Tue 17 Jun 2014
A Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943).
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Reviews[24] Comments
FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN. Universal Pictures, 1943. Ilona Massey, Patric Knowles, Lionel Atwill, Bela Lugosi, Maria Ouspenskaya, Dennis Hoey, Lon Chaney Jr. Screenplay: Curt Siodmak. Director: Roy William Neill.
Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man is a horror film starring Lon Chaney Jr. In this quixotic production, Chaney reprises his role as Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man, the eponymous character of Curt Siodmak’s 1941 horror classic about a man who, against his own volition, turns into a werewolf during the full moon.
Along for the ride through this fairy tale land are Iloney Massey as Baroness Elsa Frankenstein, Patric Knowles as Dr. Frank Mannering, Talbot’s physician, and Bela Lugosi as a rather underwhelming Frankenstein Monster. Saving the film from its preposterous premise, encapsulated so clearly in the film’s title, is the skillful direction of Roy William Neill. (I reviewed Neill’s Gothic masterpiece, The Black Room starring Boris Karloff, here).
The plot is basic enough. Grave robbers come across the Talbot tomb in a very eerie looking cemetery somewhat reminiscent of the one seen in the beginning of Lew Landers’s The Return of the Vampire (reviewed here). Their attempt to rob the family tomb is thwarted by Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man who turns out not to be so dead after all.
Ever since he was initially bitten by a werewolf and transformed into one himself, Larry simply cannot die. He kills at night during the full moon and he hates himself for it. He simply wants to die. Indeed, that’s what takes up the majority of the film’s time — seeing a somewhat pathetic and moping Chaney/Talbot wonder around from place to place trying to find someone who will help him end his cursed existence. One person he seeks out is the elderly, mysterious Gypsy woman, Maleva, portrayed by the Russian actress, Maria Ouspenskaya, who had the same role in Siodmak’s The Wolf Man.
Talbot and Maleva make their way through central Europe where Talbot encounters Baroness Frankenstein (Massey) and urges her to turn over her father’s records. He wants to learn how her father’s experiments might help him die. Talbot also inadvertently discovers an iced over Frankenstein Monster (Lugosi) and releases him from his frozen tomb. One really has to suspend disbelief to make it through this part of the film.
Soon, Dr. Mannering (Knowles), who was Talbot’s physician earlier in the movie, shows up and decides that he’s going to become a mad doctor. He ends up both strengthening the Frankenstein Monster and, with the assistance of a full moon, turning Talbot into a werewolf on the same night.
Finally, the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man go at it, fighting as monsters do. It’s actually a fun little sequence with memorable camera angles and a visually stunning Gothic laboratory setting. But the monster versus monster fight doesn’t last long. One of the townspeople, against the advice of the mayor (Lionel Atwill), decides he’s going to sabotage the Frankenstein Castle and kill the monsters.
When the movie ends — too abruptly, it should be noted — it would seem as if both the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man have been laid to rest. (The 1944 sequel, House of Frankenstein, reviewed here by Dan Stumpf and by Walter Albert here, will demonstrate that this was not the case).
While Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man isn’t a particularly good horror film, it’s actually a fairly decent monster movie. True: Chaney’s character really doesn’t do much but whine and beg people to help him die. And Lugosi is not Karloff. But Roy William Neill’s direction makes the film an enjoyable, if admittedly mindless, viewing experience. Quirky camera angles, great settings, and skillful uses of shadow and lighting make this transparent effort by the studio to capitalize on the successes of both Frankenstein (1931) and The Wolf Man significantly better than it could have been in a far less capable director’s hands.
June 17th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
As a kid I loved this film though now I can see its flaws, Lugosi’s monster in particular (where is Glenn Strange when you need it).
Still this is the definition of a fun film, no message, no real horror, but it never slows down, and it must have made for one hell of a Saturday Matinee.
