.
.
THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)
…in which a certain aristocrat decides to dabble in science…
.
A work of great importance however you look at it—for revitalising the horror film, for its breakthrough use of colour, for pushing the boundaries of censorship, for turning Hammer Studios from a struggling wannabe into a brand name…
…and for introducing Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.
.
.
“This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship…”
.
Liz Kingsley is the insane genius behind And You Call Yourself a Scientist!
#1 by RogerBW on August 20, 2015 - 11:52 am
Quote
I somehow hadn’t got this one placed properly in the Hammer chronology. Interesting to see that, while Not Copying Universal Honest, there was still no attempt to go near the actual story in the novel but to concentrate on the grr argh school of storytelling.
#2 by lyzard on August 31, 2015 - 8:33 pm
Quote
Oh yes, this is The One.
Lee’s reaction to having no lines makes me wonder if at some point their was some consideration of going back to the book – or maybe it was just bait – he even fell for that line when Jess Franco pitched it, after all.
#3 by El Santo on August 21, 2015 - 12:54 pm
Quote
“We have, I think, and in spite of the length and variety of his career, more or less internalised the image of Peter Cushing in his savant / mentor roles, like Dr Van Helsing; as an immovable force for good; partly because he played those roles so well, and partly, perhaps, because those characters seemed to reflect what we felt of the man behind the actor.”
Heh. When I watched The Curse of Frankenstein for the first time, I thought of Cushing mainly as Governor Tarkin and the old Nazi from Shock Waves.
#4 by lyzard on August 31, 2015 - 8:35 pm
Quote
Yes, I *am* older than you; thanks for bringing it up. 😀
I suppose the best point of comparison here is with Boris Karloff – it’s natural to think of both him and Cushing in their “good guy” parts because that’s what seemed to come naturally, but both of them created some wonderful villains.
#5 by The Rev. on September 2, 2015 - 11:21 pm
Quote
I tend to think of Karloff’s villain roles, myself. On the other hand, I naturally think of Christopher Lee’s “good guy” roles. (Well, those and Lord Summerisle.) Of course, we’ve already established that my thought processes give Lyz much to ponder, so…
No disagreement on Cushing, though.
#6 by BenEverett on August 22, 2015 - 2:04 pm
Quote
To all of the B-Masters: It’s just wonderful that you all are using your respective platforms to pay tribute to the life and career of Mr. Lee. Thank you all very much for all of your hard work and dedication. It has been a real treat for you to be able to share your thoughts with us these past 15+ years and I know I’m not alone in hoping that you will continue to do so for many more to come.
Liz,
I’m extremely happy that you talked about this groundbreaking film. I was first introduced to the B-Masters after visiting your website many years ago (back during the bluemountain days) and have always made a point of checking in at least once a week to see what’s new. AYCYAS may not be the most high profile film site, but I think it is one of the best out there. Your reviews are some of the most enjoyable it has ever been my pleasure to read, online or anywhere else. They are consistently engrossing and well-articulated, evidence that their author holds the material (and by extension, the readers) to very high standards.
I’ve been a tremendous admirer of Terence Fisher for quite some time. He remains one of my favorite film makers and my all-time favorite director in the horror field (though he would have preferred the term ‘fantasy’). He was never much of an auteur in the traditional sense, and would be the first person to point out the contributions of his collaborators. Fisher thrived working within the confines of the British studio system at the time, as opposed to working against it. And because his best work was produced for Hammer, his films nowadays tend to be evaluated within the context of Hammer Films or “Hammer Horror” as opposed to the genre as a whole. It isn’t Fisher’s “The Curse of Frankenstein” so much as it is Hammer’s “Curse…”, which might be how he would have preferred it anyway. Understandably, can make things difficult for those who want to emphasize his unique contributions and importance. Nevertheless, his Gothic films are distinct and consistent in their thematic elements and technical precision even within the parameters of what has come to be known as the “Hammer” style. His five “Frankenstein” films that he directed for Hammer represent the finest series of films to come from the genre thus far, in my opinion. Considering your background, I’m very keen to know your personal take on these films and how you feel that they compare to or may have otherwise impacted the genre(s) as you have come to experience it up to now. Hopefully you will take a look and review a few more of them in the future.
