In our opinion, Frankenstein (1931) is the best kind of monster movie.
The film is only 70 minutes, but it’s richly layered with questions about life and death, and what it means to be human.
These same questions are sewn into the novel on which it is loosely based, Frankenstein: Or, the Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley. As you may recall from Greek mythology, Prometheus was a lesser god who created a man out of clay and stole fire from the greater gods to bring his clay man to life.
This is exactly what medical school dropout Henry Frankenstein* (Colin Clive) does to his creation in the film, a humanoid stitched together from pieces of dead bodies.
When he jump-starts the creature with electricity, he cries, “Now I know what it feels like to be God!”
Naturally, Frankenstein’s friends think his pursuits are vile, but he dismisses such short-sightedness. When he and his assistant, Fritz (Dwight Frye), unearth a freshly-buried corpse, Frankenstein is almost motherly. “He’s just resting,” he says reassuringly. “Just waiting for a new life to come.”
As horrific as Frankenstein’s actions are, they’re based on actual practices. According to Kathryn Harkup, author of Making the Monster: The Science Behind Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, medical students in the 1700s were, for the first time, allowed to dissect human bodies. “In 1752,” she writes, “[British] Parliament passed the Murder Act to allow the bodies of all murderers to be made available for anatomising…”¹
(This, incidentally, created many lucrative but unpleasant business ventures. Harkup says some condemned criminals pre-sold their corpses while awaiting execution; a few took payments from several different buyers.²)
Novelist Shelley apparently drew upon the life of a strange German alchemist named Johann Conrad Dippel†, who lived in Castle Frankenstein on the Rhine. Dippel developed an oil that, he claimed, could cure all diseases. He also performed experiments on human cadavers.³
Dippel was odd, but his experiments were not entirely unusual. Harkup says at the beginning of the 19th Century – Frankenstein was published in 1818 – “Science began to advance from an ad-hoc process, often carried out by wealthy individuals who had time and money to indulge their interests, to a professional process.”4
During this time, the Scientifically Inclined were exploring the connection between electricity and life, a form of galvanism.
Frankenstein’s lab, in the 1931 film, is a beautiful, art-deco workshop, built to withstand thousands of watts of electricity. When a storm rages outside, Fritz fusses over the electrodes, while Frankenstein notes the Electrical Potential in the air.
“The fascination with electricity in the Enlightenment period can be attributed to several factors,” says Harkup. “Until the 1720s electrical phenomena were scarcely known and still less understood. In a period of around 30 years, however, a tremendous amount of research was conducted with staggering results. … The power and potential of electricity seemed unlimited.”5
This reverence for electricity is stamped on the film. Look at the scene where the creature is brought to life during a ferocious storm. A burst of thunder powers the machines in the lab, and strings of electricity suddenly appear, dancing between pieces of equipment.
Frankenstein and Fritz raise the creature’s body to an opening in the roof, as though it were a sacrificial offering. Here, amidst jagged bolts of lightning, the body is charged with electricity.
After the storm abates and the creature is lowered, Frankenstein examines the results. He is stunned and thrilled when the creature’s hand starts to move.
That’s not all. Over the next few days, the creature begins to walk and respond to simple commands such as “Come in”, and “Sit down”.
Before long, the creature (Boris Karloff) develops more human traits, such as curiosity and fear. But, lacking a moral foundation and civil guidance, it becomes a danger to Society.
Frankenstein hunts down his creation. Image: Letterboxd
“In some ways, Frankenstein [the novel] can be seen as the summation of the previous century’s scientific achievements,” writes Harkup.6
The film captures this sense of scientific Wonder. The effects may look a bit dated in our era of CGI glitz, but director James Whale’s framing and composition still feel fresh. We want to be awestruck when we see how electricity can be harnessed, and he does not disappoint.
Frankenstein makes us feel like we’re standing at the edge of Fantastic Discovery, at a time when such discovery meant anything could be possible.
_______
*Frankenstein’s name in the movie is Henry; in the novel it is Victor. The novel does not provide great detail on how the creature is brought to life.
†Some sources dispute this.
Source
Harkup, Kathryn. (2018) Making the Monster: The Science Behind Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
¹Ibid., page 127.
²Ibid., page 128.
³Ibid., page 21.
4Ibid., page 15.
5Ibid., page 184.
6Ibid., page 21.
