Fritz and Henry?
Instead of Igor and Victor? Why?
shareYgor wasn't created yet, and "Henry" was supposedly more "English-friendly" than "Victor."
share
MovieChat Forums > Frankenstein (1931) Discussion > Fritz and Henry?
The name change from Victor to Henry originated with the 1927 Peggy Webling play upon which the movie was based, Frankenstein: An Adventure in the Macabre. The play is also the source which named Frankenstein's friend Victor Moritz, as opposed to the novel's closest corresponding character, Henry Clerval. It's still a mystery as to why Webling apparently switched the first names of the two characters.
Fritz was neither in the Webling play nor Shelley's novel. This character was pulled from an unproduced John Balderston adaption of Frankenstein which Universal owned. In turn, the character was believed to have been inspired by a character from the very first Frankenstein stage adaptation from 1823, in which Frankenstein had a servant/assistant named Fritz. While not a hunchback in the play, Fritz was described as "eccentric and nervous" and was written as the comic relief. The stage role was specifically written for character actor Robert Keeley.
That's interesting about the film Frankenstein being based on an adaptation of a play rather than a straight adaptation of the book. Of course, it doesn't explain why the creators of the plays would just create all-new characters instead of just incorporating pre-existing ones, although I can kind of understand the creation of Fritz since we need a kind of "creepy assistant" and someone else for the monster to kill.
Ironically enough, it's difficult to imagine any kind of Dr. Frankenstein without a hunchbacked Fritz, or hell, any kind of "mad scientist" character without such a hunchbacked, creepy assistant character. Kind of shows the huge effects little changes can have.
Just a bit of trivia, the film of Dracula was also based on a play instead of the book as well. Does anyone know if it was just common practice in Hollywood for a film adaptation of a book to be based on the play version if one was available? I've also seen Nosferatu and from what I've read it was (albeit very loosely) based solely on the book of Dracula, although I'm pretty sure there were plays already being performed.
Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.
Just a bit of trivia, the film of Dracula was also based on a play instead of the book as well. Does anyone know if it was just common practice in Hollywood for a film adaptation of a book to be based on the play version if one was available?
I once read in a book on film history that there was a brief trend among movie studios to acquire film rights to stage plays during the advent of talkies. It seems that the studios didn't at first know what to do with this new technology, and one of the first obvious uses was to adapt stage productions since the dialogue was already available. Of course they didn't simply film stage productions, but they would take advantage of their cinematic medium to give the audience an experience they couldn't get from the stage production alone - for instance, outdoor scenes could actually be filmed at outdoor locations. The trend was short-lived, as screenwriters and film makers quickly adapted to the talkie environment.
I've also seen Nosferatu and from what I've read it was (albeit very loosely) based solely on the book of Dracula
Nosferatu was an unauthorized adaptation of Stoker's Dracula novel. Florence Balcombe (Stoker's widow) successfully sued the production company, which declared bankruptcy in order to avoid payment. Her other demand in the suit was to have all negatives and prints of the film destroyed. Fortunately for us, some prints avoided destruction.
...although I'm pretty sure there were plays already being performed.
At the time Nosferatu was filmed, there were no known stage productions of Dracula. The Hamilton Deane play went into production in 1924, and this was authorized by Balcombe. Universal purchased the film rights to Deane's stage play and also made a payment to secure Balcombe's permission just to be safe.
The history of Frankenstein stage plays is quite different because copyright laws were very different when the novel was first published in 1818. Back then, stage productions of published works could be made freely without the consent of the author. In the 100+ years between the novel's publication and the Universal movie, there were in all likelihood dozens of stage adaptations of Frankenstein, most of which have been lost to history. share