Stars: Boris Karloff (The Monster), Colin Clive (Henry Frankenstein), Valerie Hobson (Elizabeth Frankenstein), Ernest Thesiger (Doctor Septimus Pretorius), Elsa Lanchester (The Bride, Mary Shelly), Dwight Frye (Karl)
Director: James Whale
Honors / Awards
- In 2008, Time Magazine included Bride of Frankenstein in its "ALL-TIME 100 Movies" list
- The 1996 book The Entertainment Weekly Guide to the Greatest Movies Ever Made includes Bride and considers the film to be superior to Frankenstein.
- In 2008, the Boston Herald named it the second greatest horror film after Nosferatu.
- In 1998, famous film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum included Bride of Frankenstein on his "Alternate 100" list created to respond to the 1997 AFI 100 Years... 100 Movies list.
- In 1998, Bride of Frankenstein was added to the United States National Film Registry, having been deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant".
Running Time: 1 Hour, 15 minutes
Format: DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)
Odyssey Rating: 3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)
John's Take
Why the “bonus post”? Because the DVD we got from Netflix not only contained Frankenstein, it also contained Bride of Frankenstein. Since we received two movies for the price of one, we decided to watch Bride of Frankenstein as well. Plus, I was a little bit curious to discover if I had actually seen the movie as I remembered that I did in childhood, or was my mind once again creating a false history for me as it did with Frankenstein.
I was relieved to discover that my memories of Bride all fairly matched up to the film I saw. The two noticeable exceptions being that I still remember Frankenstein’s name being Victor, not Henry, and his assistant is still not named Igor. In fact, his assistant isn’t even a hunchback in this film, but just a guy with metal leg braces named Karl (although still played by the same actor, Dwight Frye). Apparently, it isn’t until the third movie, Son of Frankenstein, is the character of “Ygor” introduced. Odd that Igor would go on to become such an iconic element of Frankenstein when it wasn’t introduced until later in the series.
It is a fairly commonly held opinion that Bride of Frankenstein is one of those few cases in Hollywood films where the sequel is superior to original film. In general, I would agree. However, while many would spend a great deal of time discussing the improved visual effects, the more complex use of imagery, more pathos for The Monster, etc., I am here to tell you that you can ignore all of that if you want. A great many of those statements / interpretations of the critics are true, at least to one degree or another, but there is one specific cinematic element that is lacking in the first film but is present in the second that often gets overlooked or simply brushed aside by the experts:
I was relieved to discover that my memories of Bride all fairly matched up to the film I saw. The two noticeable exceptions being that I still remember Frankenstein’s name being Victor, not Henry, and his assistant is still not named Igor. In fact, his assistant isn’t even a hunchback in this film, but just a guy with metal leg braces named Karl (although still played by the same actor, Dwight Frye). Apparently, it isn’t until the third movie, Son of Frankenstein, is the character of “Ygor” introduced. Odd that Igor would go on to become such an iconic element of Frankenstein when it wasn’t introduced until later in the series.
It is a fairly commonly held opinion that Bride of Frankenstein is one of those few cases in Hollywood films where the sequel is superior to original film. In general, I would agree. However, while many would spend a great deal of time discussing the improved visual effects, the more complex use of imagery, more pathos for The Monster, etc., I am here to tell you that you can ignore all of that if you want. A great many of those statements / interpretations of the critics are true, at least to one degree or another, but there is one specific cinematic element that is lacking in the first film but is present in the second that often gets overlooked or simply brushed aside by the experts:
Bride of Frankenstein has a music score. Frankenstein basically does not.
Other than over the opening and closing credits, Frankenstein has no “background music”. Bride, on the other hand, is full scored. What different does that make? It is score that causes that triggers or reinforces the emotions that the filmmaker wants you to experience. For example, when the villagers are trussing The Monster up all crucifixion-style, the story or imagery may evoke an emotional response of pity from you, but the little subconscious cue you get from hearing the “sympathetic music” is what really drives the emotion home, as well as ensures that you are experiencing the “correct” emotion – pity for the creature, instead of relief that the creature has been captured.
I have no idea why there was no musical soundtrack for Frankenstein. I remember something from film history classes in college about how in the “early days” some filmmakers didn’t use musical scores because they felt that it would confuse the audience (i.e., “The man and the woman are alone in a big empty field, so where is the music coming from?”). I am not sure if I am remembering that correctly (especially since these two movies seem to be messing with memory), or that James Whale was such a director even if it is true, but it would be interesting to find out why there was no score in the orginal film.
So, long-winded film critics / writers drone on all you want about the myriad of perceived reasons why you believe that Bride is superior to the original film. Your points may have some amount of merit, but there is a simpler answer to why Bride of Frankenstein is better – It is the music stupid.
As far as a rating is concerned, I agree that Bride of Frankenstein is better than Frankenstein. However, Beth and I agreed that we would keep our individual rankings to whole number values. In other words, individually we wouldn’t give movies ratings of 2 ½ Stars or 4 ½ Stars, etc. While Bride is certainly better than Frankenstein, it is not sufficiently better to warrant an increase of a full star. Like its predecessor, Bride of Frankenstein is a really good “popcorn movie” – even better than the original – but it still just receives a rating of 3 Stars.
I have no idea why there was no musical soundtrack for Frankenstein. I remember something from film history classes in college about how in the “early days” some filmmakers didn’t use musical scores because they felt that it would confuse the audience (i.e., “The man and the woman are alone in a big empty field, so where is the music coming from?”). I am not sure if I am remembering that correctly (especially since these two movies seem to be messing with memory), or that James Whale was such a director even if it is true, but it would be interesting to find out why there was no score in the orginal film.
So, long-winded film critics / writers drone on all you want about the myriad of perceived reasons why you believe that Bride is superior to the original film. Your points may have some amount of merit, but there is a simpler answer to why Bride of Frankenstein is better – It is the music stupid.
As far as a rating is concerned, I agree that Bride of Frankenstein is better than Frankenstein. However, Beth and I agreed that we would keep our individual rankings to whole number values. In other words, individually we wouldn’t give movies ratings of 2 ½ Stars or 4 ½ Stars, etc. While Bride is certainly better than Frankenstein, it is not sufficiently better to warrant an increase of a full star. Like its predecessor, Bride of Frankenstein is a really good “popcorn movie” – even better than the original – but it still just receives a rating of 3 Stars.
John
No comments:
Post a Comment