One problem with film criticism is to over analysis a film and read things in to its subtext which just aren't there . THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a very good example of this . Once someone points out the fact that director James Whale was a homosexual it opens the floodgates for people reading the film in a way no one originally envisaged . We're shown an opening scene where Lord Byron describes himself as " England's greatest sinner " and as the film progresses we're introduced to nods and winks to a sin of that dare not be explicitly referred to . Instead we see Doctor Pretoruis , a sort of precursor to Quintan Crisp who is described as " queer looking " drinks gin , makes a queen and suggests that he becomes a partner of Baron Frankenstein . Oh purleese . Do you honestly think Whale made this film as a type of gay manifesto ? I'll say one thing about movie directors and that is they have kept a lot of pretentious pseudo intellectuals in a job
As a form of entertainment ( Yes films are produced as a form of entertainment and to make money for studio investments ) THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is very impressive . There is an irony showing the character of Mary Shelley because our thoughts of FRANKENSTEIN owe more to James Whale and Universal studios than they do to Shelley . I doubt if very many people have read the original text but we're all aware of the image of Boris Karloff staggering around a studio interior forest growling . The studio forest depicted in this film are obviously stage sets but are very impressive
What Whale has done is to mix pathos with a grotesque sense of humour . I thought after seeing YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN I could never take the scene of the monster turning up at the blind hermit's cottage seriously ever again but after seen the movie it remains a touching , poignant segment of the film and Karloff elicits great sympathy from the audience . There's also a surreal image of Doctor Pretorious feasting in a crypt and while there's absolutely no logic for this scene ( Unless he is clairvoyant and knew the monster was going to turn up ) it remains a striking and morbid image
James Whale directs at a very good and brisk pace and with his " midget people " he brings a sense of wonder that would have had audiences gasping " How did he do that ? " but I don't think it's his masterwork , that would almost certainly THE INVISIBLE MAN from two years earlier , a film slightly more enjoyable due to its insane , dark humour along with jaw dropping special effects . The narrative itself is rather episodic and plot less and the mix of different accents grate slightly with Una O' Connor playing an irritating comic character but it's still an impressive film though over the year's has become over analyzed by people who should know better
As a form of entertainment ( Yes films are produced as a form of entertainment and to make money for studio investments ) THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is very impressive . There is an irony showing the character of Mary Shelley because our thoughts of FRANKENSTEIN owe more to James Whale and Universal studios than they do to Shelley . I doubt if very many people have read the original text but we're all aware of the image of Boris Karloff staggering around a studio interior forest growling . The studio forest depicted in this film are obviously stage sets but are very impressive
What Whale has done is to mix pathos with a grotesque sense of humour . I thought after seeing YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN I could never take the scene of the monster turning up at the blind hermit's cottage seriously ever again but after seen the movie it remains a touching , poignant segment of the film and Karloff elicits great sympathy from the audience . There's also a surreal image of Doctor Pretorious feasting in a crypt and while there's absolutely no logic for this scene ( Unless he is clairvoyant and knew the monster was going to turn up ) it remains a striking and morbid image
James Whale directs at a very good and brisk pace and with his " midget people " he brings a sense of wonder that would have had audiences gasping " How did he do that ? " but I don't think it's his masterwork , that would almost certainly THE INVISIBLE MAN from two years earlier , a film slightly more enjoyable due to its insane , dark humour along with jaw dropping special effects . The narrative itself is rather episodic and plot less and the mix of different accents grate slightly with Una O' Connor playing an irritating comic character but it's still an impressive film though over the year's has become over analyzed by people who should know better