has been happening is due to the presence of a vampire.

Somewhat ironically, I found that the Spanish and American versions of “Dracula” to be complete opposites, by which I mean the elements that were so strong in one, turn out to be the weaknesses in the other.  For me, the opening scenes set in Transylvania in this version just did not have that beautiful and macabre atmosphere of the American version.  While the majority of the scene looks better, for some reason the atmosphere is lost and the reason for this, I think, has to do with Dracula himself.  If you are in any doubt of just how good a performance Bela Lugosi’s version of the titular character was, watching Carlos Villarias’s attempt at the same role will give you a new found respect to it.  Sadly Villaria is terrible as Dracula and he is the main deficiency of the whole film.  He has no screen presence at all and the way he plays the monster with his wide opened eyes and ridiculous grin makes it hard to ever take him seriously as scary.  I will say that he appears to be giving his all in the role, but fails miserably.  The best moment (at least from a visual perspective) during the Transylvanian section is ruined by the appearance of the Count and his goofy toothy grin.  The moment in question is when Renfield and Dracula meet for the first time on the staircase, and the camera brilliantly glides up the staircase to a single shot of….oh no……..it is a goofy looking Dracula.

However once the film changes locations to London, director George Melford creates a beautiful and rich atmosphere that was not at all present in the Tod Browning version.  Sadly, the problems with Dracula are constant throughout the picture but in almost every other aspect, the London sections are drastically improved.  There is quite a difference in the running times of both versions of “Dracula” with the Spanish version clocking in at 104 minutes (while the U.S version was 75 minutes), being a full 29 minutes longer, and yet there are really no extra scenes in this version at all.  Rather Melford doesn’t rush through the story to get to the finish line but instead moves the film at a nice pace.  Unlike the American version, the film does not become a muddled mess towards the end, which is a lot more satisfying here.  Melford also does a much better job at disguising the fact that the film is based on a play, it really does feel more like a movie.

During this section of the film I found the majority of the performances to be quite good with the major exception being Eduardo Arozamena as Van Helsing.  He gives such a flat and uninspired rendition of the famous character, there is just no energy there at all.  During the main confrontation between Van Helsing and Dracula, where the Count tries in vain to hypnotize the professor in an attempt to get him to come closer, it is explained in the American version that Dracula is unable to move Van Helsing because his will is too strong.  However in the Spanish version, it appears that instead of a strong will stopping Dracula, the only thing stopping him here is that Van Helsing has nodded off.  Seriously, Arozamena just does not handle this scene well at all, and clearly does not know what to do, so choose to do nothing.  It is sad really, that the two main roles of “Dracula” have been so poorly cast in this version.

In regards to the girls in the cast, similar to the American version, both come across really well with Lupita Tovar actually being pretty great as Eva.  She seems to understand the sexuality of Dracula’s mind control a lot better here and really convinces that she enjoys her new found awakening whilst under his power.  It is interesting to note the differences in the way the female characters are dressed in this version compared to their American counterpart with cleavage being very prominent here.  In fact this is another main difference between the two films as the Spanish version is definitely the sexier of the two, as well as the grittier.  For example, the scene when Renfield cuts his finger at Dracula’s castle, in the U.S version he does this on a paperclip whilst here it is when he slips with his knife cutting some bread.  Sure it is a small change, but a significant one I think.  Similarly in the American version we are never witness to the famous bite marks a vampire makes, where as they make a number of appearances here.

The differences between the look of each film is also interesting because the Spanish version has some great set decoration making the environment more grander than in Browning’s film.  Also the staging of most scenes, as well as camera movement, is significantly better in the Spanish version.  However, the way Dracula himself has been shot is nowhere near as atmospheric as what Freund did in the U.S version.  The hypnotic eye trick has not been duplicated here; rather Melford has chosen to use a close-up of the vampire’s eyes (when he is trying to hypnotize a victim) which borders on a horror movie look.  What I mean by this is that it almost looks like a close-up you see of a victim’s eyes in a slasher film just before they are killed, and personally I found it was not as powerful in this version.  The goofy special effects so prominent in the U.S film are toned down here and for the better too.

