The Revenge of Frankenstein
Why is it that the second film in the two major franchises inspired by Mary Shelley’s Gothic classic, Frankenstein, were superior to the first films? In Universal’s original series in the ’30s and ’40s, it’s an established case of critical opinion that James Whale’s “Bride of Frankenstein,” with its iconic images and subversive story, trumps the original 1931 film that assured Whale and Boris Karloff their spots in the horror lexicon. But for my money, when England’s Hammer Films built on their own film of the Frankenstein story, “The Curse of Frankenstein,” the same happened with their 1958 film, “The Revenge of Frankenstein.”
In many ways, the Hammer horror films are very similar to their earlier counterparts at Universal: the Gothic atmospheres; the theatrical performances; the reverence to the original material, if they were inspired by an earlier source; and their creation of a number of iconic figures in the genre, namely, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. If you only know these actors from their contributions to franchises such as “Star Wars” and “The Lord of the Rings,” you are truly missing out.
In “The Revenge of Frankenstein,” it’s Cushing who fills the role of Baron Victor Frankenstein, the doctor who would create life out of the dead, and instead of being hailed as a visionary, he would be punished for the sins of his creation. In Hammer’s version, the good doctor was sentenced to death, although his crippled assistant, Karl, would save him from the guillotine, allowing Frankenstein to go into hiding in the town of Carlsbruck, where he would go under the name Stein. After three years, he is ready to continue with his research, this time with a bright, young doctor Hans Kleve, played by Francis Matthews) who has discovered his true identity, and is wanting to learn. But as it was with Frankenstein’s original monster, things do not go as planned.
The most fascinating thing, when one compares the earlier Universal films with the Hammer films of Frankenstein, is how the filmmakers are interested in two very different perspectives on the story. In the Universal films, the focus was on Karloff’s monster; here, it is on Cushing’s doctor, who thinks he has learned from the mistakes of the past, but instead, will discover that some things should not be tampered with, although since Cushing would play the Baron several more times, I suppose the old adage is true– you can’t keep a good scientist down.
Of course, in the end, Cushing’s Frankenstein could not escape the fate of his earlier predecessor in the role; his own curse was his desire to play God, and subvert God at every turn. Here is a man with no moral code, and no desire to be good, and indeed, his primary goal in this film (directed by Hammer’s great filmmaker, Terence Fisher) is not scientific exploration but revenge on the establishment who would not recognize his genius. Thankfully, the Doctor still has an assistant who sees the brilliance of his madness, meaning that Frankenstein will get another chance to continue his work, and add to his legacy.
