(James Whale, 1935)
(essay by Troy)
A landmark horror film, Bride of Frankenstein is universally praised as one of the greatest horror movies ever made, the elite class of the Universal monster films. Emotionally resonate, comically satirical, and replete with expressionistic artistry and Gothic atmosphere, it’s a film that I had always appreciated for its historical importance, but until recently, had not given it the full credit for the masterpiece it truly is.
When given free reign by Universal to create Bride of Frankenstein, it’s obvious that James Whale took full control of the opportunity. Whale shows his playfulness in the very first scene, a prologue whereby we believe we are getting an establishing shot of Castle Frankenstein, only to get a shot of two foppish dandies, Lord Byron and Percy Shelley, along with Mary Shelley. In what may be cinema’s first metatextual, post-modern moment, we get a recap of the first film and are introduced to the film we are about to see, which Mary is apparently just making up on the fly, complete with retcons.
As Mary’s story unfolds, we are introduced again to The Monster, Dr. Henry Frankenstein, and his wife, Elizabeth, as well as a new character, Dr. Pretorius. The Monster is struggling to find a friend, to fit in with a world that obviously fears him and wants to ostracize him (or more simply, just destroy him). His best opportunity at finding friendship is when he meets a blind hermit who takes him in and offers him fellowship, food, and wine (leading to Boris Karloff’s Monster excitedly repeating “Wine! Wine!”). However, once found by the locals, who assume he’s a threat, he is forced out of this happy situation and flees back to meet the sinister Pretorius, who promises to make him happy by creating for him a mate. Pretorius forces Henry into helping him with this, which leads to the creation of The Bride. Sadly, his Bride is repulsed by him and rejects him, the Monster realizing that she hates him “just like others.” And with this he destroys everything, killing him, his Bride, and Dr. Pretorius, while letting Henry and Elizabeth escape from the fiery building. A suitably tragic ending.
Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius (“a queer-looking old gentleman”) steals the show portraying a human version of Mephistopheles. With his over the top preening, he gives a decidedly camp portrayal, seemingly out of place in the entirety of Universal horror films, which adds even more to the post-modern feel that the prologue introduced. Meanwhile, Boris Karloff as the Monster is outstanding, providing pathos, humor, and rage all while limited by the obvious constraints of being the Monster. Elsa Lanchester plays both Mary Shelley and The Bride, and in the latter she has created one of the most important images in movie history. Her twitchy, jerky movements, modeled after that of a swan, work toward giving The Bride an otherworldly aura.
While much of the gay subtext in the film has been dismissed by those closest to Whale, even if he was only making these metaphors unconsciously there is a definite sense of contemporary sex roles being slyly contested. Whether viewing Pretorius and Frankenstein as the Monster’s two dads, seeing the Monster and the hermit living together as a symbol of homosexual domesticity, or merely noticing that Frankenstein is torn away from his new wife on his honeymoon night the moment Pretorius come into the picture, there’s a shrewdly subversive nature to this reading that certainly lends more depth to the picture.
Whale also appears to be toying with the sacrosanct nature of religious iconography. It’s always been obvious that Frankenstein, who created man, can be seen as God (supposedly the Hays office removed dialogue that made this comparison explicit — phew, because there’s NO way you could EVER see the analogy otherwise…), while Karloff’s Monster is the Christ figure. The imagery is made abundantly clear when The Monster is “crucified” on a pole before finally giving up his own life to save that of the sinner — Henry, who dared to imitate God in the first place. Some have even pointed out that the fact The Monster is first resurrected and later crucified is a clever inversion of the Passion story.
Bride also shows a high-level of artistry on hand. The make-up and costuming of two horror icons, Karloff’s Monster and the The Bride, is superlative, while Pretorius’ man-made creatures that he stores in jars provide a fun look at early era special effects. The camera choices during the Bride’s creation come straight out of the German Expressionist playbook — lightning pours in from above, electricity arcs between the devices in the lab, the camera remains tilted as an array of close-ups come at us, each showing the madness of the situation in the eyes of each person. Franz Waxman’s score ultimately seals this scene, with a set of church bells as the Bride is brought to life. Waxman’s contributions also show up in his grand themes for the Monster, the Bride, and Pretorius, as well as the closing blast that ends the film as the castle explodes. Great dialogue flows throughout, with Thesiger’s Pretorius getting the bulk of it (“Gin – it is my only weakness,” “To a new world of Gods and Monsters,” “Sometimes I have wondered whether life wouldn’t be much more amusing if we were all devils, and no nonsense about angels and being good,” “Yes. A woman. That should be really interesting.”).