Overall, this Spanish language version of “Dracula” is a pretty good film and it is true that for the most part, it is actually a better film than its American counterpart.  However the fact that the two performers in the key roles of Van Helsing and Dracula himself are so poor really does bring down this great film.  Just imagine how much of a classic “Dracula” could have been if Bela Lugosi was in this version of the film.  As it is though, this version of the classic tale can hold its head high, as it compares very well to the Tod Browning classic.

3.5 Stars.

DRACULA

In anticipation of Halloween and in celebration of the recent blu-ray release of the classic and iconic “Universal Monsters” series, I have decided to review each title individually in chronological order, and the first review of the series is for Tod Browning’s “Dracula” which was released back on February 14, 1931.

This 1931 version of “Dracula” was the first time the classic Bram Stoker novel had been legitimately adapted, even though the story had been filmed before by German filmmaker F. W. Murnau under the title “Nosferatu” back in 1922 (Murnau never actually purchased the rights to film the book).  The story has since been adapted a plethora of times so I am sure that most people are familiar with the plot of “Dracula” but for those that don’t, I will provide a brief summary.  After securing the sale of a property on the outskirts of London, Count Dracula leaves his castle in Transylvania and charters a ship to his new abode.  Upon arriving in town, he immediately starts to prey upon his neighbours of the adjoining property (which houses a sanitarium on its grounds as well as the residence of the head psychiatrist and his family), particularly that of the young and beautiful Mina.  After a number of deaths and strange going-on’s in the neighbourhood, a specialist is brought in, Dr. Van Helsing, to work out what is exactly happening as well as to find what is the cause for the sudden deterioration in the health of poor Mina.  Van Helsing, who has a firm belief in the supernatural, comes to the terrifying conclusion that everything that has been happening is due to the presence of a vampire.

“Dracula” was the first film of the “Universal Monsters” series made in the 1930’s that proved such a massive success that all of the subsequent films appeared because of it.  However, as iconic a movie that it has become, it is also one of the least successful of the series.  Do not get me wrong, the film is still great entertainment, but when held up against the others in the series it has seemed to have aged significantly more than the others.  The film was directed by the great Tod Browning who made a number of amazing and amazingly bizarre silent films in the 1920’s, and is someone who I am a massive fan of.  Browning starts “Dracula” off brilliantly with the character of Renfield travelling to the Transylvanian castle to get the paperwork in order.  This entire sequence, the travel to the castle and the time spent within it, is the highlight of the film.  The thick and spooky atmosphere is beautifully created as Renfield enters this strange baroque world.  Visually this is where “Dracula” is at its strongest too, and this is mainly due to the fact that these scenes do not rely on dialogue, and as a result, Browning is able to fall back on his bold visual techniques he often used in his silent features.  There is a truly stunning (and ultimately pointless) scene featuring the brides of Dracula that is unlike anything else in the film.  It is also during this sequence when the film is at its most tense, as Renfield is lured into the spider’s web.  We, the audience, know that he is in serious danger while he is unaware of it himself.

However once the location of the movie shifts to London, the atmosphere of the great opening is forever lost, and rarely regained.  The film focuses less on visuals and ends up becoming extremely dialogue driven.  Worse is the fact that the dialogue never sounds natural rather it all appears expository.  This version of “Dracula” actually isn’t a true adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel; rather it is an adaptation of play that was based on the novel.  Browning sadly is unable to disguise the stage bound origins of the film which for the majority of its running time does feel like a filmed play.  What is frustrating about it is that the story doesn’t build in any sort of organic matter or create any momentum within the narrative rather characters routinely come on “stage” and explain just what is going on.  Also the closer we get to the end of the film the more erratic it becomes with things appearing to happen at random.  The scene of the “woman in white” is a good example of this.  Ironically this is one of the more atmospheric scenes set in London but it happens out of the blue and the scene is too short to have any real significance.  

