Connect with us

Editorials

It’s Still Alive: ‘Frankenstein’ at 90 [Gods and Monsters]

Published

on

In Bride of Frankenstein, Dr. Pretorius, played by the inimitable Ernest Thesiger, raises his glass and proposes a toast to Colin Clive’s Henry Frankenstein—“to a new world of Gods and Monsters.” I invite you to join me in exploring this world, focusing on horror films from the dawn of the Universal Monster movies in 1931 to the collapse of the studio system and the rise of the new Hollywood rebels in the late 1960’s. With this period as our focus, and occasional ventures beyond, we will explore this magnificent world of classic horror. So, I raise my glass to you and invite you to join me in the toast.

Few works of fiction have penetrated culture as thoroughly as Frankenstein, and even after ninety years, no version remains as iconic as Universal’s 1931 film. The surprise success of Dracula earlier that year had vindicated Carl Laemmle, Jr.’s gamble on horror films and he immediately sought to put another literary monster on film. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was the logical choice and overnight sensation and Dracula star Bela Lugosi a shoo-in for the lead. In Lugosi, Laemmle assumed he had found the heir to Universal’s silent star Lon Chaney, but a disastrous screen test proved it was not to be. This led not only to a relative unknown being thrust into legendary star status but the hiring of an up-and-coming visionary for the director’s chair.

Horror would never be the same again.

As with Dracula, the screenplay for Frankenstein was largely adapted from a stage version of the source novel produced for the British stage by Hamilton Deane. In this case, it was the 1928 play by Peggy Webling titled Frankenstein: An Adventure in the Macabre that provided the basis. The play passed through a number of hands along the way before going in front of the cameras. John L. Balderston, who also adapted Deane’s version of Dracula for Broadway, retained some of the more curious aspects of this play including the change of Dr. Frankenstein’s name from Victor to Henry and the name of his friend and rival for the leading lady’s hand to Victor. Webling also called the monster “Frankenstein,” a tradition that, though not retained for the film, has persisted, at least in the public at large. After Webling and Balderston revised the play, they decided to sell it directly to Hollywood rather than go through the staging process. Universal was the obvious choice and the studio bought the play outright.

The script was then handed over to an exciting young director that had recently been hired by Universal, Robert Florey. Florey and Garrett Fort, who had written the final script for Dracula, reworked the Webling/Balderston play considerably. Much of the final film’s structure as well as some of its dialogue can be found in this draft. One aspect of this version had an unexpected consequence that changed horror history forever. The duo knew that Universal planned to leverage the popularity of their new star Bela Lugosi into making Frankenstein a success. Fort and Florey assumed that meant Lugosi would play the creator, so they beefed up the Dr. Frankenstein role and scaled the monster back. As in the novel, the creature in Webling’s play can not only talk but is articulate and thoughtful in his loquaciousness. Florey and Fort removed not only his ability to speak but the pathos behind him making him little more than a grunting animal. Then word came down from the studio brass that Lugosi was to play the monster, leading to one of the most notorious screen tests in film history and the launch of one of horror’s most fabled careers.

There are so many contradictory accounts of this lost screen test that we will surely never know the whole truth. In some accounts, Lugosi’s makeup was a prototypical version of that seen in the final film and applied by Universal’s legendary head of makeup Jack Pierce himself. In others, Lugosi insisted on doing his own makeup, using a “broad wig” and grease paint. In another, the makeup was so ridiculous that it made production head Carl Laemmle, Jr. laugh “like a hyena.” Whatever the case exactly, Lugosi backed out or was removed from the project. His reasoning was that he did not feel that he, a big star, should have to play a “grunting idiot” under layers of heavy makeup. In Lugosi’s defense, the pathos and subtlety of the monster’s character was apparently nowhere to be found in the version of the script he was given. Both Lugosi and director Robert Florey were removed from the project and assigned to Murders in the Rue Morgue, released in 1932.

Universal Classic Monsters

Soon after this test, Laemmle began to consider British director James Whale to direct. Laemmle had been impressed by Whale’s war film Journey’s End (1930) and was offered a five-year contract which began with Waterloo Bridge (1931), another war picture. Though Whale was not particularly keen on directing Frankenstein, it offered something besides a World War I film, so he decided to sign on. He then worked with screenwriter John Russell to further shape the story and dialogue with Francis Edwards Faragoh giving the final polish, which was approved by the production office. Apparently, Whale made a few more modifications both before and during shooting including Henry Frankenstein’s memorable monologue to his mentor Dr. Waldman about scientific curiosity.

