Classic Monster Movie Marathon: Frankenstein (1931)

Of all the classic monsters that I have and will cover in this little marathon, I think it's safe to say that Frankenstein's Monster is perhaps the most iconic, if not at the least the most recognizable. You can be a snob and remind people that "Frankenstein" is actually the name of the doctor that created the quite well-known monster with a flat top head, bolts in his neck, and a lumbering walk - but honestly, that doesn't really matter anymore. What matters is that the bare bones of this story written by Mary Shelley have continued to influence media for damn near 200 years since it was first published.

The story perhaps does not need repeating but I like talking about it anyway. A seemingly mad scientist creates a human body from pieces he has stolen from graves and the gallows and brings it to life using electrical machines powered by a great thunderstorm. The creature at first seems to be rather simple and harmless, but soon shows his murderous capabilities - perhaps caused by the fact that he was implanted with the brain of a criminal. The creature doesn't understand what he's doing, but is nonetheless hunted down by the proverbial angry villagers with torches and burned down in the very building where he was "born."

Dracula and Frankenstein are like the two main Titans of this oeuvre of Universal monster movies. Everybody knows their names and their stories, but all the parody and popularization of their images has perhaps made many people forget (or not even know in the first place) that these characters were first presented to us in really, really excellent movies. Frankenstein may be an "old" movie and it may be in - gasp! - black and white, but guess what? It can still be an awesome movie, and this one most definitely is. As I've mentioned before with these Universal movies, there's much more beneath the surface than just a movie about a monster causing some mayhem. Like The Invisible Man, Frankenstein is a more character-driven story and is at its core an important morality tale.

Don't forget that the subtitle to the original novel was "The Modern Prometheus." Not that new Ridley Scott movie, but the mythical figure who created man by molding him out of clay, and who stole fire from the gods to be used by man. Mary Shelley was above all trying to tell a cautionary tale about any man who attempts to play God and messes with life and death, and the consequences that could arise from it. There are countless, and I mean countless, movies and stories that deal with some kind of monster or being created by science where things end up going horribly wrong. These scientific experiments are usually meant to somehow improve upon life - to makes us live longer, for instance - or they are done out of sheer arrogance, to prove that something seemingly impossible can be accomplished with science. And the moral of every story like this seems to always be that just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it, as Dr. Frankenstein proves in this movie.

The infamous scene with the Monster and the little girl Maria when he throws her into the lake and drowns her still makes the skin prickle a bit to watch it today. On the one hand, you're terrified for the girl who is incredibly adorable and innocent looking, but on the other, you feel bad for the Monster too. There's no way he can understand what he's doing, and his immediate fear and remorse show that he's learning. In that way, the scene can even make you angry at Dr. Frankenstein for doing this to both the Monster and the girl. Actually, the scene where the Monster kills Maria was not the worst for me. No one ever seems to mention the next part of the story, which has Maria's father carrying her dead body through the village to Frankenstein's house. The way her lifeless arm and head bounce around as he walks and the reactions of everybody in the background make this a difficult scene to watch, and a brave scene for the movie to do at the time.

I guess it's time to talk about the man himself, Boris Karloff. Frankenstein's Monster is his most well-known role and is what made him a Hollywood name. The Monster's inability to speak was perhaps fortuitous because it is what Karloff does with his body and facial expressions that really creates the character, and easily conveys all of his feelings of confusion, fear, and anger. The way he walks when the Monster makes his first full appearance, the way he reaches for the sunlight - all his moves are simply perfect in every way, and any actor today only wishes he could copy what Karloff does without looking silly at all.

A lot of love and praise is heaped upon Karloff for this movie, but what of the man playing Frankenstein himself? At least in the first part of the movie, he is the real star of the show for me, and yet I had never even known his name before I decided to write about Frankenstein. Colin Clive is remarkable as Henry Frankenstein. His portrayal is so magnetic and charismatic, aided by his piercing eyes and a voice that conveys madness, desperation, and determination all at the same time. That one lock of hair that falls in front of his eyes when he's going all crazy-rambling? Perfect image, and dead sexy as well. He made only 18 films during his short career, but he no doubt made a lasting impression with this role - helped by his wonderful delivery of the famous line "It's alive!"

Sidenote: Loved seeing Dwight Frye again as Frankenstein's hunchbacked assistant Fritz. Same as his role in Dracula, Frye brings such amazing creepy comedy and physicality to this role. Awesome actor! Also, the guy playing Baron Frankenstein was a freaking hoot.

