That was a blast.... Not sure how I'll manage the midweek/ later viewings, someone might have to wake me up half way through next time. ::cool::

I enjoyed it as well. Glad i was able to take part. I'm gonna try and do the others as well

Yes!! That was a lot of fun. I can actually probably schedule next Sunday's earlier if that's better for you; I went to King Richard's Faire today (dorky pictures to follow) so I wanted to make sure that I got home in time to set stuff up.

...

So I think we had a pretty successful viewing!! Straker and Villain were able to make it - HF could hear and see us (and I translated through her texts), and my friend Mike attempted to join in as well.

So this is the first time that I've seen Frankenstein since I was very very young - Here is what stood out to me:

• The "Warning" at the beginning of the movie from the "Host" - I had absolutely forgotten about that as being the opener for the movie; I had forgotten about how iconic those kinds of introductions are (makes me think of Simpsons' Tree House of Horror and Rocky Horror Picture Show - I understand no what they're emulating).
• The set pieces were phenomenal - From the cemetery at the beginning to the castle; I loved how the director used light and shadow and truly framed each shot.
• Colin Clive as Doctor Frankenstein - He really embodied the part. What stood out to me particularly is that he made me think a LOT Jeffrey Combs's Herbert West in Re-Animator (a now obvious parallel) - I was just so struck by Clive; his appearance wan and harried.
• The scene with the little girl really moved me; in terms of what I remember from the last time I saw the movie (20+ years ago), that's one of the scenes I remember - And it still moves me now - It's sad (making you realize that he has the mentality of an infant) and it's truly horrifying (realizing that he doesn't have the concept of what it is to be "alive" and how easy it is to snuff out that life).
• I also thought the scene with Fritz hanging was especially powerful, as it's our first glimpse into the Monster's strength.
• What's also interesting is to look at the true differences between filmmaking then and filmmaking now - The scenes are shorter, and with no score it really does feel sparse. I found myself distracted at times (though, to be fair, it could have been me chatting - I was trying to strike a balance between watching the movie and chatting with folks

I think what I enjoyed most about this movie was the iconic scenes, the direction, and set pieces - I was more interested in these visuals than I was with the dialogue.

I'm super-psyched to watch Bride of Frankenstein, which I haven't seen before.



Oh, man - The opening really is horrible. But stick with it. Pleeeeeeeeeease. The climax is really what did it for me. SO GREAT.



I haven't read the novel! I really should. And HF & Villain brought up Curse, too. I'll have to see if I can track that down (either that or Poltergeist, so I can participate in Villian's Viewings too!)

So now I want to hear about Curse of Frankenstein - Please elaborate!

Starts when Victor Frankenstein is a young boy, and follows his life with a tutor with whom he conducts his experiments. It's very different from Universal's Frankenstein, but has some similar points (fiancee/wife that the creature goes after). It's always interested me seeing Peter Cushing portray a villain. In Hammer's versions, the good Doctor is definitely a villain, not the sympathetic person in the Universal movies.

Cool! Interesting to hear the differences in the Monster/Doctor portrayals!

Just saw on FB you said you'd never seen Bride of F, and here you say Young Frank is one of your favorites. Wait till you've watched Bride and then watched Young F again- a lot of the jokes come from Bride... and Son of F as well...

Wasn't able to find full Frankenstein 1931 on YouTube but remember it somewhat. So I chose to watch Teenage Frankenstein 1957. A descendent of Victor Frankenstein's decides to put his theories to test on a modern day teenager. Conveniently, while describing his plans to an associate, a horrific car crash outside his home provides him with his human guinea pig!

Bit of a spoiler ahead. Even though his laboratory is in the basement, there is apparently a basement in the basement where he keeps crocodiles to eat his "leftovers".. ::confused::. All in all, good fun.

I second Hammer's Curse and also like to recommend its first 4 sequels! Love them all! Cushing owned the part by every means! A year or two ago, I had even a special Hammer's Frankenstein Movie Marathon just before the Halloween....it was a blast!::cool::

Well, I didn't manage to concentrate on the movie to much last night due to some technical issues both with my connection to the room and my inability to multitask successfully, but I'll get to grips with that next time.