Frankenstein: starring Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, Boris Karloff. Directed by James Whale. Written by Garrett Ford & Francis Edwards Faragoh. Universal Studios, 1931, B&W, 70 mins.
Silver Screenings 
Hi. Have you read Shelley’s novel? I haven’t. I’ve heard that it’s real good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have read the novel and really liked it. It’s quite philosophical. I recommend it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always a favorite and a cautionary tale for scientists. In the novel, the creature is most articulate. I also adore Young Frankenstein.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The creature in the novel is quite articulate, isn’t he? I was surprised.
Oh yeah – Young Frankenstein! I love that the sets pay homage to the 1931 film. Gene Wilder is terrific in that film.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Our fascination with the story and its moral dilemma is heightened by Whales’ cinematic telling. There’s a reason Frankenstein is a classic in film history and the horror genre in particular.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You said it! Frankenstein is a film – and literary – classic for good reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A nice take on an oft-written about film. Any way you look at it, it’s a classic!
LikeLiked by 2 people
You got that right. It’s so well done in every way. Even though I’ve seen it a few times, that scene with the man carrying his daughter through the town makes me emotional every time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d never thought about the timing of the story before. What an interesting post! It makes me want to revisit the novel and see the movie. I didn’t know Mae Clarke was in it! That’s definitely a selling point for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, Mae Clarke doesn’t have a big role in this film, but she is wonderful just the same.
LikeLike
An interesting piece, Ruth: many thanks.
It’s surprising how much the movie differs from the novel in terms not just of the plot but of the science/technology. When I was commissioned years ago to write a children’s retelling of the novel, I reread it for the first time in decades and, having watched a registered 46,803 Frankenstein movies in the interim for The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, was startled to discover that all the stuff about the galvanic vivification of a patched-together corpse was original to this movie (and thereafter became an established part of the movie canon). The novel, by contrast, is distinctly unclear as to exactly the scientific process that Victor uses.
Natch, I tried to make the sci/tech in my retelling consonant with the novel’s hints. And, equally natch, there were a few folk who wondered why I’d “changed the original plot” by missing out the attic laboratory an’ the thunderstorm an’ Igor an’ . . . an’ . . . an’ . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for clarifying, John. It has been a few years since I read the novel and you’re right – the Coming-to-Life process is vague. I guess I got caught up in the movie, which I tend to do because of that great laboratory.
LikeLike
Thank you for your erudite contextual backstory of Shelley’s novel. Re: your title …unlimited potential of electricity – In the era of the film’s release that potential was becoming a reality for many parts of rural America. The TVA and other New Deal projects enabled millions of Americans to electrifry their lives in their own homes and the public entertainment milieu. Perhaps, for some, FRANKENSTEIN was their first movie viewing experience. As to viewing the movie have you seen THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE? It is the story of a 7yr.old girl in rural Spain in 1940 seeing the movie FRANKENSTEIN and the effect it has on her life.A wonderful film.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the heads up re: “The Spirit of the Beehive”. It sounds like a truly interesting film.
You make a good point about electricity and the 1930s in rural America. You’re probably right – the movie likely has more to do with that development than the novel itself.
LikeLike
THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE? . . . A wonderful film.
I echo that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What an interesting and insightful article. Frankenstein is one of my favourite classic Universal Monster pictures, always enjoy revisiting this halcyon era of horror 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s such a terrific film, isn’t it? Frankenstein never gets old for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, it s great horror classic. Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are such wonderful films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was mentioned. Love Elsa Lanchester in dual role as Mary Shelley and the bride. And the bride’s hair is an indelible image in the history of cinema
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bride of Frankenstein is a fantastic film as well, and Elsa Lanchester is indeed brilliant in the dual role of Shelly and the Bride. Frankenstein and the Bride are such iconic horror images.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just finished reading the novel. Any similarity between the film and its source seems to be purely coincidental. The movie is first-rate on its own (although the novel itself isn’t well-written) but misses the essence of what Shelley was trying to convey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right. The film is very loosely based on the novel, which I quite liked. I guess the flaw in my article was my excitement over learning about science in the Enlightenment era. Perhaps I should have left the movie out of it.
