by M. Roca
The stories of both Frankenstein and Dracula, becoming huge hits during the early talkie era, have long been certified as Hollywood box office legend for taking a secondary genre and minting it as a dependable moneymaker. Soon, the rush was on at all the studio systems to try and replicate the fortunes Universal had unwittingly ushered in during 1931. Many rivals tried their hand at horror with varying degrees of success, but only Carl Laemmle’s company, who followed up these two titans of fright with many other worthy productions, kept at it with vigor and consistency throughout the decade. Things started slowing down after The Wolfman struttedhis yak fur in 1941, but the studio still kept cranking out a slew of B programmers well into the 50s when science fiction gradually took over. While the popularity of these pictures has never wavered with movie buffs (Universal just recently repackaged their Monster collection on Blu-Ray for the first time and umpteenth on DVD/VHS), those first two features are the ones both modern viewers and those from the 70s remember best.
Dracula, for all intents and purposes, has dated rather badly. It’s still recognized as a pivotal film that kicked off the horror craze (while also simultaneously launching the career of Bela Lugosi), but cinematically it’s basically a museum piece. It also never developed a succession of true sequels over a period of time that added to the legend. Dracula’s Daughter, for one, was only loosely tied to the original, while Son Of Dracula came much later and was also only arbitrarily connected to Tod Browning’s initial effort. Frankenstein, on the other hand, has basically collected the award for most substantial Universal property and series. Its enduring popularity is not only tied to the Boris Karloff/James Whale debut, but the two subsequent additions to the franchise that came after (Bride and Son). It’s no wonder that when Mel Brooks came up with the idea to spoof a Universal horror film, that Frankenstein would be his logical choice. With so many sequels having been made by the original studio, he could not claim a shortage of material to parody when the time came. A wealth of parts were spread over the cinematic table for Brooks to corral and attach to his own project… a little bit of Ghost Of Frankenstein, a small piece of House Of Frankenstein, and the total embodiment of the first three superior films into a wicked assembly of humor and farce.
Unlike Zucker, Zucker, and Abraham’s Airplane, one gets the impression that Mel Brooks had real admiration and affection for the movie he had chosen to lampoon in 1974. Shot in lovely black and white with actual equipment passed down from the sets of Frankenstein, the movie looks and employs many techniques from the 30s including wipes, antiquated transitions, and iris shots. It has a kind of calmness and stillness associated with that older era of moviemaking where everything moved slower and in a more measured pace.
Employing such comedic stalwarts as Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, and Madeline Kahn, Young Frankenstein sizzles with delightful merriment. The theatrical settings and mise en scene are executed and rendered straight, while the campiness and farce are mostly subtle (though the Puttin’ On The Ritz scene certainly tips over into refined slapstick) without ever feeling overwhelmingly silly. Sure, there is obvious broadness to many of the gags—and it wouldn’t be a Brooks film without some overt zaniness—but the material certainly has a degree of restraint when compared to other examples in the director’s oeuvre.
Wilder basically plays another in a long line of tortured male descendants of the Frankenstein family. Bemused and peeved when anyone brings up his cursed lineage, he attempts to stay relatively anonymous by lecturing at a medical school in America and changing the pronunciation of his name to “Fronkensteen.” But as luck would have it, he comes into possession of his family’s estate and decides to travel back to the land of his ancestors. Greeted by the obligatory hunchback who is also following his accursed forebears into servitude at the local train station, Fronkensteen can’t help but follow a well-worn pattern we’ve seen before in about seven movies (although never this funny). Naturally a brain will be stolen, cadavers rifled out of graves, and life will be created from lightning bolts out of the sky to rile up the irritated and long suffering villagers. In the end, (almost) everyone gets the girl, but not quite in the order James Whale and his team of writers would have imagined when they sat down and put pen to paper themselves. This conclusion has a twist that may not send your blood into icy creeps, but certainly will tickle a funny bone or two.
Plenty of nostalgia is wrapped up in Young Frankenstein for me. As a pre-teen, I discovered and began to admire old horror movies of the 30s and 40s. Young Frankenstein, while made many decades later, struck a chord with my newfound appreciation for this type of cinema. I always loved the scene where Wilder and Teri Garr are combing over the various skulls filled with cobwebs and they come into contact with Igor’s far from rotting face. As they react from the startle, he launches into a prolonged song and dance number complete with a rat-a-tat ending. It’s one of the many moments that never fails to get me.
Young Frankenstein was a huge hit with plenty of critical acclaim in 1974. Any doubts Columbia Pictures had over filming in black and white and everything going over budget were quickly put to rest when the movie was released in theaters in mid-December (though 20th Century Fox reaped the actual rewards). Brooks was on a roll, having had made Blazing Saddles that same year. This was a period where he was at the peak of his craft, producing a slew of wonderful comedies in quick succession. Young Frankenstein would eventually turn into a Broadway musical and is still revered to this day by legions of fans. More than just a cheap spoof, it lovingly mocks a group of pictures that many still find joy in watching today. Mel Brooks has even stated that Young Frankenstein is his favorite among films he’s directed. I can’t help but agree with that opinion as well.