All of what precedes this speaks to what makes this film a masterpiece, a film full of wit, pathos, emotional resonance, and candor. But there is one aspect that made me love this film, an aspect that Whale and Karloff combine to so perfectly capture.
Bride of Frankenstein may be a horror film that is not “scary” in the modern sense nor does it really attempt to create such an atmosphere visually (though the shrieking visage of the Bride does tend to evoke many of the eerie underlying feelings that Gothic horror can provide). Instead, Whale chooses to use the template of horror to take a deeply affecting look at loneliness and isolation. It’s in this effort that we find an overwhelming sense of sadness and despair here that can surely be interpreted as horrific — the story of a person who just wants to be happy, to be understood by others, to experience friendship with someone who accepts them for who they are, but the rest of society simply won’t let it happen. The film’s core emotion, that of the effects of alienation, is a universal one, and one that is relevant in any context.
Actually, Karloff’s Monster sums up the entirety of the film more perfectly that that in one simple line…
“Alone bad, friend good.”
See more screencaps at Troy’s blog, here.
(this film appeared on Jamie’s list at #82, Kevin’s at #63, and Troy’s at #32)
THIS at 45. And we all know it’ll be superceded by all sorts of slasher shite. So many of the films here have been absolute drivel.
Just what hard working horror film writers need to hear Allan!
So far there isn’t a single choice in the Top 50 I can argue with, and this latest pick of course is one of the genre’s standard bearers for eight decades. I thought the issue of numerical placement’ was established weeks ago as far less important than whether or not a film was actually included in the mix. The four young men involved in this project have worked their tail off, and site traffic and comment totals have been hugely impressive. Horror is the genre that launched my own love of movies, and I’ll always have a place for it in my heart. I must say too that a number of choices from the 50 to 100 span have been written down for future viewing.
As to THE BRIDE, it’s the best of all the Universal horrors for all sorts of reasons. Troy has ppenned another exceptional treatment, and basically says it all in that fantastic opening paragraph:
“A landmark horror film, Bride of Frankenstein is universally praised as one of the greatest horror movies ever made, the elite class of the Universal monster films. Emotionally resonate, comically satirical, and replete with expressionistic artistry and Gothic atmosphere, it’s a film that I had always appreciated for its historical importance, but until recently, had not given it the full credit for the masterpiece it truly is.”
Thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining the arbitrary nature of the rankings again. Remember, this is more of “100 horror films four people have seen, think are great, and want to write on, placing numbers in front of each of them.”
I would be fine arguing about the placement if it were JUST my list on here, but that’s simply not the case.
Some of these guys love cheesy slasher films. Just like you happen to love super long 410 minute television programs on your countdown. Maybe neither really belongs…… but whatever. These guys are doing a wonderful job with this countdown and the numerical position has already been established as being arbitrary and unimportant. Relax and enjoy SLUGS being placed in a prominent spot in the future. I’m noticing that I favor Troy’s picks the most since he tends to spotlight the older “classics”. Still like Sam, I am really enjoying this countdown even if I don’t agree with all of the choices.
I do miss the ten a day mini reviews. I hope in the future that someone will make a whole countdown this way. The horror countdown will take 55 days to complete….. Maybe doing something like 100-51 5 at a time and the rest of the countdown 3 at a time until the final 5 which will be single entries. I love multiple capsule reviews.
100-51 10 days
50-6 15 days
5-1 5 days
30 total.
Just a thought
I have stayed quiet up till now, but if the rankings are irrelevant, don’t have them. Just write 50 random essays – to me a countdown made up of four people’s taste is silly anyway as it has no sense of identity – better to just have the four writers do a top 20 each with each having a given day on the site (say Jamie’s countdown on Tuesday, Troy’s on Wed, others on Thu and Friday).
