Although the Universal Monster movies are very much the foundation of horror in film (at least in the sound era), and some might go as far to say the pinnacle of the genre, they were not impervious to to the fine art of exploitation. Before Hollywood had perfected its formula of endless reboots and nostalgia plays you see, film studios dabbled in pumping out as many films in a series as they thought they could get away with, and Universal was no exception. Dracula, the start of the Universal Monster trend? Two sequels, the oft-overlooked Dracula’s Daughter, released in 1936 and 1943’s Son of Dracula, the originator of the ‘Alucard’ concept that would later be revisited in the Castlevania series of video games. The Creature from the Black Lagoon, featuring the grisly Gill Man? Two sequels, 1955’s Revenge of the Creature and 1956’s The Creature Walks Among Us. The Mummy, a tale of lost love, gruesome death, and a dessicated Egyptian corpse? 5 sequels, 1940’s The Mummy’s Hand, 1942’s The Mummy’s Tomb, 1944’s The Mummy’s Ghost, later in 1944’s The Mummy’s Curse, and of course 1955’s infamous Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy. I know we’re used to a deluge of movies in this era of cinematic universe, but 4 Mummy movies in 4 years is still a lot of Mummy to take in.
Similarly, Universal’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” also enjoyed a multi-film run back in the day, including his own run-in with Abbott and Costello. After the wildfire success of the original Frankenstein back in 1931, the film that launched the career of the legendary horror icon Boris Karloff, the idea of doubling down wasn’t even in doubt. The end result, 1935’s The Bride of Frankenstein, was also a success, and arguably even better than the original. Directed by James Whale, who also directed the original, Bride takes what was already a weird movie and takes it into bizarre and surreal new directions. It was also the first film I ever reviewed on this blog, so if you want to read more about it you should check out that entry.
After the success of Bride of Frankenstein, Universal decided to double down again, and four years later we got Son of Frankenstein (nothing else was really happening in 1939). Set years after the events of the previous films, SoF centers around Wolf von Frankenstein, the son of the infamous doctor. Having inherited the barony from his late father, Wolf and his family arrive to a cold reception to the village of Frankenstein. The townsfolk have had enough of guys named Frankenstein to last a lifetime, but Wolf is convinced that all those stories about a killer monster have been exaggerated over the years, and that his father’s reputation has been unfairly besmirched. The mad science apple doesn’t fall far from the mad science tree however, and when he finds his father’s secret notes he becomes very tempted to continue the family business. Then he meets Ygor, the resident corpse stealer and social pariah, who just might know what happened to that infamous monster...
When you look at it, Son of Frankenstein has a lot of things going on. It’s the last appearance of Boris Karloff as the Monster, one of the most iconic performances in horror history. It’s the first of anyone named Ygor/Igor in a Frankenstein property, which would later be adopted in pop culture as the name of Frankenstein’s assistant (even though the assistant’s name was Fritz in the original movie). It was one of the few films to feature both Boris Karloff and Dracula actor Bela Lugosi, who played Ygor, as well as Sherlock Holmes star Basil Rathbone, who played Wolf. It posited the idea that it was cosmic rays and not lightning that brought life to the Monster, and we know how prolific cosmic rays came to be in movies and comic books. Best of all though, the plot of Son of Frankenstein is a definite inspiration for the Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein, which is in the upper echelons of the fantastic comedy hierarchy. As far as contributing to the lore goes, Son might be the most influential film in the Frankenstein franchise since the original. How many other third films in a series can you say that about?
Lore aside, SoF’s greatest strengths lie in its story, like watching a house of cards fall apart, and the performances from its primary characters. Basil Rathbone’s slow degradation from the honorable if naive Wolf into a nervous wreck all too aware of the situation falling out of control is brilliantly done, every bit as manic as Colin Clive in the original film. Bela Lugosi, known for his suave and seductive manner in Dracula, is totally transformed in his role of Ygor, a bestial savage with a penchant for gallows humor and a neck to match. Inspector Krogh, played by the Lionel Atwill, is the consummate soldier and detective. Sure the child actor isn’t great, but otherwise it’s a very strong movie in that regard.
As for cons, well you’ll notice that I didn’t mention Boris Karloff as the Monster, which is 99% of the reason folks bought tickets to this movie in ‘39. That’s because the Monster isn’t really all that good in this movie. In the previous movies, the Monster was a terribly tragic figure, a creature just intelligent enough to be tortured by the nature of his existence and his inability to change it. While there’s a hint of that Son of Frankenstein, mostly he’s just devolved into a dumb brute who murders folks. If he shows up at all, for a Frankenstein film you’d be surprised at how little the Monster actually shows up on screen. I know at some point Karloff said that doing the Monster was too physically intensive, and maybe that accounts for his diminished presence. Still, it’s not an easily forgotten absence.
Also, this movie doesn’t look as creepy as the previous films in the series in my opinion. Every now and then you get a hint of that German expressionist design that made Frankenstein and the rest of the early Universal Monster films feel so otherworldly (the shots of Castle Frankenstein look pretty good, and I remember a really nice hallway shot near the end of the film I liked), but I dunno, Son of Frankenstein feels like a grander film in some areas and a more mundane. Like they have these big, open spaces with nothing weird to put in them. The end result of Rowland Lee attempting to ape James Whale’s aesthetic preferences and stumbling at the finish line, perhaps.
Those problems aside, Son of Frankenstein is still an entertaining movie, and it easily earned its place in the Universal Monster canon as well as a recommendation from me. For those interested in exploring old school horror, you would be doing yourself a service by throwing this film into the queue. Throw the whole Universal Frankenstein series into the pot in fact, you won’t find much better. Well, maybe not Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, but it wouldn’t be Frankenstein without a few abnormal pieces, am I right?
