So presented for you, the discerning patron of the Z-Man's secret lair, is the last *sigh* unpublished article I wrote for the Cult, completely unedited for continuity with this blog.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Secret Lair of the Z-Man Presents: Bride of Frankenstein
Legal Disclaimer: The following editorial does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of Cult Blitz, but if they have one iota of intellect they think exactly like I do about all things, always.
Hey there Blitzers (or is it Cult Members? What do you call yourselves? Thieves, Murderers, and General Malcontents?) The Z-Man returns with an article so controversial that it requires the preceding disclaimer. It's always vital to protect the innocent when you're about to bash a piece of beloved cinema history. As followers of my blog will recall (all ten of 'em), during my annual horror movie extravaganza in October I watched, for the first time in its entirety, the Universal Studios version of Frankenstein from 1931, and was blown away by the depth of the characters and the general quality of the film. After I watch a particularly good movie (or a rather bad one) it is my custom to go online and read the Wikipedia / IMDB entries. What I kept seeing when I was reading about Frankenstein were references to the sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, alongside claims that it was on par with, if not superior to the original. This I had to see.
Bride of Frankenstein opens in the home of Mary Shelley, the author of the book which was the inspiration for these films. Mary's happy-go-lucky disposition clashes with everything I've read about her tragic life, but I'll forgive this out of place recap of the first movie based solely on the smile brought to my face by the awful faux-British accents.
The action starts just as the first movie ends, with Doc Frankenstein and son (The Monster) presumed dead in the burning windmill. I enjoy when sequels try to piggyback on their forebears, especially when the first film ended with a tone of finality. Halloween II did this, and I consider that to be one of the best horror sequels. (The original, that is. I've still yet to see the remake, but it's on my list.) So Doc Frankenstein (henceforth referred to as "The Doc") is recovered from the rubble and presumed dead by people who don't know how to check for a pulse while The Monster (henceforth referred to as "Frankenstein") murders a few unfortunate bystanders and escapes into the wild.
The Doc awakens and decries his previous goals of creating life, as if that act alone absolves him of guilt. He's visited by his former mentor, Dr. Pretorious, who urges him to continue his work, proposing that they create a mate for Frankenstein. This doesn't jive with the tagline of the movie, "Warning! The Monster demands a Mate!" as the baseless idea to create The Bride was Dr. Pretorious's all along.
Meanwhile, Frankenstein wanders through the countryside, basically filling out the movie's runtime. At one point he meets a blind man *rolls eyes* who teaches him to speak and, to some degree, think logically in the span of five minutes. Frank gets captured, escapes, and through some movie magic happens upon Pretorious and is able to understand that the creepy doctor wants to make him a "friend." Pretorious gets Frankenstein to kidnap The Doc's new wife to blackmail The Doc into helping with the creation of the Bride. Somewhere in there Pretorious finds time to invent the telephone (anachronisms FTW!) The Doc creates The Bride, who for whatever reason is the same actress who played Mary Shelley. The Bride doesn't immediately fall for Frankenstein, so he pulls the handy-dandy Lever To Blow Up The Castle.
The end.
This just doesn't compare with the original. Frankenstein was a study in human frailty with a clear-cut line of action. This has so many pointless scenes that it feels like a narrative delineated by a six-year-old using action figures. Useless characters (see: cackling old woman) are given too much screen time while the titular Monster ambles about aimlessly until the final scenes. The characters have vague motivations and go through complete personality overhauls without provocation. In one scene The Doc is absolutely morally opposed to creating The Bride, forced to comply with Pretorious's plot at the risk of his wife's life. In the next scene he's grinning from ear to ear, overjoyed to be working again, and even gives us his patented "It's alive!"
Frankenstein does the same. The movie builds him up to be a victim, even more so than the original, but the second Pretorious promises him a mate he's all too eager to kidnap a helpless woman. I can't stand what they did to Frankenstein's character in this movie. He was originally a wild animal masquerading as a human, just a being that reacted to stimuli with basic impulses. That's cool, scary, and it says something about the nature of humanity. Here Frankenstein is suddenly ten times smarter; he learns to speak (something like ten words total) with ease, and often comes across as if he's completely cognizant of his situation, just doesn't know the words to express his opinion, opting to mime his ideas. I read somewhere that Boris Karloff hated the idea of having Frankenstein speak, though I can't find the reference at this moment and am glad that I don't have to annotate a blog like I used to annotate scholarly essays.
If I can find it, I'll post my undergraduate essay on the German movie Lola Rennt. It's amazing what passes for "scholarly" these days.
So why is Bride so often praised over Frankenstein? I can't imagine. In the reviews I've scanned I see many unqualified references to a self-referential "camp" factor in the film, as if it was intended as satire. I don't see that - it just feels like a soulless attempt to copy the atmosphere of the classic original. If you want satire, try Bride of Chucky, easily my pick for best Child's Play movie. Much has been written on homosexual readings of Bride of Frankenstein, largely due to the sexual orientation of the director and some members of the cast. Pretorious comes across as gay, but I don't see that as a major factor of the movie. And then the "film buffs" will point out every crucifix in the film, as if it has some bearing on the plot. To quote the up-and-coming critic Zachary Helton (yeah, it's me), "... not every story is a parable for the life of Jesus. Do they just hand out English degrees?"
(This nugget of witticism hails from my weekly Twilight Zone blog. Self-promotion: success.)
The best praise I can give Bride of Frankenstein is that script aside, it's very well-made. The image quality is sharper than the original, and the set decorations really catch the eye. Even if they did screw up Frankenstein's make-up, it's a visually pleasing film. The Bride has a neat character design; it's a shame she's only in the last five minutes. The greatest spectacle of the movie occurs when Dr. Pretorious shows Dr. Frankenstein the creatures he's managed to create in his experiments - 5 inch tall human beings that he keeps in glass jars. Yeah, it's a pure WTF moment -- it kills the grave tone of the film and raises the question why Pretorious needs Frankenstein's help at all -- but it looks great. I still don't know how the glass jars manage to bend the light from the bluescreen background. Like I said, it's an aesthetically competent production, but it suffers from a weak plot, illogical dialogue, and ill-defined characters.
have you read Frankenstein? Actually I think I gave you my copy to read a while ago ha. Aside from the fact that it's a great read I think you'd find it really interesting given you're a fan of the dumb (both mute and stupid), animal-like monster.. let's just say the book is completely different. Just don't watch the Frankenstein with Robert De Niro.. even tho it's more like the book.. awful.
ReplyDelete