MovieChat Forums > Son of Frankenstein (1939) Discussion > Wolf Frankenstein is the villain of this...

Wolf Frankenstein is the villain of this piece

posted 9 years ago by bengt_malma
17 replies | jump to latest

Not Ygor, not the Monster, but Wolf more than anyone else. First, on arriving in Frankenstein, he promises the suspicious townspeople they have nothing to fear from him. Then he treats the tales of what his father's creation caused with great disdain and jumps at the chance to continue his father's work, even after hearing the commissioner's first-hand experience of the Monster. Then he goes and does it all again, directly causing the death of at least four people, and only being alarmed when his own family is threatened. And after pushing the Monster down into the sulphur pit, he leaves the town with smiles all around. He should have been put on trial for murder. Anyone agree?

If there is a hero in the piece, it's police commissioner Krogh, who again confronts the Monster despite the trauma he suffered as a child, having his arm ripped off by it.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

If there is a hero in the piece, it's police commissioner Krogh

I'll agree with that, and that the cheerful attitude of the townspeople at the end is inexplicable (unless it's simply that they were happy to see Wolf go).

Wolf is certainly a flawed protagonist, but in spite of the carelessness with which he set more killings in motion, the difference between he and Ygor where the deaths are concerned is that the latter intended them; I'd therefore have to go with him as "the villain" of the piece.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] bengt_malma 9 years ago

You are right, of course. But consider the fact that Ygor had suffered the trauma of actually being hanged, and could hardly be considered to be of sound mind and responsible for his actions. The doctor, on the other hand, has no excuse. It's almost as if Rathbone does his best to make his Frankenstein as arrogant and unlikable as possible, in effect saying, "I don't like this character."

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

I'm not sure I'd let Ygor off that easily. He's not like someone who's so demented that he feels compelled to kill for reasons he doesn't understand, or is unaware of the consequences of his actions. It's fair to say he was traumatized, and filled with revenge for those who caused it, but he's very specific about his targets and his purpose: "Eight men say Ygor hang...now eight men dead. All dead!"

Still, it's interesting to compare their cases in the context of today's defense attorneys and prosecutors. I wouldn't put it past a lawyer to make the defense you suggest for Ygor, and Wolf might very well find himself charged with wrongful death through depraved indifference (and would certainly get the pants sued off him. Perhaps that's why he gave the estate to the town: preemptive reparations...maybe he, the mayor and the council even worked out some backroom deal as a settlement!).

Speaking of "Son Of..." movies, have you ever seen Son Of Kong? One of the things I like about it is that it takes up right where you'd expect to find Denham after King Kong leaves off: hiding out from summons servers because he's being sued by the city of New York and about half the people in it. Now, that's realistic.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] bengt_malma 9 years ago

"I'm not sure I'd let Ygor off that easily."

Nor would I. But remember, he wasn't let off at all, but shot dead by Wolf. So he paid for his deeds, whether deemed mentally responsible for them or not. But Wolf gets the hero's send-off, that's my gripe, and the reason for posting. It seems we often see scientists - mad or not - who unwittingly let loose some horror or other, and never being really held accountable for it.

I'm sorry I missed Son of Kong. I have a great affection for these old goodies.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

Oh yeah, I definitely agree with that: the hasty, happy-ending wrap-up makes no sense, and Krogh is the only hero around.

And come to think of it, it's exactly the opposite of the next film, where Ludwig tries to make things right by replacing the monster's brain, everything that goes wrong is because of Ygor and Bohmer, and the townspeople blame Dr. F for everything (and Lionel Atwill goes from hero to villain).

