FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

Director: James Whale

Writers: John L. Balderston, Garrett Fort, Francis Edward Faragoh, adapted from Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus and Peggy Webling’s 1927 stage play Frankenstein

Producer: Carl Laemmle, Jr.

Cast: Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, Mae Clarke, Edward Van Sloane, Dwight Frye, John Boles, Frederick Kerr, Lionel Belmore, Marilyn Harris, Michael Mark, Francis Ford (uncredited)

In Europe, obsessed scientist Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) wants to create life. He assembles a new being from various stolen human body parts. Frankenstein believes that he can harness a lifeforce from lightning. During a thunderstorm, Frankenstein conducts his experiment. He succeeds in animating his creation (Boris Karloff), who is as ignorant as any newborn. Unfortunately, Frankenstein’s assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) provided the brain of a criminal for transplanting into the skull of the huge, grotesque creature. Frankenstein’s neglect and Fritz’s abuse prompt the monster to become violent.

The Flashback Fanatic movie review

When Universal Pictures’ 1931 Dracula proved to be a much-needed hit, Frankenstein would seem to be a sure-fire follow-up. Like Dracula, this film would also credit an earlier stage play adaptation of its source novel. Peggy Webling’s 1927 play can probably primarily be credited with proving to Universal Pictures that Frankenstein had commercial potential due to its recent English stage productions. Since John L. Balderston apparently hated Webling’s stage script, one would assume his film story treatment was hardly faithful to it.

An early contender for the director’s chair, Robert Florey, is supposed to have ignored any previous film treatments and wrote an uncredited script that may have shaped what is now a film classic. Florey had gone so far as to direct a 20-minute test film with none other than Dracula’s Bela Lugosi as the monster. There have been many contradictory accounts of how Lugosi’s monster in that test footage was depicted. Some have said his appearance was based on the animated clay being in Paul Wegener’s German film The Golem (1920). Others have suggested that the Lugosi monster makeup already had characteristics that would eventually be used in the final film, and that some of that makeup was based on Robert Florey’s ideas. This horror fan can think of no lost film footage that would be more thrilling to be found and shown one day than Florey’s Frankenstein film test. Ultimately, Florey did not get to direct Frankenstein and Lugosi was denied the monster role. That may have been an awful career move for Lugosi, yet he was not very enthusiastic about playing a mute role buried under extensive makeup. Of course, Lugosi would eventually play the monster in 1943’s Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

One distinction of Webling’s play would be that it is supposed to be the first time that Frankenstein’s monster is called “Frankenstein.” It was probably the Frankenstein film’s posters with the monster prominently featured that helped perpetuate the popular monster misnomer. Apparently by 1933, the name of Frankenstein being used as a euphemism for monstrous ugliness was common. In Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), actress Glenda Farrell refers to that film’s disfigured menace as someone who “made Frankenstein look like a lily.”

It is interesting to note that the original 1818 novel of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by the English author Mary Shelley, while being a world-famous story of Gothic horror, is an early example of science fiction. Frankenstein is a scientist whose pioneering medical research and experimentation birth a being that becomes a menace and turns on its creator. The 1931 movie adaptation has little resemblance to the source novel, yet the film still shares the book’s themes of scientific irresponsibility, parental neglect, and man’s inhumanity to one who is different.

English director James Whale had recently established himself as a respected talent at Universal. His background in theater made him valuable as a director in the era when films were transitioning from silents to talkies. Whale had been involved in three World War I films, the last of which was the successful Waterloo Bridge (1931) for Universal Pictures. When the critically acclaimed, recent arrival at Universal was given his pick of projects for his next film to direct, he chose Frankenstein. World War I veteran James Whale wanted a change of pace from war films and certainly must have relished the stylized visual and dramatic opportunities suited to Gothic horror.

Whale brought not only his filmmaking craft to the project, for he was also instrumental in discovering the talent who would portray his film’s monster and become an icon of horror: Boris Karloff. The fellow Englishman’s unique, angular features must have struck Whale as being the perfect foundation for the strange being that needed to be built into the starring menace of his film.

