Frankenstein (1931)

Telling an old story in a new way is a colossal task that many undertake, but few succeed in. Creating an original story, while staying true to the underlying themes and structure of the original is a difficult balance to maintain. However, The 1931 film adaption of "Frankenstein" is possibly the greatest example of a reimagined classic story told right cinematic history. The underlying themes of Mary Shelley's tale regarding whether scientific inquiry can go to far and the what makes someone a monster are preserved and relayed brilliantly through out this movie, while also forming an identity of it's own. It's because of this film that the depiction of Frankenstein's monster as dead eyed, flat headed behemoth has been the default image of horror for generations. Frankenstein is a timeless tale warning about what happens to those who fly too close to the sun, and the 1931 film adaptation more than lives up to its title.

... how prescient of Universal Pictures! Well, actually, no. And actually, if you have read the novel, this film only loosely resembles it. For some reason Victor Frankenstein is "Henry", and John Bole, a family friend, is named "Victor". For some reason and background never given "Victor" is in unrequited love with Elizabeth. There is no motivation given here for Dr Frankenstein wanting to give life to a dead being like there is in the novel. And the monster he creates is mute and without reason, also unlike the novel. And yet it all works. Even now, 87 years after it was filmed it is a fun watch, not the shocking one it was in 1931, and we probably have Mel Brooks to thank for that, but that's another story. The big news here is the direction. James Whale, in one of the few smart moves Universal made in the early 30s, was given great authority with what projects he took on to direct and how he executed his job. What he produced is an artistic masterpiece. Why is all of that odd electronics in Dr. Frankenstein's lab? I am an electrical engineer and I don't know. Why did Whale decide to make this film "present day" when almost every other filmed version of Frankenstein is set in the 19th century? Again, I don't know, but it works. It allows Mae Clarke as Elizabeth to be dressed to the nines in the fashions of the day, and because "the townspeople" themselves are not yet living in modern times, it allows the settings to be gothic. There are just some unforgettable images - the townspeople after the creature as hundreds of torches that spread into the night, the old decrepit windmill almost as a distinct character in the film as the monster's last refuge, the peasant carrying his dead daughter into the celebration of Dr Frankenstein's impending wedding, the monster and the doctor facing each other with the look on the monster's face that says "you got me into this and you are getting me out - we are in this together".And Whale does all of this in 70 minutes with minimal dialogue and maximum use of atmosphere with an ending that is left open and is definitely precode. Highly recommended.

Frankenstein is a must-watch not only for its influences on the horror and mad scientist genres, but because of how gripping the atmosphere and pacing is. The story is thought-provoking, and the acting convincing. It's a film that can leave the viewer wonder whether to feel sympathetic for the monster and/or Dr. Frankenstein, and can even beg the question of who the real monsters are by the films conclusion.

Frankenstein of 1931 is one of the most iconic horror film and many of the tropes we take for granted ,like a mad scientist in white,Gothic image, the hunchback sidekick, wild mobs and the look of the creature ,all of them have taken cues from this film. Credits where credits do to Boris Carloff whose acting really sell the film and make you believe that what you see is real, with his movements and facial expressions. Also the reactions of the rest of the cast help to the selling of the illusions very well.And the scenery is very well made. And here is were I will become critical to Frakenstein ,to the readers be gentle.DISpute the status of classic the film has(rightfully so) ,we have to be honest back in the thirties was scary but now it doesn't have the same impact as the next generations we have grown accustomed to it. To add to that scenes that ones scared the crowd now there are two reactions ,"wait I didn't get it?" and two "That was funny". Also what hampers the film more is its short duration, clocking only one hour and a quarter, so the building up of the tension it isn't fully realized. Finally my biggest issue with the flick is who must it differed from the source material making it completely different from the original book of Mary Shelley. The ironic part is that the film was one of the starting points of Gothic Literature and the film similarly was one of the pioneers of this imagery in films. I am OK with the creating freedom for adaptations ,but after a certain point ,my tolerance is used up.In the end ,I see and I knew before I watch the film why it is considered a classic ,however this shouldn't make any product immune to well thought critic for its flaws, which don't diminish its quality, but show what to do better the next time.