How Young Frankenstein made the top 100:
#10 David Schleicher
#10 Jon Warner
#19 Brandie Ashe
#20 John Greco
#22 Pat Perry
#22 Marilyn Ferdinand
#22 Jason Marshall
#25 Maurizio Roca
#26 Dean Treadway
#33 Pierre De Plume
#34 Bobby Jopsson
#39 Samuel Wilson
#45 J.D. La France
#53 Dennis Polifroni
#53 Jaime Grijalba
#57 Bob Clark
#60 Frank Gallo
“Unlike Zucker, Zucker, and Abraham’s Airplane, one gets the impression that Mel Brooks had real admiration and affection for the movie he had chosen to lampoon in 1974. Shot in lovely black and white with actual equipment passed down from the sets of Frankenstein, the movie looks and employs many techniques from the 30s including wipes, antiquated transitions, and iris shots. It has a kind of calmness and stillness associated with that older era of moviemaking where everything moved slower and in a more measured pace.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. In no other film after Brooks masterpiece, THE PRODUCERS, do we find the writer/director laboring so much to make a “film” as to just pop off quick and cheap parodies of the films he’s spoofing. Yes, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is a spoof, but it holds its own as a well made and thoughtful movie as well. As you made clear in your concise review, it’s obvious that Brooks wanted to recreate the feel of the Universal Frankenstein films and then take them into the stratosphere of comic lampooning. I love the detail, the employment of old time film-making techniques and the gritty black and white cinematography. Everything, from the costuming to the candleabre’s that light the passages of the Frankenstein castle ring true with a passion for the genre. In short, it’s one of only three films by Mel Brooks that resemble anything like a REAL film.
That Brooks chose to move more and more into the quick pay-off and easy execution of more outlandlish and mindless modes of the spoog really make me believe that he either had no patience for laboring over his work to make more in the mode of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN or could never live up to the promised talent that was so evident in the sketches he provided for Sid Caesars SHOW OF SHOWS and earlier features like THE TWELVE CHAIRS, THE PRODUCERS and this last, great gem. Brooks, I find, is either loved and defended or, for the intelligentsia, loathed for his work after FRANKENSTEIN. Personally, I have no admiration for his films after this one and see him as more of a sell out to the popular demand of mindless, toilet humored spoofs.
I give him propts for the early work, but it boggles my mind when many out there lump Brooks into the same praising breaths with Woody Allen and Albert Brooks (two comic writers and directors that, I feel, defined comedy in the 70′s and 80′s and have been, in their own methodical way, continuously cranking out the good stuff). Mel Brooks hasn’t made a decent picture since YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and it’s only fitting that this final triumph will be remembered as such.
The moment that finds Peter Boyles monster in the cabin of a blind man (an almost unrecognizable Gene Hackman in long hair) is unforgettable in its slapstick perfection.
As most know I’m not a huge Woody Allen fan, but I agree with your view on Mel Brooks. The Producers, Blazing Saddles, and Young Frankenstein are unquestionably his three best films. I will say that Spaceballs, while very weak, is still better than Return Of The Jedi, The Phantom Menace, and Attack Of The Clones. But yeah his attention to detail in YF never surfaced again.
Yes Mel Brooks shouldn’t even be in the same discussion with Woody Allen. M. Brooks made 2 bona fide comedic masterpieces..The Producers and Young Frankenstein, and a third solid film Blazing Saddles. That’s it though and that was all in a short period. I do not understand the appeal of Albert Brooks though. I don’t think the guy has done much for cinema at all. I didn’t vote for a single Albert Brooks film. He is incredibly un-even and doesn’t have a definitive work IMO. I like Broadcast News, but that’s due to Holly Hunter…..not Brooks. Don’t even get me started on Lost in America…..
Ironically Jon, while I agree that Mel Brooks is not in the same league with the Woodman, he did in my humble opinion directed THE PRODUCERS, which for me is greater than any single Allen film, As I will explain on this thread I was never a fan of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, but do like BLAZING SADDLES quite a bit. Like you I am not much for Albert Brooks at all. He is light years from discussion with the other two.
Interesting Sam. I probably enjoy YF more than any single Allen film, but agree that overall Woody has a far more impressive overall career (even if I’m not a huge fan per se). I’m also not crazy about Albert Brooks either to be honest.
Whoa! Seriously Sam? Wow The Producers greater than ANY Woody Allen film? Interesting. Do you mean funnier or do you mean better?
Jon, I do mean funnier and greater, but Mel Brooks still would not reach Allen’s greatness. THE PRODUCERS would end up on top if I were to combine the outputs of both, but Allen would have Numbers 2 to 10. But again, this is only my opinion, others may have it differently and I respect that.