Jack Pierce, Universal’s head makeup man, was about to become as revered to horror fans as Boris Karloff when he concocted the creature’s look. Mary Shelley’s original novel is vague on the details of the monster’s creation. Therefore, Pierce’s makeup expertise had to devise ways to depict the surgical improvisation and augmentation that Frankenstein used to construct a new being from various corpses that could be brought to life with electricity. He turned Karloff into the most recognizable character in horror history. There has been a multitude of Frankenstein films made all over the world since 1931, but Universal’s pale, scarred giant with the flattop skull and electrodes in its neck is still the world’s most famous movie monster. Pierce’s monster design played a huge role in the picture’s success and solidified Universal Pictures’ reputation as a fear film factory with Pierce as the chief monster maker.

Just as instrumental in the success of the film was Boris Karloff’s performance as the monster. Karloff is not only playing a character with the attention-getting advantage of a monstrous appearance. He is also bringing nuances of emotion to a being without the benefit of dialogue. Karloff’s inarticulate monster can only whimper, moan, and roar. Despite his heavy makeup and costuming, Karloff registers a wide array of expressions with a wonderful mime performance. This was something extraordinary at that time; what other film character was given so much emotional depth without being able to speak or even be considered truly human? Despite the monster receiving a criminal brain, we are left to wonder if it has only become dangerous as a reaction to abuse and neglect. Nearly a century later, Karloff’s performance still can’t be taken for granted. 

I was surprised to learn that, in addition to many years of stage work, the relatively unknown, 43-year-old actor had already appeared in 81 film roles by that time. I knew Karloff had already paid his dues as an actor, but I didn’t realize how often he had already been before movie cameras. All that dedication and experience finally paid off, and films were due for many more great, starring performances from Boris Karloff.

With Frankenstein’s sensational debut of Karloff’s monster, it is easy to forget what a fine performance Colin Clive contributes as Henry Frankenstein. Colin Clive was an English actor who had worked with director Whale before in the English stage production of Journey’s End before appearing in Whale’s 1930 film adaptation. Clive brings both obsessive intensity and sensitivity to the role. His wonderful speaking voice draws us in when he explains his ambition to make scientific discoveries. Clive’s unhinged victory rant of “It’s Alive! It’s Alive!” is a famous film quote and horror movie catchphrase. Horror fans appreciate Clive reprising his role in Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and starring in another ’30s creepy classic, Mad Love (1935). Unfortunately, Colin Clive was as emotionally tormented as his film characters and would soon die at just 37 years of age in 1937.

Two of the supporting cast were lifted from Universal’s pioneering, sound-era, horror classic Dracula: Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye. Van Sloane appears as another scientist, Dr. Waldman, who tries to help Frankenstein avoid the disaster his experiment is leading to. Frye plays another unsavory ally to the title character, this time around as hunchbacked lab assistant Fritz.

Mae Clarke plays Henry Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth. Clarke had drawn fine notices acting in director Whale’s recent Universal hit, Waterloo Bridge. Bette Davis was considered for the role of Elizabeth, but Whale must have preferred working again with Clarke after proving herself in his previous film. Mae Clarke had a very extensive filmography, yet her most famous film moment is probably having James Cagney smash half a grapefruit in her face in The Public Enemy (1931).

Despite its familiarity so many generations later, James Whale’s Frankenstein is still vital and entertaining to the discerning fright flick fan. Its expressionistic interior and stylized exterior sets create a mood ripe for nightmares. Whale’s camera moves establish settings and his shot choices cut abruptly to closeups that ratchet up character conflict or apprehension. In the early days of the sound era, this was very agile filmmaking that defied the “handicap” of coping with new sound recording technology which often hindered mobile camera work and varied perspectives in a scene.

