One of the more interesting things about this bout of homework that I have set for myself, is the fact that I’ve known precious little about the films I’ve approached. Oh sure, I’ve known a line here, or a shot there…but for the most part, my familiarity with the films have ended with their title, cast and crew.

Then along comes FRANKENSTEIN, the story I know well, and have quoted often. You’d think that familiarity would brace me well for what the 81-year-old film had in store for me. And if you’d think that, then you’d have thought wrong.

FRANKENSTEIN is based on the Mary Shelly novel of the same name. As the film opens, we happen upon the titular doctor and his trusty assistant Fritz (quick show of hands everyone who thought his name was Igor). The pair are securing a specimen for the doctor’s latest experiment – securing it from a freshly dug grave. Dr. Frankenstein, as you likely know, is intent on re-animating dead human tissue, and the film wastes no time in getting to the grand experiment. Faster than you can say “It’s Alive”, the monster (Boris Karloff) twitches to life, and Frankenstein’s obsession grows all the more.

However, as we soon see, it’s one thing to find the formula that creates life, and another thing completely to know what it takes to nurture the life that has been created.


Coming into FRANKENSTEIN as a big fan of Mary Shelly’s book, I was bracing myself for something radically different than what I had experienced so far. I knew, for instance, that the film would rob The Monster of his voice, since in the book The Monster not only has the capacity to speak, but he gets into full philosophical debates with his creator. That decision is a curious one, but one I was able to live with. Speaking of philosophical debate, that was the other omission I was braced for – a large omission of the story’s core question of what it means to play God.

The book, as you might know, is subtitled “The Modern Prometheus”, after the myth of The God who brought fire to humanity and then paid a heavy price. In the novel, Doctor Frankenstein likewise pays a hefty price for the fire he brings to the people…and while that is in the film, it’s downplayed. The film shows such things as the doctor pulling away from those he loves, and falling deep into obsession…but the ultimate price falls more on the shoulders of the villagers than it does on the Doctor himself.

In a way, this feels like a cheat. Prometheus isn’t paying the cost for bringing fire to the people; the people are paying for what Prometheus brought them.

But then something interesting happened…


As I mentally closed the novel I’d read several times and gave myself over to this different interpretation, I found myself deeply saddened. FRANKENSTEIN is the tale of a being that wasn’t loved by its creator, but was kept in a cage. It was born with a brain that was a specimen in a jar, and quickly after its birth it was not much more than a bigger specimen in a bigger jar. Watching Fritz goad him, watching him fight for his own release, and then watching him stumble through the outside world without a shred of knowledge had me thinking of a toddler that was prodded by its father, goaded by its wet nurse, and ultimately tossed into the street at age two.

James Whale might have intended this to be a monster movie, but it is first and foremost a tragedy. It’s a tragedy that The Monster is born, but not raised. It’s a tragedy that his first truly human encounter ends with him doing something seemingly innocent, but with tragic consequences. And it’s a tragedy that the town’s reaction to The Monster isn’t to capture or corral, but to kill.

But that’s human nature, right? We fear what we don’t know, and fear manifests itself in terrible ways.

An interesting detail to the film is the way it begins with a master of ceremonies offering a word of caution. He lays out what is to come, and suggests that what we are about to see may disturb us…may shock us…or may even horrify us. What he fails to offer up is closer to the truth – what we see above all saddens us.


With that, the film stands alone amongst all of its classic monster-movie brethren. We never sit and silently hope that Count Dracula will evade Van Helsing. We never want The Wolfman to dodge that silver bullet. We never look at The Mummy as misunderstood. And yet, where Frankenstein’s monster is concerned, we feel nothing but pity. Pity not awarded to embodiments of superstition and the supernatural, but pity freely given to something we as mankind have brought upon ourselves.

That is the credit of the amazing adaptation of Frankenstein. It dared to take a hailed classic, and radically re-interpret it. It tossed out much of the original structure, themes, and moral questions, and in their place gave us something simpler, but still so poignant. Whale didn’t unleash another monster on us; he told us the story of a lost little boy, and dared us to reject him like so many others did.