Whale also brought several of his favorite actors to populate the cast. He had worked with Colin Clive on both the stage and screen versions of Journey’s End and fought for him to play Henry Frankenstein. Clive was considered something of a gamble due to several personal demons, including an alcohol dependency, but Whale vouched for him, and he was hired. For Frankenstein’s fiancée Elizabeth, Whale cast Mae Clarke, whom he had worked with on Waterloo Bridge earlier that year and would work with again on The Impatient Maiden (1932). Clarke had made quite an impression on audiences as the recipient of a half-grapefruit in the face from James Cagney earlier in 1931 in The Public Enemy. Whale was also impressed by Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye in Dracula and retained them to play Dr. Waldman and Frankenstein’s assistant Fritz. Whale would continue to enjoy working with Frye, casting him in small roles in The Invisible Man (1933) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935).

Both Robert Florey and James Whale were great admirers of the German Expressionist films of the 1920s and elements from that movement made their way into the structure and final look of Frankenstein. Three films seem to have had particular influence: Robert Weine’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Paul Wegener’s The Golem, and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Elements from each of these films can be found in Frankenstein including the monster’s attack on Elizabeth in her bedroom, the design and movements of the monster, his interaction with the young girl, and the creation sequence. In each case, Frankenstein uses these elements as starting points, expanding upon and sometimes subverting them into something exciting and innovative.

One of the greatest of these innovations can be found in its creation scene. Previously, as in the Edison one-reeler Frankenstein (1910), The Golem (1920), and even the more science-minded Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920), there is an element of magic involved in the making of the monsters, be it by bubbling potion, elixir, or magic words. The creation of the robotic Maria in Metropolis (1927) relies more on scientific apparatus, but even it includes an element of alchemy. Here, there is nothing of the kind. The monster is brought to life purely by electrical means with some basis in scientific experimentation of the time. The electrical equipment, designed by Kenneth Strickfaden, that spins, whines, and above all sparks, is some of the most recognizable ever put on film. These original props were used and reused throughout the Universal cycle and all the way into Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein in 1974. This look redefined the mad scientist’s lab for decades, maybe even all time.

Another subversion of its influences came in the character of Dr. Frankenstein. Henry is quite different not only from Mary Shelley’s Victor, but from the template of the previous decade. The mad scientists established in German Expressionism were usually old, wild-haired megalomaniacs driven by power and domination over the weak. Colin Clive’s Henry Frankenstein is young, handsome, and refined. He is also sympathetic and deeply concerned for the welfare of others, at least when not in throes of passion over his work. He is not driven by any evil motive but by a true zeal for discovery tempered by sadness that he may never achieve his goals.

The key to the success of Frankenstein is in many ways not an innovation but a carryover from earlier Universal silent films. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), The Phantom of the Opera (1925), and The Man Who Laughs (1928) all featured sympathetic “monsters.” Frankenstein would take this to an entirely new level. Though present in the final script, it is Boris Karloff who truly imbues the Monster with his pathos. It is a remarkable feat that, despite the limitations of the makeup and cumbersome costume, Karloff is able to give such a nuanced and emotive performance.

Perhaps no monster in all of horror is as instantly recognizable as the creature in Frankenstein. It is said that success has many fathers while failure is an orphan. This is certainly true when it comes to the look of the Monster. No less than four people claim at least some contribution to the final makeup and costume, which was undoubtedly influenced by The Golem, particularly in his towering height, stiff-legged gait, and platformed shoes. Of course, the two most responsible are makeup legend Jack Pierce and director James Whale.

After meeting Karloff in the Universal commissary and offering him the role of the Monster, Whale made several sketches that he then showed to Pierce, who had been studying medical and anatomy books for inspiration. Though loathe to do so for many years, Pierce eventually admitted that the final design was a compromise undoubtedly refined over time between he and Whale. An important element in the process was experimenting with the makeup on Karloff himself over the course of several weeks. The cranium was built up using layers of cheesecloth and strips of cotton soaked in collodion, a strong-smelling solution commonly used in theatrical makeup at the time that creates a hard surface when dry. Karloff apparently offered two subtle but important elements to the makeup. Though satisfied with Pierce’s work, he felt that his eyes looked too alive and wondered if something could be done. Pierce applied mortician’s wax to his eyelids to give him a sleepy, half-dead look. Karloff’s second contribution was to remove the bridgework from the right side of his mouth to give his face a more cadaverous look, which Pierce accentuated with dark shading makeup. The final touch, the electrodes on the sides of the neck, was apparently suggested by the film’s first director Robert Florey when he was still working on the project.

