MovieChat Forums > Son of Frankenstein (1939) Discussion > Why the Monster does not speak

Why the Monster does not speak

posted 20 years ago by rorydaulton
23 replies | jump to latest

I see that many of the user reviews wonder why the Monster does not speak in this film. After all, he did speak in the previous movie, "Bride of Frankenstein."

The answer seemed clear to me. The Monster was sick, and Wolf Frankenstein tried to bring him back to full health. He was not immediately successful and was surprised when the Monster was able to walk. However, he tells Ygor that the Monster is not fully recovered and that the brain is not yet well.

So it seems obvious to me that the Monster was still a little sick and had lost his power of speech. He also lost the empathy he had in the previous movies.

That's the in-the-movie rationale, of course. I'm sure the *real* reason is that Karloff (who objected to speaking in the previous movie) and the screenwriter wanted the Monster to be more elemental and less complex. So the speech and empathy went away, and they came up with an explanation to give in the movie.

[–] R-T-C 20 years ago

Interesting thoughts. This film seems to be set many years after the original 2 films (based on the car, I would guess it was set in the 1930s), and hence the creature many have been laying comatose for many years before Igor found him.

I think the film works well without the speech requirement, afterall that is what Igor does for the creature.

R-T-C

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

[–] GreatLummoxFilms 19 years ago

Well, in Bride of Frankenstein, Henry and Elizabeth were just married and didn't have their two kids, so with Wolfe being full grown in Son of Frankenstein, shows that the monster's been around a while, but the amount of time he was with Ygor is unknown to me, and that theory about the speech sounds accurate to me, and he did say, "He isn't well here." and pointed to the brain.

[–] exchronos 19 years ago

There is one way I know of to date the timeline of the original Universal films. I'll have to check, but I believe in "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man" there is a date of death for Larry Talbot, and they say how many years have passed since his death & his father's death. The year of death for Larry reveals the year "The Wolf Man" took place. Inbetween "Wolf Man" and "Meets" we most likely have "Ghost Of Frankenstein". It'll take some good detective work, but if you can figure out how old the Frankenstein girl is in both films, you may also be able to pick up how long it was between "Son Of..." and "Ghost Of...", and then work your way back. I believe the son in "Ghost" was the eldest of the two, and he had to be born after "Bride Of...". "Bride" takes place almost directly after the first film, so once you find out when one happened you know when the other did. I would say Wolf was in his thirties while his older brother was at least in his forties. Ygor came into the story most likely after each son had left their father's estate, and that's why Ygor knows of them yet they knew not of him. Since Wolf was seemingly the youngest, and guessing he left when he was 18 years old, Ygor came into the picture sometime after that. Who knows? It might work.

Sincerely,
Exchronos

[–] Lord-Z 19 years ago

Almost. Wolf says that he does not remember his father, when he arrives in Frankenstein, so he probably left the castle when he was much younger. Perhaps his mother left Henry, when Wolf were little.

We can't stop here! This is Bat-country!

[–] plato-11 19 years ago

Maybe the stress of the constant suspicions of the villagepeople and the guilt brought on by what his monster had done drove Henry into an early grave, and then Elizabeth left the castle because of too many painful memories.

[–] seththevoz 18 years ago

In real life, Colin Clive was an alcoholic and died aged 37, only two years after 'Bride of Frankenstein.' It's not unthinkable that his character, Henry Frankenstein, shared a similar fate, retreating into alcoholism after the second film and so being driven into an early grave.

[–] TorontoJediMaster 18 years ago

My guess is that the Monster likely lay in the ruins of the laboratory for a long time -years, most likely- before Ygor found him, during which time he forgot how to speak. (The Monster never seemed like he was ever connecting too well to begin with).

Don't forget, he was only taught a relatively short time before the big lab explosion, whereafter he lay alone for years. Ygor probably never tried to re-educate him on how to talk.

It sort of shows how much the Monster could be influenced by those around him. In Bride of Frankenstein he encounters the hermit who treats him kindly (for the first time in his existence) and tries to show him right from wrong. Ygor, on the other hand, was more interested in using the Monster as his own private tool of murder.

[–] Cornonthecobb 17 years ago

The irony is that in the original novel his big gift is that he CAN speak so well and move and convince people of things. He's quite articulate. Then in the movies...for the most part, he can't even speak.

~angela

"I don’t see vulnerability as a flaw. I see it as a manifestation of humanity." ~ Marty Feldman

[–] mgconlan-1 16 years ago

Boris Karloff was opposed to having the monster speak in "Bride of Frankenstein" and it's likely he agreed to reprise the role a third time only if the monster remained mute. (A real pity, because every time I read Mary Shelley's novel I can't help but imagine Karloff's beautiful voice speaking the monster's narrative. It would have been heartbreaking!)