One thing I would suggest though is that you add a little Hammer to your watch list, if you can make room. I know that Villain said he hadn't seen any (most?) of the hammer vampire flicks and you (Chrono) haven't seen much hammer either. I think Dracula (1958) aka Horror of Dracula would make a great addition to your marathon. Its one of the benchmarks of the modern vampire genre and as close to essential viewing as almost anything in the horror genre.

Also, the most surreal moment of the evening, for me, was listening to a bunch of Americans, who know way more than me about Dr. Who, gossiping away about David Tennant, and whoever else has taken over the role in recent years..... Anything post Sylvester McCoy goes over my head. ::embarrassment::

Oh man - I can't wait!



hahaha - I haven't even heard of that one... And, what, YOU don't have a basement within a basement for YOUR crocodiles?? ::wink::





Yeah, I really should. I'm curious about Curse of Frankenstein and would love to see their Horror of Dracula - I'll see what I can fit in (just sent away for Poltergeist to participate in Villain's thread!!

hahaha - And I assumed all you Brits watched Dr. Who! ::wink::


...


OK Folks! Tonight's viewing is the iconic Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

I'll be back here before 8:00 p.m. EST with the Live Chat link (though I will probably be less talky since I haven't seen this one!) - I'm so psyched!

Not sure yet which Frankenstein movie I'll be watching. I'll let you know before 8:00!

I just want to comment on Curse of Frankenstein, which was a topic of discussion in this thread earlier. I had already discussed it previously, but I just want to say it is my second favorite Frankenstein adaptation after Frankenstein (1931). The characters appeared appropriately complex and it is fascinating to observe the deterioration of the relationship of Dr. Frankenstein and his friend Paul, as well as Dr. Frankenstein more broadly. The thing with Dr. Frankenstein is that he is definitely an immoral character, but it is far from black and white. He really does feel he is doing good and that he will be vindicated. At the same time, he does many horrendous things. There is a certain tragic element to his character. Sadly, the sequels do sort of undo the greatness of the ending, but they are still good nonetheless. The film also includes some really good effects and is in color, a trademark of Hammer films of the period. As alluded to earlier, there are some tremendous performances in this film. Peter Cushing was particularly excellent, but there really are many shining performances. The person who played Paul delivered a good performance as well. Christopher Lee was interesting as the monster, a role he played very differently than the 31 original. The role did not allow him the room to act as later films like Horror of Dracula will, but he still did really well within the confines of his character. Definitely frightening even by today's standards. There really is much more, but that is a good summary of many of the things I enjoyed. In my honest opinion, the film has held up remarkably well and is easily my favorite of the Hammer films. As a historical note, this is the first major Hammer film which re-adapted the films made by Universal Studios.

Excellent review, metternich! If I hadn't already seen it, I'd be stoked to watch it!

Don't think I'll make tonight's viewing, the midweek slots are a bit on the late side for me.... Sunday slots are fine for me, so I'll make sure I get to as many of those as possible and hit the odd midweek slot when I can.

Hope you guys watching Bride have a good one, looking forward to see what you guys make of it, one of my favourites.

I'll be watching House of Frankenstein (1944)

Deranged scientist, Gustav Niemann (Boris Karloff), escapes from prison and overtakes the director of a traveling chamber of horrors. Pulling the stake out of a skeleton, he revives the infamous Count Dracula (John Carradine) and commands him to kill the man responsible for his imprisonment. He then finds the frozen Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) and the Wolfman (Lon Chaney, Jr.) buried under the ruins of the infamous Frankenstein laboratory. When he brings them back to life, the Monster is uncontrollable and drags him to a watery grave.

Agreed and agreed! I really need to grab it from Netflix!

I figured as much - Rest up so you can stay up late with us on Sunday! ::cool::



Is this your first time seeing it? I can't believe there are so many Frankenstein movies!!

...

OK, Folks! Joined a little earlier this time around - My DVD is primed and ready for 8:00.

