wpqx
10-17-2004, 10:26 PM
Just watched this film, as part of the annual tradition, so here is a craptacular review. Pardon the ass kissing but it is my favorite.
The arguments for sequels surpassing the original is usually one not worth mentioning. All too often a sequel is just a rehash of a successful formula that always lacks the fire and potency of the original. In the case of horror films this is overwhelmingly true. From Dracula’s Daughter to I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, sequels basically suck. Ironically one of the first is still the only horror film sequel to surpass the original. That film is Bride of Frankenstein, made in 1935, to cash in on the phenomenal success of 1931’s Frankenstein.
So what makes Bride not only work on its own level, but surpass the original? For starters there is the source material. Although the original novel was used only as a blueprint, it was much longer than the original film made out. There was a story about Dr. Frankenstein making a mate for his monster, so there was a basis for the story. Second, despite some objection original director James Whale handled the material again. This is the most vital component of the success of Bride. Whale was not only a technically proficient director, whose background in theatrical set design came in handy for his film work. More than his background, Whale’s contempt for the idea of a sequel made the film superb.
He didn’t take the material seriously, and made what can now be considered the first comedy/horror film. For better or worse though the film not only encouraged comic relief in horror, but also gave everyone the hope that they could make a successful sequel. Although most credit the Burgomaster and Minnie the maid as being the comic centers of the film, the real comedic delight is the monstrously (pun intended) over the top performance of Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius. His performance also makes it blatantly clear of his sexual orientation. Thesiger delivers his lines just as one would imagine Claude Rains, which is who the part was written for. Thesiger makes the role a parody of a parody, and he owns just as much as Karloff owns the monster.
As a child this was always my favorite, because of the Monster. Whereas the original film was primarily about Dr. Frankenstein, this was all about the Monster. His character evolves, and gets more complex as the picture progresses. There are times when we reach out to him, but he is still a monster. Ridiculed or not, he still kills people, and sometimes pretty easily. The filmmakers go to greater lengths in this film to make him sympathetic, and thanks to censors, the body count was lowered to 10, from a reported 21. Karloff is at his best here, and makes every word and gesture count.
Now we can go back and look at the Dracula vs. Frankenstein rivalry. Tod Browning was not a particularly fluent director. Karl Freund was the cinematographer on Dracula, but most of his camera movement was subdued, thanks to Browning, who preferred a much more static camera. Whale wanted the camera all over the place. If the camera was fluid in Frankenstein, it is much more so in Bride, because with a few sound problems worked out during those four years, mobility was a greater possibility. Tracking shots abound, and so does general camera movement.
Not to say Whale can’t make the occasional short static shot. The introduction of the Bride is shown in a succession of cuts that don’t really add to each other. The only real flaw in continuity comes from the Monster’s failed rescue of the sheep herder. In a poorly constructed shot/reverse shot we see his hand over her mouth, then not in the reverse, and so on, for about eight shots until they get it right, and then move back to an establishing shot (literally because the Monster getting plugged ends the interaction). That nitpicking is only typical of someone who has seen the film 2 or 3 dozen times though.
Most other flaws, particularly in the acting seem deliberate. When Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) pauses outside the door of Henry’s room after the meeting with Pretorius seems gratuitous and silly, but funny on a camp level. So is Pretorius’s monologue with the skeleton, in the crypt. It also seems odd that the whole town chases the Monster to imprison him, but when he escapes everyone just runs away. I also found it odd that no one arrested Henry for unleashing the Monster, but nothing to loose sleep over.
Before you make the assumption I dislike the film, let me get back to kissing it’s ass. Unlike many horror films, then and now, Bride was an A picture. The studio was very much behind the picture, and went to great lengths to make it memorable. Sure there were plenty of budget cuts, particularly large sets, and silent extras, but the overall production values surpassed nearly all subsequent horror films, with the exception of MGM’s Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1939. Unlike in later Frankenstein films, the castle still looks like a real castle, rather than a blatantly obvious miniature. Sets are still very well designed, and make the greatest impression in the film.
Whale denied being an expressionist, but there are certainly an abundance of expressionistic touches in the film. For starters there is not a single shot of natural sky in the film. Most of the film is shot in dusk and all of it with a painted sky, with an ever-present storm looming. The expressionism is strengthened by the abundance of studio sets. No greater use of expressionistic sets can be found than in the crypt. Lighting is completely controlled, and angles are jagged and distorted, and there is no shortage of shadows. This was also helped by the abundance of German émigrés working for Universal and Hollywood at this time.
Perhaps my view is slanted by the amount of times I have seen the film, but I dare say there is no better horror film from Universal. True nothing in this film would scare anyone, even if you’re only five years old, but that isn’t the point. This film is funnier than it is scarier, and is as essential viewing as any classic Hollywood film of the same era.