I always associate it with A&C Meet Frankenstein though it’s no comedy, it is the beginning of the downturn for Universal Horror of this era, but it is a long slow descent, and there were many entertaining films yet to come though nothing quite up to the early classics. Universal kept a toe hold on the genre for years to come though.
I would never rate it the best, but I might use it as a template to demonstrate the Universal style, and Neil’s command of the camera.
June 17th, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Neill is definitely a director whose work is worth seeking out. “The Black Room” ranks among my favorites; plus, there are the famous Sherlock Holmes series. He was moving into the film noir direction toward the latter part of his career, but unfortunately died in his early 50s
June 17th, 2014 at 5:22 pm
And a lot more fun than many better horror films.
June 17th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Yes, this movie was definitely a lot of fun
Especially the last 10 minutes
June 17th, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Love this film. Lugosi is not Karloff? Steve, you exhibit a mastery of understatement. Favorite Lugosi-as-monster line while wreaking havoc:”Vhat gooood is a brain vit out eyes to see?!”
June 17th, 2014 at 10:54 pm
It wasn’t my line, Steve, it was Jonathan’s, but it easily could have been.
June 18th, 2014 at 1:01 am
Although you’re right in saying that it isn’t a good horror movie, every now and then it does manage to be quite scary. The graverobbing scene at the beginning gave me the creeps as a kid, and it still works now. Lugosi’s performance suffers from the fact that his character was able to speak in the original cut of the film. The performance caused widespread hilarity amongst the studio heads, and all of his dialogue was cut.
When is the film meant to be set? Europe was at war when the film was made, so it is either pre-40s, or some alternate time-line.
And it’s nice to see Inspector Lest…sorry, Inspector Owen.
June 18th, 2014 at 1:06 am
In the original Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot arrives at his father’s estate by car so we know we’re in the 20th-century. Then after that, all cars disappear and we see horses and carriages. It’s like from that moment onward we’re transported to a timeless land or some sort of alt-universe.
There are also no cars in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, but there are telephones….
June 18th, 2014 at 3:06 am
You wanna see time-bending, check out the “Mummy” series!
June 18th, 2014 at 6:07 am
This is infamous for post production changes. Original cut had Lugosi’s Monster with Ygor’s brain, speaking in his voice, and nearly blind. All carried over from previous film.
June 18th, 2014 at 9:05 am
Jonathan,
Telephones were more readily available that automobiles in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not that I believe any form of veracity is implicit or explicit in these films.
June 18th, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Everyone seems able to move throughout central Europe without let or hindrance. It feels like the Victorian setting of the original novel of Dracula, where Transylvania and the like are incredibly distant and feel almost medieval to the heroes. The Universal mittel-Europe is a fairy tale construction, somehow existing outside of the twentieth century. It’s a little like their Sherlock Holmes series, where the first movies were totally tied in with WWII, but later ones exist in a world without air raids and rationing.
June 18th, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Assuming the setting is late twenties to late thirties automobiles might not be all that common in some of the real backwaters of Carpathia and Transylvania (though I always assumed Frankenstein was in Germanic Switzerland or Bavaria). Even during the war in Western Europe travel by horse and wagon were common into the mid fifties, especially during the war when fuel was being sent to the front.
You might not see all that many cars on the road. As for Wolfman, in small English villages travel by horse and cart still isn’t completely unknown, certainly well into the post war era. Since no one travels any distance you couldn’t walk on the Talbot estate cars would likely have stayed in the garage.
Not that they weren’t going for a much earlier time frame pre WWI in at least the viewers mind. The early part of F Meets W is almost certainly England, and I would guess into the late thirties.
But there were still parts of Europe, West and East, where cars were not universal probably into the early sixties.
Then again, we are in Hollywood Mittle-Europe where logic isn’t you best guide. I thought the worst thing about the modern Wolfman was moving it to the 19th century and associating it with the Ripper (Abberline in the film was in life one of the lead investigators into the Ripper) and Jekyll & Hyde since the point of Siodmak’s screenplay is a modern scientific man faced with atavistic primitivism.
