Scan the curse of Frankenstein Mary Shelley's gothic novel "Frankenstein" has become a classic piece of literature that has captured the imaginations of readers for generations. The story centers around Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who becomes obsessed with the idea of creating life. Through a series of dark experiments, Frankenstein succeeds in bringing a creature to life, but is immediately filled with regret and horror at what he has done. The curse of Frankenstein lies not only in the monster he has created, but also in the consequences of his actions. From the moment Frankenstein brings his creation to life, he is plagued by guilt and a sense of responsibility for the monster's actions. The creature, abandoned by his creator and rejected by society, becomes a symbol of loneliness, anger, and vengeance.
FILM RATING (out of 5 – 5 being the best)
When he discovers that the opposite is true, Paul, disgusted and determined, storms out of the manor, presumably heading for town to summon the authorities for Victor s arrest. 85 1 crop out the matte painting of the prison in the distance, begging the question as to whether or not this shot has been properly reformatted in the widescreen ratios to take full advantage of all pertinent information within the film frame.
The creature, abandoned by his creator and rejected by society, becomes a symbol of loneliness, anger, and vengeance. As the novel unfolds, it becomes clear that the curse of Frankenstein extends beyond the central characters. The monster's existence sparks a series of tragedies for those around him, causing the deaths of Frankenstein's loved ones and leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.
RetView #49 – The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
Like Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), The Curse of Frankenstein was another Hammer Films production and, along with Dracula (1958) and The Mummy (1959), is now seen as a cornerstone of the British institution’s considerable repertoire. The premise is obviously based on Mary Shelley’s classic 1818 tale Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. It was the first of the Frankenstein series, the very first Hammer movie to be made in colour, and has retrospectively been dubbed the first “Really gory horror film” by Professor Patricia MacCormac. It has also been credited with revitalizing a stagnating genre. All things considered, it makes perfect RetView fodder.
The story is told in flashback form when, in 19 th Century Switzerland, Baron Victor Frankenstein (Cushing) is on trial for murder and confesses his story to a visiting priest. The film then cuts to a newly-orphend 15-year old Victor who hires a private tutor, Dr. Paul Krempe (Urqhuart), to teach him science. Together, the pair start a sequence of experiments geared toward bringing dead animals back to life. The experiments are successful, but when his cousin Elizabeth (Court) moves in and Frankenstein suggests making a ‘perfect’ human being from scavenged body parts, Krempe opts out. However, he is brought back into the fold when the monster (Lee, who was awarded the role primarily due to his 6’5” frame and his modest £8-a day fee), now equipped with a damaged (ie defective) brain, escapes into the nearby woods and kills a blind man. What a blind man is doing in the woods by himself is anyone’s guess, but anyway…
Realizing it is out of control, Krempke shoots the monster and the men bury it in the woods. However, as soon as Krempke departs, Frankenstein digs it up again and reanimates it. The rotten bastard. Back at the house, his maid Justine, with whom he has been having an affair, reveals she is pregnant and threatens to expose his grisly experiments unless he marries her. This doesn’t sit too well with the rampaging Victor, and he quickly has the monster dispatch her which is what lands him in jail. The visiting priest doesn’t believe his story. Krempke and Elizabeth, who are now happily shacked up together, refuse to corroborate it, presumably in an attempt to stop the same thing happening again, and ***SPOILER ALERT*** Victor is led away to the guillotine.
The film was an immediate smash hit for Hammer, it’s comparatively low budget contributing heavily to its financial success as there were comparatively fewer costs to offset. Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster, who adapted Mary Shelley’s book for the screen, was so anxious to keep costs down he didn’t write in scenes of villagers storming the castle as seen in other Frankenstein films, “Because we couldn’t afford it.” The ploy worked. The movie was produced on a budget of just £65,000, and some sources estimate the film recouped at least 70 times that figure. For many years, it held the distinction of being the most profitable movie to be produced in England by a British studio and has always been much-loved by the public, which is reflected in various contemporary reviews and its Rotten Tomatoes rating which currently sits at a respectable 77% from 3,815 ratings. However, it was given a luke-warm reception upon it’s original release, a review in the New York Times dismissing it as a “Routine horror film,” and the Tribune of London calling it, “Depressing and degrading.”
