Frankenstein (1931) - Cheap Thoughts

When it comes to reviewing adaptations, there are two ways you should look at it, how does it stand on its own, and how does it stand as an adaptation? Naturally the more important aspect is how does it stand on its own. Judging a movie simply because it differs from the source material isn't inherently a flaw, and any actual flaws in the film that can be explained by reading to book fails to stand on its own merits. With that being said, Frankenstein is one of the most iconic films of all time, not only did it revolutionise the genre of Horror (Horror wasn't even considered a genre at this point in history) but it's become part of pop-culture history, everyone knows the phrase "it's alive! it's alive! it's alive" and the mear imagery of Frankenstein's monster is identifiable in an instant. But with that being said, i don't think the film is all that good.

Again, looking at it on it's own first, the film has a fairly bare boned story, mad scientist creates a monster and it begins to cause havok. Even back then i can only assume it wasn't revolutionary in terms of plot. There are moments here and there that work, mostly in the scenes where we are meant to sympathise with the beast, but for the most part, i don't think it's a good story. I don't understand why Henry Frankenstein (we'll get to the name change in a bit) is supposed to be a sympathetic character, i don't understand why he has a fiancee, especially when he's more interested in his work than his future wife and i don't see why people keep trying to help him. Not to mention, for a scientist so brilliant that he literally reversed death, he makes a lot of dumb decisions and is quite ignorant to his own creation's reactions. And it's not just because he's mad, but even his mentor Dr Waldman helps him out in his poorly thought out decisions. For example, at one point they try to drug the monster, so their plan is to use Frankenstein as bate and have Waldman sneak up on him, this is an incredibly poorly thought out plan that could have a million things go wrong.

Then there's the ending of the movie where it just sort of...stops. They never give us a definitive answer on whether or not the monster lives, and it's not a scenario where it's up to interpretation of they wanted to leave an element of mystery, it's more of like they just forgot. He's trapped in a burning windmill and then it just fades to the next scene where Frankenstein's father says in just one sentence that Frankenstein and his wife lived and are going to have a child. But wait a minute, last we saw them Frankenstein was near death and his wife was in shock, don't we atleast get them to tell us that they're okay, this is just a sloppily written epilogue, and it's not like the movie was running over time, it's only 70 minutes long. Also the concept of a "criminal brain" being the reason the monster was rampant never comes into play and doesn't logically make sense. The monster doesn't act like a criminal, he acts more like Lenny from Mice & Men, giant and powerful yet dumb as a rock. If they want us to sympathise with the monster (which they clearly do) then why tell us he has the mind of a criminal? That doesn't make sense for the plot or the audience.

But then we look at it as an adaptation...it's not good. In fact, this is the bare bones of the book, as if someone just read the blurb of the book and thought that was enough. The book goes into far more detail and takes place over the course of years, showing the torture and growth of both Frankenstein and his monster. Yes, the monster can talk in the book, and think, and emote, and has more character than just Zombie Hodor. The same can be said for Victor Frankenstein, yes they for some reason changed his name in the movie and he has a friend called Victor...that's just confusing. In the book he was a mad man but also showed hope to live an ordinary life that would be stricken with tragedy by his own doing. You care about both Frankenstein and his creation and question who is the real monster and who is the man?

As a standalone movie, it's fine, it's short and simple to understand and has some nice make-up effects as well as the fact that the popularity of the movie lead to more people reading the book, i can't hate it. But as an adaptation, it simplifies the material of the original book to an irritating degree. You want my recommendation for a good Frankenstein story? Read the book. 4/10.

SIDE NOTE: Why is it so hard to get a good adaptation of Frankenstein? It's had a million opportunities, none of which good.

-Danny