True the Victorian fear of atavistic behavior was great, inspiring Hyde and Hound, but, Siodmak was more in line of challenging a contemporary scientific mind (Talbot is an expert on telescopes — therefore a scientific mind)with atavistic savagery . Like Dracula the novel, he hints at deep seated psychological problems and possible scientific rationales while throwing it in your face there are monsters out there.
I always associate Wolfman with Doyle’s Edwardian Hound from the setting to the manor and wild country as well as the foggy marsh. Then too, I can’t help but wonder if Siodmak had read Jessie Douglas Keruish’s Undying Monster (filmed around the same period)and just pared the story down for the screen, since that has more in common with Wolfman than The Werewolf of London.
June 18th, 2014 at 3:00 pm
I have the Universal Studios set of classic horror films and watched The Wolf Man (1941) on it. In the bonus features, there is an interview with Siodmak. He talks about the wolf man as a duality of good and evil in every people. He likens it to the many Germans who turned, in his view as a Jewish emigre to the United States, from good people into wolves. (Again, Siodmak’s view, not mine)
The science aspect of Talbot’s personality – the work with telescopes – can be interpreted as indicative of how a scientific, urbane culture could also be so “primitive.”
As far as the beginning of Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, for some reason I thought the beginning was set in Wales.
Definitely noticed that they travel with ease throughout central Europe. Or whatever land it is. The folk costumes of the peasantry are Bohemian or Hungarian
June 18th, 2014 at 4:09 pm
My memory of the original novel of THE UNDYING MONSTER is that the author pretty much threw everything in the mix (female psychic inestigator, past life regression, Nordic mythology, love story and just about everything else that you can think of). The Fox movie version is quite an enjoyable and unusual little thriller, which uses the same psychological/scientific ideas but comes up with totally different film. THE WOLFMAN had quite a strong influence on CAT PEOPLE and (amusingly) THE UNDYING MONSTER. I do hope that Siodmak was influenced by the latter film, as it would have a wonderfully circular logic for a knock-off of a movie to based in part on the book which influenced the movie that was influenced by the book (if you see what I mean…?)
June 18th, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Actually, what I should have written was that I hoped Siodmak had been influenced by the book of THE UNDYING MONSTER, like David said.
June 18th, 2014 at 5:42 pm
Jonathan: The beginning of FMTW IS set in Wales. If I remember correctly, Talbot hears about Frankenstein and travels to central Europe. The only difference between this and Wales is that everyone wears Hungarian national dress.
June 18th, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Maybe it’s just a personal reaction, but I found the heroine of UNDYING MONSTER intensely irritating: Her every other line seemed to be a variation on. “I think I know but I can’t tell you yet,” or “I have my suspicions but I don’t want to say,” or “I believe I know the answer but…” I kept hoping the Undying Monster would jump up and bite her.
June 18th, 2014 at 6:19 pm
For those who may be interested:
“”Most of what is today considered standard werewolf lore actually originated with Siodmak in this picture and its two sequels,” said the International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers. ”He invented the famous four-line verse (‘Even a man who’s pure in heart’) and the business about silver bullets and full moons.”
From Mr. Siodmak’s perspective, the tale was a metaphor for his own flight from the horrors of Nazi Germany.
”I am the Wolf Man,” he said in an interview last year in Written By, the magazine of the Writers Guild of America, west. ”I was forced into a fate I didn’t want: to be a Jew in Germany. I would not have chosen that as my fate. The swastika represents the moon. When the moon comes up, the man doesn’t want to murder, but he knows he cannot escape it, the Wolf Man destiny.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/19/nyregion/curt-siodmak-dies-at-98-created-modern-wolf-man.html
June 18th, 2014 at 7:55 pm
Yes, the Nazi influence should have been obvious, thanks for pointing it out. Like Bradstreet I would love the roundabout logic if the book and two films fed on each other.
No question Siodmak is the source for most of the modern werewolf mythology though he either drew on German myth or read James on Lycanthropy as well.