I am really excited to watch Bride of Frankenstein - She is just so beautiful, so iconic; I really think this will help round out some of my Frankenstein viewing.


Meeting.io URL for tonight:

http://m1.io/lEekFEGi5Mo

BTW, there seem to be issues if you're watching the movie on your computer and trying to use your mic. Good thing is that the Chat seems to work well.

I'll be putzing around for the next 17 minutes, so don't freak if you see an empty chair!

No, not my first time watching it, I own the DVD. ::wink::

I won't be able to text you this time, my phone is charging, and it doesn't reach to the computer. I'll have to chat with you here or on Facebook.


Yep



I wish we were watching the same movie, but you're finding out about new movies to watch

Yeah... We're watching different movies and people are watching me on the Video Chat WITHOUT REVEALING THEMSELVES>

Creeps. I should charge for this. ::stick out tongue::

That would probably be me...lol. I am having the same issue as hammerfan (in terms of finding the chat button) and I do not have a webcam on this computer.

OH! I feel better then. ::cool::

Can you see the chat box? We can chat after the movie.

My nephew was giving me advice on what equipment to buy (webcam and microphone). It's going to have to wait, don't have the money right now.

I do not see a chat box on there.

Oh good, it's not just me! ::wink::

Ugh - That's weird.. And annoying. Sorry, guys! Even on the FAQ it just says:

How do I use the chat?
To use chat, select the chat button on the toolbar underneath your video panel. When you have selected chat, the chat panel will slide up for you to use. You will be able to chat with all other users in the room.

::sad::

An interesting sidenote, I actually just purchased the Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (which I already own as part of my Universal Legacy Wolf Man collection) and House of Frankenstein double feature over this past weekend. Hope to get it sometime this week. One thing I do not like about the Universal DVD releases are that they are all full screen. It's not too bad, I just am not a big fan of the bars on the side, though you adjust to it after a short while.

Guys. Would you kill me if I said I thought the end was abrupt and slightly disappointing? ::embarrassment::

I can see that, but I am not sure where else they could take it. In some ways, there is a certain brilliance to that because it is so unexpected. Like you mentioned elsewhere, the film is named "Bride of Frankenstein", yet the bride is only a very minor character. Interestingly, James Whale, the director of the film, was actually openly homosexual (a rare thing back then). Some have suggested that plays into the idea of the bride rejecting the monster. There is definitely some complexity to that particular scene. On a related note, while this was probably not something that Whale directly intended, one thing that the film had me thinking about was in relation to mental illness. Often, individuals are shunned and the like because society does not understand them. As an openly homosexual individual, I am sure that Whale can understand that. In fact, many people then actually regarded that as a mental illness and for many years it was treated as such (this finally began to change in the 1970s). In the same way, the monster is simply misunderstood. When he is actually treated like a normal person, he is able to develop sufficiently. There is little doubt that rejection is an important element to the film that Whale clearly intended, even if he did not directly intend the meaning I got out of the film. Of course, there are many other fascinating themes throughout the film. Religion is a recurring theme. There are many religious objects and other references (such as the "archbishop"). Definitely a complex and multi-layered film. By the way, the name you were looking for was Peter Cushing.

You realize, of course, that this is the original aspect ratio of the films. Correct?


I'd think about it.

I just want the film to fit my screen. I am not very knowledgeable from a technical standpoint.

So, you'd want them to chop off the top and bottom of the picture to make the film conform to modern screen size?

I'd rather see the whole picture.

Can't they show the whole picture and make it fit modern screens. If not, then, yes, I agree I would prefer to see the whole picture. I would just deal with the bars on the side.

I was able to watch only the first half today. It is more humorous than remembered. Love the Franken-slap.

metternich1815 - That's a fascinating analysis. I actually feel really ignorant for my comment because, honestly, it's the perfect ending-

If we're thinking about rejected for being considered a "Monster" and you're presented with something (someone) who is very much LIKE you but hasn't been tainted through society - That person is horrified of you - It's a perfect but very sad ending. The rejection absolutely had to happen.

