As it turns out, this year I’ve seen quite a few monster films, mostly based on or inspired by the myths of Frankenstein or Dracula—let’s not get into a debate on whether vampires count as monsters—so I’d better jot down some brief thoughts.
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922): Pure monster, no eroticism, no romance. The best Nosferatu film, perhaps the best Dracula film. Orlok’s appearance at the door, Orlok on the ship, Orlok’s shadow on the wall, etc.—the film is full of striking, unforgettable images and Max Schreck remains bone-chilling and sinister after over 100 years. More sinister than Klaus Kinski and Bill Skarsgård.
Nosferatu (2024): The film focuses on sex and shame, or rather, presents the vampire as an embodiment of sexual desire/ shame/ disgust, which perhaps appeals to fans of monster smut. I don’t like the look of Orlok. I don’t think it’s a good film either. Lily-Rose Depp is impressive but the characters are under-developed, there’s little change in tempo and no sense of pacing, the film feels drawn out.
Dracula (1931): This is another classic, but I don’t like it. Lots of overacting, especially Dwight Frye as Renfield; I don’t even like Bela Lugosi as Dracula (unpopular opinion, I guess?). There are some interesting shots, especially at the castle and the abbey. Can see some influence from Nosferatu.
Daughters of Darkness (1971): Vampire film, no Dracula connection. Silly film, but Delphine Seyrig is so beautiful and elegant.
Now that I’ve thought about it, I wonder why I have seen so many Dracula films over the years when I don’t care for horror and didn’t like Bram Stoker’s novel all that much. Off the top of my head: part of Hammer’s Dracula (1958); Brides of Dracula (1960); Count Dracula (1977); Coppola’s Dracula (1992); Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979).
Frankenstein (1931): Quite different from Mary Shelley’s novel, but it’s an excellent film in its own right. Great cinematography, great production design, great makeup, great performance from Boris Karloff. One of the most visually arresting films in black and white. In a way, the film simplified the story, removing some of the complex ideas about upbringing, education, development, civilisation, etc. but then it gave us the most iconic image of Frankenstein’s monster and solidified the myth—my friend Himadri thinks the film has had more impact on public consciousness than the novel has, and he’s probably right.
Bride of Frankenstein (1935): Another excellent film by James Whale. I must praise Jack Pierce for not only doing the fantastic makeup for Frankenstein’s monster (Boris Karloff), but also creating the iconic hairstyle for the bride (Elsa Lanchester).
Young Frankenstein (1974): Not much to do with Mary Shelley’s novel, this is an affectionate pastiche of the Frankenstein films starring Boris Karloff. Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman are wonderful together. A perfect film, very funny, extremely quotable: “It’s Fronkensteen!”, “It’s pronounced Eye-gore”, “What hump?”, “Walk this way”, etc. Did you know Gene Hackman could be so funny? I didn’t. I laughed like a hyena.
Son of Frankenstein (1939): This film is a sequel to the films by James Whale, but I watched it after Young Frankenstein. It’s quite all right as a film, featuring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi and Basil Rathbone. However, it suffers in comparison: next to James Whale’s films, Rowland V. Lee’s Son of Frankenstein doesn’t have such striking and iconic images; and I couldn’t watch it without thinking about the jokes and the parody in Young Frankenstein; the inspector in particular is so well-parodied that he seems rather ridiculous in the original.
Poor Things (2023): Based on a novel by Alasdair Gray, inspired by the Frankenstein myth. As one would expect from Yorgos Lanthimos, it is weird and stylistically interesting, but it’s more disturbing than Frankenstein and the more I’ve thought about it, the more I dislike all the ideas about “feminism” and “female empowerment” in the film. Repugnant, even.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1931): What was in the air that in 1931, Hollywood produced Frankenstein and Dracula and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Stevenson’s novella is my favourite of the three books, but again the film is its own work of art—one of the major changes is the creation of two female characters—and it is a very fine film. Fredric March is very good as Jekyll and Hyde, and I especially like that the film gets right Stevenson’s idea that Jekyll and Hyde are not two sides of the same person—Hyde is the concentration of all the evil and dark impulses in Jekyll.
Addendum: Adding some more stills so you can see how beautiful the B&W is.
Frankenstein:
Bride of Frankenstein:
"Daughters of Darkness" is definitely an exercise in style over substance, totally silly ending, but I enjoy the atmosphere. I also found the 2024 Dracula disappointing, it never really coheres and you don't really care about the characters. Disappointing given all the noise.
ReplyDeleteBy 2024 Dracula, you mean Nosferatu, right? Just checking in case there's a 2024 Dracula I'm not aware of.
DeleteYeah, Nosferatu, sorry.
DeleteOh yeah.
DeleteI really don't understand how it got 84% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Being charitable, I'd say people really wanted it to be good given the amount of dross that gets released, and also there was a big hype train. I think if you watch a lot of movies from different eras and genres, you can feel pretty early on that it's not quite working.
DeleteHahaha. Or maybe people like the cinematography and the aesthetics of it.
DeleteLugosi is someone you either love or you don't - I love him (though Dracula is a stodgy movie). My favorite performance of his is Dr. Mirakle in Murders in the Rue Morgue.
ReplyDeleteYou should see Island of Lost Souls (Based on H.G. Wells' Island of Doctor Moreau). Charles Laughton is great as the sadistic Moreau, and after the first two Frankenstein films, it might be the best of the original Universal Horrors. (Wells hated it.) I also have a half-ashamed fondness for Polanski's The Fearless Vampire Killers. I think it's the most successful of all horror-comedies. But...you know - Roman Polanski. (He didn't just direct it, he acts in it too.)
I agree about Jekyll and Hyde - March's performance is often derided as a "make-up" performance, but I think he's superb. There are some truly shocking moments of sexual sadism in that movie, and March doesn't flinch from them.
Thanks for the recommendations.
DeleteI think Fredric March is very good in it. I did wish the makeup was slightly less; the idea of Hyde looking like a monkey is not necessarily bad and I can understand the thinking behind it, but I wish it were slightly less monkey, more human, if you know what I mean.
Have you ever seen any of the movies produced by Val Lewton for RKO in the 1940's? (Cat People, The Leopard Man, Curse of the Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie, The 7th Victim, The Ghost Ship, The Body Snatcher, Bedlam, and Isle of the Dead.) Despite the cheesy titles, they're surprisingly subtle and oblique; they suggest rather than assert (Lewton didn't have the money for assertion), and though they're clearly B movies, they're quite good for what they are. The best are probably I walked with a Zombie (an offbeat riff on Jane Eyre, believe it or not), Cat People, the 7th Victim, and The Body Snatcher (based on the Stevenson story and which has Karloff's best non-Frankenstein performance).
DeleteI haven't seen them, but The Body Snatcher is the one I intend to see.
DeleteSaw The Black Cat (I know it's a different film) the other day but it's a stupid film.
Off topic, i was interested on your comment on Yorgos Lanthimos, how do you see him and the likes of jordan peele working on horror genre.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm the wrong person to talk about this, as I'm not a horror fan.
DeleteThese films appealed to me because of my interest in Frankenstein and Dracula and Jekyll & Hyde, not because of horror.