Hallo-Franken-Watch: Frankenstein (1931)

Watched:  10/28/2025

Format:  4K

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  James Whale

As longtime readers know, every year I watch Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) as we enter the spooky season.  

Since last Halloween, I picked up the first film in 4K, curious about how a film I know as much for its 1930's black and white grain and the hiss on the soundtrack as I know any other aspect of the movie would present in the format.  Would they clean it up, or if would they leave those artifacts intact?  

The answer is: aside from one shot, I highly recommend this 4K transfer.  There's some hiss and some grain, but especially that hiss familiar to early sound films has been reduced to a less noticeable white noise.  The grain is still there, more or less.  I was replaying it with a commentary track (that was great) and walked close to the TV and it is WILD to see what the pixels are doing with this black and white.

I didn't pick up any weird AI mucking with the picture, and it just mostly looked like a very clean print, with many of the minute defects corrected.  In one shot, an item in the foreground is kind of wobbly, like the algorithm didn't know what to do with it.  But I'll leave that for you to discover (though I'll never not see it now).

Frankenstein has rich visual textures, from the mansion of nobility and all those trappings, to the old stone tower and crude electronics - stitched together from parts and screaming with electric current.  And here we can see every notch in the stone.   The movie didn't invent the angles and shadows, but it did more or less create the iconography of mad scientist labs and monstrous lightning storms.  The "birth" scene is absolutely phenomenal in 4K, and any muddiness in the image is now polished to sharp edges with the arrival of Karloff as the monster, his eyes filling with light when the doctor rolls back the roof covering and going dark again when he closes the roof.

But this rewatch  did make me wonder:  why am I fine with this 1931 adaptation when I was skeptical of del Toro's recent release?  

I think that a number of factors are in play.  

First, obviously I grew up with the imagery of Boris Karloff as what I understood "Frankenstein" to be until the 1980's when I stumbled across a children's playhouse version on PBS starring Christopher Sarandon as the monster.  That was more or less my introduction to the source material and not just seeing Frankenstein as a cartoon.

Growing up, the Karloff-inspired green guy with the big shoes, flat head and neck bolts appeared in beer commercials, on kid's Halloween art, in animation, was a Munster...  That Jack Pierce make-up was just part of culture and remains so to this day.

I read Mary Shelley's novel for school in 1989 or 1990 (and several times since). I am positive I'd seen Frankenstein (1931) before 1997, when I rented it from I Luv Video and watched it during a storm (chef's kiss).  And it absolutely surpasses all expectations, and I wish I could recapture the feeling of that viewing (which I still don't think was my first, but can't recall).

The point is,  I was primed my whole life to think of Boris Karloff as the creature, it simply *is* in my mind.  So of course I give it as pass versus an all-new adaptation.

Second, the 1931 film is so far from the book, it isn't trying to be the book in any way.  There's no mistaking the movie for the book.  James Whale's movie doesn't just change details for no reason, it's more or less it's own thing.  Yes, it takes place in vague Central Europe, but not in 1818.  It takes place in 1931 (which makes the sequel and its framing device kind of insane).  People in the film have electricity and wear suits.  But Frankenstein 1931 also changes the name of the doctor to Henry and calls his friend Henry from the book "Victor".  Elizabeth bears no resemblance to the woman in the book, and the events of the book in no way take place.  Heck, the monster only grunts and waves his arms, there's no elegant speeches or plots for revenge.

The 1931 version so utterly throws the baby out with the bathwater (or the Maria into the pond) it's utterly its own thing, sharing a basic idea - which is doesn't slowly reveal.  Heck, this movie sends a dude out front *before* the credits to tell you the themes and what you're going to see.

So, I think my tolerance for the deviations in the 1931 movie and the 1935 sequel lie in that they barely use the source material.  I just let go and mentally am able to say "this is its own thing", much as I do with other interpretations of Frankenstein which I enjoy.  I know nothing in The Bride has @#$%-all to do with the novel, and is instead extrapolating major ideas and themes from Bride of Frankenstein as a sort of Pygmalion fantasy.  I know Frankenstein and the Agents of SHADE are hand-waving at a mix of pop culture references to the book and various films.  

Third, what James Whale did with Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein may not stick to the book, but where it found meaning in its own use of the themes is fascinating.  

Despite Edward Van Sloan's assertion of the themes, Carl Laemmle may have insisted a Universal movies was going to soothe the nerves of The Catholic League by assuring them before the movie starts that playing God is bad, but James Whale could give a shit.  His movies are about a misunderstood innocent plagued by the expectations of others.  What del Toro got right was the monster's confusion - what I didn't agree with was his "and therefore..." as the story unfolded.  But the line of action is so lean and economical here.  Maria's death is an absurd tragedy.  As the havoc the creature creates.  Thinking that the villagers have done anything right by burning the windmill is the shallowest of readings.  And Henry never really accepts his creation - a father who can't deal with the child who is not what he wanted.  

It's a curious subversion that seemed to speak to an audience who would understand the sympathetic message Whale delivered.  And tripled down on in the sequel.  Ultimately, it feels more satisfying than all the lovingly crafted speeches.

What I think the 1931 and 2025 films share is that love of the macabre and a bit of a sense of humor.  And, of course, a deep sympathy for the creature, sure.   The films have two great leads playing the doctor and the creation.  All four are phenomenal, whether they had make-up on or not.

But in no way am I objective about Frankenstein.  At this point, the movie can play on a loop in my head and I have a pretty good memory of most of it after watching it so often at Halloween.  And I hardly consider myself a Frankenstein authority, but I am very familiar, and that will always color my viewing of new versions.  

But, dang, if this movie doesn't just work.