Best Horror Films

Whatever disputes there may be about the creation and design the Monster, there is no question that it was incredibly taxing for Karloff to perform in the makeup and costume. Apart from the work on his face and hands, Karloff was required to wear a padded costume to bulk up his thin frame and the asphalt-spreader’s boots he wore weighed thirteen pounds each. Metal braces were added to his legs and back to further encumber his movements. The film was shot in the late summer heat of southern California, spanning from late August to early October of 1931. By the end of the thirty-five-day shoot, Karloff had reportedly lost twenty-five pounds off his already slender frame. Removal of the makeup was even more torturous than applying it as it had to be pried off and slowly dissolved with oils and acids. Karloff commonly worked fifteen to sixteen-hour days on the film.

One day late in the shooting was particularly arduous and required the actor to remain in makeup for twenty-five hours. It included shooting the scene by the lake with the little girl Maria (Marilyn Harris) in the blistering sun followed by shots of carrying Colin Clive’s limp body to the windmill for the climactic sequence through the night. The film’s budget and Karloff’s lack of star-power at the time did not allow for a double and he was forced to carry Clive on his back up a hill over and over until Whale was satisfied with the shot. This very likely led to Karloff’s chronic back problems, but also to his role in the formation of the Screen Actors Guild so that other performers would not have to face such difficult conditions while filming.

Despite all the challenges he endured, Karloff gives an unforgettable performance that redefined “monsters” for all time. It is a performance filled with nuance, subtlety, and pathos that draws the empathy of the audience despite what was a truly horrifying appearance to 1930s audiences. It was this pathos that attracted the Monster’s biggest fans—children. Karloff received a great deal of fan mail from children expressing their love for and understanding of the Monster. The actor was always delighted by this fact. I count myself as one of the “child fans” of the Monster. I have been fascinated by him for as long as I can remember, and my love of horror springs from the moment I first saw Frankenstein at age six.

Frankenstein endures because it speaks to the child, to the adult, and the child within the adult in each of us. We recognize the Monster’s need for love. We, like Henry, want to “look beyond the clouds and the stars” and know “what causes the trees to bud and what changes the darkness to light.” We see the frightened outcast in ourselves. Just as Frankenstein and his creation are images of one another, we see our reflection in both of them. Frankenstein strikes deep and dissonant chords in our humanity. Chords of repulsion and compassion, disgust and empathy. It speaks to the heights of our intellectual curiosities and our most basic instinctual needs. This complex music draws us time and again to sit at the feet of masters: Shelley, Whale, Karloff, Clive, and simply listen and feel the music as it touches every aspect of our humanity—mind, body, heart, and soul.

Editorials

‘Immaculate’ – A Companion Watch Guide to the Religious Horror Movie and Its Cinematic Influences

Published

on

The Devils - Immaculate companion guide
Pictured: 'The Devils' 1971

The religious horror movie Immaculate, starring Sydney Sweeney and directed by Michael Mohan, wears its horror influences on its sleeves. NEON’s new horror movie is now available on Digital and PVOD, making it easier to catch up with the buzzy title. If you’ve already seen Immaculate, this companion watch guide highlights horror movies to pair with it.

Sweeney stars in Immaculate as Cecilia, a woman of devout faith who is offered a fulfilling new role at an illustrious Italian convent. Cecilia’s warm welcome to the picture-perfect Italian countryside gets derailed soon enough when she discovers she’s become pregnant and realizes the convent harbors disturbing secrets.

From Will Bates’ gothic score to the filming locations and even shot compositions, Immaculate owes a lot to its cinematic influences. Mohan pulls from more than just religious horror, though. While Immaculate pays tribute to the classics, the horror movie surprises for the way it leans so heavily into Italian horror and New French Extremity. Let’s dig into many of the film’s most prominent horror influences with a companion watch guide.

Warning: Immaculate spoilers ahead.


Rosemary’s Baby

'Rosemary's Baby' - Is Paramount's 'Apartment 7A' a Secret Remake?! [Exclusive]

The mother of all pregnancy horror movies introduces Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow), an eager-to-please housewife who’s supportive of her husband, Guy, and thrilled he landed them a spot in the coveted Bramford apartment building. Guy proposes a romantic evening, which gives way to a hallucinogenic nightmare scenario that leaves Rosemary confused and pregnant. Rosemary’s suspicions and paranoia mount as she’s gaslit by everyone around her, all attempting to distract her from her deeply abnormal pregnancy. While Cecilia follows a similar emotional journey to Rosemary, from the confusion over her baby’s conception to being gaslit by those who claim to have her best interests in mind, Immaculate inverts the iconic final frame of Rosemary’s Baby to great effect.