Although he did keep a kidnapped child under wraps for a week, so there's that.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] telegonus 9 years ago

I'll go with Lionel Atwill's principled, dignified, public spirited Inspector Krogh as the true hero of the film. Atwill played the part beautifully. Indeed, Basil Rathbone's Wolf is rather the villain of the piece despite his being presented to the viewer as a high strung good guy. High strung he was, and there much in him that was good, but his actions were callous, at times downright reprehensible; was way too easily swayed by Ygor early on, didn't seem to care too much over the matter of his missing butler, Benson, who'd been with him for some time, and with whom he had a good rapport, Yet it's Wolf relationship with the shifty, amoral Ygor that drives the plot. Benson's death was small beer so far as Wolf was concerned, caught up was he with bringing the monster back to life.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

There's no question Wolf acted with callous and reckless disregard, although to be fair, once the monster was again conscious and ambulatory, the situation was out of his control and there was little he could do. Except tell Krogh everything he knew.

And his failure to do so makes him complicit, and for that alone, he should have landed in the clink rather than been accorded a hero's sendoff. It's probably the film's biggest flaw.

Interesting that, in one of the instances of revisionism in which films of the series engage, the next sequel has brother Ludwig stating that "The terrible consequences...drove my brother into exile."

But I'll stick to my assertion that what separates the relative villainy of Wolf and Ygor is intent.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] telegonus 9 years ago

Yes, Doghouse, Wolf was callous and reckless, but there wasn't a mean bone in his body. Ygor was malevolent by nature. The tragedy of Wolf,--not driven home so much as it might have been in the film--is that he was very much his father's son (even as he apparently scarcely knew his father), thus when the opportunity to do a little medical research presented itself, he went for it. Odd, considering that in his first encounter with Ygor the old man tried to kill him ("they said..."). That oil painting of Henry in the library casts a long shadow in the film.

[–] Doghouse-6 9 years ago

...when the opportunity to do a little medical research presented itself, he went for it.

That became something of a cliche in later sequels, extending even to those who weren't relatives ("I can't destroy Frankenstein's creation...I've got to see it at its full power!"). And in succeeding decades, became generic shorthand doing service as a basis for jokes ("Back off, man; I'm a scientist").

Another odd aspect was the abandonment of a central theme of the novel (although originally intended to occur in both the '31 and '35 films): that hubris will get you in the end, when your creation turns on and destroys you. Odder still is the way in which, in another instance of revisionism, its subsequent allusion is retroactively applied to events not seen in earlier films. That quote from the '42 sequel that I excerpted above is, in full, "The terrible consequences of his creation killed my father and drove my brother into exile."

And yet Ludwig, the Frankenstein who utters those words, turns out to be the only one in the entire series who actually is done in by "his creation," and even then, it's with the newly-installed brain of that old villain Ygor in his skull (thanks to the selfish and back-stabbing machinations of Bohmer, the "maddest scientist" of the piece, as played by Atwill returning to territory more familiar than his Son Of heroism).

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] skiop 8 years ago

Yeah, and he killed a wild boar that did absolutely nothing to him.

[–] 398 8 years ago

a very interesting discussion,

yes, to me he is pretty much an evil guy.

He starts off irresponsible. Despite knowing how dangerous the monster is, he elects to revitalize him w/o taking precautions about putting him under control.

I think this alone could make him possibly complicit in manslaughter via reckless endangerment. But it gets worse. After the first murder, and now knowing that the monster is the murderer, rather than going to Krogh, he stonewalls, and lies repeatedly and snidely to the policeman. At this point I think (and I'm not a lawyer) he becomes an accessory before and after the fact to the murder of Lang.

But, there is more

What about Ygor? Wolf stalks into the final confrontation with gun out and ready. One could argue that Ygor with his hammer was only reacting to the obvious threat. At best Ygor was bringing a hammer to a gunfight. While Ygor was certainly a bad guy and all, does this give Wolf the right to simply execute him?

But there is more.

