by Douglas Messerli
Wyllis Cooper (screenplay, based on the novel by Mary
Shelley), Rowland V. Lee (director) Son
of Frankenstein / 1939
It’s hard when commenting on Rowland V. Lee’s rather clumsy Son of Frankenstein, to want to mention
all the scenes that were portrayed so much more charmingly in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein—a desire I will try
to resist.
The great moment
of this film, however, returns to Karloff when, discovering the dead body of
his friend, he strokes Ygor’s body and screams out in pain, intimating that
their relationship had been far more than a simple friendship.
Similarly
inexplicable are the local visits of Inspector Krogh (Lionel Atwill) to the
Frankenstein manor. From the beginning this would-be general—despite the fact
that as a child he, himself, lost his arm to the Monster’s fury—insists he will
protect the Baron and his family. And, even though he strongly suspects the
Baron of nefarious activities, he returns to speak to him, his wife, and their
son, time and again, sharing drink, food, and a game of darts. Both he and the
Burgomaster, despite their druthers, seem determined to treat the interloper
better than their fellow townspeople, the inspector, by film’s end, appearing
to have practically moved in with the Frankensteins, much to the delight,
clearly, of the lonely and fearful Elsa.
Unlike Brooks’
son, this film’s Baron hardly needs any prodding to help bring the Monster back
to full life. Even his father more strongly resisted the threats of
Pretorius—the later of whom shared a relationship with the monster similar to
Ygor’s.
Without pushing
this too much, accordingly, Lee’s film hints at homosexual love, pederasty,
inherited madness, and, even potential infidelity, all wrapped up in a tale of
several personal revenges: Ygor’s, the Monster’s, the Baron’s, and Krogh’s.
It is, quite
obviously, the theme of revenge which drains the film from its previously
hubris-driven themes. These figures are more driven by what they have lost as
opposed to what the two other tales of Frankenstein suggested were misplaced
dreams and aspirations. Imagine Hamlet without
any of his imagination and meditations, or even his ability to fear for his
“dreaming” after death.
Here nearly
everything seems neatly predetermined, as if the Catholic world of this
formerly idyllic German village had been taken over by the Calvinists. Indeed,
we discover—another oddity difficult to explain—that the Frankensteins built
their original castle upon a bed of Sulphur which over the years has heated up
to, symbolically, match the heat of hell. In other words, their whole world has
been built upon their own eternal damnation.
How empty the
Baron’s parting words appear, accordingly, as he merrily bequeaths the castle
and its grounds to the people of the village while he darts off with his wife
and son into the train that will take back to a far safer place. You can almost
hear the villagers, under their breaths, muttering “good riddance.”
Los Angeles,
October 24, 2017
Reprinted from World
Cinema Review (October 2017)
No comments:
Post a Comment