Now I shall depart from whence I came. Troy’s got the taste for filmic artistry, Jamie’s done some nice pieces on rarities which are great, but some of the other choices are shit, pure and simple. At least I’m honest enough to admit it.
Now I’ll return to my sane place.
Allan — I understand if you think the movies are shit. It’s not surprising to me that you would think so, having a feel for your tastes and style via your own countdowns. If you want to tear the movies apart then do so. I have no use for SAW or THE OMEN and I made that clear when they were posted. Everyone slapping each other on the back doesn’t necessarily lead to any better discussion, so go to town.
Also, I think if you cut out a little piece of tape, place it about 5 inches by 5 inches on your screen, then it should cover up the number placement preceding the title of the film. Maybe that will help (sorry, can’t leave a comment without an attempt at being a wiseass).
Well said Troy!
The entire point of having a numerical countdown is to allow for structure and drama, two cogent selling points for horror fans and those seeking some (albeit superficial, as suggested by the poll’s chairpersons) structure and drama. Personally, I am very much intrigued by what these four horror film authorities think, and hold their judgement and taste in the highest esteem. Like any other weighted countdown, I don’t always agree. There are some films I would dismiss as “shit” just as some others felt the same way about some of Allan’s choices for the decade countdown. While Troy is right when he says that “back slapping” doesn’t always yield the most meaningful discussions, I nonetheless feel that respect should trump candid hostility. The level of work here has been staggering, and these kind of comments are not only counter productive but they undermine the very spirit of this noble enterprise. I would much prefer analytical discussion as to the artistry (or lack thereof) of these choices, than a curt authoritative dismissal without the benefit of civil and insightful discussion.
Yes, but I was one person macking the choices, not four.
I will also add I’ve made my list as the 100 ‘movie’s that scare me the most’, this is a classic film, that most would say is leagues better then a film I discussed a few days back, IN MY SKIN, but one is actually scary, one just has a bunch of aura around it.
And, didn’t think this needed to be said for about the (seriously) 8th time but the numbers don’t matter. If you want for the remaining films I post I can add #_ _ of 100 to lessen the ‘numerical placements’ authority so many seem to need to get into this thing.
If you don’t like the 4 person combo countdown fine, I didn’t have the time to write 100 essays (and I wanted other fan’s opinions), and a countdown lacking a definitive taste may be worthless to you, but I’d blush way to much presenting myself as the sole ‘horror end all authority’.
This is a fun countdown first and foremost, but I think we’ve taken Horror seriously. Much more serious then virtually anywhere I’ve yet seen in the blogosphere.
I know what Allan means (and Jamie sort of reflects it below with his comment about collective canons, i.e. stuff like the AFI list) but what I like about this countdown is that even with the mix, you still get individual entries. So, best of both worlds in a sense. (As far as canons proper go, I’m ambivalent. Yes that AFI list was remarkably bland – Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner in the top 100 of all time? Really?!?! – but I remember at the time I had kind of strayed away from movies for a time and that list got me back whole hog into seeing so many classics I hadn’t seen yet (remember, I was only 14 at the time so I’d seen Citizen Kane & 2001 but not Sunset Blvd & Manchurian Candidate); and I went from there to check out more and more obscure and/or more deserving stuff. So I think “big” “official” canons can be great kickoffs for exploration, we just can’t let the exploration stop there. That’s where the blogosphere can be such a great addition…)
Well, if it makes Allan feel any better, after writing this piece, I decided I DID have it ranked entirely too low on my own list and moved it all the way up to #14. If I had chosen that ranking when we initially compiled our rankings, it would have shot up another 10 spots on the overall list. Still too low for your liking, but higher if that’s really important to you.
But yeah, there is some fantastic drivel still yet to come 🙂
That’s why I shall be retiring. This hedgehog has gone into hibernation until sanity prevails.
I too am shocked at Allan’s assault. The choices made by Jamie and company have been included rarities and small indes, in addition to some commercial horrors. Today’s choice was a given, but I am somehow thinking the original 1931 film will still be heard from. Troy Olson has done great work considering this sequel of sequels. Ernest Thesiger is my favorite character actor.