Have I heaped enough praise on this movie yet? Do you get that it is an amazing classic that will never be forgotten? Good. There's so much more to talk about here - the ominous lack of music; the fantastic set at the windmill; the finale with the villagers - but hopefully I've highlighted enough of what the movie means to me to make you go see it and love it as much as everyone else does. Another horror icon with an indelible place in film history, the story of Frankenstein and his monstrous creation has and will always with be us, no matter where the genre goes in the future.


And just for the fun of it again, here's a picture of me with Frankenstein's Monster at Madame Toussaud's in NYC.

Classic Monster Movie Marathon: The Wolf Man (1941)

None of these classic monster movies are turning out like I thought they would. Shamefully, I was actually looking forward to a lot more camp with less story, but again, The Wolf Man surprised me as being a movie where the story itself was a lot more interesting than any of the werewolf activity. Although not the first werewolf movie to be made, The Wolf Man is the one that plunged the classic monster into popularity. The lore and mythology has changed from movie to movie over the years, but here we have one of the originals, as only Universal could present it.

Lon Chaney, Jr. plays Larry Talbot, a man who returns home to his estranged father after the death of his brother. He meets up with a local girl named Gwen who works in an antique store, and they and her friend Jenny go to get their fortunes told by a traveling gypsy camp one night. Jenny is attacked in the woods by a wolf and Larry manages to kill it, but he is bitten on the chest. An old gypsy woman tells him that the wolf was actually Bela, the fortune teller, and that he was a werewolf. Larry starts to transform at night and roam the woods as a wolf, terrified of what he's become and what he's going to do, especially now that the police are out hunting him.

I loves me some Lon Chaney Jr. here. I first saw him in the incredible cult classic Spider Baby but he wasn't as much of a standout in that movie. In The Wolf Man, Chaney really gets to shine as a charming, if not emotionally distant, sort-of playboy who suddenly has to deal with the horrible situation of his transformation into a monster. Chaney shows the character's true agony over the fact that he murdered Bela and later the gravedigger Richardson, and by the end he even wants the hunting party to catch him because he is afraid that he will hurt Gwen. Chaney's physical presence is also quite striking, as he towers over most of the actors, plus I just love his face. When he goes all wild in the woods in one scene, he gives the most incredible facial expressions. His physicality as the Wolf Man is obvious yet it works for the movie, and he gives the audience yet another Universal monster who is sympathetic and endearing. 

But Chaney's not the only star in this flick. If you count Chaney himself as the Wolf Man, we've got three, count 'em, three classic monsters in one little movie. Claude Rains, whom I fell in love with as the Invisible Man, plays Larry's father Sir John Talbot. The great Bela Lugosi, a.k.a. Dracula, plays the gypsy fortune teller Bela (coincidence or homage? I can't decide) who is the werewolf that bites Larry. Lugosi's time on screen is short-lived, but Rains give a wonderful supporting performance. He loves his son and wants to protect and help him, yet his book-smart personality refuses to allow him to believe that Larry has become a werewolf. Of course this turns out to be a fatal mistake, revealed in a very heart-breaking and surprising ending.

Now for the not-so-awesome parts of the movie. I know that the werewolf makeup must have taken hours and was probably pretty damn uncomfortable for Chaney, but come on. He doesn't look anything like a wolf. He just looks like one of those really hairy dudes that I saw on Ripley's Believe It or Not that one time. And while we're on this, I got a question. Why did they show the werewolf Bela as actually looking like a wolf when Larry killed him and then have Larry's transformation be so much different? What, was this just he first stage of werewolf-ism or something? It doesn't make sense. Okay, so I didn't like the overall look of the werewolf. Sue me.

I also didn't like the set in the woods. It's the same patch of fake-looking woods and trees used over and over again throughout the movie and it's just campy. That forced, perpetual fog? There are other ways to make the woods look "spooky," I'm pretty sure. They do a great job on lighting Larry as the wolf while he's in these woods, though. Several good shots of him in full makeup looking through the trees and stuff.  I have this weird hatred of wood or forest settings that are obviously done on stages. In some movies, I'm shocked to find out that certain scenes like this were actually not on location, but with others I can usually tell right away that those woods are not real, and it takes me out of it for a second. 

Another thing I can't let go about this movie is the strange and creepy hookup of Larry and Gwen. I mean, seriously. He charms her into going out with him by admitting that he spied on her in her room through his daddy's high-powered telescope? And she never really acts like that's just a little bit weird? Anyway, all is forgiven pretty quickly and Gwen and Larry actually turn out to be quite cute together so I guess they do have some chemistry. I love how she messes with him by bringing her friend along to what he thinks is going to be their first date. She's also a playa, because she's engaged to this other dude while she's running off with Larry. I like that about her.