The arguments for sequels surpassing the original is usually one not worth mentioning. All too often a sequel is just a rehash of a successful formula that always lacks the fire and potency of the original. In the case of horror films this is overwhelmingly true. From Dracula’s Daughter to I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, sequels basically suck. Ironically one of the first is still the only horror film sequel to surpass the original. That film is Bride of Frankenstein, made in 1935, to cash in on the phenomenal success of 1931’s Frankenstein.
So what makes Bride not only work on its own level, but surpass the original? For starters there is the source material. Although the original novel was used only as a blueprint, it was much longer than the original film made out. There was a story about Dr. Frankenstein making a mate for his monster, so there was a basis for the story. Second, despite some objection original director James Whale handled the material again. This is the most vital component of the success of Bride. Whale was not only a technically proficient director, whose background in theatrical set design came in handy for his film work. More than his background, Whale’s contempt for the idea of a sequel made the film superb.
He didn’t take the material seriously, and made what can now be considered the first comedy/horror film. For better or worse though the film not only encouraged comic relief in horror, but also gave everyone the hope that they could make a successful sequel. Although most credit the Burgomaster and Minnie the maid as being the comic centers of the film, the real comedic delight is the monstrously (pun intended) over the top performance of Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius. His performance also makes it blatantly clear of his sexual orientation. Thesiger delivers his lines just as one would imagine Claude Rains, which is who the part was written for. Thesiger makes the role a parody of a parody, and he owns just as much as Karloff owns the monster.
As a child this was always my favorite, because of the Monster. Whereas the original film was primarily about Dr. Frankenstein, this was all about the Monster. His character evolves, and gets more complex as the picture progresses. There are times when we reach out to him, but he is still a monster. Ridiculed or not, he still kills people, and sometimes pretty easily. The filmmakers go to greater lengths in this film to make him sympathetic, and thanks to censors, the body count was lowered to 10, from a reported 21. Karloff is at his best here, and makes every word and gesture count.
Now we can go back and look at the Dracula vs. Frankenstein rivalry. Tod Browning was not a particularly fluent director. Karl Freund was the cinematographer on Dracula, but most of his camera movement was subdued, thanks to Browning, who preferred a much more static camera. Whale wanted the camera all over the place. If the camera was fluid in Frankenstein, it is much more so in Bride, because with a few sound problems worked out during those four years, mobility was a greater possibility. Tracking shots abound, and so does general camera movement.
Not to say Whale can’t make the occasional short static shot. The introduction of the Bride is shown in a succession of cuts that don’t really add to each other. The only real flaw in continuity comes from the Monster’s failed rescue of the sheep herder. In a poorly constructed shot/reverse shot we see his hand over her mouth, then not in the reverse, and so on, for about eight shots until they get it right, and then move back to an establishing shot (literally because the Monster getting plugged ends the interaction). That nitpicking is only typical of someone who has seen the film 2 or 3 dozen times though.
Most other flaws, particularly in the acting seem deliberate. When Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) pauses outside the door of Henry’s room after the meeting with Pretorius seems gratuitous and silly, but funny on a camp level. So is Pretorius’s monologue with the skeleton, in the crypt. It also seems odd that the whole town chases the Monster to imprison him, but when he escapes everyone just runs away. I also found it odd that no one arrested Henry for unleashing the Monster, but nothing to loose sleep over.
Before you make the assumption I dislike the film, let me get back to kissing it’s ass. Unlike many horror films, then and now, Bride was an A picture. The studio was very much behind the picture, and went to great lengths to make it memorable. Sure there were plenty of budget cuts, particularly large sets, and silent extras, but the overall production values surpassed nearly all subsequent horror films, with the exception of MGM’s Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1939. Unlike in later Frankenstein films, the castle still looks like a real castle, rather than a blatantly obvious miniature. Sets are still very well designed, and make the greatest impression in the film.
Whale denied being an expressionist, but there are certainly an abundance of expressionistic touches in the film. For starters there is not a single shot of natural sky in the film. Most of the film is shot in dusk and all of it with a painted sky, with an ever-present storm looming. The expressionism is strengthened by the abundance of studio sets. No greater use of expressionistic sets can be found than in the crypt. Lighting is completely controlled, and angles are jagged and distorted, and there is no shortage of shadows. This was also helped by the abundance of German émigrés working for Universal and Hollywood at this time.
Perhaps my view is slanted by the amount of times I have seen the film, but I dare say there is no better horror film from Universal. True nothing in this film would scare anyone, even if you’re only five years old, but that isn’t the point. This film is funnier than it is scarier, and is as essential viewing as any classic Hollywood film of the same era.