MovieChat Forums > The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) Discussion > So Dr. Frankenstein was a total jerk?

So Dr. Frankenstein was a total jerk?


I loved the film, but I can't get over how much of a dick Dr. Frankenstein was. If there was a picture of smarmy in the dictionary, he would be it. Spoiler alert, btw. I've read the book and seen many film versions, but they all seemed to portray the good doctor as an obsessed academic, good-natured but with misplaced priorities, etc. Basically everything I've read or seen placed the doctor's fault in messing with things he shouldn't, playing god, etc. This was the first time I've seen Frankenstein portrayed as a womanizing, homicidal maniac. Just an observation.

reply

Hammer certainly dispensed with the idea of making Frankenstein a character with a misplaced sense of ambition and decided to make him a thoroughly selfish and callous individual. I know that Universal threatened them with a lawsuit should anything in this film coincide with theirs. I don't know if that's what lead Hammer to go the route that they did or not, but theirs was certainly a great deal different from other adaptations and I think that it worked to their advantage.

reply

It is all for science!


.

reply

I've seen it suggested that part of the inspiration for Hammer's version of the character might be Lord Byron - who was, of course, present when Mary Shelley created Frankenstein - and who spawned the word Byronic.
Byron was also a template for the first successful vampire story, Polidori's The Vampyre, written in the same summer retreat as Frankenstein.

reply

At the start of the film Baron Frankenstein comes across more as entitled brat than a complete monster--at this point he's still humane enough to continue the allowance Elizabeth and her mother rely on for their survival, albeit in a disinterested way. And never does he become as coldblooded as he is in "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" where he constantly degrades Anna simply because he can. His friendship with Paul humanizes him somewhat--Paul just isn't a lab partner; he's someone he wants to share his excitement over his discoveries with. The Baron sounds genuinely hurt and betrayed when he tells Paul that he will never forgive him for shooting the creature. And he does save Elizabeth at the end.

I'm not saying that if he had been given a few time-outs as a child he would have grown up to be a decent man, but if he hadn't been orphaned at such a young age with so much wealth and instead had had a wise authority figure like Dr. Bernstein to rein him in, he might not have become become such a self-absorbed and later sadistic monomaniac. (He liked and even respected Paul, but as a middle class tutor he only had so much sway over him).

*****************************
Je suis Charlie.

reply

[deleted]

A jerk would be an understatement. Like calling Hitler an asshole or Dr. Mengele an SOB. But yes in this film he was without doubt a vile character. The stereotypical mad scientist. A ruthless man who wouldn't hesitate to murder anyone to advance the cause of what he considers science.
Had he been living under the Nazi regime I could see him as another Dr. Mengele. Experimenting on anyone in the concentration camps to further his research.
As a matter of fact that should make an interesting story for a movie.
Have a descendant of Frankenstein working as a Nazi scientist in one of the concentration camps like Aushwitz or Treblinka.
That might make for a good horror movie. Provided that it's done right.

reply

Surprised hasn't been done.

reply