It’s moments like this that I find myself believing in adaptation, and being open to artists re-imagining each other’s work. Sure, somewhere along the way, a filmmaker could have created a faithful adaptation of Shelly’s novel, with all of its ethical quandaries…but by mining the text for pure human emotion, FRANKENSTEIN is able to do something truly special: It’s able to stand on its own two feet.

I intend to post my entries on the final Tuesday of every month. If you are participating, drop me an email (ryanatthematineedotca) when your post is up and I’ll make sure to link to your entry.

Here’s the round-up for October…

Max Covill watched THE THING

Sean Kelly watched THE EXORCIST

Dan Heaton watched CABARET

Andrew Robinson joins the party late after watching SUSPIRIA

Courtney watched 12 ANGRY MEN

Bob “I’m a Snowflake that Never Falls on Time” Turnbull watched THE WOLFMAN and THE MUMMY

Steve Honeywell watched CARRIE

17 Replies to “Blindsided by FRANKENSTEIN”

  1. Sounds similar to my theory “Where Dracula lacked emotion this film is packed with it. We begin with Frankenstein’s passion of discovery and then the saddening reality of its result”, but I guess I landed more on the scientific ground breaking nature of the film’s plot

    http://www.gmanreviews.com/2012/10/16/1001-films-frankenstein-1931/

    Also… I guess you can throw it as my Blindspot
    Suspiria – http://www.gmanreviews.com/2012/10/30/1001-films-suspiria-1977/

    1. Sort of apples and oranges considering the stories, but given how they are linked through legacy, I couldn’t agree with you more!

      I’ve linked SUSPIRIA – if you wanted, you could line up twelve films for 2013 and join in on the fun!

  2. Superb write up. I literally watched this for the first time last week and have to agree with pretty much everything you say. I felt real pity for the creature and a sense of anger towards those who were hunting him. I haven’t read the novel so i’m not sure how it compares but I was genuinely shocked when he threw the the little girl in the pond. But even then I felt sorry for him as he didn’t realise what he was doing.

    1. You didn’t see the London stage production did you? Where they cast Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch?

      That scene with the girl really bummed me out, since it underlined just how innocent he was and yet how dangerous. He isn’t aware of what he’s capable of, and has little concept of death…all because he has been born but not “raised”.

      Do read the book – it’s amazing.

  3. Saw this in college after we read the book. I liked the book better but it was necessary that there was a horror/monster movie that’s also a metaphor for a lynch mob. And that comparison opens another can of worms on 1930’s American society’s (mis)conceptions about evil and victimization and what those words mean on a biological and sociological context. (And if I’m being too subtle/obtuse/overreaching, let me ante up and say that Scottsboro happened months before this movie was release).

    Speaking of James Whale, have you seen Gods and Monsters?

  4. The sell of this film is, first and last, the performance of Karloff. Of the classic monster films, this is my favorite (with Bride of Frankenstein coming in a close second) and that rests entirely on the shoulders of Karloff, who provides such an emotional performance that I can’t help but feel for him. As you say, the story is a tragedy, and it’s a tragedy not about Dr. Frankenstein, but about his rejected creation.

    I’ll differ with you on the book. I’m not a fan of Shelley’s florid, romantic prose. While I prefer the film adaptation of Frankenstein, I greatly prefer the novel Dracula to Shelley’s work.

    1. I’ve read both, and as I mentioned to Andrew, I’m amused that the two stories are linked so often since they have so very little in common.

      You may be on to something with the prose, but the morality that Shelley weaves into the novel grabs me more than Stoker’s gothic superstitions. That said, I might be due for a re-read of that too…

  5. Thoughtful and as eloquent as ever, good work sir! I’m amazed that as a fan of the book you have never seen this film. I only read the book (when I was about 16) because I loved the film so much. In a lot of ways Bride of Frankenstein is a better film, give that one a go when you get a chance. Once you have, I would second Paolo’s recommendation that you check out Gods and Monsters.