Thanks, Frank. This is the only Universal film I considered for my own list, though it’s likely that Whale’s other films (FRANKENSTEIN and THE OLD DARK HOUSE) would have made my list had I re-watched them in time for the countdown. It had simply been too long since I’d seen them for me to judge them properly. As for other Universal horror, I don’t have any rated too highly. I do like THE INVISIBLE MAN, but consider that sci-fi, not horror.
Wow Troy The Black Cat, The Mummy, and The Wolfman are all deserving films. **** to ****1/2 stars each in my humble opinion.
THE BLACK CAT is one I haven’t seen. THE MUMMY and WOLFMAN each get ***1/2 from me, which puts them in contention, but not on my list .
I’m with Frank on the greatness of Ernest Thesiger. He stole the show in both Whale horror films he appeared in. I actually prefer The Old Dark House and Frankenstein to the Bride. My love of movies started by watching the old Universal stuff on TV as a kid. I remember being six or seven and excited by Abbott And Costello Meet Frankenstein being aired. I was never scared by the Universal stuff but I loved the B/W atmospheric look. James Whale sure had a great run in the 30’s. While there was humor in horror films before him, I feel his pictures are the most direct influence on horror/comedy to this day.
Completely agree on both Thesiger’s greatness and Whale’s influence on the horror/comedy concept.
Troy, the crucifixion bit has always been an obvious moment in Bride, but your commentary makes me ponder the possibility of the Monster as an antichrist figure who is perpetually crucified and perpetually resurrected without redeeming anyone because love is impossible for him. Doesn’t he also perpetrate some sacrilege in the cemetery before he meets Pretorius? And doesn’t that come after Whale closes the Hermit’s prayer and the Monster’s tears with a glowing crucifix? Hmmm. Arguably the two subsequent Igor films (SON and GHOST) pick up an antichrist thread by emphasizing Igor’s delusions of power and world conquest through merging himself with the Monster. I doubt it was conscious on anyone’s part by then but the unconsciously evocative parts are much of what makes films like these great — including the slasher films.
That’s certainly an intriguing way to look at things, Samuel. The Monster does desecrate a grave with a crucifix on it and there is the glowing crucifix in the previous scene as well, so the pointing toward some sort of religious allegory by Whale would seem to be apparent.
As for the redemption of the Monster, in some ways he does try to do this when he saves Henry and Elizabeth, though he really seems more concerned with killing Pretorius and his Bride at that moment than having any sort of love for the Frankensteins.
I too love this film; it’s cosy atmosphere, it’s moodiness and it’s extraordinary artistry make it not only one of the most astonishing films from the ’30s, but for me, one of the great ‘Hall of Fame’ masterpieces of the ages. But I wouldn’t even consider it for top 50 or even top 100 horror movies. Because I don’t think that was Whale’s intention or desire. Both the original and it’s sequel, ‘Son of Frankenstein’ are better at conveying a chill or frissions. It is instead, one of the earliest black comedies, worthy of a place next ‘Kind Hearts and Coronets’ & ‘Dr. Strangelove’. Great write-up. By the way, I can’t believe your not going to include my personal favourite Universal, 1943 ‘Flesh and Fantasy’ a mixed bag that echoes ‘The Twilight Zone’ in it’s enchanting first tale and ‘One Step Beyond’ in it’s last boring one, but in the middle is a 40 minute masterpiece of chilling, blood-curdling horror – an adaption of Wilde’s ‘Lord Arthur Saville’s Crime’. No violence, but an idea so horrifyingly inevitable and done with such savage artistry that it outdoes in chilly effectiveness, the fantastical efforts of the Germans of the ’20s, and the American chillers of the ’30s. Arhh, well
Bobby — yeah, there just aren’t the “chill or frissions” that you speak of here, so I see your point. And though it is a brilliant dark comedy underneath, I still consider this horror, if for no other reason than the genre trappings that are there, and am fine including it with similarly labeled films.
