FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
Having survived a fire, the Monster (Boris Karloff) created by Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) goes on another rampage, this time seeking temporary companionship with a blind hermit (O.P. Heggie) and learning to speak a few words. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein’s former mentor (Ernest Thesiger) — obsessed with creating a race of monsters — forces Frankenstein to collaborate on his scheme to craft a mate (Elsa Lanchester) for the Monster.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boris Karloff Films
• Colin Clive Films
• Elsa Lanchester Films
• Frankenstein
• Horror
• James Whale Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that “James Whale’s stylized, stunningly imaginative, wickedly funny horror masterpiece” is “surpassed only by King Kong among the all-time best monster movies”, and notes that “not even [Kong] has as much ‘class'”. Indeed, it’s a rare sequel which is widely cited as better than its predecessor. While I’m quite fond of the original Frankenstein (I think it holds up equally well, on its own merits), I’ll concede that Bride — a darkly humorous campy romp — is even more fun in many ways. Peary notes that “there are many reasons the film is better than the original, not the least being that it deals with the Monster’s need for female companionship, which is central to the second half of Shelley’s novel”. Indeed, to that end, I would actually argue (as I’ve read elsewhere) that the two short films could/should be viewed as Part One and Part Two of the same movie, given that they possess (mostly) the same roster of actors, and were directed by the same visionary.

At any rate, Peary goes on to argue that this second film “is not cold, bleak, or depressing like the original” (apples and oranges, anybody? I find nothing wrong with the first film having more of this tone), and that it “has a higher budget [so that] the production values breathe life into the story” (though again, I found the production values just fine in the original). He notes that “the claustrophobic castle and laboratory sets are balanced by spacious, candle-lit chambers with shiny floors and columns, all covered with shadows”, and exclaims (rightfully so) over “how wonderful the expressionistic forest [is]!” As Peary points out, “neither Whale nor cameraman John Mescall strove for realism”, given that this “film is meant to be a visualization of a story”. He calls out the way Whale “has fun with the four stars’ angular faces”, shooting them “in tremendous close-ups, often using wild camera angles” — indeed, it’s this particular element of the film that strikes one as most innovative and astonishing. (“Really? He’s filming from THAT perspective?!” you’ll find yourself wondering aloud.)

Peary accurately argues that the 5’4″ Lanchester is “marvelous in her brief appearance as the Bride”, walking on “2 1/2-foot stilts that make her movements birdlike” — yet despite her visual dominance in our collective consciousness of this film, she’s really a very minor character, not showing up until the very end, and on-screen for less than five minutes. Thus, Peary’s right to note that “it is Karloff’s touching performance” (as in the original) “that makes this film great.” While he’s “almost hidden beneath Jack Pearce’s remarkable make-up, his sensitive eyes still come through, expressing the Monster’s feelings”. Peary sums it up perfectly: “With Karloff in the part, the Monster is eloquent even when silent”. Just as memorable, however — and arguably an equally essential ingredient in the film’s success — is the bold performance given by Thesiger as “one of the genre’s most eccentric scoundrels”. Whenever this angular villain is on-screen, we simply can’t look away — particularly as he’s showcasing his display of miniaturized humans, each perfectly realized, and reminding one of the expert special effects work done a year later in Tod Browning’s The Devil Doll.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Boris Karloff as The Monster (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius
  
• Elsa Lanchester’s brief appearance as the Monster’s would-be bride
  
• John Mescall’s atmospheric cinematography
  
• Charles D. Hall’s Gothic sets
  
• Expressionistic direction by Whale
  
• Franz Waxman’s score

Must See?
Yes — as one of the undisputed classics of early horror.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Articles
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
With the help of his assistant (Dwight Frye), a scientist (Colin Clive) steals a human brain and brings a monstrous creature (Boris Karloff) to life — but the creature struggles to adjust to his new world, and soon causes both fear and havoc.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boris Karloff Films
• Colin Clive Films
• Frankenstein
• Horror
• James Whale Films
• Mad Doctors and Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Although it’s consistently overshadowed by its esteemed sequel (Bride of Frankenstein), this classic Universal Pictures horror film “still holds up due to striking, innovative direction by James Whale, who employs bizarre camera angles, high-ceiling sets, imaginative set design (especially in the Baron’s lab), and sharp editing to create a remarkably tense atmosphere”. In his review, Peary also highlights the “excellent acting by Colin Clive” (though not all critics agree with him) and by “Boris Karloff, as the Monster he creates”, noting that “the timelessness of Mary Shelley’s morality play” adds to its enduring interest as well. He calls out numerous memorable scenes, including “Clive and [his] weasly assistant Dwight Frye robbing graves; the Monster coming to life; the Monster trying to make friends with a little girl”; and others.

In the remainder of Peary’s review, he provides an interesting analysis of the film’s themes and philosophical groundings. He argues that “Whale seems to go along with Shelley’s controversial belief that Frankenstein’s sin is not that he defies God by creating life but that once he becomes a creator he both emulates God and competes with him for sovereignty”. Indeed, this is evidenced by the powerful scene in which “Karloff beautifully conveys the recently born being’s newfound feelings of warmth and wonderment” as he “shuffles directly under the light” which is “flickering into the dark chamber”, only for Dr. Frankenstein to “block out the light, jealously refusing the creature any knowledge (symbolized by sunlight) that he didn’t offer himself, as well as any contact with the god who sent his sun ray.” Peary’s interpretation here is spot-on, and demonstrates the level of care taken with turning Shelley’s complex tale into more than just a standard horror flick.

