If I mention Frankenstein to you odds are one of two cinematic scenes popped into your head. Either you though of the monster itself – and than very likely the monster as created by Boris Karloff and Jack Pierce, or you thought of the creations scenes abuzz with 
electrical apparatus and a tremendous thunderstorm outside. Of course both of those images come from Universal’s 1931 Frankenstein directed by James Whale.
It is curious that a film produced over 80 years ago should still have such an outsized impact on public consciousness, particularly considering that so many other interpretations of the story have been made in the interim. Why do these other films, some made by extremely talented filmmakers fade from mind and this one stick so readily?
It bears to remember that this story is an old one, written by Mary Shelley about 1815 and then published in 1818. Since its publication this novel has been subjected to a number of stage treatments, and was even one of Edison’s early motion picture. By 1931 this was a well-known and understood story with few surprises for an educated audience.
I think what the Whale production got right and so many other production have gotten wrong is the pacing of the story. Consider that in the 1931 film our introduction to Dr. Frankenstein is when he and his laboratory assistant Fritz (Yes, Fritz not Ygor who didn’t appear in a Universal Frankenstein film until 1939’s Son of Frankenstein.) is when we see them robbing graves for the good doctor’s experiments.
We meet Victor already in the throes of his obsession, deeply committed to his blasphemous deeds. Every other film version I have watched spends a great deal of time building up to the obsession. We are often treated to Frankenstein the brilliant but misunderstood student, Frankenstein the outcast, and Frankenstein family man. These movies spend a considerable about of their story building a character we already know. It is very difficult to create dramatic tension is the character evolution is a foregone conclusion. We know he’s going to become obsessed, we know he will ignore all the advise of loved one and respected teachers, we know he will transgress on the realm of god. I think this creates entirely forgettable films with front loaded exposition that bores and undercuts any tension that might be later created. These films lack what every aspiring writer is advised is essential to good story telling – a great opening hook.
For any future Frankenstein films I think what the filmmaker needs to ask themselves is why make this movie? What is it in the Frankenstein story that you want to explore and concentrate on that, jettison the slow build-up to an obsessed madman and push us into the deep end.
I think the core of the Frankenstein story gets recreated – but without a literal monster. The core story is obssession exceeding not only rationality but also morality. The story (Shelley’s original) is about man’s hubris and becoming God, however when brought to film it works better to address obssession. To me, another film that addressed this (As an outsider, looking in) was Matthew Broderick and “Project X”. I also think the story remains to be told if we look at Mengele and the scientific “experiments” conducted on concentration camp victims. The story of the obssessed scientist remains true today and COULD be rebooted, especially in the light of what is happening in genetics, but it would not look like the classic monster story.
Although it is highly flawed, I love “The Bride”. The thing I love about it is that it explores – more than any of the other films – the “monster” as a separate individual away from his creator and it creates a back story that Shelley never conceived of. (She addressed it somewhat in the book but only vaguely.) I also like the happier ending – with the “monster” and his bride having some kind of happy future and Dr. F. getting what he deserved – especially since he tried to own the bride.
Vampires are being played with to death. Most vampire stories are FAR from the original Stoker. I have liked most of the Dracula films for different reasons. Noseferatu IS terrifiying!! Ligosi inserted some pathos and creates a sympathy for the lonely immortal. Frank Langella brought in the sex – a part that was often down-played or ignored prior to this film. (Sex is extremely important in th novel though never explicitedly stated. Remember, the novel was published in 1897 and anything sexual was very repressed. Men and women usually wore gloves and would never even touch each other with bare skin prior to marriage, for women in particular. What is more potential sensual and sexual than the mouth on th bare throat?) Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), bringing in a historical back story with Vlad the Impaler and his cursed wife and emphasizing the man-God conflict was BRILLIANT!! Dracula 2000 – suggesting that the man-God conflict was related to early Christianity was another brilliant idea. The story has so much potential and then the romance authors got a hold of it (Post-Anne Rice)!! While I enjoy their playing, it has nothing to do with the original and vampires do NOT need to be in everything. (BTW – I read it. I liked it. but the Twilight series IS an abomination!)
Lycanthropes (and other -anthropes) actually seem to go back to Egypt. This is one of the few myths in this whole horror sub-genre that seem to have grown out of real folklore. The films are great fun, as is the entire “Beauty and the Beast” story and all of its variations. Again, the romance authors have grabbed this one and run with it and what we read about now bares little resemblance to any original myth.
The best Mummy work today, in my opinion, is actually from Anne Rice. Once you accept magic, why would the Mummy come back as a shambling, wrapped-up incoherent pseudo-human? Why would he not return as a man – in fact as the man he was? This, to me, make this story interesting and I always wished Ms. Rice would have written more in this series.
What I do love is all the options available today! All of these stories are still with us and still evolving! It is just so cool!!
Well the Wolf-Man has transformed into the werewolf. Nearly everything people think of about werewolves comes from Siodmak’s script for The Wolf-Man. It’s interesting that Siodmak a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany considered The Wolf-Man to be an allegory about Nazism.
The Mummy – that original film is something else. Very moody. Very atmospheric. The pathos of the lost love and the eternal damnation plays pretty well. And yes, the reboot by Stephen Summers is fun, but has none of the atmosphere of the original. It’s more adventure than horror or drama.
Frankenstein is a novel of archetypes. That magnificent moody Universal version taped into those archetypes at just the right moment in film history. The earlier version was done before movies became widely known and accepted. Universal’s version came out and created a look and a story that created the standard against which all other’s are compared. For two decades, anyone that did Frankenstein took the classic Kharlof look and just did their version of it. As an image, it became an indelible part of or culture.
I loved the Hammer versions. They had color and women with wonderful boobs, but they never touched he original in its glory. At least one other has been truer to the book. But I don’t think that anyone will ever take that archetype and recreate he chemistry of the original.
It has held its place better than the other great four, Dracula, The Mummy, and The Wolfman, though the others also worked with archetypes and did it much better than later movies. The Wolfman has all but disappeared from the horror genre, except where it is brought together with Vampires. Brendan Frazer’s Mummy was incredible and fun, thought it looked more like Indiana Jones than that magnificent moody Kharlof classic. I am not fond of what has been done with vampires at all. Dracula ha receded from consciousness to be replaced by a hunky worship of eternal youth.