Also, I’m wasn’t even aware of FLESH AND FANTASY. If I can find it on Youtube I’ll give it a look.
I knew we’d come under some fire when the Universal films didn’t get their proper due in this countdown, so I’ll leave it up to the commenters to make their merits seen 🙂
I’ve read dozens of terrific essays here… Sam and Allan are the usual culprits. Allan brings a quick wrap up while popping off the plots and fine points with lightning speed… Sam is prober, turning the subject over to polish its finer points of heartfelt connection… Succint, detailed and effortless is the way I’d describe this capsule review by TROY. There’s real love for the film combined with detailed analysis of the metaphors the imbue this masterwork. Frankly, this is absolutely one of the very best pieces I know I have ever read here at WITD. My hats off to Mr. Olsen, who made me not only appreciate my already established love for this film, but inspired an excitement for rediscovery of this film by way of hinting at hidden subtexts that I was too young to pick up on. This is a dazzling capsule for Whale’s masterpiece that mirrors issues of lonliness and acceptance that were also part of the directors life as well. Troy has set the bar for this poll so far.. BRAVO!!!
Wow, Dennis, detailed, succinct, AND effortless? Thanks!
The truth is I’m still trying to find my voice in my movie writing. One day I read Tim Brayton and think his expansive style is what I want, another day I read Shubhajit and think his capsule style is ideal. Then there’s the question of if I want to do the same general overview style for each review or try to dig in to one specific aspect and highlight that. Like I said, constant work in progress.
I’m happy that these come off as effortless, but the funny thing is I probably spend more time researching, obsessing, and rewriting one of these than it takes someone like my brother to write ALL of his posts. Ha.
Regarding some earlier commentaries, I don’t think it’s fair to come out here and treat certain elements of this list as ‘shit’, specially when the poster did his own lists and was acclaimed/insulted by many of its choices (I still applaud the LOVE EXPOSURE possition as the only other person who put it in his list of best of the decade). But even if he was someway insulted by his own choices I don’t think its fair to come out right here, on this movie.
I haven’t agreed on many of the choices made before, and I’ve made it clear on my commentaries, when I have posted them, if those movies would or wouldn’t make my own list. If someone doesn’t agree on its placing or inclusion of a list, one may comment on its respective place, I don’t think its fair for an article of Whale’s masterpiece to have the word ‘shit’ written under it, even if it doesn’t refer to it.
About the movie itself, I like it a lot and it may be my third favorite Universal Horror movie, a studio era of which I’m a fanatic follower. I do like the original FRANKENSTEIN more than this, specially because of its humour elements which I found somewhat distracting, but they never made me think that this movie was bad (I still rate it *****, that’s what I say).
I expect to find more Universal Horror, but this list has been different, so maybe we won’t anyway, I’ll post my top 5 favorite Universal Horror:
1. The Invisible Man (1933)
2. Frankenstein (1931)
3. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
4. Drácula (1931, Spanish Version)
5. Dracula (1931, Lugosi version)
Top 5 Universal films for me……..
1. The Old Dark House (1932)
2. The Black Cat (1934)
3. Frankenstein (1931)
4. The Mummy (1932)
5. The Bride Of Frankenstein (1935)
My two overall favorite horror films of the 30’s are Vampyr and Dr Jeckyll And Mr Hyde.
This looks like fun. My top five Universals as of now are:
1. Frankenstein (1931)
2. Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
3. The Mummy (1932)
4. The Wolf Man (1941)
5. Dracula (Browning, 1931)
Well, this really is turning out to be a headache thread when there really should be no reason for it. Can’t we all just look at this wonderful essay, clearly Troys best here at WITD so far and, in my opinion, the best of the Horror poll thus far, as a celebration of James Whales classic?
The numbering, as I see it, really IS used for dramatic purposes. End of story, if you got numbers in front of the films then there are bound to be nay-sayers on where certain choices should appear. ALLAN has certain personal criteria, as we all do, and he’s allowed to voice his opinion as well, as WE ALL ARE. I know Allan has a real pain-in-the-ass way of showing his disdain (LOL! we all have been on his shit list before) and I won’t defend it 99.9% of the time. However, had he toned the wording of his grip down a notch, i think we’d all agree that his opinion is viable and should be heard just as much as everyone else’s.