What’s most tremendous about Frankenstein is the way in which we come to genuinely care about the Monster — even when (in perhaps the movie’s most affecting, devastating scene) his new friendship with a young girl goes tragically wrong. Karloff’s ability to convey depth of emotion through layers of expertly applied make-up (which apparently took five hours each day to apply, and two hours to remove) is truly impressive; it’s understandable why Peary chose to nominate him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book. Also impressive (if less astonishing) is Clive’s performance as Dr. Frankenstein. Knowing Clive’s personal history (he died just six years later, at the age of 37, from complications related to his alcoholism) adds an extra layer of pathos to his portrayal of a man who “has withdrawn into self-imposed isolation… and become an elitist”, ultimately neglecting “his fatherly obligations and abandon[ing] his ‘son’, leaving the creature to make its way in a world repulsed by grotesquery”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Boris Karloff as “The Monster” (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Fabulous set designs (reprised in Bride of Frankenstein)
  
• Jack Pierce and James Whale’s copyrighted monster make-up
  
• Arthur Edeson’s cinematography
  
• James Whale’s direction
  
• Many powerful, memorable sequences — including the initial “birth” scene, the “girl in the lake” scene, and others
  
  

Must See?
Yes, most definitely, as a genuine classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoiler alerts)
• DVD Savant Review
• FilmSite Review
• Classic Horror Review
• Moria Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM’s Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A naive country girl (Lillian Gish) is deceived by a womanizing player (Lowell Sherman) into believing she’s married him, and bears a child out of wedlock. After the baby dies and Sherman abandons her, she starts her life over by working as a maid for a squire (Burr McIntosh), whose son (Richard Barthelmess) falls in love with her. But can she escape her “shameful” past?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• D.W. Griffith Films
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Lillian Gish Films
• Play Adaptation
• Silent Films
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that D.W. Griffith’s adaptation of Lottie Blair Parker’s popular 19th century melodrama remains “the best of [his] pastoral films”, noting that rather than relishing “the chance to make a woman suffer, [he] doesn’t try to milk the audience’s tears”, and makes Gish’s Anna “resilient in her many hardships” so that we “want to admire Anna, not pity her”. Despite Gish’s fine central performance, however — and the justifiably famous finale in which “the freezing Gish walks perilously across ice floes during a blizzard” (using no stunt doubles) — Way Down East remains more of a curiosity than a true classic. There’s nothing particularly new about the heartbreaking storyline (one contributor on IMDb points out the uncanny narrative similarities with Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles), and Griffith’s portrayal of country yokels as foolish rubes quickly moves beyond “humor” into tiresome and offensive caricature. With that said, film fanatics will probably be curious to check this one out simply given its historical relevance; it was Griffith’s second most popular film after The Birth of the Nation (1915).

Note: Another contributor on IMDb notes that she’s shown this film to her high school students for years as an archetypical example of Victorian melodrama — which makes complete sense.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lillian Gish as Anna
  
• An occasionally heart-breakingly melodramatic script
  
• G.W. Bitzer’s cinematography
  
• The exciting icy climax
  

Must See?
Yes, but only for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Washington Post Review
• Greatest Films Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An ambitious lumberjack (Edward Arnold) marries the daughter (Mary Nash) of his business partner rather than the woman he really loves — saloon singer Lotta Morgan (Frances Farmer). Years later, he meets Lotta’s daughter (also Frances Farmer), and falls immediately in love with her — as does his son (Joel McCrea).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Edward Arnold Films
• Frances Farmer Films
• Historical Drama
• Howard Hawks Films>
• Joel McCrea Films
• Rivalry
• Walter Brennan Films
• William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s response to this “well-mounted Samuel Goldwyn production of Edna Ferber’s novel” — “the only major film of Frances Farmer’s career” — is a bit of a surprise. He states that Farmer is “not so impressive that we can lament about how great her career would have been if Hollywood hadn’t destroyed her”, and argues that while “she is certainly capable and shows signs of intelligence”, “what’s most striking is how closely Jessica Lange resembles her in Frances“. I completely disagree. From the moment we first lay eyes on Lotta Morgan (Farmer in the first of dual roles), it’s difficult to look away: she’s both gorgeous and spunky, with a modern sensibility. In her second role (as Lotta Bostrom), she’s equally engaging, portraying just the right mix of a small town girl’s drive to make something of herself, and increasing dread at the realization of exactly what Arnold’s intentions are with her. Farmer is really the primary reason to see this movie, and film fanatics will be glad for the opportunity.

With that said, it’s a fine movie in many other respects as well. While it is a bit of a “conventional soaper” at times, the fact that it “becomes uncomfortable to watch in the second half [once] Arnold comes across as a ‘dirty old man'” simply adds to its authenticity. Indeed, the screenplay refreshingly never shirks away from dealing head-on with its somewhat disturbing premise, as married Arnold repeatedly fails to see exactly how creepy and inappropriate his advances towards young Lotta are. Clearly not a conventional leading man, Arnold (giving a “strong performance”) was an inspired choice to play the lead character here, with his bullish demeanor making it easy to sympathize with young Lotta’s dread. While I’m not particularly enamored by Walter Brennan’s Oscar-winning portrayal as Arnold’s best friend Swan (his broad Swedish accent comes across as a bit too heavy-handed at times), there are several fine supporting performances throughout — most notably Mady Christians as Lotta Bostrom’s concerned cousin, and Andrea Leeds as Arnold’s grown daughter (they have a particularly touching scene together). Watch for Brooke Shields’s grandfather, Frank Shields, in a bit role as Arnold’s daughter’s beau.

Note: This film was co-directed by Howard Hawks and William Wyler (with the latter taking over towards the end, and contributing far less).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Frances Farmer as both Lottas
  
  
• Edward Arnold as Barney
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• The stunning, if disturbing, logging sequences near the beginning of the film
  

Must See?
Yes, primarily for Farmer’s performance, but also as a good show all around.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article