Until then, take care and keep up the excellent work!
#7 by lyzard on August 31, 2015 - 8:39 pm
Quote
Wow, Ben, all I can say is “thank you”, and that I’m sure I speak for all of us when I say that we’re very glad you enjoy what we do here.
The Hammer films have been on my endless “I really need to get around to that” list for as long as I can remember, and it’s been great to have a concrete opportunity to make a start (although of course I wish the circumstances had been different).
I do have another Hammer Film on the shortlist although not a Terence Fisher one…
#8 by Jen S 1.0 on August 23, 2015 - 2:51 am
Quote
I can’t wait to see this now! From the description Frankenstein comes across as a Doctor Moreau who couldn’t be arsed to hide on an island. He’s a Baron and he does what he wants. Now, hop up on this table…
#9 by El Santo on August 24, 2015 - 1:33 pm
Quote
“a Doctor Moreau who couldn’t be arsed to hide on an island.”
Oh yes, very much so. Cushing’s Frankenstein is one of the most magnificent bastards in the annals of film. Better yet, with the weird exception of The Evil of Frankenstein (in which Hammer took advantage of their distribution deal with Universal to make the Universal-style Frankenstein film they were afraid to in 1957), it’s a characterization that remains remarkably consistent throughout all the sequels.
#10 by lyzard on August 31, 2015 - 8:42 pm
Quote
Jen, yes, if you haven’t seen it you certainly must!
The development – or degeneration – of the character over the series is very thoughtfully and cleverly done. I think Revenge Of Frankenstein is the best of the lot but they’ve all got something fascinating to offer in spite of certain flaws.
#11 by ronald on August 24, 2015 - 12:23 pm
Quote
Have I mentioned how one of my favorite parts of your reviews is the image captions?
😉
#12 by lyzard on August 31, 2015 - 8:44 pm
Quote
Yes. Have I mentioned that captioning or not is on a film-by-film basis, according to my reaction to that film?
In fact if that’s all you’re here for you might want to skedaddle for a while, as there are no captions in the foreseeable future.
#13 by supersonic man on August 28, 2015 - 7:11 am
Quote
I was underwhelmed with this film, and didn’t realize how historically important it was. I’m in the middle of the sequel The Horror Of Frankenstein (1970) right now, which retreads all the same ground with younger actors and less subtlety. I am definitely not a fan of the direction of making Vic an overt sociopath, which they really overdo in the later film. I think it’s a much more interesting topic to look at how following bad ideas and causes can turn someone with no preexisting psychological disability into a killer. That is, after all, how we get terrorists. But your review redeems the film for me somewhat, with the view that his problem isn’t sociopathy but privilege. Now I do want to give it another chance, though I much prefer Shelley’s original versions of the characters.
By the way, in this era of CGI, why is there still no Frankenstein movie that shows the monster with truly mismatched body parts?
#14 by lyzard on August 31, 2015 - 8:47 pm
Quote
Oh, I would say definitely privilege, and that as a very conscious thematic choice. This Frankenstein doesn’t have to go around shouting that now he knows what it feels like to be God, because he’s always known that. He’s just extrapolating. 🙂
We drowned in vampires, now we’re drowning in zombies. Frankenstein seems to have fallen off the table for the moment but we can hope…
#15 by supersonic man on September 1, 2015 - 3:04 am
Quote
I would love to see a Frankenstein creature who starts out stiff and inarticulate but by midfilm is able to speak with poisonous eloquence and bound over glaciers like a gazelle, despite being asymmetrical.
#16 by El Santo on September 2, 2015 - 1:31 pm
Quote
I was all set to point you toward Frankenstein: The True Story before I got to that terminal “despite being asymmetrical.” Oh well.