I will present one nagging little doubt, and that is writers are not always fully honest about things like influences. Some of what Siodmak mentions may have been unconscious at the time and only formed into a cognizant explanation well after the fact. I can tell you I find things I unconsciously put in works, or things that reflect on events that happened well after the book was put to bed all the time, and most writers do as well. Storytellers will build a good story in their head whether it is the exact truth or not.
It’s a shame there are no interviews before the film or right after that might support his words. People who lie for a living are notoriously unreliable about such things. I don’t doubt the ultimate truth, only that the allegorical part was as conscious as he claims. Wolf Man feels much less allegory than a reflection of Hyde like metaphysical and psychological fears of atavistic behavior.
I don’t doubt the truth of what Siodmak said half so much as at what point it became the truth. You cannot take writers at their word on these things. Much of creativity is unconscious and only takes on form after the fact.
I don’t claim the allegory isn’t there, I simply question if it was put there, or discovered there in retrospect.
I still see the set up of the Wolf Man as influenced by the Hound with Talbot Manor representing Baskerville Hall, Larry the young heir, the gypsies standing in for the moors and Dartmoor prison as well as the Hound, and Knowles, Warren, and Bellamy aspects of Holmes and Dr. Mortimer. Even the telescope bit is out of Hound. I would be willing to bet that is a more conscious influence than the Nazi allegory at the time the film was written.
I promise he did not sell this to Universal as an allegory about Nazi Germany.
And Hound was extremely big in Germany even down to their own version of the film. I wonder of Siodmak borrowed that setting and basic set up because of his unfamiliarity with rural England outside of movies and books?
Questions without answers, but only films that reach us at the ur-level psychological level spur them.
June 18th, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Agreed. The only places I have seen where he referenced Nazi Germany with regard to The Wolf Man were in a video interview (from the late 1980s? 1990s?) and this piece he wrote in his late 90s. In one, he says the Wolf Man is Germany turned into Nazism. In the other, the Jew as the outsider.
A lot of refugees from Nazism and Holocaust survivors didn’t talk all that much about it until years later.
It could be that in his 70s, Siodmak decided that those films were part of his subconscious reckoning with Germany. Or he wanted to discuss that part of his life and used his films as allegories in retrospect.
But, as you said, in no way did he sell this film to Universal as an allegory for Nazism.
June 18th, 2014 at 8:32 pm
I agree regarding Talbot Manor and Baskerville Hall
June 19th, 2014 at 1:14 am
Another connection might be, and this is perhaps a little tenuous, the villain of HOUND is a throwback to an earlier, more wicked member of the family, The Wolfman is a throwback to an earlier, more savage form of life.
The thing about metaphor and allegory is that they can be as clear or as vague as you like, and it’s possible to see things that the original author didn’t intend. Jack Finney denied until the end that INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS was specifically about individuality in post-war American society. As far as he was concerned it was just a story. In Siodmak’s case, it’s possible that he was told time and again that his story was actually about Nazis and Jewish persecution. If people constantly congratulate your monster flicks for really being deep and meaningful, it must be hard not to rise to that. I’ve always suspected that one of the reasons for THE WOLFMAN for being such an important horror movie is that it finally captured the werewolf myth in a way that worked in modern pop culture. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is enjoyable, but you never really get a proper idea of what a werewolf is. No-one could say that about THE WOLFMAN.
June 19th, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Bradstreet, agree with you and Jonathan on this. And Hound like Wolf Man is definitely Doyle dealing with the Victorian horror of atavism, and in this case consciously so because Doyle dealt with it in other Holmes adventures quite obviously.
And yes, it must be hard to be told you are writing an allegory about the centuries most important event and still admit you were just writing a horror movie for your salary. That doesn’t mean the meta-text isn’t there, but that it was likely unconscious, not purposeful. Allegory in Lewis Narnia and Perelandra books was conscious, in Tolkien’s LOTR it was unconscious. Only the author knows for certain.