SAM was telling me on IM the other night that he was more for intense, thoughtful, insightful, educational and communal discussions that yield a new way of looking at things. He was, as per that conversation, not agreeing with me that the numbering was important. However, as in any poll (whether the subject be film, popular song, painting, Las Vegas game tables or which female porn star has the greatest set of tits), the numbering IS as important a part of the poll as the selections themselves. They create, in and of themselves, a point of controversy that a mere alphabetical or random listing would provoke. By putting THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN here at No. 45, the guys have, whether unwittingly or not, set off a firecracker of debate on artistic merit and filmic importance. This is precisely why the numbers are ABSOLUTELY necessary. Now, I’m sure we could do without Mr. Fish TELLING us all that we’re a bunch of morons for this listing, but if worded the more polite way, his beef is actually a very valid one considering the heaps of critical assessment (all positive) thrown at this particular film over the course of many, many decades.
Does it really matter where this film places in the long run?
No, not really. I have my views about where it should be as well as many others here i’m sure but, and here’s the important part people, while it is strictly a personal opinion in the long run, it should not be incumbered from being made known.
I happen to think that ROSEMARY’S BABY is the greatest horror film of all time. I’ve made my stance VERY clear on this in many comments on these threads. I’ll scream, rant and rave that the positioning of that film is too low, too invisible and just plain crazy. But, it is MY opinion, as Allan’s was earlier on this film and, when numbering, those that make up this polls commitee should accept and brace for the tirades and rants that others will have. JAMIE is right to say this is a poll made to uncover films that we may not have seen and should give creedence to that we may not otherwise have in the past, but he’s (understandably) blind to think that just because he and others have stated such that the outraged will just keep quiet and curl up in a ball of acceptance.
Now, i’m not trying to open a wound here or say this one is right and that one is wrong. I’m merely pointing out that part of the fun, and education of a poll of this kind (whether with one writer or many) is the competition the numbers allude to and the controversy positionings will have. Hoping that we are all mature thinkers here, this type of controversy should produce angles to films that one person may be able to convey to one, or maybe even more, that participate in the discussions. Ultimately, I think competition of this kind is a spark for healthy debate and, hopefully, enlightening differences of opinion.
The numbers ARE necessary whether you like it or not.
Now, can we please get back to THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and Troy’s amazingly good essay???????
:_)
“I happen to think that ROSEMARY’S BABY is the greatest horror film of all time. I’ve made my stance VERY clear on this in many comments on these threads. I’ll scream, rant and rave that the positioning of that film is too low, too invisible and just plain crazy. But, it is MY opinion, as Allan’s was earlier on this film and, when numbering, those that make up this polls commitee should accept and brace for the tirades and rants that others will have. JAMIE is right to say this is a poll made to uncover films that we may not have seen and should give creedence to that we may not otherwise have in the past, but he’s (understandably) blind to think that just because he and others have stated such that the outraged will just keep quiet and curl up in a ball of acceptance.”
Well, again though Dennis I think when my top 100 personal list is revealed my personal taste on Horror will reveal itself, and there will be plenty of ‘classics’ on there. I’m not just scouffing off the mainstream to be obscure… look through the essays, and you’ll notice how many mainstays are on my list.
And, as an off topic point, I hate the idea of canons–established by populace opinion–they need to be personal. I am not putting trash over this film, or any. BEGOTTEN, IN MY SKIN, TROUBLE EVERY DAY are more artistic and scarier then this film. This is a HORROR film countdown first, and Film countdown second. How much a film unsettles me is the most important thing.
Until others can succinctly and clearly state their opinions on Horror as clearly as I (and the three others) have over the last month (and the in threads on several topics) is when I will give their opinions credence. Just saying ‘this is better’, ‘it’s classic’ and ‘others are shit’ is not going to do it for me, sorry. (not that you are guilty of this Dennis)
In other words, I’d love to see a top 100 Horror films from Sam, one from Dennis, and one from Allan.
