Both films' interpretations of their respective title characters have become the defacto cultural referent against which all others are compared (I know Frankenstein is the scientist and not the creation, but that the cultural artifact that is Frankenstein IS the creation is precisely my point). However, influence and cultural impact don't really speak to the actual qualities of a work so I want to examine the movies themselves. Both are appreciated as unassailable classics but did they get that designation from managing to be influential or due to some superior qualities?
Frankenstein:
I want to begin with Frankenstein given that I find it more interesting to discuss. My experience with the film was... surprising. First off I was surprised at the runtime, being only an hour and 10 minutes. I distinctly remember the first time I saw this film years ago I fell asleep roughly halfway through and that means I fell asleep after about only 35 minutes... granted I was probably watching it fairly late one night, but damn only 35 minutes. I also remember the movie being a lot longer like somewhere around the 2 hour mark. Upon revisiting the film today I have an explanation for this. Ya'll ready for a hot take cause this one is a bit of a doozy... Frankenstein (1931) kinda sucks. Its not out and out bad or poorly made, but its really not good. A lot of this lies in the treatment of its characters.
Henry Frankenstein (renamed from Victor for some unknown reason) is shockingly inconsistent. In contrast to his counterpart in the book, he genuinely cares for his creation and doesn't want to see him harmed even after he himself is injured in a struggle with the monster that is until Dr. Waldman promises that he will kill the monster. After that point Henry seems completely unbothered by his assumption that Waldman has done as he promised and that the monster is dead. Henry even leads the angry mob against the monster later in the film. Henry's dramatic change in attitude towards his creation seems completely unprompted.
People familiar with the broader context of Frankenstein's many iterations and adaptations may balk at my description of Frankenstein's creation as a monster, but for this movie version the description is entirely accurate. The monster, while sympathetically presented in some scenes with a child-like naivete, is unquestionably othered throughout the film. Fritz, (a character invented for this adaptation that many may better recognize by the name Igor) accidentally damages the "normal" brain he intended to steal from a lab and grabs an "abnormal" criminal brain instead. The movie makes the distinction between these two brains using Dr. Waldman and at no point challenges Waldman's assertion that these two brains are structurally different. This others the Monster by suggesting it is in his nature to be violent and has no choice in the matter. This not only justifies the angry mob but also has some rather worrying ideological implications.
Frankenstein as a film suggests that a predisposition toward violence is a biological phenomenon, and therefore likely has some genetic component. Whether intended or not this lends credence to the perspective of scientific racism that echos the pseudoscience of phrenology that was used (and in some corners of society is still used) to defend racial oppression. This lends the film a very uncomfortable theme in a modern context that can't really be ignored. Henry Frankenstein is initially the only one who sees his creation's positive potential but by the end it seems that he was proven wrong and his mistake in not killing the creature right away led to his death.
Now the movie isn't 100% terrible. Boris Karloff's performance is supreme. He never speaks a word, but his physicality tells a complete character and story. The visuals of the first half of the film where Henry completes his creation and defends his monster's existence perfectly utilize the aesthetic and themes of German expressionism. It's just a shame that all of that good goes out the window after we leave the Gothic setting and morally complex themes halfway through for a brightly lit and rather mundane wedding celebration that is attacked by an unthinking monster. It's no wonder I fell asleep halfway through that first time.
Dracula:
I'll fully admit to having an affinity for vampire mythology. Vampires speak to a very attractive social power fantasy that I can relate to far better than Frankenstein's "mad scientist". Vampires are refined, and charismatic. They're also, both positively and negatively, representational of othered sexualities. LGBTQ coding and vampires have always been linked, and I can't help but to pick up some of that in Dracula. Most obviously throughout the film is the relationship between Dracula and Renfield. It's hardly a fresh take that there is some kind of dominant/submissive subtext going on between the two. Renfield is all too eager to debase himself before his self-avowed "master" by eating bugs and rats, and very eager to serve. Dracula's hypnotic powers and intimate mode of feeding also feed directly into a very sexualized BDSM subtext.
This is, of course, very problematic as Dracula is very much othered and vilified by the film and Renfield is seen as an unfortunate victim. However, I find this bothers me less than Frankenstein's scientific racist undertones. Mostly because viewing Dracula through a modern lens mitigates some of its anti-BDSM anti-LGBTQ themes. The implication of two men being in a gay D/S relationship isn't as innately shocking now as it might have been in 1931 and religious institutions are now not as trusted. This makes Dracula's dangerous predations separable from his queer coding and fear of religious iconography.
Also on a pure filmmaking level Dracula is a far more cohesive experience than Frankenstein. While, much like Frankenstein, the Gothic, German Expressionistic, aesthetic is dialed back after leaving Dracula's castle. Many scenes still retain the harsh shadows and surreal sets to echo the dark uneasy feeling such elements create. Characters also don't undergo radical unexplained shifts in their personality or beliefs, and as good as the physicality of Boris Karloff's monster is, Bela Lugosi's Dracula is on an entirely different level. There is a subtlety to his movement and presence that has a chilling effect on any scene that he is in, and that STARE. The repeated extreme close up on Bela's eyes as he employs his hypnotic powers is best described as hypnotic. From the brief few seconds we see it I can fully believe that Dracula's stare alone could hypnotize people.
So there are my thoughts on Dracula and Frankenstein. It's somewhat shocking to go back to a widely acclaimed movie like Frankenstein and find it to be a bit of a mess, but certain films have a way of becoming unassailable institutions in their own right whether deserved or not. It's also probably a good thing that I got my toes wet in some problematic classics as Thursday's film is Gone With the Wind the highest grossing film of all time (adjusted for inflation), and also a glorification of the Civil War and reconstruction era south. yay.
No comments:
Post a Comment