I love the reading that he is being rejected by Heterosexual Love as well...

It sounds really simple to say "Well, it's called The Bride of Frankenstein," but that wasn't necessarily the crux of my disappointment - We get so much character development from him in this movie that I was just hoping to deconstruct her further -

But like most other characters in the film, she is mostly there to reject him (I understand it; as a female horror fan, I would have liked to see more of her as the second abomination)...


A few other notes that I took...

I loved the "meta" beginning with Shelley, Byron, and Shelley - That was absolutely unexpected and setting it up as a tale within a tale added another element of grotesque fantasy to it - I was also very interested in the portrayal of Mary, who was both grotesque but also, ultimately weak (needing to be held up, much like the Bride).
I loved that this movie had comedy in it
And I loved the religious imagery; when they literally tie The Monster to a cross... That was truly disturbing.
Also - The concept of this other Mad Doctor 'growing' people - I wanted to explore that a bit more, especially the microcosm of Beauty (the Queen), Lust (the King), Guilt/Abstinence/Fascism (The Archbishop), and The Devil - It was interesting that he put aside the miracle of GROWING life for the twisted science of "reanimating" life
The conversation of what is "Good" and what is "Bad" is an interesting commentary on the false dichotomy of Dualism (just as the Doctors are trying to create the Yin to his Yang, it's impossible; there isn't just black and white or right and wrong)
Definitely very very layered; I think I'd need to watch it again before analyzing it further.

Just the rant at the top of my head - I needed to compose my thoughts and say farewell to my friend before returning.

Also - This was definitely an interesting experience; keeping the video feed on, even though you and HF couldn't really participate, but could obviously hear (and see?) us - Made me think about people who post movie reactions to YouTube; was that what the experience was like for you? Watching us react to the movie?

I was hoping for more interactive dialogue and am totally bummed that technology thwarted us BUT I like that we were able to interact, even if it's delayed.

Also - I really wish your microphone worked so that you could school us on Hammer Films! I think I made a comment of, "If they can hear me, they're probably yelling at the screen..." ::wink::

So far, I've found the main themes (the pathologization and rejection of the abnormal) and symbolism (of religion) rather generic (though, the portentous owl bit is hilarious). From memory, it is not until the end that a new more important theme emerges.

Ooo. Looking forward to the rest of your analysis!

Yes, it really is a brilliant ending which parallels the idea of rejection. Also, the scene has a certain classical feeling to it. It reminds me of the classical tragedies of Greece where the heroes sacrifice themselves in the name of love. In this case, the "monster" believes it better that both of their lives end, so that the "bride" should not have to endure the rejection he has experienced. An interesting reaction considering that he, himself, was rejected by her. If you think about it the film, more generally possess a tragic element. The monster only wishes to be treated normally, but is hated and denounced and there are a number of negative things that occur that only feed into the villager's mistaken idea like when the blind man's house was burned down.

Yes, I have always enjoyed that beginning, though it is interesting that they do not return to it, it sort of reminds of a play by Shakespeare known as the Taming of the Shrew. In that play, there is something known as the Induction where the character of Christopher Sly is convinced he is a lord when he is really a peasant. He then adopts the role, while everyone around carries that idea on and treat him as such (a prank devised by an actual lord). Sly then is convinced to attend a play, which is called the Taming of the Shrew (sort of a play within a play). Sadly though, the play does not really return to that particular subplot. In the same way, Bride of Frankenstein introduces that as a way to introduce the film, but does not really explore that more fully. Granted, to add that at the end would sort of destroy the brilliance of the ending, so perhaps that is for the better. I just feel like more could have been done on that front, maybe I am way off on that.

Yes, the religious themes were of particular note and it is interesting to see that particular allusion. In fact, I suppose the ending could also be seen as a religious allusion. The "monster" is sort of a Christ-like figure. He has been hated and abused and at the end decides to sacrifice himself for what he considers the greater good. Also, the idea of creating a monster and a female for him is definitely a parallel to the Christian story of Adam and Eve. The film is clearly exploring the idea of man playing God and in both cases it does not work out as well as was planned (though I am sure there is some disagreement on this from a Christian theological standpoint). I am sure there are many other religious explorations, but those are some off the top of my head.