And Allan if there is anything like the SIN CITY slotting for the 2000’s I reserve the right to yell and point at once “SHIT!”.
My favorite Universal Monster/Horror films…
1. Dracula (particularly with the Phillip Glass score)
2. Bride Of Frankenstein
3. Son Of Frankenstein (the sets alone make this one singularly amazing, Bela Lugosi’s Igor is a performance of sheer brilliant characterization and the inside homosexual banter is absolutely hysterical: “The monster is MY friend… HE DOES THINGS FOR ME….” LOL!!!!)
4. The Invisible Man (because these films never got a better performance than that of the amazing Claude Rains)
5. The Creature From The Black Lagoon (dripping with atmosphere, Spielberg got alot of inspiration for JAWS here…)
6. The Mummy (actually, Karloff’s BEST performance)
7. The Wolfman (I’ll say one thing here, Marie Ouspenskaya)
I forgot about CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, which I also enjoy and also could have made my list (I had about 50 movies rated equally that I only had 10 spots for).
Such a superb film (it’s film like this I watch and go, “Aha! This is greatness!” reminding me that a lot of films I like don’t quite shoot through the ceiling like this), and what great images! Also, one of your best essays, Troy, as others have pointed out.
Funny, I read this thread backwards and was bracing myself for a horribly cruel Allan comment at the top. But in the end, I didn’t think it was all that bad after the buildup – or maybe I’m just used to the Fish evil eye by now, ha ha. Anyway, I’m loving the countdown and piling up my queue with the selections so far.
Yeah, JOEL, I agree… This was NOT up to the usual “I’m right and you’re all a bunch of neophites…” Allan blasting.
Frankly, Ive been on the other side of the tonque lashing (as have you, and Bob Clark, not to mention poor Sam) when it’s really gotten nasty and the boys here should look at it as a minor tremor rather than a full scale, rock the fault-line, earthquake…
Actually, I thought Allan was rather tame this time out…
LOL!!!!!
MovieMan, I saw you call for submissions for this the other day– I will be there soon I promise. I’m away from my ‘home base’ for a friends wedding. When I return remind me, this is a fun project you have going.
Look forward to your input, Jamie! It’s not submissions so much as comments on the films concerned; I think it would be especially fun to hear, “this is what I thought of this film when I saw it” or “I saw it in these circumstances…” I’ll probably be including a few of these personal notes as we move forward in the 90s, the period when I saw the most movies in the theaters. I love that DVD has created a “cinema-world without boundaries” where we can explore so many films regardless of era or country but at the same time the history buff in me loves to explore the context of things too. It’s also letting me discover some wacky films out there; most recently a Babe Ruth bio from 1920 (in which he starred) & a really offbeat Disney cartoon from 1930 (funny how Disney, despite the sentimentalization that creeped in later was so wacked-out initially, as “cartoony” as Betty Boop or Looney Tunes…). All in all, it should be a fun game; I’d be especially interested on your thoughts on Bamboozled this week, as I haven’t seen it but am dying to and it seems kind of like it would be up your alley.
Er, sorry to hijack this thread. Great essay, Troy!
On the subject of old Universal horror icons, I’m watching Ed Wood and enjoying it. Oddly enough I find his chipper enthusiasm and straight-ahead approach to filmmaking rather inspiring, whatever the results (occasionally I find myself resenting the film’s at-times condescending attitude to Wood – though it’s sympathetic too; at others wholeheartedly laughing alone with the foolishness of his enterprise – how can you not? The wrestling match with the octopus especially had me laughing aloud). And the Landau performance as Lugosi is rather oddly touching.
I realize I haven’t seen any Wood films, other than the odd clip here and there. Kind of wished I’d watched 1 or 2 before seeing the Burton film.
No problem at all Joel 😉 It wouldn’t be a Wonders comment thread without interesting tangents, now would it?
I love ED WOOD and I really don’t have much use in general for Burton. As for the actual films by Wood, PLAN 9 is actually even more funny after watching the Burton film, as all of the moments you assume Depp and co. played up for added humor are actually quite accurate depictions of scenes in the film.
Just head on over to YouTube and you can see all the Wood movies you’ll need.