'It’s alive!' — A review of 1931’s 'Frankenstein'

To celebrate the Halloween season, The Auburn Plainsman Lifestyle Section is reviewing and recommending related movies for people to watch. Ranging from frightening, nightmare-inducing thrillers to wholesome, family-friendly flicks, reviews will cover a variety of genres. Read a synopsis and our thoughts, and then take a look at the “spooky” meter, a rating out of five that details whether we think this movie is worth watching during Halloween time. If you would like to write a Halloween-related film review and see it published, email srb0106@auburn.edu.

“Frankenstein” is a chilling story of a mad scientist driven by relentless ambition, striving to push science beyond its natural boundaries, with ethical themes of nature rivaling nurture and the dangers of isolation and alienation. The 1931 version of this classic narrative is the most well-known and influential retelling of Mary Shelley’s novel in the world of cinema, due to its commercial and cultural success, which fully allowed Henry Frankenstein, his monster and the horror genre to break into mainstream pop culture.

Directed by James Whale and starring the horror icon Boris Karloff as the monster, 1931’s “Frankenstein” perfectly combines the antiquated yet original feel of a classic horror film. Shot in black and white without a soundtrack, “Frankenstein” embodies vintage horror in a condensed 70 minutes, leaving no room for irrelevant and unimportant scenes. Instead, each shot is packed with crucial story and unsettling suspense, as the film follows the aftermath and the impact of Frankenstein’s creation.

The strongest part of this film, in my eyes, is the acting. Without a soundtrack, color or flashy special effects, “Frankenstein” has to rely on a great script and dynamic acting to draw the viewer’s attention. For example, Colin Clive perfectly portrayed a madly motivated scientist with ethically questionable goals to bring forth life from the dead. There were times when I was convinced Clive was truly insane based on his expressions and dialogue. Mae Clarke also played a captivating character in Elizabeth throughout this movie, as she had to deal with the emotional turmoil of balancing a marriage with Frankenstein and supporting her crazed husband. The acting primarily focuses on intense individual dilemmas, and it is powerful to witness on the screen.

Another worthwhile part of this film is the script. Despite its short runtime, “Frankenstein” still manages to capitalize on the viewer’s emotion and attention through powerful dialogue and enthralling scenes. The renowned scene of the monster's birth lives up to expectations, with other parts of the film holding just as much emotional weight. The discourse between Frankenstein and his family sheds light on the themes found throughout the film, such as the moral issues of isolating oneself and testing the limits of scientific creation.

However, as someone who has read Mary Shelley’s novel, I will say that this film lacked most of the compelling content found throughout the book. This movie was very much a surface-level retelling of the classic story, only truly utilizing the characters and themes. While I did mention that the film did well with its short runtime, I have to complain that it mainly focused on Frankenstein’s story rather than adding the contrast of the monster’s journey in discovering “humanity.” A longer runtime or restructuring of the screenplay would greatly benefit this movie, allowing it to better represent the book and mitigate the abrupt ending. All in all, this film falls a little bit short for someone who has read the source material. However, for someone who doesn’t care about a faithful adaptation, this film will more than suffice as a worthwhile watch.

Overall, this film is solid. It is not the most wildly entertaining or invigorating film from an action-packed standpoint, but it is worth a watch to see a piece of cinematic history. The acting is great and the script is suspenseful, but it lacks content and creativity from the original inspiration and plot. The movie focuses on the same sequences of the monster being hunted rather than expanding on thematic elements and the moral ambiguity of other characters, which would add dimension and create greater stakes. The film also follows a linear narrative, as it details the monster’s negative effect on Frankenstein’s life and the village, which works okay as the basis of the film, but it is simple and unpretentious compared to other movies.

SPOOKY RECOMMENDATION METER: 3/5

I would recommend this film to anyone wanting to experience a short, suspenseful and influential film for the Halloween season. Watching this movie is worth it for the historical cinematic impact alone, as it popularized monsters and kicked-started the horror genre, yet the acting and script, paired with a packed runtime, lend to a nice viewing experience for most everyone. There are moments in the film dealing with intense death/murder, which may not make it suitable for all children, but it is not scarring. As someone who typically stays away from horror, I was able to watch this film without getting nightmares, which attests to its watchability. At the very least, the film is worth a watch to witness the inspiration behind the popularization of Frankenstein’s monster and to see an older motion picture than one normally experiences in this modern age. However, if an action-packed, wildly entertaining film filled with crazy twists, modern special effects and a soundtrack is more of what you are hoping for, you are better off watching another movie for Halloween.