I thought Lugosi walking manner wasn't any different from Chaney's or Strange's? I also like the evil smirks he makes sometimes. Some seem to think he was shorter than Karloff, but he was 6'1, 2 inches taller than Karloff.
shareI don't think Lugosi's performance is as bad as horror fans generally think it is, but I don't think it's that great either.
The original script intended the Monster to be Ygor, but blind. That's why he has that wonderful smile near the end, it's Ygor realizing he has full power. Also, of course, Lugosi's dialogue was cut.
So, in essence, Lugosi was asked to play Ygor in the monster, but blind. When you know that, you realize just how screwed over he got.
However, even considering that, Lugosi was 60 years old when he played that role. When it's not a stunt double (and it is a lot, even that first shot of him opening his eyes is stunt double Eddie Parker), he just doesn't look right.
I thought Lugosi walking manner wasn't any different from Chaney's or Strange's
[deleted]
Actually, it's Gil Perkins in that impressive first close-up. Perkins and Parker both stood in for Bela as the Monster.
http://www.bumscorner.com
http://www.myspace.com/porfle
I wonder if they ever shot Lugosi's dialog, or was it cut before they even began. If they did film the monster speaking, I'm wondering if that footage exists in an archive somewhere.
It would certainly be interesting to see Lugosi's complete performance.
They definitely did film it, because there are scenes in the finished film where you can see Lugosi's lips moving (check the scene where Talbot can't find Frankenstein's records).
Plus, the shooting script has been released in book form and it reveals all of The Monster's original dialogue. It's pretty bombastic, and I tend to believe the studio cut it because they thought it was too much rather than the popular opinion that they thought Lugosi's accent sounded silly.
We can only hope that one day the deleted scenes show up intact, but it's likely that the lines deleted from existing scenes were cut from the original negative, so it's highly unlikely there will ever be a 'Director's Cut' version of this film.
Check out my Lugosi tribute film on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ2ObnoXLpY&search=lugosi
Just watched the movie again last night, and found that The Monster gets only 9 1/2 minutes screen time, with Lugosi himself present for only 7 of them. Screenwriter Curt Siodmak preferred to blame the actor's accent for the final cuts, when it's obvious that a whining, power hungry Monster was Siodmak's less than respectful creation. Unfortunately, the studio also chose to put the blame on the well meaning Lugosi, whose performance is certainly not up to Karloff's, but never had a chance to succeed. At least his major objection to the role in 1931, no dialogue, was not an issue in 1942. Universal used Lugosi just once more, and at least offered him a second chance to play his most famous role of Dracula, in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. For all the horror films that Curt Siodmak wrote or directed, he's still best known as the author of "Donovan's Brain" and "Hauser's Memory," he sure did no favors to the Frankenstein mythos.
"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond
Its a shame that all of the script changes added with the small amount of screentime the monster had, made lugosi role a completed throw away. He might have been a good frankensteins monster had they kept to the original script.
shareIn my opinion, any time you have Bela Lugosi but don't utilize his voice, you're not capitalizing on Lugosi's full potential. See also: The Mark of the Vampire. Still a fun movie though - 8/10.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
I think fritzfassbender makes the best point about this.
I am a huge Bela Lugosi fan, in fact I have probably sat through a dozen terrible movies just to see him in them. But the finished product of his Frankenstein monster is not very good. In fact, it is pretty laughable at some points in the film. But as fritzfassbender and others have pointed out, he got a pretty raw deal since he was told to play the part blind. That being said, this is more of an editing/directing flaw than Lugosi acting poorly.
His size was also distracting for the part. Even though he was taller than Karloff, Karloff was a little more fit and also wore stilt-like boots for the role. Lugosi's monster is really stocky, looks short, and just doesn't seem to be as intimidating as the monsters in other film.
Despite these flaws, I really thought the movie was quite good. Probably the best Universal Horror film sequel since "The Bride of Frankenstein." Chaney is just a great fit for these films, and provides a really sympathetic element to the Wolf Man. The script was not bad for a sequel, and the movie didn't just jump right into the scares/action. It allowed the story to develop, brought back the best parts of "The Wolf Man" (Chaney as the wolf man and the gypsy Maleva), and even improved on portions of the werewolf lore (like Talbot turning into a wolf man only during a full moon as opposed to the seemingly random transformations of the first film). All in all, I thought the movie was a very strong film in and of itself.
I had no reason to complain about his performance.
For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
Yeah, I find it hard to really rate Bela's performance as the Monster given all the butchering the film had done to it. Who knows, maybe if the usually great Siodmak hadn't written such crappy dialogue for the Monster, we could have gotten the chance to see the complete performance.
Still--given all the inherit flaws--I find FMTWM to be a very entertaining horror. The Wolf Man portion of the film definitely ups the grade on the film a lot....
I just don't think Lugosi's sharp features worked well in the make-up. Nor did the creature have much to do also the 60 year old actor had to be doubled most of the time during the fights and opening sequence. Over all it was a waist of Lugosi a big stunt man like Glenn Strange would have been better, its the equivalent of having Micheal Keaton play Jason Voorhess.
sharecybopath: I just don't think Lugosi's sharp features worked well in the make-up. Nor did the creature have much to do also the 60 year old actor had to be doubled most of the time during the fights and opening sequence. Over all it was a waist of Lugosi a big stunt man like Glenn Strange would have been better, its the equivalent of having Micheal Keaton play Jason Voorhess.
Yes, I have never understood why the Monster was given so little to do once the decidedly physical Strange took over. And you're also right about Bela's sharp features, which make it obvious when he's being doubled. Why the hell didn't Lugosi do that opening (for the Monster) close-up? He's just there, leaning back against the "ice" wall behind him, for Pete's sake!
The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!
The Frankenstein monster hardly did anything in this movie. It should have been called The Wolfman II, cameo by Frankenstein's monster. It wasn't a terrible performance but the difference from the original Frankenstein movie was very noticeable.
share[deleted]
I totally agree with the above poster:
"I just don't think Lugosi's sharp features worked well in the make-up."
Lugosi did not have the face for the Frankenstein monster. The close-up shots of the monster's face are unintentionally humorous. This giant hulking monster with those squinty beady little eyes is too much of a mismatch.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Lugosi's monster was just awful. The monster was a pointless character in this film anyway, but it would have helped a bit if they cast Glenn Strange one film earlier.
share[deleted]
Certainly not the best version of the monster, but taking into account that Legosi was playing him as being blind, it explains the often outstretched arms.
It's true! I chopped him up. But I didn't kill him!