I know it sounds like I am being harsh on the film, and maybe I am, because at the end of the day I still like the film, but I don’t want to just give the film a complete pass mark due to its classic stature.  So if the film has all of these faults, why is it so highly regarded?  Two words: Bela Lugosi.  His iconic and seminal performance as Count Dracula is why the film is so loved today.  You can tell that he has put his heart and soul into this performance, giving nothing less than one hundred percent, and it has worked.  From the day “Dracula” premiered in 1931 when anybody portrayed the titular character, Lugosi’s portrayal was mimicked.  He is mesmerizing in the role, using his thick Hungarian accent to his advantage with his elongated line readings.  As soon as we are witness to his Dracula, his incredible charisma is brought to the forefront and we can’t take our eyes off of him (much like the characters on screen).  However his performance isn’t the only strong one, as Dwight Frye’s take on Renfield is just as impressive.  I personally love the transition in the once smart and proper real estate agent to the raving lunatic he becomes.  Frye is perfect in the early scenes before he becomes the victim of the Count, but it is after he has turned that he is at his best.  He truly looks like a deranged madman with those crazy eyes and that weird grin on his face.  So much has his demeanor changed that I was initially unsure that I was watching the same actor in the role.  The character of Renfield regularly reappears throughout the movie and whenever he does, he energizes it.

Personally I was not a fan of Edward Van Sloan’s stiff and wooden take on the Van Helsing character due in part to the feeling of complete arrogance he instills in the character.  He comes across as a know-all and as though he is superior to everyone else.  While I have no issues with David Manner’s performance as John Harker, Mina’s fiancé, unfortunately the script gives him nothing to do and because of this he comes across as a bit of a sap.  Similarly the main female characters are underutilized although due to the charismatic performances from Helen Chandler (as Mina) and Frances Dade (as Lucy), their roles are much more memorable.  I particularly loved Dade as Lucy even though her role is miniscule.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the work of cinematographer Karl Freund and the influence he had on the success of “Dracula”.  Freund was one of the great pioneer’s in cinematography in the silent era and worked on a number of great German classics including Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” and his work on “Dracula”, particularly the early scenes set in Transylvania, is really quite amazing.  His idea of shining small pin lights into the eyes of Bela Lugosi to create that hypnotic stare, while the rest of him is covered in darkness, was absolute genius.  Also the way he lit a room when it was filled with the mysterious mist or fog truly gave it an ominous feel to it, best described as chilling.  It is his contribution that makes the most successful parts of “Dracula” feel as if they have come from another world entirely.  Interestingly, Freund went on to direct another of the popular “Universal Monsters” properties with “The Mummy” made the following year in 1932.

While it is true that “Dracula” hasn’t aged as well as some of the other “Universal Monsters” films of the 1930’s, it is still an iconic film.  That said I am sure that today’s audience unfamiliar with the movie would find parts of it unintentionally funny.  Things such as the rubber bats or the plastic spider could create a giggle, or the use of the very “scary” armadillo or possum filling in as supposed otherworldly creatures.  Also let’s not forget about that bee and its terrifying mini-coffin.  While these are all amusing to us now, we mustn’t forget that this film was considered absolutely frightening when it was released back in 1931, and personally I am not going to downgrade the score of a film for special effects that have since dated.

Overall, I find Tod Browning’s version of “Dracula” to be a hit and miss affair.  After leaving the Transylvanian world behind, the film struggles to create an atmosphere befitting of a horror film.  The fact that the dialogue driven film is unable to disguise its origins as a play is unfortunate and the lack of a music score does not help it’s cause.  However on the positive side, it has an absolutely spellbinding performance by Bela Lugosi who gives the cinema its definitive version of the evil Count.  Interestingly, four years later, Tod Browning would make another vampire picture titled “Mark Of The Vampire” where it saw him recreating a lot of scenes that he had done in “Dracula” and usually for the better.  However, the ridiculous twist ending of that film, has caused it to be basically forgotten compared to the flawed classic that is “Dracula”. 

3.5 Stars.