Another trademark of Whale’s horror films is wit. This was not just ham-handed comic relief but touches of irreverence and eccentricity. One could argue that Frederick Kerr’s elderly Baron Frankenstein is a comic-relief character, but he is quite appealing in his blustery ignorance and jovial energy. One of my favorite bits in the film is after Dwight Frye’s Fritz refuses admittance to visitors trying to interrupt Frankenstein’s experiment. Whale’s camera lingers on the hobbling hunchback just long enough for us to see Fritz pause to pull up a droopy sock on his grubby ankle. That action serves no story purpose, but it is such a “non-movie” moment that it feels both real and funny.

Universal Pictures’ Frankenstein established many horror film tropes that would be indulged in by the genre’s filmmakers ever since: the indeterminant time and place of its European setting, graverobbing, the torch-bearing mob of angry villagers, monsters created by mad scientists, and extravagant and arcane mad science gadgetry. Electrician Kenneth Strickfaden’s impressive array of sparking, buzzing, and blazing gizmos used in Henry Frankenstein’s experiment were to be recycled and elaborated on in many more sci-fi scenarios for Universal Pictures over the years. This film defined the state-of-the-art for mad scientist labs.

Frankenstein became another much-needed box-office hit for Universal Pictures. It also drew a lot of criticism for its then-objectionable content. The horror genre was always a lightning rod for moral condemnation, and Frankenstein attracted its share of outrage. For decades after its initial release, prints of the film were trimmed of Henry Frankenstein blaspheming about feeling like God. Another more shocking incident was the monster’s unintentional drowning of the child (Marilyn Harris) that befriends him. Even today, death to children is a touchy subject in horror films. Fortunately, these trims have been restored to this horror classic.

With the 1931 back-to-back box office hits of Dracula and Frankenstein, horror at the sound era cinema was a proven crowd-pleaser. For the next 15 years, Universal Pictures was the predominant purveyor of fright flicks that created scary characters who are now American pop culture icons. They have achieved a legendary status that exemplifies all things spooky for all ages and all time.

THE VAMPIRE BAT (1933)

Director: Frank R. Strayer

Writer: Edward T. Lowe

Producer: Phil Goldstone

Cast: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Melvyn Douglas, Dwight Frye, Maude Eburne, Robert Frazer, George E. Stone, Lionel Belmore, Rita Carlisle, Stella Adams, William V. Mong, Paul Weigel, Harrison Greene, William Humphrey, Fern Emmett, Carl Stockdale, Paul Panzer, D’Arcy Corrigan

In the German town of Kleinschloss, a series of murders are leaving victims drained of blood. Police Inspector Karl Brettschnieder (Melvyn Douglas) is baffled. He believes the assailant is human, while most of the villagers attribute the killings to a vampire. Village physician Dr. Otto von Neimann (Lionel Atwill) is also seriously suggesting that Brettschneider consider the possibility of a vampire in their midst.

The Flashback Fanatic movie review

This film is a peculiar little mix of horror movie influences that creates something quirky and unique. While using leftover sets on the Universal Pictures lot just as that studio was setting the standards for movie horror in the new talkies era, The Vampire Bat goes its own strange way. It also stars the trio that appeared in some of the best horror films of the 1930s: Lionel Atwill, Dwight Frye, and Fay Wray.

The Germanic setting may have been dictated by the availability of some of the Frankenstein (1931) sets that were being used by this independent production. It also puts us right back into the European locale audiences were conditioned to accept as a hotbed for the supernatural because of classic novels and their movie adaptations. The atmosphere is certainly enhanced by those cobble stone streets and old street lamps. The preponderance of bats hanging around town adds to the creepy ambience.

Another ’30s horror film ingredient is the unforgettable Dwight Frye as the dim-witted Herman. Due to his crazed and unsavory 1931 roles in Dracula and Frankenstein, Frye is immediately looked upon with suspicion by the audience as well as the villagers. His habits of taunting the villagers in a threatening manner while laughing fiendishly and playing with bats do not enhance his Gemütlichkeit.

Supernatural considerations conflicting with rational, modern thinking were themes also dealt with in Dracula. This film has a Van Helsing-like character in Dr. Otto von Niemann as the scholar that is quite learned on the history of vampirism. He confounds the skepticism of the inspector trying to solve the crimes.

