Continuing my weekly "But What Do I Know!" through Universal's first 8 Frankensteins...
I suppose one should ask next, "So how did it go so right?" because there are at least three great films in "Bride". The only problem is, they're great for completely different reasons, and when they come together at the end there's no way to resolve the differences, except pull the lever and blow the place to atoms. In no particular order then – Film One:
Film One I like to call "Just Let Elsa Lanchester Do Whatever The Hell She Wants!" Tragically, only fragments exist, but they give every indication this might have proved the best of the three. Every decision she makes – as both the prologue's Mary Shelley with her sassy, shit-eating grin ("It will be published. I think") and the Bride hissing like a swan with her mouth in a scream – proves better than correct, astounding but true, mind-expanding. It's just a shame these two decisions count for more than half of the total sum she was allowed to make, because, unlike Karloff's beautiful abomination, Lanchester's is shown no pity at all, and immediately destroyed. Still her work is so haunting, maybe it's wrong to want more. No, to hell with that! I wanted more. And I'm pretty sure she was never allowed to do anything as bold again. There were simply no stories being told for the monsters she could make. Even this story, named after her, wasn't hers. That's Film One. Film Two:
"The Story That Wouldn't Die!" Karloff's monster survives the fire (if a little scorched and puffier – did he keep his teeth in this time?) only to be condemned to a new tragedy: a life long enough to experience loneliness and a seemingly inescapable cycle of violence. It should be noted that Mary Shelley's recap (in a prologue delivered at least a hundred years before the events depicted in the film, if all dates are to be believed, which is fine, in fact I love it) shows the monster strangle a villager. This never happened in the original film, and revises the creature's history into a pattern of Escape, Killing Spree, Persecution and Capture, which "Bride" will then repeat: In this new version he escapes immolation, drowns Maria's parents in front of an uncaring owl (the father here is recast, although Reginald Barlow heroically attempts Micheal Mark's thousand-yard stare), then attempts a kindness in saving a shepherdess from drowning, is spotted, hunted, caught, crucified (the film opened on Good Friday)...
... and imprisoned, then escapes, is hunted etc. It's the hopelessness of this cycle that makes his encounter with the blind hermit so powerful, because suddenly, finally, hope pervades this film, and Karloff plays the wounded animal perfectly here. Only his tears betray his humanity. They're tears of relief.
It's here too that the monster (against Karloff's wishes) is taught to talk, and
as someone who prefers the prequel I agree it's a shame. I
didn't need to hear "I hate life... want dead..." to know what was going
on. But again, it helps us hope, and the hermit's lessons also help the couple bond. They eat, smoke, play music and love each other, a nation of two.
Until the hunters come, and the monster flees, and we're back in the cycle, and it couldn't last, but actually no, to hell with that too! It should have lasted.
This is what I mean about the film letting the world off the hook.
Meanwhile, the monster's creator has been returned to a far more delirious vision of the ancestral pile than the claustrophobic drawing rooms of the first film, and his wife (fiancée?) is now the seventeen year-old Valerie Hobson – who would later marry John Profumo! – but thankfully, Frankenstein as played by Colin Clive hasn't changed a bit. He may have renounced his studies, but he's still impossibly weak, and literally itching. Enter the monster, echoing his creator's original barked commands to Sit Down, in the one really great use of his new-found power of speech (as also noted by David Cairns), and demanding a mate. Henry refuses. The monster kidnaps his wife until a partner is provided (apparently the hermit also taught him to tie knots). And so Frankenstein the scientist returns to the lab. His twisted watchtower, intantly recognisable, now has kites. His creation's tragedy has forced him into a similarly inescapable cycle, and the buzzing and screaming of his equipment seems to go on for ever, but he's no longer itching.
Film Three:
Well look, Terry Jones has just died, so I'm in no mood to say anything about O'Connor's Tyrolean pepperpot other than congratulations! But if Thesiger's Dr. Pretorius had not turned up to seek a collaboration with Henry Frankenstein, wouldn't the story still have worked? Would it not in fact have worked even better, with the monster seeking out his creator directly, rather than through a go-between? And while it's Pretorius who toasts to "a New World of Gods and Monsters" what is this newcomer actually bringing to the table, apart from jars of comedy homunculi, and the House of Lords gin? I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like with Rains in the role. Thesiger better suits a dingy attic, but I'd feel a lot more uncomfortable watching Rains handle a tiny king with tweezers...
One thing he does bring to the table, actually, is Dwight Frye, recast as a bodysnatcher with a string of gallows one-liners... "Pretty little thing in her way, wasn't she"... "This is no life for a murderer" etc... And again, I'm very happy to see Frye back, but when he turns up with a freshly extracted human heart Frankenstein asks no questions either, and so is every bit as culpable as Pretorius – more so in fact, as I doubt Thesiger's sea monkeys ever went on a killing spree. Yet, when the monster is rejected by the bride, it is Henry and Elizabeth who are spared his fit of incel pique, and Pretorius who goes up in smoke. Why doesn't he escape too? No idea. Why does the monster spare the breeding pair? How did Elizabeth get out of those ropes? Why is there suddenly a wooden lever that blows everything up? We're not supposed to ask any of these questions, and if we're honest we know the answer anyway, and it's a shame. It's the film surrendering to straightness. Karloff might have been crucified, but it's Pretorius who dies for all our sins.
Your homework for next week is 1939's "Son of Frankenstein", in which Karloff gives his final turn as the monster, and we finally get to say "WULL HELLOooo" to Ygor.
This is terrific stuff -- and ORIGINAL!
ReplyDeleteMy theory about why they felt the needed Dr. P. is structural. If the monster has to escape, learn to communicate, then intimidate Henry into making a mate, then Henry has nothing to do whatsoever for the first half -- or more -- of the film. Which might be fine, but Hollywood wouldn't think it fine.
As for the ending: Henry was supposed to die at the end of the first film. The studio and I thinki test audiences, demanded a resurrection, treating him as the hero rather than villain. In Bride, Whale was determined to kill him for reals to avoid further sequels (ha!) so blew him to atoms, AFTER making him transplant his own beloved's heart into the Bride, who would have fulfilled her titular role in two distinct ways.
All that got cut/reshot (you can see Henry still in the lab as it explodes in a wide high angle shot) because once again Universal and the audience insisted on seeing Henry as romantic hero rather than, at best, tragic hero with fatal flaw. A shame -- but the film still survives on its disparate, contradictory strengths.
And such strengths! Thank you, David! I think you're spot on about giving Henry something to do, which is why I keep wondering how these scenes might have worked with the Hitchcockian tension of a more urbane Pretorius. Still, we've loads of Hitchcock so I can't regret hanging out with the glorious Thesiger too much. And I'd forgotten Elizabeth was meant to rpovide the heart! Oh but that would have been great! Maybe that's the one thing Branagh's version did better.
ReplyDeleteGah. Now I want to watch them all and I've giant piles.
ReplyDeleteOf other things to do.
ReplyDeleteHere every Wednesday.
ReplyDelete