Frankenstein (1931)
After watching the 1931 version of
the hit horror classic Frankenstein, a lot of things were running through my
mind. Mostly we discussed these things in class but what I didn’t get a chance
to bring up in class was a parallel I saw with this movie and the 1933 movie
King Kong. Maybe everyone knows the story to King Kong maybe somebody doesn’t
so real quick I will throw out a loose synopsis. Basically some nature
filmmakers mount an expedition to this strange uncharted island. On the island
there are villagers who make female sacrifices to King Kong, a giant, oversized
gorilla type ape. The gorilla after encountering the female actress the
filmmakers were going to use through the villagers kidnapping of her, takes her
into the jungle and battles dinosaurs intent on killing her. She is rescued by
her filmmaker pals and they manage to capture Kong and bring him back to New
York City to display him as the “8th wonder of the world!”
Basically, Kong escapes, wrecks up the city a bunch then snags the actress, and
carries her to the top of the Empire State Building where he sets her down to
duke it out with some bi-planes shooting at him. Eventually Kong succumbs to
the gunfire from the airplanes and falls dead on the street. You are probably
wondering where does this fit in with Frankenstein?
It’s almost exactly what happens to
Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster!
Hear me out. The Monster is brought
back from an uncharted place where Dr. Frankenstein attempts to put on a show
bringing him to life. It goes horribly wrong and the Monster, wrecks up the
town, and nabs Frankenstein. The Monster takes Frankenstein up to the tallest
building around, the windmill, and then proceeds to yell at villagers as they
yell back and eventually kill him. Both Kong and the Monster die for the
un-returned affection they have for the “main characters” of their respective
movies. Kong, for the beautiful actress, the Monster for his creator and gay
love interest.
The gay love interest part we did
talk about in class a little and I will extrapolate that out a bit as well.
Essentially, Dr. Frankenstein is gay. He doesn’t want to marry his fiance because
he knows he has these feelings which manifest themselves in the creation of the
“gay lover,” the Monster, or his own “gayness”. He then spends the rest of the
movie having people tell him he is crazy or sick, while he tries to pretend he
still wants to be married. He then has a physical battle with the Monster, and it
is killed by society. This can be taken as a subtle way for the director to
talk about gay people in the society of his time, and his own struggle with
being gay and its overall rejection by society.
Another interesting parallel I have
found is the one between this film and the 1910 version of Frankenstein. In the
scene where the Monster attacks the bride of Frankenstein, we deal with the
suspense as the Monster follows her around the room and having the knowledge of
what is about to happen. This is similar to the use of the mirror in the 1910
version as the Monster comes through the door and we, the audience, know he is
there while the actor in the room does not. This horror film trick draws the
audience in and makes us part of the action because we want to scream at the
actors to tell them what’s going on behind them. Horror films today use this
method all the time and its always creepy and scary. It’s like seeing a car
accident, you see what’s about to happen and you don’t have the time to help by
saying anything but you also can’t avert your eyes.
I certainly see the parallels, Sergio, and you do a fine job of working through them in this energetic post. I'm sure we could speak of many other connections, too (horror films begin to haunt each other), but here's one that immediately comes to my mind: both films have moments (and one major moment each) when they identify themselves as produced spectacles that interrogate the audience's preconceived ways of seeing. That's maybe a tad wordy, so I'll identify the scenes. In Frankenstein, I'm referring to all the set up proceeding the famous "It's alive!" moment, when Henry positions his audience and prepares them for the spectacle and even calls the entire event, not an event, but a scene. Comparatively, there is King Kong chained on stage in the theater toward the finale of that film: the audience enjoys gaping at the restrained creature until, you know, it breaks free. Talk about a spectacle jumping out at you. Arguably, both audiences in the narrative are stand ins for actual audience expectations. Thanks for this enthusiastic post. Again, I think your comparisons are plausible--and often spot on. --MH
ReplyDelete