The Vampire Bat presents us with elements that were already on the verge of becoming clichés in horror films, yet these are often used to misdirect or lead to unexpected conclusions: the ever-present superstitions of the town folk, the town misfit acting alternately sinister and harmlessly befuddled, the mob of torch wielding villagers chasing down their suspect, the scientist trying to validate the supernatural, and a black-garbed fiend creeping across rooftops and invading homes to leave behind bloodless corpses.

Melvyn Douglas, as Inspector Karl Brettschneider, is refreshingly capable as the hero and romantic lead. That is quite a departure from the Universal Pictures template that this film wants the audience to think it is emulating. Brettschneider is both good-humored and dedicated. He is also frustrated at the ongoing series of killings that he seems helpless to prevent in his duties as a police inspector. This makes him instrumental in the story’s conclusion. He is not the helpless bystander that David Manners had to play so often in his Universal-horror-film-leading roles.

As Karl’s girlfriend, Ruth Bertin, the lovely Fay Wray is as adorable as ever and adds a bit of levity and romance to the proceedings. Amazingly, one of horror’s most iconic scream queens never gives her lungs a workout in The Vampire Bat.

Many critics bemoan the inclusion of comedy relief in old-time horror movies. There is plenty of it here in the character of Ruth’s Aunt Gussie Schappman (Maude Eburne). Her comedy is usually on the mark as she is interacting and conflicting with the main characters in amusing ways. Her interaction with Herman is funny and makes him seem quite sympathetic. That sympathy pays off later.

There is another ’30s horror angle that figures into the menace when fully revealed in The Vampire Bat. It demonstrates a bit of megalomania that is the most monstrous thing about the story. We see that an ambition is being pursued at a terrible cost for a goal that, as shown, seems of questionable value. I find this to be the most odd and satisfying aspect of this film. It is truly evil.

A telepathy gimmick is used in a unique and deadly manner, but it is never explained. Frankly, that is a bit lazy on the part of the writer, though I do like its use in the story. Some of the details concerning the blood draining of the victims are also rather vague. Midway through the film we see that process explicitly, but it raises questions as to how and why other victims are found dead in their homes. Did all the victims get dealt with in such an impractical manner?

Overall, The Vampire Bat is great antique horror fun. It has plenty of atmosphere and lots of traditional “horror stuff” that teases the audience before revealing the full truth behind the menace. Star Lionel Atwill, who became a horror film regular during the ’30s and ’40s, has never been better. Fay Wray’s beauty and charm are always welcome. Most importantly, Dwight Frye demonstrates that one’s pets should be adopted from an animal shelter or a reputable breeder. A pet bat may be cheap and conveniently fit in your pocket, but your reputation is bound to suffer.

DRACULA (1931)

Director: Tod Browning

Writers: Garrett Fort adapting the stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston based on Bram Stoker’s original novel

Producers: Tod Browning, Carl Laemmle, Jr.

Cast: Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloane, David Manners, Helen Chandler, Herbert Bunston, Frances Dade, Charles K. Gerrard, Joan Standing, Halliwell Hobbes, (and uncredited cast) Carla Laemmle, Geraldine Dvorak, Cornelia Thaw, Dorothy Tree, Michael Visaroff, Bunny Beatty, Moon Carroll, Tod Browning, Nicholas Bela, Daisy Belmore, Barbara Bozoky, John George, Wyndham Standing, Josefina Velez, Anna Bakacs, William A. Boardway, Anita Harder, Florence Wix

A solicitor named Renfield (Dwight Frye) travels to the remote castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) in Transylvania. Renfield presents Dracula with the lease to Carfax Abbey, a property just outside of London, England. Dracula is a vampire who soon dominates the will of Renfield. The pair sail to England where the vampire takes up residence in his newly acquired property. Dracula soon begins feeding on the English citizens. 