That is an interesting analysis of that particular scene. I had always not known what to make of that particular scene. There is a definite surreal aspect to the scene. It is interesting that the archbishop has a particular role, but yet fails to truly fulfill it. In much the same way, the Catholic Church had supported the regime of Adolf Hitler in the same period. I doubt that that is what Whale intended as he does not possess the knowledge that we do, but that is what it reminded me of. There is definitely alot more to that scene. I definitely need to watch it again and pay very close attention to it, so I can get a better understanding of it. As is common in films of this nature, there was definitely alot of exploration of the idea of the old order. In this case, we see the secular and religious structures as manifested by the king, queen, and archbishop. We also see the religious objects previously discussed. One scene that I was thinking about in particular was the one where the "monster" topples the statue of the archbishop or whatever it was. I wonder if that symbolized the idea of the end of the old order. The Dr. (can't think of his name) also referenced the idea of them being burned at the stake as wizards. Another reference to the old order. I cannot help to think that this is an intentional reference by Whale.

Yes, I agree. That is definitely an important theme of this film. The villagers often see things such as the "monster" as black and white. When, in reality, things are far more complicated than that.

Another thing I would like to bring up briefly is the idea of the blind man. I think that is a particularly intriguing scene. As discussed previously, what the monster wants more than anything is to be be accepted. In the case of the blind man, he cannot judge the "monster" on outward appearances. As such, they develop a good, if brief, friendship. During that period, the "monster" clearly develops his cognitive abilities. This will be further enhanced when he is employed as an equal by that doctor. I just found that whole idea fascinating. It is interesting to see how this film is still so relevant to this day, even if not in the same way as was originally intended. There is definitely a great deal of complexity and nuance. In my opinion, this film was significantly better in terms of character development as compared to the original 1931 film. This is not to take away from that film, it is just to comment on the richness of this film. Of course, this is primarily true of the "monster". Though there are certainly other characters that were not fully developed. I would have liked to have seen more development of Henry Frankenstein in particular and, of course, we already noted the female "monster."

Yes, that was what it was like. It was a little strange, but then again I am not all that familiar with telepresence and related technologies. I really wish the site would have had the chat feature as it states it does. I would love to have chatted in that way while the film was ongoing. Still, I think we have had a good conversation here though. Yes, I am sure between me and hammerfan, we could have really been useful in that regard. The Hammer films are quite good, by the way. I have seen quite a number. I really want to reiterate Curse of Frankenstein. Like Bride, that film is very complex and nuanced. That is what I love about it. The only time I was yelling at the screen was when you could not think of Cushing's name...lol.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by generic, so I cannot really comment on your statement. Personally, I thought those themes were very well explored in a very novel way. I am curious, what theme in particular?

These themes and symbols are and were overdone, even back then (not that being generic is necessarily bad). The new theme, again from memory, involves the battle within the realm of science and the frequent partial reliance (in method or theory) of new science on old/rejected science.

Yes, they are common themes, but it is all in how they are explored that matters. In my opinion, the film explored them in a very novel way that really adds to the body that already exists. I definitely agree that this film deserves its iconic status. There is so much in this film and several ways it can be interpreted. Yes, I agree that was an important theme of the film. It was a very excellent one an that. That goes into what I mentioned about the old versus new order.

Bollox. Save us from hipster cynicism.


A film is not made of silly putty, you know. You can't stretch it or compress it at will. Any time you see a movie filmed in the old aspect ratio of 1.33:1 on a wide screen and there are no stripes along the sides, then the image has been cropped on the top and bottom.
Any time you see a wide screen movie shown on an old set and it doesn't have dark bands at the top and bottom, it's been cropped on the sides.

That's the only way to do it. There's no magic way to refilm old movies.

There's nothing cynical about it. It's a fact of science.

Sorry, I haven't fully read the earlier posts, but I'll browse them after I finish the movie.