    Of all the movies I have seen it is both the earliest example and the clearest depiction of the idea that the monster in the story isn’t really the monster of the story. This has always fascinated me as he is such an iconic monster.

    You say “In a way, this feels like a cheat. Prometheus isn’t paying the cost for bringing fire to the people….” A thought on that: The film ends with Frankenstein’s wedding and his father’s toast to a future grandchild. The end could be seen as Frankenstein looking for forgiveness and redemption in his abandonment of his attempt to play god in favour of a more traditional way of creating life. This works as both a religious and simply a moral statement.

    By the way six amazing films in this months “Blindsided by”

    1. Interesting theory.

      The doctor will carry a burden considering what his creation brought upon his town, but it doesn’t seem to come with the same eternal suffering that Prometheus faced chained to his rock. Their motives are alike though: Prometheus wanting to bring mankind the gift of fire, and Frankenstein the gift of life.

      Glad you like the six films my friends covered. Maybe next year you’ll join us.

  6. That’s so funny you say that about Frankenstein being the monster you pity, and that’s why he’s more likable compared to his peers, because I’ve used the EXACT same argument for the Wolf Man. He’s Lawrence Talbot, a human who falls prey to a curse… which is pretty much biblical, something that befalls all of us when you think of heredity or diseases as a curse.

    Mind you, I don’t mean to argue with you if you found Frankenstein pitiful and therefore human. I think that’s great, actually. And the last half of your review gave me a HUGE grin. These Universal creature features are truly great films. It gets lost because it’s so easy to think of them as hokey, outdated, etc…

    1. I’ve actually never seen THE WOLFMAN – maybe I should add it to next year’s Blind Spot list! And you’re right – they are great films. I really wish Universal would get their act together and put out a blu-ray set with all of them.

  7. Just watched this again the other night, and probably enjoyed it more than I have in years. It’s such a different film from the sequel, but a classic in its own right and – as you note, very much a tragedy and not at all a comedy (very much unlike the sequel).

    Like you, I’m a fan of the book and it’s interesting to see how the movie parts ways from it. In a way, the movie’s version of Frankenstein has become so iconic and familiar, that it’s the original novel which tends to surprise people and subvert their expectations. In particular, I love Shelley’s description of the monster’s awakening which is so nonchalant and undramatic that it’s completely horrifying.

    I tend to prefer the more wildly subversive, half-knowing horror-comedies like The Black Cat, The Old Dark House, and Bride of Frankenstein to the more straight-up monster movies like The Mummy, Dracula, The Wolf Man, of Frankenstein. But lately it’s the latter I’ve felt compelled to watch – there’s something to be said for that vivid, simple, unironic iconography.

    In the end, the greatest aspect of Frankenstein is definitely Karloff’s performance – which is one of the great performances of all time on its own terms, putting aside how memorable it is and how much it shaped pop culture (think how, prior to ’31, “Frankenstein’s monster” wasn’t supposed to look like this but now we can’t imagine him any other way – nor can the thousands of little kids traipsing out around the neighborhood with elevated foreheads, green facepaint, and glued-on bolts tonight – and just recently I wrote about running across an Alvin & the Chipmunks parody of Frankenstein on TV which is bizarre on so many levels when you truly stop to think about it).

    Yeah, beyond the legend, Karloff’s performance moving for exactly the reasons you describe; I think Karloff is always enjoyable, but this is on a whole different level. He really embodies a completely convincing childlike perception of the world.

    1. I’d love to find a book or something on the production and read what it was that inspired Karloff to play the part like he did – both gentle and menacing at the same time. He was often fearful in his scenes, especially around fire…but his take on the character had such a wholesomeness to it too.

      I think now I *need* to find a book or article on this.

      Thanks for reading sir!

    2. Yeah, Karloff was always good – but this is on a whole ‘nother level. Elsewhere he’s Karloff, here he is Frankenstein’s monster pure and simple. I’d like to read such a book as well.

Comments are closed.