The Flashback Fanatic movie review 

During the silent film era, Universal Pictures had made a name for themselves with macabre thrillers like The Phantom of the Opera (1925) and The Cat and the Canary (1927). Oddly, they seemed a bit skittish about producing a sound film based on Bram Stoker’s popular 1897 horror novel, Dracula, which had recently been the subject of successful stage plays in both England and the United States. Purely supernatural threats in American movies were considered either too distasteful or too far-fetched. Fortunately, Universal Pictures founder’s son, producer Carl Laemmle, Jr., was a horror fan and convinced his father that Dracula would work. It became Universal’s most profitable film in 1931 and established horror as a viable film genre in the new talkies era. 

Dracula was originally planned as a much more lavish project, but Universal Pictures was having a tough time turning a profit during the Great Depression. It was probably considered too big of a gamble to risk a massive investment on a supernatural thriller, so the original concept was reworked to be more derivative of the Dracula stage production. That resulted in a lot of drawing room drama that would be more economical from a set design and filming standpoint. 

Nevertheless, the opening scenes in Transylvania can’t be beat for Gothic spectacle. They are so iconic and satisfying, raising our anticipation to such heights, that we are bound to be let down by the more mundane settings once the story moves to England. This has long been the most common criticism of this film. 

However, the main fault is not so much with the change of scenery as with the minimal character and plot developments. There seems to have been quite a bit of editing done just to pick up the pace, yet a bit more time to flesh out some of the characters would be appreciated. We never really get a chance to know Lucy Weston (Frances Dade) before she becomes Dracula’s victim. Hence, her death and the loss her friend Mina Seward should feel is barely touched upon. Lucy’s resurrection is also given short shrift in this film’s need to economize or to keep things moving. Most perplexing is the treatment of Renfield. He becomes Dracula’s slave, yet he really serves no story purpose in England except to act crazy and tormented. Why does Dracula maintain contact with Renfield? Once Renfield has been confined to Dr. Seward’s (Herbert Bunston) sanitarium, all he seems capable of is annoying the staff and bungling Dracula’s plans. Renfield also keeps lapsing into despair pleading for Mina Seward’s safety when he never shares a single scene with her. Just how does this lunatic inmate of Dr. Seward’s sanitarium develop any compassion for his daughter? Another likely casualty of this reportedly chaotic production’s economy was the story’s climax. It seems rather abrupt and all too convenient for our heroes. 

Rumor has it that Universal hoped the silent film star who specialized in grotesque characters, Lon Chaney, would play Dracula. Since Chaney had also worked with director Tod Browning many times before, he should have been well suited to working with Dracula’s eventual director. Unfortunately, Chaney died prematurely of bronchial cancer before production began. 

Selecting Tod Browning to direct Dracula seemed like a good fit. Browning had a long and successful career in silent films with grotesque characters and bizarre plots. He had even directed the vampire-themed London After Midnight (1927) starring the Man of a Thousand Faces, Lon Chaney. 

Yet many say that Browning had trouble adapting to directing sound films. He was often criticized for a static shooting style. I think that Browning relied on his strange plots and the actors’ performances to maintain our interest. In the case of his most famous film, Dracula, the visuals greatly benefitted from Karl Freund’s cinematography. In fact, some cast members said that Freund actually directed them more than Browning. 

While many bemoan the heavy reliance on the stage play script for this film adaptation, we must credit the play as the source for two of this film’s stars. Bela Lugosi played Dracula and Edward Van Sloan was Professor Van Helsing in the 1927 Broadway production. 

Universal approached other seasoned film actors before hiring Bela Lugosi to play Dracula. Apparently, despite Lugosi’s fine notices playing the famous vampire on the stage, he wasn’t considered enough of a name to sell the film. However, Lugosi persistently sought the part and eventually won the role. 

If ever there was a case of familiarity breeds contempt, it is exemplified by many film buffs for at least the last fifty years regarding this film and Bela Lugosi’s starring role. The Lugosi-Dracula character and film have been around for so many generations that it is considered as traditional as Santa Claus. Now people take the film and its star for granted. They can’t appreciate the merits of 1931’s Dracula, since its success established what has become cliché after countless imitations. 