[–] offramp_tavanipupu 13 years ago

If the creature had been comatose then how did he kill the first 6 jurors?

[–] psybok 13 years ago

What everyone seems to have missed here is that for some time after he was found by Ygor, the monster was walking and moving around. Ygor tells Wolf that the monster was struck by lightning, and that was when he fell into a coma.

I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to disagree!

[–] offramp_tavanipupu 13 years ago

I don't get it. What do you think I was disagreeing with?

[–] psybok 13 years ago

That is my signature... I am not accusing you of disagreeing with me about anything. Sometimes on these boards it helps to avoid unpleasantness...

I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to disagree!

[–] tbrittreid 13 years ago

This sort of thing why my signature is italicized, even though it isn't open to such misinterpretation.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] psybok 13 years ago

Good point. Perhaps I should change mine to something like that...

I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to disagree!

[–] edved6881 16 years ago

Forgive me if i'm repeating anything already said here. I should have read the whole thread first. Anyway.

The monster doesn't speak in Son of Frankenstein because Karloff didn't like that they made the monster speak in Bride. He felt like it robbed the monster of its unique and alien dignity. I'm paraphrasing that from somewhere. But I doubt Karloff would have done the movie if he had more dialogue.

Also. Son of Frankenstein pretty much ignored Bride of Frankenstein. There are no references to Praetorious or the bridemonster or anything. It's a return to the formula of the first film in a way.

[–] tbrittreid 15 years ago

Yes, I know it's been a year and a half since anyone posted here, but I was checking to see if a point I wanted to bring up here had already been discussed, saw this thread and just had to point out the following fact:

Sorry, people, but the Monster DOES speak in this film. At one point when Ygor (Bela Lugosi, of course) tells him to do something, the creature replies "Yes, Master," before he obeys. I'll have to check my copy of the film, but I don't think that is the limit of it, either. That's not to say that if there is any more it amounts to much, mind you.
UPDATE: My mistake and my apologies. That "yes, master" was Glenn Strange's Monster to Lugosi as Dracula in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

As for ignoring Bride..., Wolf finds his father's lab in a condition perfectly in keeping with the finale of that earlier film, rather than its predecessor's. Admittedly, that (and the Monster's speech, here very limited) is about all of Bride that's acknowledged here, since Henry and Elizabeth married in the tagged-on happy ending the original was initially released with. And both of those are really just by implication, so I don't mean to dispute edved6881's bottom line point, but am just pointing out a couple of details.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zeta1983-1 14 years ago

He didn't speak very much in Bride and he had a lot less screen time in this film. His illness could have caused him to regress even more mentally. Also it does make him seem more monstrous and less sympathetic. Or perhaps Igor forbade him from speaking unless spoken to.

[–] offramp_tavanipupu 13 years ago

There is also at about 1:01:20 the moment when the monster slips over and shouts out TWAT. I am sure he is referring to himself.

[–] capnmrvl 14 years ago

Seriously?? I'd chalk it up to head trauma after the lab blew up at the end of Bride Of Frankenstein. Igor never said anything about the Monster speaking, so I'd say he had lost the ability before Igor rescued him.

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

Re: Wolf's comment about the monster's brain not being well....I do not think he was referring to any recovery by the monster after being sick or dormant. In the opening minutes of the movie Wolf was complaining to his wife that his father was unfairly blamed for creating a 'monster,' but the real culprit was the assistant who provided a killer's brain. His comment to Ygor that the monster was 'not well up here' I took to mean the monster's original 'bad brain' - not any reference to not being recovered yet. Wolf was only seeing the monster awake and alive for just a few minutes, how could be possibly know if he was 'well' or not in the general sense? No, he meant the 'killer's brain' when he said the monster was 'not well up here.'

Now, it's a fair question as to why he would agree to revive the monster in the first place, knowing that it wasn't 'well' up there. He seemed to believe that he somehow might be able to cure it of its homicidal tendencies, but that was never shown or explained (what made him think he could).

[–] kbarada 8 years ago

Now, it's a fair question as to why he would agree to revive the monster in the first place, knowing that it wasn't 'well' up there. He seemed to believe that he somehow might be able to cure it of its homicidal tendencies, but that was never shown or explained (what made him think he could).

I agree with all you are saying here JSK. I would take it one step further and say that it is fair to assume that Baron Wolf von Frankenstein was also "not well up there". What was he thinking!!!