"Frankenstein" represents a lot of firsts for me in this project. It is the first horror movie on the list, it is the first movie I already owned before this project started and it is the first movie that I am having trouble blogging about.
It's not that I have a lack of things to say about this movie, far from it, it is that I have to try and look at this movie through a new set of eyes. I have to analyze it as if I haven't seen it before. More to the point, I have to forget all the things I know about this movie, forget the fact that it was made by my all-time favorite director and talk about it somewhat objectively... we'll see how that turns out. I have a feeling this is going to be very FoxNews-esque in it's inability to be fair and balanced.
Henry Frankenstein is a promising medical student who is obsessed with the notion of bringing life to the dead. He begins plundering graves and gallows for his experiments until finally he is able to construct a corpse from the parts of dead bodies and bring it to life. The search for a viable brain however, turns desperate and Henry is forced to use the brain of a convicted murderer. As a result, his unholy creation wreaks havoc on the small Bavarian village near Henry's laboratory.
Of all the classic Universal Horror Monsters, the Frankenstein Monster (I can't stress enough the fact that The Monster is only ever credited as that in every movie featuring the character, Frankenstein is Henry's name) remains the most complex and the most multi-faceted. He isn't evil for the sake of being evil, he doesn't ask to be the way he is, in fact he doesn't ask to even be created in the first place. He is largely misunderstood by the general public, and only ever intentionally harms the people who attempt to hurt or kill him first. Boris Karloff's silent, sensitive portrayal of the Monster is done in such a fashion that it is very debatable as to whether he or Henry is the protagonist. There is also some very insightful but subtle speculation as to whether or not "bad" people are born bad or if there is some kind of biological disposition, hence the "criminal" brain element.
"It's alive... IT'S ALIVE! Oh, in the name of God, now I know what it feels like to BE God!" (Henry Frankenstein, "Frankenstein")
In many ways, "Frankenstein" was leaps and bounds ahead of it's time. I have noticed in many of the old silent movies that I adore, the action takes place in a very condensed area. If you weren't shooting outdoors you were shooting on little sets that were constructed for the purpose of getting a scene and moving on to the next, this is especially true in the days of "feature-length" films being about an hour long. There was little time and architecture devoted to a room that may only show up in 30 seconds of the finished film. "Frankenstein" changed that: the ceilings are high and ornate and the rooms are enormous and detailed.
There are many details that could have just as easily been overlooked and not hindered the main story, especially the scenes that take place in the laboratory and the medical college. However, Director James Whale's background was in set-design for the legitimate theatre, so I have to believe there was a level of obsession paid to this element that most directors wouldn't have thought twice about. It is even considered Hollywood Mythology that the set designs were an inside joke by James Whale, playing off the stereotype that homosexuals (Whale was openly gay) are obsessive decorators.
The most important aspect James Whale brings to "Frankenstein" that no other director would have been able to do at the time is the perspective that is given to the outsider, the societal misfit. Ultimately we are able to sympathize with the Monster more than we are able to demonize him. He seemingly longs for nothing more than the approval of his "father" Henry, to the point that the monster ends up sacrificing his own life to save Henry's at the end of the film. The last image we see of the Monster is him reaching his arms out, crying out to Henry as he is falling victim to the relentless lynching of the townsfolk.
One aspect of this film that continues to amaze me no matter how many times I see it is a credit to both the actors as well as the director. Whenever a new character is introduced, it is always done in the form of a very tight close-up. This effect helps more than anything else in terms of establishing personalities. In the early days of talking films, character development was still a long way off, and with the relative shortness of movies back then it was simply not something that was able to be done time-wise. While there is still much to be desired, we are able to learn what we need to know about the characters from their initial close-ups: Henry is a conflicted, slightly deranged man, his fiance Elizabeth is worrisome and lovesick, his best friend Victor is respectable but looks at Elizabeth very longingly so that we know without even saying that he is also in love with her and The Monster is vacant-eyed and confused about his surroundings.
Okay, I haven't been able to be completely impartial on this film but I think I've done a decent job, but now I have to interject some of my "inside knowledge" of this movie that gives me a leg up over other movies on this list in terms of my ability to analyze it.
Colin Clive's portrayal of Henry Frankenstein is something ethereal and intangible that no actor would have ever been able to pull of due to Clive's own real life personal demons. He was groomed for military service his entire life but suffered a knee injury just at the onset of World War I and was disqualified from service. He was forced to join the theatrical department of the Royal Military Academy and flourished as an actor- however he was not passionate about it and suffered from stage fright so severe he had to be given industrial quantities of alcohol simply to be able to perform. Due to this, his distinguished career was cut short when he died an alcohol-related death at 37. Colin Clive's casting as Dr. Frankenstein, a character who's whole life is spent in pursuing something he ultimately can't have, and who's own talents lead to his downfall is eerily prophetic.
In the end, "Frankenstein" ends up being very much like the "First Blood" or "Rocky" of it's time. It is innovative, tells a heart-wrenching story and the content is actually very legitimate- however it falls victim to it's own branding. Horror movies were considered low-brow for the time just as action films are now. The endless string of sequels (with the exception of "Bride of Frankenstein" which is widely considered to be one of the only sequels in the history of cinema that was actually better than it's predecessor) also did nothing to legitimize the strength of the original picture, but rather hindered it's legacy as a stand-alone character analysis to a launching pad for a bad franchise.
No comments:
Post a Comment