I guess it sounds like I didn't really like The Wolf Man all that much but I really did. It's not my particular favorite of this classic monster bunch so far (I think The Invisible Man might just win that title), but there's definitely something special about it. The werewolf has always been a metaphor for the monster or the animal that is within all of us, or the idea of man's dual capabilities for good or evil, and I love how that is represented in this movie. Chaney's performance in the title role, as well as all the supporting performances, make this one a truly surprising classic that had much more to it than I expected. 

Classic Monster Movie Marathon: The Invisible Man (1933)

This was by far the best movie of the bunch that I have watched so far. Quite simply, I freaking loved The Invisible Man. Based on the 1897 novella of the same name by H.G. Wells, The Invisible Man is an excellent morality tale about the draw and corruption of power, and possibly good ideas with bad intentions. The movie was directed by James Whale, who is known for directing other such classics as Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein.

A mysterious man covered in bandages requests a room at a small village inn. He asks to be left alone while he works secretly on a science experiment. As it turns out, this man is Jack Griffin, a pupil of a Dr. Cranley, who has discovered a way to make himself completely invisible using an unusual drug called monocane. Unbeknownst to Griffin, the drug, mixed with the pleasure he gets from being invisible, makes him crazy with power. Griffin wreaks havoc in the village and even murders people. As Cranley and another friend, Kemp, try to make him come quietly so they can try to restore his visibility, the police and the rest of the people in the village work around the clock to capture and stop him for good.

The movie technically "stars" Claude Rains as Griffin, although he is usually just a voice or otherwise completely covered up in bandages and clothes. However, Rains's voice acting more than makes up for his inability to use facial expressions. There is true madness and glee in his voice as talks to his partner Kemp about wanting to go on a "reign of terror" to show the world his power, and as he tells Flora that even the moon is frightened of him. Costuming also helps makes Griffin look quite eerie and creeptastic, as well. The bandages on his head make him look less human, plus those old sunglasses are a bit strange and disconcerting. And that robe... oh, how I love that robe. Such sophistication and class disguising a madman.

Now, a lot of Universal's monsters can be seen as sympathetic in some ways, but Griffin/The Invisible Man doesn't really fall under that category to me. Sure, you can argue in Griffin's favor that it was the drug monocane that is to blame for his bad behavior. But is it really just the drug that is infecting his mind, or is it the rush that comes from what he can do with his invisibility? Griffin goes to his friend Kemp not in desperation to cure him of his condition, but to force Kemp into becoming his partner that will help him cause more devastation and mayhem. By the end, Griffin has murdered some 20 people in the village, and caused a train accident that killed 100 people. I could never have sympathy for someone with such a blatant disregard for human life, madman or no. Then we learn that Griffin and Flora are in love and Griffin tells her that he only pursued the experiment so that he could become famous and rich to make a life for the two of them. I have a hard time believing, though, that love was his true motivation. It was power, and power is a well-known corruptor.

You simply cannot talk about this movie without mentioning the insanely well-done special effects. I was pretty well floored about how awesome the effects looked when Rains first removed his bandages. That shot was incredibly creepy and looked so realistic, and things only got better as the movie went on. I cannot believe the ingenuity of the effects from a movie made in 1933 and how amazing they turned out from using a simple matte process. I've seen horror movies from the past few years that only wished their effects looked as good as this. Honestly, seeing The Invisible Man has made me a little pissed off at all the horrible, half-assed effects work that I've seen in modern movies. Take the time to do it right, and you'll wind up with much better results. It's that simple.

The Invisible Man is a really, really excellent film. Almost all reviews of this movie mention a comedy element to it, and while there is a little bit of that having to do with the people in the village of Iping, I mostly just felt the fear and suspense of what Griffin might do. This is a fantastic cautionary morality tale with a wonderful story and a hell of an actor to pull off the very limited main role. Definitely see this one soon if you haven't.

Classic Monster Movie Marathon: The Mummy (1932)

Ah, the mummy. One monster in this little marathon of mine that has not translated that well to the modern day. The first Mummy film made in 1932 spawned just as many installments through Universal (and the British Hammer Films) as their other famous monsters, Dracula and Frankenstein, but this is one monster that has not inspired as many other versions or adaptations as the previous, as far as I know. The remake of The Mummy from 1999 was indeed a fun adventure ride back to ancient Egypt, but there was no horror in the situation there, same as there is no real horror in this original film. And yet, I still find myself really liking this classic monster and his story.

It's Boris Karloff, for pity's sake. He's irresistible.