A quick word on the fate of Hammer Productions; the company effectively ceased production in the mid-1980’s. But that wasn’t the end of the story. In May 2007 the company name, along with its entire library of some 295 movies, was bought by a consortium headed by Dutch media tycoon John de Mol which vowed to, “Take it back into production and develop its global potential.” True to it’s manifesto, the company financed a return to the fold in the form of contemporary horror Beyond the Rave (2008). That isn’t a typo, by the way. It really is a horror movie about a rave. That was followed by a steady stream of offerings including Wake Wood (2011) and, more recently, The Lodge (2019), which proved a surprise hit. In September 2019, hammer signed a worldwide distribution deal with StudioCanal for its catalogue, so after some uncertain times, the future is looking bright.
Although Hammer’s two great stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee had appeared in several pictures before, including Hamlet (1948) and Moulin Rouge (1952), their long-lasting friendship was cemented on the set of Curse of Frankenstein when Lee stormed into Cushing’s dressing room saying, “I’ve got no lines!” To which Cushing allegedly responded, “You’re lucky, have you read the script?”
Undaunted, Victor implores Paul to reconsider. However, at the crack of dawn, Victor informs Paul that the monster has escaped. Even as the men set out to regain control over Victor’s hellish creation, they are quite unaware the monster has already killed an elderly blind man (Fred Johnson) and his young grandson (Claude Kinston) on their sojourn through the forest. Coming upon the monster, Paul takes dead aim and shoots it in the head. The creature dies, but later, is resuscitated by Victor who has given his solemn oath to Paul he will not conduct any future experiments. Secretly, the monster is now chained in Victor’s attic. Victor allows Justine, who has been threatening to expose her pregnancy to Elizabeth, to explore the attic unsupervised. Locking her in the room, Justine finds the monster and meets with her untimely end. Paul returns to the manor house, convinced Victor has surrendered any and all plans to further play God with his creation. When he discovers that the opposite is true, Paul, disgusted and determined, storms out of the manor, presumably heading for town to summon the authorities for Victor’s arrest. Victor makes chase. Meanwhile, a curious Elizabeth hurries to the attic in search of clues as to her husband’s experiments. She finds no trace of the monster who has broken free of his bonds, but is nevertheless horrified by the sulfuric bath and other scientific accoutrements that portend to a less than noble form of pure research.
This curse serves as a cautionary tale against the dangers of playing god and tampering with nature. The curse of Frankenstein also extends to the societal implications of the story. Shelley uses the creation of the monster as a metaphor for the dangers of unchecked scientific progress and the potential consequences of playing with the boundaries of life and death. The novel asks us to consider the ethical implications of our actions and the responsibility we have for the consequences of our creations. In conclusion, the curse of Frankenstein encompasses the personal guilt and responsibility of Victor Frankenstein, the tragic existence of the monster, the broader societal implications of the story, and the cautionary message about the dangers of tampering with nature. Through her timeless novel, Shelley warns us to be mindful of the consequences of our actions and to consider the ethical implications of scientific progress. The curse of Frankenstein serves as a haunting reminder of the potential darkness that lies within us all..
Reviews for "Frankenstein's Monster and the Power of Redemption: Examining the Character's Journey to Self-Discovery"
1. Jane Doe - 2 stars - "I was really disappointed with 'Scan the curse of Frankenstein'. The storyline felt incredibly convoluted and hard to follow, with random twists and turns that didn't make any sense. The dialogue was also extremely cheesy and forced, making it difficult to take the characters seriously. Additionally, the special effects were lackluster, diminishing the overall impact of key scenes. Overall, I found this film to be a letdown and would not recommend it."
2. John Smith - 1 star - "I cannot believe I wasted my time watching 'Scan the curse of Frankenstein'. The acting was atrocious, with wooden performances that lacked any emotion or depth. The pacing was also incredibly slow, with scenes dragging on for what felt like eternity. To make matters worse, the plot was predictable and unimaginative, offering nothing new or interesting to the Frankenstein story. Save yourself the trouble and avoid this film at all costs."
3. Sarah Thompson - 2 stars - "I had high hopes for 'Scan the curse of Frankenstein', but unfortunately, it fell flat for me. The characters were poorly developed, leaving no room for empathy or investment in their journey. The cinematography was also underwhelming, with bland and uninspiring visuals throughout. Additionally, the sound design was inconsistent, with background noises drowning out important dialogue at times. Overall, this film lacked creativity and failed to deliver the thrills and scares that I was hoping for."
4. Michael Johnson - 1 star - "I couldn't wait for 'Scan the curse of Frankenstein' to be over. The story lacked coherence and felt disjointed, jumping from one scene to another without any clear direction. The editing was sloppy, with choppy cuts that left me feeling disoriented. The acting was also subpar, with performances that lacked conviction and believability. All in all, this was a major disappointment and not worth the time or money."