Great stuff Maurizio and glad to hear about your personal connection to it. I love this one. Can’t get enough of it. Gene Wilder is in his element here and this may be his most iconic role….outside of Willy Wonka. Of course he’s funnier here. I am of the opinion that Wilder was a pure genius. Mel Brooks’s best films involve him to some degree at least. This one is my favorite Brooks film and I think it is far better than Blazing Saddles. A recent viewing of The Producers actually convinced me that it’s a toss-up as to which is better…The Producers or Young Frankenstein. They are both really funny. The Producers might be the most original work though as it’s not so much based on a spoof of anything per se. Either way, Young Frankenstein is one of the essentials. Over half of us voted for it as it looks.
17 votes for Young Frankenstein Jon… the most yet by two (Safety Last received 15).
Thanks for that info. I think that says a lot at this juncture. We will surely have a few more with more votes….but it would be interesting to rank the films at the end by total votes and see how that stacked up. That’s just my curiosity.
I’ll keep track of any that break 20. That would be an interesting benchmark.
Fantastic lead-in Maurizio with the discussion of the cultural and filmic might of FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA. Yes the former has done a bit better on the screen, for much the reasons you assert, though DRACULA probably did have one truly great moment with the Fischer’s Hammer incarnation, even with the drastic changes to Stoker’s narrative, and I give high marks to Coppola’s version with Gray Oldman. The ultimate DRACULA though is the Murnau NOSFERATU, which frankly (pun intended, ha!) is not equaled by any FRANKENSTEIN interpretation. I have never been a fan of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (the humor is labored and redundant and not in a good sense) but visually it looks great. For the third time this week you have penned a terrific essay (what a roll!) in support of the countdown, and again have brought in irrefutable qualities that hearken back to the years when the film first made it’s mark on you.
The Universal Dracula films have always been lacking when compared to other examples like Murnau’s Nosferatu, Herzog’s Nosferatu, and Coppola’s Dracula. Personally the Hammer versions impress me even less. Universal’s Frankenstein on the other hand has no competition in the non-spoof department.
I’m a big Hammer guy too. The Curse of Frankenstein and The Horror of Dracula are excellent, but several others followed that are comparable.
Very fine review. This one nearly made the cut for me.
Thanks Peter. I know Hammer has a very loyal fan base even if I personally don’t value their films much.
I also love Hammer, but unlike Sam I think ‘Young Frankenstein’ is Brook’s best after ‘The Producers.’ Maurizio Roca’s excellent review is clearly a labor of love. The many homages in this film are gleefilly irreverent.
Brooks is a horror fan and has recalled being terrified by the Whale original as a boy. An enthusiasm for horror that led him to produce Lynch’s Elephant Man, Freddie Francis’s The Doctor and the Devils, and Cronenberg’s The Fly certainly makes Young Frankenstein different in overall attitude from his other parodies. None of the others have the satiric bite of Blazing Saddles — how much of that was Richard Pryor’s contribution? But Fronkensteen is still pretty hilarious, if only the third best from Brooks. Odd that it finishes ahead of Saddles, but good to know the best is yet to come.
He also found source material outside the Universal cycle. Anyone who’s watched Michael Curtiz’s The Walking Dead, a Warner Bros. Karloff movie, should recognize the scene in which Boris, an unfairly condemned man recently resuscitated after his execution, plays classical piano for an audience assembled by his scientist savior as the inspiration for Brooks’s “Putting On the Ritz” number.
Yeah I’ve seen Curtiz’s The Walking Dead before which was made around the time of Bride Of Frankenstein I think. Karloff was rather good in that one, though I can’t completely recall the piano sequence.
This film made my list not because of its overall quality but, rather, because of the brilliance of certain scenes/moments — most notably, to me, would be Puttin’ on the Ritz, which features a truly great performance by Peter Boyle.
I think Brooks’ best work is The Producers. Comparisons with Woody Allen don’t mean much to me because the work of these two is quite different and because Woody has a greater output and broader range. Although I like Albert Brooks and what he tries to do, he remains in the “good” category.
Thanks for the insightful piece.
Oh Sweet Mystery of Life…
This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen, really, it’s one of those movies that you hear about, my father always told me about this movie and how hilarious he found it in every beat it has, and this review reminded me of the many jokes that I found hilarious and at the same time those who prevented it from being far up in my list.
For example, the whole Ritz thing was like a topping of over-silliness, something completely unexpected that I still like but feel a bit not in the same tone as the rest of the film. The atributes of the Monster that leave some ladies singing is something that makes me laugh hard.
And of course, walk this way, walk this way…
Great movie!
“Put the candle BECK!”
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!! Yes, he was my BOYFRIEND!!!”
Just wanted to get in a few words for the hilarious Teri Garr and Cloris Leachman.