Of all the "monsters" constructed out of the human imagination, I can't imagine one more sympathetic than Frankenstein's monster. In fact, I have trouble even thinking of him as a monster. Instead, he surely must be Frankenstein's "creature" or Frankenstein's "creation." It's the sympathetic nature of the creature that gives the movie it's greatest power - it's perhaps the only "monster movie" I can think of where I feel sorry for the actual monster (true, one feels sorry for the afflicted people who become werewolves, but not for the actual werewolf.) Think about this poor creature. After his creation by Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) he is, by Frankenstein's own admission, kept isolated and in darkness, and his only regular "companionship" seems to have been from the hunchback Fritz (Dwight Frye) - Frankenstein's assistant who takes great delight in tormenting the creature with torches and whips. Under the circumstances, could the creature have been expected to turn out to be a ballet dancer? This movie is both a social worker's and a psychologist's delight. The social worker will see in the creature a classic depiction of an abused child (for that's what the creature was - as Frankenstein himself put it, he didn't give life back to the dead, this "body" had never lived in its new form; it was, in fact, a child.) For the psychologist there's a study of obsession in Frankenstein (who, it seems to me, gives up on his creature altogether too easily) and Fritz is a wonderful character from the psychological perspective: a man probably tormented and ridiculed and abused all his life, who suddenly - when the opportunity presents itself - becomes the tormenter, abuser and ridiculer. But the creature is always an object of sympathy. When he killed Fritz, I thought "good for him!" When he killed the little girl Maria (Marilyn Harris) it's clearly portrayed as a dreadful accident - he was playing with her, but he was too strong for her. When the windmill breaks out in flames, how can one not empathize with the creature's terror? And yet - in the powerful sympathetic portrayal of the creature also lies the story's greatest weakness. After constructing the body from the parts of dead bodies (and I must confess that I wondered, when Frankenstein lifted the creature's hand - before it was brought to life - and proudly exclaimed "no decay", I wondered "why?" It certainly didn't look like there was a refrigerated morgue in that place to keep the body fresh!) Frankenstein sends Fritz to a local medical school to steal a brain. Great play is made from the fact that the brain Fritz came back with was a criminal's brain - an evil one from a violent man, as Dr. Waldman (Edward Van Sloan) described it. We're clearly to think that the evil brain was somehow responsible for the creature turning out this way, but that was inconsistent with everything else portrayed here. Here we find an early example of nature vs. nurture. I never thought that the havoc wreaked by the creature was because of its brain. The creature didn't have an evil nature; it was the way it was because of the way it was nurtured. The whole "evil brain" story underlying the monster's actions seemed to me to weaken the story.
Boris Karloff was magnificent as the creature. In a voiceless role (aside from a few growls) he managed to portray a huge range of emotions: confusion, anger, fear, rage, playfulness, excitement, panic-stricken terror just to name a few. Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Waldman offered what I thought was his best performance in the Universal "monster movie" collection - at least of those I've seen. Dr. Waldman seemed more rounded and certainly more emotional than Van Helsing in "Dracula" or Muller in "The Mummy." Clive did a good job of portraying two sides of Frankenstein - the obsessed scientist who wants to play God, and the repentant one who wants nothing more than to turn the clock back, and Mae Clarke was pretty good as his fiancé Elizabeth. The only disappointment in performances was that of Dwight Frye as Fritz. After a brilliant performance as Renfield in "Dracula" I didn't think he really captured this role.
Two scenes stay with me from this movie. Maria's death - which clearly the creature didn't mean to happen - and the panicked creature trapped in the burning windmill. (I'd have liked the movie to have ended with that scene, actually.) So - great performances, but the issue of the brain left me a little cold, and detracted from the best and most meaningful issue raised by the story. All in all - 7/10
Boris Karloff was magnificent as the creature. In a voiceless role (aside from a few growls) he managed to portray a huge range of emotions: confusion, anger, fear, rage, playfulness, excitement, panic-stricken terror just to name a few. Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Waldman offered what I thought was his best performance in the Universal "monster movie" collection - at least of those I've seen. Dr. Waldman seemed more rounded and certainly more emotional than Van Helsing in "Dracula" or Muller in "The Mummy." Clive did a good job of portraying two sides of Frankenstein - the obsessed scientist who wants to play God, and the repentant one who wants nothing more than to turn the clock back, and Mae Clarke was pretty good as his fiancé Elizabeth. The only disappointment in performances was that of Dwight Frye as Fritz. After a brilliant performance as Renfield in "Dracula" I didn't think he really captured this role.
Two scenes stay with me from this movie. Maria's death - which clearly the creature didn't mean to happen - and the panicked creature trapped in the burning windmill. (I'd have liked the movie to have ended with that scene, actually.) So - great performances, but the issue of the brain left me a little cold, and detracted from the best and most meaningful issue raised by the story. All in all - 7/10