Anyway, so the plot goes something like this: on an archaeological dig in Egypt, a team discovers the sarcophagus of Imhotep, which is accompanied by a mysterious box. They inevitably open the box even though they are warned not to, reading from a scroll that brings Imhotep back to life. The mummy escapes with the scroll. Ten years later, the son of the one of the original discoverers of the mummy is back in Egypt, and now has to deal with the mummy who has found the person with the reincarnated soul of his long lost love, whom he is determined to bring back to life as well.

Given that, unlike Dracula or Frankenstein, The Mummy did not have a literary antecedent, the story that the filmmakers came up with is a pretty damn good one. The inspiration for the entire film came from the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922, which received an obscene amount of press coverage. I guess they thought it would be cool if old Tut got up and started walking around. Anyway, I like that they gave Imhotep an actual purpose rather than just being a monster who walks around killing people. You can even feel sorry for this character, seeing as how in his first life he was mummified alive because of his love and devotion to Ankh-es-en-amon.

I guess the one thing that really disappointed me about The Mummy was, well... the mummy. This was not the bandage-wrapped, moaning monster I had always envisioned for this, the original Mummy film. We see Karloff in full mummy gear at the beginning when the young assistant wakes him up, but we don't get to see him move like I thought he was going to. Like this:

Isn't that what you always thought of when you thought "mummy"?! I'm guessing now that this cartoon-y interpretation of a mummy stalking people was done in some of the later installments of the franchise, perhaps the Abbott and Costello movie. Anywho, I tried not to let that bother me while watching the film (although it did disappoint me a lot), and instead I tried to focus on the great Boris Karloff and what he did with the role.

Karloff doesn't really have that much to do in The Mummy... then again, Karloff never really has to do much of anything in any of his roles to be powerful or scene-stealing. The over-hanging brow thing makes for quite an intense stare, which is a shot that this movie likes to utilize more than a few times. The makeup on Karloff as the renewed mummy, now named Ardath Bey, consists of just making his face look all dried out and cracked. It's effective, even though it's not what I was looking forward to seeing. Like his most well-known character, Frankenstein's monster, Karloff is able to surprising human qualities to what most would see as a monster. Imhotep is driven by love, and though he plans on murdering another woman to get his true love back, the audience almost wants him to succeed. He manages to be a menacing figure and a victim at the same time, continually being pursued by people who want to stop him.

I really didn't think that I would like The Mummy as much as I did, especially because I got something way less cartoony and silly than I was expecting. The Mummy almost falls completely out of the realm of horror despite its outlandish story simply because of the seriousness of the characters and their motives. This movie has a good story with good characters (except for that guy who supposedly falls deeply in love with Helen after only having just met her) and is kept interesting throughout with all the flashbacks and the surprisingly realistic setting that actually feels like Egypt. The costuming is great, and the sets are believable but not too over-the-top. The climax is a little too anti-climactic for my taste (they much improved on this part with the remake) but overall, The Mummy is an intriguing little movie that can't be missed simply because Boris Karloff is in it. Seriously, that dude is awesome.

Oh, and whaddaya know... I have a picture of myself with The Mummy himself, as well. Gotta love those wax museums (this one being Madame Tussaud's in New York City). I added the sepia tone for a less realistic effect.

Classic Monster Movie Marathon: Dracula (1931)

The vampire subgenre of horror films has taken some good turns and some bad turns over its lengthy time on the big screen. Bram Stoker's 1897 gothic novel Dracula was first adapted for film - albeit, unofficially and unauthorized - with the 1922 movie Nosferatu. Since then, the famous Count has appeared a number of times in different adaptations and versions...

... just to name a few. However, there is no movie or no performance of Count Dracula more well-known or as recognizable as the 1931 film Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi in the titular role. This movie has an indelible place in the history of horror, and for good reason. To say that it is dated would probably be an understatement, but though the movie is over 80 years old, it still works. And why shouldn't it? The classic story and characters have been the inspiration for countless films, television shows, stage plays, novels, short stories, and comic books over the years.

One of the most obvious reasons for the film's longevity is the portrayal of Dracula by Lugosi. Watching the movie now in 2012, I still love almost everything that he does with the role. Lugosi's slow movement, mannerisms, and speech created a character that was charming and mysterious. With one eyebrow almost constantly raised and a crooked, cruel smile, Lugosi commands his presence whenever he is on screen, with every facial movement and hand gesture having a purpose. In this way, Lugosi was quite revolutionary in portraying the vampire, a monster that for all purposes looks and acts human, but is really not. They are still, simply, monsters who feed on the lifeblood of humans. They don't know how to act truly human themselves. Lugosi's speech pattern is often imitated or made fun of these days, with his accent, careful pronunciation, and pauses ("I never drink... wine," "We will leave... tomorrrrrrow eve...ning...") and I have to admit that I found myself smiling as well almost every time he opened his mouth, but I think it was a brilliant choice for this role. 