LikeLike
Although the novel was one of my favorites growing up, I’m afraid I haven’t yet seen the movie 😦 Although I have seen “Young Frankenstein” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Young Frankenstein” is a fun tribute to the 1931 film. I hope you get a chance to see the older film. It’s really well done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What an interesting and insightful article. Frankenstein is one of my favourite classic Universal Monster pictures as simply such a joy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! Frankenstein is one of my faves, too. I love everything about this film.
LikeLike
The Frankenstein lab was an amazing set and I believe it was used (or parts of it) in other movies, too. I like the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN, though wish it wish it would stayed closer to the book. But Karloff makes a huge impact as the Monster and the atmospheric B&W photography set a new standard for horror films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As much as I love the movie – and that great laboratory – it’s too bad the film doesn’t borrow more elements from the novel.
LikeLike
Another interesting tidbit is that Mary and Percy were friends with Humphry Davy, a chemist who, along with his more famous pupil Michael Faraday, created many metals using electricity from galvanic cells.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is interesting. Thanks!
LikeLike
Having just viewed again the 1920 German Expressionist THE GOLEM, one notices it’s influence on Whale’s FRANKENSTEIN. No electricity- rather the all enveloping mist of conjuring the powers of the dark one, Astaroth, to animate the clay composition of the Golem. There are variations on the tropes of fire and innocence of young girl.The most obvious borrowing is the monster’s stiff lurching ambulation. And most likely Shelley was aware of the 17th century Jewish folklore version of the Golem
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing this info! I’ve not seen The Golem, and I must find it ASAP.
LikeLike
I studied the novel at university–it’s a compelling story, especially the way Shelley creates empathy for the monster. The film is neat, especially for its time–I don’t think any of the more modern versions have done it any better!
LikeLiked by 2 people
True – Mary Shelley does create a lot of empathy for the creature. I didn’t expect that at all. And I agree that the 1931 film hasn’t yet been outdone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What a wonderful post. I agree, it’s a gorgeous and important film, with so many levels. I do, however, find it difficult to watch repeatedly because it makes me terribly sad. I’ve read the novel many times, have taught it, too (alongside the film), and the book never evokes such sadness because the monster is rendered, ultimately, as an equal to Frankenstein in his wisdom, and ability to articulate his feelings and understanding of his situation, abandonment, and shunning by society, rather than a creature who is not only grotesque to behold, but also primitive in speech and behavior. Offhand, I can think of only a handful of passages in literature more poignant and pointed than this, “‘Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even YOU turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow devils, to admire and encourage him, but I am solitary and abhorred.'” It still gives me chills every time I read it. Many thanks again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beautifully said. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Silver, fascinating as always! I enjoy your expression and insights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much for dropping by! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting to read where Shelley drew her inspiration from! Karloff’s performance is iconic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His performance is iconic. It’s almost impossible to imagine anyone else in the role, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s my favorite monster as well. He’s the only monster who displays a wide variety of emotions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a really good point re: Frankenstein’s range of emotions. I hadn’t really thought about that before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
I just love how the raised table scene is so iconic that it gets referenced in other places. (Like Better Off Dead)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! So true! It just shows the enduring power of good filmmaking, no?
LikeLike
I’ve always thought the concept of animating stitched-together body parts with electricity was quaint. Love your exploration into the history behind it – by turns, fascinating and bizarre.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! I know exactly what you mean. Me too!
LikeLike
I think Frankenstein was the start of great horror shows..what a classic!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said it! Also, the director was quite artistic with the cinematography, so it set a high standard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As always I love your posts. How can I stay connected? Can you add me to your email list for notices when you blog? Don’t forget me I’ll be at http://www.kathllenlynagh.com now…
LikeLiked by 1 person
when I add my email to your list WP tells me it is not valid email.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What?! Ack! I can email you from my gmail account every time I post. And if you want to “unsubscribe” from me I understand. 🙂
LikeLike
No I want to hear from you – part of why I moved from WP to Squarespace – I just stopped using WP. But I do like your work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! Can you send me you email address? If you don’t want to post it here, you can send it to 925screenings [at] gmail [dot] com.
LikeLike
This is a great insightful article. Your style of writing is clear, concise and precise, and I very much enjoyed reading this great article. I should read Mary Shelley’s novel – Frankeinstein. Thank you for sharing. Have a great weekend
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much for your kind words! I hope you have the chance to read Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. The novel has a lot of sympathy for the creature.
LikeLike