The Exorcist

Dick Smith makeup The Exorcist

William Friedkin’s horror classic shook audiences to their core upon release in the ’70s, largely for its shocking imagery. A grim battle over faith is waged between demon Pazuzu and priests Damien Karras (Jason Miller) and Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow). The battleground happens to be a 12-year-old, Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), whose possessed form commits blasphemy often, including violently masturbating with a crucifix. Yet Friedkin captures the horrifying events with stunning cinematography; the emotional complexity and shot composition lend elegance to a film that counterbalances the horror. That balance between transgressive imagery and artful form permeates Immaculate as well.


Suspiria

Suspiria

Jessica Harper stars as Suzy Bannion, an American newcomer at a prestigious dance academy in Germany who uncovers a supernatural conspiracy amid a series of grisly murders. It’s a dance academy so disciplined in its art form that its students and faculty live their full time, spending nearly every waking hour there, including built-in meals and scheduled bedtimes. Like Suzy Bannion, Cecilia is a novitiate committed to learning her chosen trade, so much so that she travels to a foreign country to continue her training. Also, like Suzy, Cecilia quickly realizes the pristine façade of her new setting belies sinister secrets that mean her harm. 


What Have You Done to Solange?

What Have You Done to Solange

This 1972 Italian horror film follows a college professor who gets embroiled in a bizarre series of murders when his mistress, a student, witnesses one taking place. The professor starts his own investigation to discover what happened to the young woman, Solange. Sex, murder, and religion course through this Giallo’s veins, which features I Spit on Your Grave’s Camille Keaton as Solange. Immaculate director Michael Mohan revealed to The Wrap that he emulated director Massimo Dallamano’s techniques, particularly in a key scene that sees Cecilia alone in a crowded room of male superiors, all interrogating her on her immaculate status.


The Red Queen Kills Seven Times

The Red Queen Kills Seven Times

In this Giallo, two sisters inherit their family’s castle that’s also cursed. When a dark-haired, red-robed woman begins killing people around them, the sisters begin to wonder if the castle’s mysterious curse has resurfaced. Director Emilio Miraglia infuses his Giallo with vibrant style, with the titular Red Queen instantly eye-catching in design. While the killer’s design and use of red no doubt played an influential role in some of Immaculate’s nightmare imagery, its biggest inspiration in Mohan’s film is its score. Immaculate pays tribute to The Red Queen Kills Seven Times through specific music cues.


The Vanishing

The Vanishing

Rex’s life is irrevocably changed when the love of his life is abducted from a rest stop. Three years later, he begins receiving letters from his girlfriend’s abductor. Director George Sluizer infuses his simple premise with bone-chilling dread and psychological terror as the kidnapper toys with Red. It builds to a harrowing finale you won’t forget; and neither did Mohan, who cited The Vanishing as an influence on Immaculate. Likely for its surprise closing moments, but mostly for the way Sluizer filmed from inside a coffin. 


The Other Hell

The Other Hell

This nunsploitation film begins where Immaculate ends: in the catacombs of a convent that leads to an underground laboratory. The Other Hell sees a priest investigating the seemingly paranormal activity surrounding the convent as possessed nuns get violent toward others. But is this a case of the Devil or simply nuns run amok? Immaculate opts to ground its horrors in reality, where The Other Hell leans into the supernatural, but the surprise lab setting beneath the holy grounds evokes the same sense of blasphemous shock. 


Inside

Inside 2007

During Immaculate‘s freakout climax, Cecilia sets the underground lab on fire with Father Sal Tedeschi (Álvaro Morte) locked inside. He manages to escape, though badly burned, and chases Cecilia through the catacombs. When Father Tedeschi catches Cecilia, he attempts to cut her baby out of her womb, and the stark imagery instantly calls Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury’s seminal French horror movie to mind. Like Tedeschi, Inside’s La Femme (Béatrice Dalle) will stop at nothing to get the baby, badly burned and all. 


Burial Ground

Burial Ground creepy kid

At first glance, this Italian zombie movie bears little resemblance to Immaculate. The plot sees an eclectic group forced to band together against a wave of undead, offering no shortage of zombie gore and wild character quirks. What connects them is the setting; both employed the Villa Parisi as a filming location. The Villa Parisi happens to be a prominent filming spot for Italian horror; also pair the new horror movie with Mario Bava’s A Bay of Blood or Blood for Dracula for additional boundary-pushing horror titles shot at the Villa Parisi.


The Devils

The Devils 1971 religious horror

The Devils was always intended to be incendiary. Horror, at its most depraved and sadistic, tends to make casual viewers uncomfortable. Ken Russell’s 1971 epic takes it to a whole new squeamish level with its nightmarish visuals steeped in some historical accuracy. There are the horror classics, like The Exorcist, and there are definitive transgressive horror cult classics. The Devils falls squarely in the latter, and Russell’s fearlessness in exploring taboos and wielding unholy imagery inspired Mohan’s approach to the escalating horror in Immaculate

Continue Reading