For me, though, the real scene stealer of the movie is Dwight Frye as Renfield. I had completely forgotten about this wonderfully creepy performance from the first time I saw Dracula many years ago. Renfield is the character who leads the audience to Castle Dracula in the beginning of the movie where he is then put under the Count's spell. Dracula uses him to help him travel to England by ship, and when Renfield is discovered as the last "surviving" person aboard, he is mad. That shot of Renfield looking up and laughing that insanely weird laugh is still very chilling and effective, as is the shot of him crawling on the floor toward the maid after she's fainted. Like Lugosi, Frye also created an iconic character that is sadly not as recognized as it should be. His plastered-on crazy face and the conviction that he puts into each one of his lines completely sells the character and is a great juxtaposition to the Renfield in earlier scenes.

Most of the story centers around Dr. Seward, who runs the sanitarium where Renfield is placed after being found on the ship; his daughter Mina and her fiance John Harker; and Professor Van Helsing, who has knowledge of vampires and is able to see Dracula for what he is. Dracula focuses on Mina for his vampire-making seduction game, coming to visit her several times in the night. This is probably where the romanticism of vampires originated - not just biting a person and making them a vampire, but slowing getting them under their thrall and attacking them in their beds, which has obvious sexual undertones. The one scene where the character of Mina really shines is when it is revealed that she has been made into a vampire. It's a slow reveal, and you almost don't really notice what is happening until Mina starts to look very lustfully at John, or at least at his neck. 

You almost can't compete with the sets on this film. Dracula's castle is just as it should be, huge and gothic and perched precariously on a cliff with only one road leading up to it. The castle is deliciously old and decrepit, with crumbling and broken concrete, and cobwebs everywhere (love that huge spider web on the staircase). The monstrous staircase at Carfax Abbey is also iconic, as is the basement that holds the coffins for Dracula and his wives. Director Tod Browning makes perfect use of wide shots in these locations to really show them off and add to the gothic nature of the film. I only wished that there more scenes in other parts of the castle, as we only get a limited view of what is surely a grandiose beauty of architecture. 

Certain camera and editing tricks are used effectively in some scenes that I really loved. Love the part at the beginning where Dracula somehow walks through the large spider web covering his staircase without disturbing it. The well-known trick of identifying a vampire by the fact that he casts no reflection in mirrors is stumbled upon by Van Helsing, when John opens a little chest with a mirror in it and Van Helsing sees that Dracula is not there. The camera also teases the viewer by cutting away or dissolving at the moments right before Dracula bites a victim. Being 1931, I'm sure that actually showing the act would have been a huge no-no. But here, it works. It adds to the mystery of the vampire that all his dark deeds are done in secret, and all his charm would be taken away if he was shown feeding like an animal on a victim. Plus, it would have been a very sexual scene indeed, a part of the vampire lore that would be explored in later movies.

What more is there to say really? Dracula is a classic and will probably remain so forever. Even in our MTV generation, one can still admire and respect the subtle brilliance of this tale of the famous Count, his brides, his Renfield, and those that try to thwart him. Seriously, who doesn't love Dracula? I know I do.

Coming Soon! The Classic Monster Movie Marathon!

I totally thought of something special to do for the Halloween season on this here oft-neglected blog. A marathon of reviews of the classics of the classics (that's not a typo), all those Universal-type monster movies from the 1930s to 1950s that have helped shape some of the horror movies we have today. I've always wanted to see them but never made the effort to go and seek them out. The very reliable Netflix has solved that problem for me, however, so now I have no excuse to not see them, do I?

Anyways, here's a look-ahead at some of the movies that I'm planning to do for the Classic Monster Movie Marathon:

Dracula (1931)

Frankenstein (1931)

The Mummy (1932)

Freaks (1932)

The Invisible Man (1933)

The Wolf Man (1941)

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

The Fly (1958)

I might be adding some more movies... or taking some away, in the likely event that I get lazy. I've actually already seen Dracula and Frankenstein, but that was years ago, and I really liked them - hopefully I'll feel the same about the others.

Any movies I might've missed that you guys think should be here? Should I include Phantom of the Opera? Is he considered a classic "monster" or no? 

Okay, this should be fun! I'm gonna go get started right now!