Friday, January 15, 2010

Bride of Frankenstein

I have recently reviewed the Bride of Frankenstein movie made way back in 1935. It is an old style black and white movie that was very advanced for its time. This piece was masterfully created as a work of art in the film industry. It has a lot of emotion put in to it, centered around horror, suspense, surprise and even fear. This story is a sequel to the original Frankenstein, in which the classic mad scientist creates a monster from dead human tissue, reanimating it through the dark and twisted realm of science and technology, and the scientist initially thinking himself a god. You can tell that the writer of this film is probably of a good, deep Christian background due to the fact that one of the main points of the story is that no man should meddle in things he does not truly belong in or understand, such as giving life to a dead.

The Bride of Frankenstein however, was also a work of art as much as its predecessor was, but it is also a parody or comedy if you will and meant to not only tell the rest of the story, but to mock the very reality in which it was created. It is steeped in its loveless humor for modern day society, such as poking its homosexuality at the audience and peers of James Whale, whom was in fact a homosexual himself. In this story, the good doctor Henry is reunited with his fiancĂ©, only to have her ripped away from his grasp again and again by his old mentor, Dr. Pretorius. Pretorius tempts and demands Henry Frankenstein’s assistance in creating a mate for the still living creature that Henry created in the first film. At first Henry refuses, but with a little coercing, he agrees to play his part in the creation of a mate for his first creature, but when Dr. Pretorius comes coming calling for him, Henry refuses once more and so Pretorius has his new “friend” the monster capture Henry’s bride and whisk her away to be held captive until the two doctors have finished their work and guarantee Henry’s cooperation. All throughout the film, the Monster only seeks a friend, a companion or sorts, but every one that he finds, either runs off in fear him, or is torn from him by an angry mob seeking to destroy the monster. This is meant to illustrate society’s immediate notion to destroy what it cannot harness or understand, not thinking or caring how the ones involved will be affected by their ignorant hatred.

All-in-all, this film was very well done for the day and age in which it was created, and can still be enjoyed by modern day classic film lovers. The story was well written, the acting was adequate, the backgrounds and scenes were all nicely put together, and all of the special effects bells and whistles were decent. Although this film was meant as a sort of parody/horror film, today we would consider it more of a parody/comedy with some primitive horror elements thrown in because it is simply too outdated as a horror film in comparison to the hacker-slasher horror movies we find in abundance in modern day.


1 comment:

  1. I do agree that this movie would be viewed as a campy film of today. it was well done for the day and many people were waiting for this second film to come out.
    I was frankly not aware of the homosexual undertones of the film until I read the reviews. i saw it as a horror film, which at the time, scared me as a child. I did feel for the monster and the fact that everyone would not accept his heart, but were afraid of his look. We see this so often and i am one to defend the defenseless, so it tugged at my heart strings.
    I do think for the time, this was probably one of the best made films.

    ReplyDelete