The Horror of Frankenstein
Watching a movie can be, in the immortal words of Kevin Keegan, a funny old game. I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Hammer films that it’s almost universally agreed are terrible - hello there, Dracula AD 1972; and I have been utterly underwhelmed by Hammers that most consider classics - yes you, One Million Years BC. But I have recently discovered another kind of Hammer film; one that everyone thinks is terrible, I know is terrible, and yet I manage to really enjoy it anyway. So what do you have to say for yourself, The Horror of Frankenstein?
It’s bordering on baffling how much I enjoyed The Horror of Frankenstein. The only other movies Jimmy Sangster directed for Hammer were the pretty awful Lust for a Vampire, and the flipping abysmal Fear in the Night. So, you know, my hopes weren’t high for this one - and Ralph Bates is replacing Peter Cushing as Baron Frankenstein - I don’t even know where to begin with that sentence, it’s almost enough to make you feel bad for Ralph, if he weren’t so not very good in nearly everything I’ve seen him in. But Jimmy is a decent screenwriter, and Ralph was pretty great in Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde. So, you know, it’s not like Robin Asquith is The Count in Kevin Keegan’s Dracula, is it? There’s a chance it’s not terrible, is my point…
And it isn’t; terrible I mean. It’s actually pretty good fun. It’s a proper Hammer movie with a looming castle, a colourful grave-robber, a housekeeper wearing a ridiculously low-cut dress, and a policeman with a silly hat. Frankenstein is young, but also very charismatic, a complete psychopath alright, but not above the occasional bit of real warmth towards others. There’s this engaging tone to the picture, that feels like everyone involved in it was having a grand old time. In fact, one of the best things about the whole film is how terrific the supporting cast is. The grave-robber and his wife are only in a few scenes, but there’s a whole history to their relationship in the moments they have together. There’s something quite affecting about how the wife will uncomplainingly dig up bodies while her husband sits around pontificating; and you know that if you asked her what she was doing she would tell you that every marriage is a partnership, and then get back to the digging. There’s a little bit of depth there is what I’m saying. In the brief few minutes that Frankenstein’s father is alive we learn everything we need to know about him, his relationship with his son, and how that will define both their fates. Even the policeman in the funny hat manages to inject pathos and longing into a character that basically amounts to - ‘I’m going to take down the evil scientist not because he’s evil, but because the woman I like, likes him’. And Kate O’Mara as the scheming sexpot housekeeper, who only desires a scrap of respect, has an absolute ball by being in love with the Baron, but not above ruining his life rather than be elbowed out the door by some bland blonde, just because she’s got a more expensive hairdo. And the doddery old father of the heroine is hands down the most touching, funny and brilliant version of that old Hammer staple that I have ever seen. Because they’re not uncommon Hammer characters or anything, but the performances are so good that they have lives outside of their function as filling for Frankenstein’s cold ambition sandwich. I heard somewhere that it’s taking the mickey out of Hammer tropes, but it doesn’t feel like that to me. I think Jimmy loves these characters and just wants to give them a bit of room to move among the draughts and the cobwebs in the prison of their fates.
There are in fact only three problems with the movie; unfortunately they are three pretty big ones - the heroine, the monster and the plot. The heroine is fine, I suppose, she’s just duller than a damp stick on bonfire night. And the monster is just... cheap. I mean they’ve got Dave Prowse, who’s fresh from being the Monster From Hell, so there’s definitely something to work with there. But if you’re going to make a Frankenstein movie the monster has to be scary, horrifying or piteous. Having your monster be ‘tall’ doesn’t quite have the same dramatic heft to it, if you ask me. And the plot, well the plot goes off the rails as soon as the monster turns up. There’s a few nice strands knocking about up to that point, but none of them come together in the end. Having a laugh on set might get you a good vibe and great performances, but it’s probably not conducive to creating a tightly woven thriller is it?
But it was the ending that made me realise that despite how much I enjoyed it, deep down I knew it was a terrible movie. Because how the monster dies rests entirely on something that is never explained, at least not that I could remember. It’s possible I drifted off when the blonde was wanging on about something but there was this huge contraption that the Baron kept using, and I had no idea what it was. I didn’t pay it too much mind if I’m honest. If you spent your time worrying about what all the whirring gizmos and thumping thingamajigs in Frankenstein’s lab are doing, you’d go round the bloody twist. So when this one turns out to be a giant wooden denouement, constructed solely for the purpose of the movie’s ending, don’t blame me for feeling a little cheated out of a nice bit of set-up.
But that’s watching movies sometimes I suppose; they can be pretty terrible and still a lot of fun to watch. Maybe Kevin Keegan’s Dracula would have been alright, who’s to say? Because not everything that’s bad, is always bad for you.
Speaking of which, another pint?