That often leads to disdain for the work Lugosi does here and he gets dismissed as hammy or inept. Lugosi is certainly giving a stylized performance that is trying to embody an extraordinary being of the supernatural. I would also stress that, in a picture directed in Tod Browning’s mostly prosaic fashion, Lugosi’s undead intensity is very welcome. I do agree with the criticism that some of Lugosi’s lines during his first meeting with Renfield are spoken with excruciating slowness for no good reason. Certainly the highlight of the film, once the story moves to the mundane London setting, is Lugosi’s performance. 

Of course this led to Lugosi becoming a horror film icon starring in many more films for Universal Pictures and other studios. Despite the frustration Lugosi always felt being typecast for horror roles by his Dracula success, that part has given him lasting fame beyond most of his contemporaries.

Lugosi’s fellow Dracula stage play performer, Edward Van Sloan, plays the rather one-note role of scientist and the count’s chief nemesis, Professor Van Helsing. He imparts his arcane knowledge about vampires to the other characters (and the film audience) as he tries to expose and defeat Dracula. Like the rest of the cast, Van Sloane is playing an underwritten character, but he shares the best scene in the whole film with Lugosi. When Dracula employs his hypnotic power to try dominating the professor, we are seeing a situation play out that seems ideal for the stage. Yet Van Sloan employs very subtle body language and facial expressions to show the struggle of his will to resist his vampire foe. 

After the huge success of Dracula, Van Sloan would appear in the Universal horror classics Frankenstein (1931), The Mummy (1932), and the Dracula sequel, Dracula’s Daughter (1936). 

The character every bit as attention-getting as Dracula is everyone’s favorite fly-eating maniac, Renfield, the solicitor that the vampire count has enslaved and driven mad. One of the film’s best moments is Renfield being discovered in the hold of the doomed schooner that brought him and Dracula back to England. We hear that creepy Renfield laugh before we stare down into the hold to see his eyes blazing with madness. Dwight Frye is always fun to watch, even if most of his antics as the insane Renfield are inexplicable or unjustified. 

Frye made an indelible impression with his performance in Dracula. Like his co-star Lugosi, Frye was worried that he would be typecast, for he would continue to play demented and despicable underlings and simpletons in the horror films Frankenstein (1931), The Vampire Bat (1933), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), and Dead Men Walk (1943). 

Helen Chandler plays Dracula’s main course, Mina Seward. Like just about every one else in the film, she is written as more of a type than a well-rounded character; in her case, it is the damsel in distress. Chandler never gets any respect for her work here, but I think she does as well as could be expected with what little she is given to do. Even the damsel in distress can be interesting if we are given enough time to get to know her. For all of the complaints about Dracula being a slow film, there is no time spent getting to really know anyone. Chandler’s best moment is when we see her succumbing to Dracula’s influence. She is treated to an eerie, prolonged close-up with her unblinking gaze focused on the throat of her fiancé as she slowly leans in closer and closer… 

As Mina’s fiancé, John Harker, David Manners makes his hapless-and-helpless-horror-movie-hero debut. Harker is probably the most derided character in this film. Aside from trying to comfort the distraught Mina, he accomplishes nothing and only creates a bit of conflict arguing with Professor Van Helsing and sulking. I actually think such behavior would be pretty reasonable up to a point. Most of us would be unlikely to accept our loved one being upset by supernatural claptrap from a stranger. Ultimately, he is also just another movie type: the handsome love interest. I guess that means Harker and Mina were made for each other. 

David Manners would continue playing similar, if more likable, characters in two more Universal horror classics: The Mummy (1932) and The Black Cat (1934), the latter also starring Bela Lugosi. 

Regardless of a lot of modern-day griping, 1931’s Dracula is still deserving of classic status. The sound era’s first American, supernatural thriller still boasts some great moments and established an immortal horror icon with Bela Lugosi’s role. The success of this film led to Universal Pictures’ fear-factory reputation as they continued producing more horror features throughout the ’30s and ’40s that endure as popular culture folklore. The importance of 1931’s Dracula as the foundation of cinematic horror ever since can’t be underestimated.