Some wonder about the cheering crowd at the end. But why not? No one was left alive who knew that the monster had been comatose and helpless and that it was Wolf who revived him. Only Benson and Ygor knew, and both were dead. Wolf might assume Benson wouldn't rat him out when he wasn't certain he was dead, but Ygor had implied as much ("it will be worse than death for you") in their penultimate confrontation. Krogh had already put Wolf under arrest. Notice that Wolf's panic began when he realized the monster was out and killing, and that Krogh suspected him, AND THAT YGOR COULD TIE HIM TO THE MONSTER! But shooting Ygor removed any chance of the monster being tied to Wolf, as well as any chance of the monster being brought under control. But Wolf was only looking out for his own behind. It is the old murder story cliché. "Then you killed X because X knew too much." Note that Benson has to remind Wolf of the danger to his wife and son. He hadn't even considered that.

So at the end the crowd is cheering. There had been six murders before Wolf arrived and three after. No one knew it was Wolf who revived the monster. No one knew the monster had ever been comatose and helpless. They only knew that the hated Ygor had been killed by Wolf. It would be in Wolf's interest to reveal that Ygor confessed to him of having directed the monster during the killings-with the fact of the eight men who hanged him being the victims leaving no doubt to anyone of the truth of Ygor's role.

And they knew that Wolf destroyed the monster in the end.

So to them he is a hero.

To us as viewers? Stonewalling and shutting up potential witnesses does pay dividends, doesn't it.

[–] telegonus 8 years ago

It does appear that way, 398. I mean regarding Wolf's behavior and the villagers seeming to have a weird change of heart at the end of the film. Of course they were cheering Wolf's departure, but unless I'm hard of hearing I never heard a "good riddance" or any similar turns of phrase as Wolf, wife and son chugged their way out of town.

Their hostility early in the film's struck me as excessive, as Wolf was himself guilty of no crime, had performed no experiments, yet by the end he was both and yet seemed to be getting a hero's sendoff.



Small wonder that Mel Brooks used SoF for the grid of his hilarious sendup of Frankenstein films when he made Young Frankenstein. The first film was too austere and dignified, while the first sequel was itself a sendup, even as Brooks recreated the hermit's hut scene, while all subsequent sequels seem to form a blur,--except for diehard horror fans--and are products of the world war era.

[–] 398 8 years ago

telegonus

"Wolf was himself guilty of no crime, had performed no experiments, yet by the end he was both and yet seemed to be getting a hero's sendoff."

But the villagers didn't know much of anything about what really happened.

Within the movie Wolf lied repeatedly to Krogh about everything, and remember the scene in which his wife suddenly suspects the truth? Wolf doesn't miss a beat in hitting the lying button. "Why, he even has my own wife believing . . . "

No reason to think he would make a clean breast of it later.

And as they didn't know he revived a comatose monster, they simply assumed his father's monster had always been around and murdering,

until the "heroic" Wolf finally destroyed him.

I think the whole thing has great irony which seemed to have snuck past the censors even back in 1939. Just give a fiend a sweet wife and a cute little boy and everyone thinks he is a nice guy.

[–] telegonus 8 years ago

That's a fascinating take,398. The villagers didn't know what would had been done by Wolf, but the viewer knows. There's humungous irony in all this, in the entire movie, actually, which may be the most playful and inventive of all entries in the Uni Frankenstein series. The first is my favorite, for its gravity, simplicity, artistry and all the rest but SoF is a gem in its own right, so good that it seems like a part of its own series. It references the two earlier pictures in the franchise, yet it had a style like no other, before or after. GoF, from three years later, is competent but prosaic, and very familiar looking, as if the series, like the monster, had been at last truly tamed. Even with the brain changing business the talent that made the previous film in the series so outstanding weren't there.

[–] BobbyWaggs 8 years ago

What about Benson-man ?

If he didn't stick his nose in Ygor's business then Ygor wouldn't have had to off him --- only kidding ---

Wolf guilty for reviving the monster #1
Ygor of course for killing all of the city council (I wish he was in Los Angeles - lol -) #2

The monster was again a sympathetic murderer being sent on these missions to kill ---

[–] woollybully07 (32) 7 years ago

I think you misspelled Ygor as Wolf when talking about the villain of this piece.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

he did bring him back to life.