https://pixabay.com/en/frankenstein-monster-boris-karloff-394281/
The movie that I will discuss in this installment is Frankenstein. This 1931 film was directed by James Whale and produced by Carl Laemelle, Jr. Universal Studios was following up its huge success with Dracula earlier in the year, so this film seemed like a natural choice to make.
While the title and characters come from the 1818 Mary Shelley novel, it is a loose adaptation of the text. Interestingly, the sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein, is a much more faithful treatment of the novel than this first film. This movie, one of the most important in horror film history, introduces Boris Karloff as the Creature. Karloff gives an impressive performance as the lost and lonely being who is unsure of who he is and his place in the world. This sounds like so many teenagers and young people, and while frightening, Karloff also gathered empathy from viewers in his nuanced performance.
Bela Lugosi had been offered the part of the creature but apparently turned it down because of its lack of speaking lines. Lugosi made a terrible career choice, because Karloff would supplant him after this film’s success as the top box office star and would continue to dominate Lugosi’s subsequent film career.
https://pixabay.com/en/boris-karloff-actor-frankenstein-399188/
The movie is powerful and atmospheric and is highly influenced by the artistic movement German Expressionism that had a stylistic impact on cinema especially in the 1920s and 1930s. Whale used large Gothic structures in the set and deep slashing shadows in creating the atmosphere of the film.
Jack Pierce designed the Creature’s distinctive makeup, which was an ordeal to apply and remove from Boris Karloff each day before and after filming. It is a work of design masterpiece, but it is completely different from the Creature’s appearance in the novel.
For those familiar with the novel, it is significant that not only the Creature’s appearance but also his personality and level of intelligence are vastly different from that of the character from the book. In Mary Shelley’s work, the creature is one of the narrators and is both intelligent and self-educated. Both of those characteristics are missing from the inarticulate and not very bright film Creature. This kind of vastly different portrayal of characters and themes is something that is, unfortunately, typical of many horror films, or should I say, many film adaptations of books. That, however, should be the topic of another post.
https://pixabay.com/en/boris-karloff-actor-frankenstein-399188/
The film was very successful financially for Universal Studios. It is also considered by many cinema historians and critics to be one of the most important films made. It spawned numerous sequels and parodies, not limited to movies. From Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein to the character of Herman Munster in The Munsters to Young Frankenstein, the story of Victor Frankenstein and his creation have been fertile ground for satire and spoofing.
In the next installment of this series, I will discuss The Bride of Frankenstein.
Books are almost always better! Usually there are details that just can’t be filmed, or a character’s thoughts that can’t be properly portrayed. But I do enjoy watching the films as well 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you that books are almost always better than the film adapted from them, but as you say, I also love the films!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Such a powerful tale that translated nicely into film… It’s sad to me that there is not more Frankenstein and less Dracula in our Horror passions today…what a statement the story makes about humanity lost in a sea of frightening and uncontrollable change — both the Industrial Revolution then and the Technical Revolution today. One would think him a monster ripe for the times…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the Frankenstein Creature is transcendent and definitely would fit our times, as you suggest.
LikeLike
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was a reading assignment for my literature class in high school. I loved it then. I love it now. Reading this makes me want to re-familiarize myself with the book and the movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a teacher, that makes me very happy. I am sure you will enjoy rereading it and see the movie. Thank you for your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may have read the book, but I can’t remember, but I remember the movie for the look it had. Both it, and Dracula had that very creepy feel about them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you have the opportunity, I recommend reading it. It is significantly different from the movie.
LikeLike
I think I’ll do that. Thank you for the recommendation, Charles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome, and I will look forward to hearing what you think of it.
LikeLike
I’ll do that, Charles.
LikeLike
My favorite part, got me teary eyed.

LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and it was the part immediately after that was censored when the film first was released.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gosh! Really? I never knew that! Good grief! Why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The little girl shows him how to make boats out of the flowers. When they run out of flowers, he thinks she will float also and throws her in the water, but she sinks and drowns. This was seen as too horrifying for audiences to view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OH!
LikeLike
There’s also a Spanish film called Spirit of the Beehive about a little girl’s response to the movie Frankenstein that comes to her town during the Spanish Civil War of the 1940’s — especially relating that scene. It’s not a Horror film exactly, but it is an interesting film and it’s got some Critical chops…worth a peek if anyone has the opportunity.
LikeLike
Thank you for the information. That is a movie I will have to check out.
LikeLike