Hans and Others ...


Frankenstein and Hans seemed to get on very well.
Both had an irrepressible urge for knowledge.
When you think of it, what ever happened to Hans?

And, when you think about it further, it might have been interesting to see what would happen if Victor ever came across his tutor, Paul K., and former fiance' Elizabeth again.

reply

At the end of the film, Hans had moved to London with Frankenstein, who now was going by Dr. Franck. A new practice began so the cycle could continue.

"Cum Grano Salis"

reply

I think Frankenstein was far more likable in this film. He seemed to have learned from his mistakes. In his first film, he didn't have a guilty conscience whatsoever and was going to complete his experiments no matter who they hurt. But in this movie I felt he had a bit more compassion. Hans wasn't too bad of a person either.

Burn, witch! Burn, witch! Burn! Burn! Burn!

reply

[deleted]

Dr. Frankenstein put his experimental work above all. Being brilliant, he looked upon his colleagues as inferior and the poor as pawns to further his work. But it was a good call by Hammer not to make him out as frothing with evil, which made him a more interesting character.

reply

[deleted]

I know what you mean about the otherwise excellent "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed," but I always felt that the brief rape sequence was forced into the script to make the series more 'cutting edge' at the height of the counterculture movement (1969). In other words, it was out of character for Baron Frankenstein but producers didn't care because they wanted to keep the series 'hip' and profitable in the late 60s. That said, I suppose its inclusion can be defended on the grounds that Victor got morally worse as the series proceeded and his arrogance increased; and "Must Be Destroyed" was the second to last film (discounting “The Horror of Frankenstein,” which was a redo of the original story with a different actor).

As for the other possibly criminal things he did, I never said he didn't do bad or dubious things. I simply pointed out that Hammer didn't make him out to be frothing at the mouth with evil, like say Freddy Krueger. He was a more complicated character than that, justifying any questionable deeds on the grounds that the end justifies the means in order to fulfill his life's work, which was paramount to him.

Take, for instance, his having the priest guillotined in his place in "Revenge." Did he do this out of malevolence for the man or simply because it was the only way for him to survive the life-or-death situation and complete his life mission? Having escaped death, he becomes more successful in Carlsbrück than all the other doctors combined, who are green with envy and naturally want to run him out of business and out of town. He becomes so successful and famous there because his extraordinary talents attracted the wealthy & others from near and far. If he wasn't doing outstanding work for them they would've stayed with their prior physicians. Is this good or bad? It was good, although he was using the profits to fund his experiments.

Meanwhile he also served the poor at low cost or for free. What other doctors in town were even willing to do that? It didn't seem like any. True, the Baron had a selfish motive -- you could even call it evil -- but, nevertheless, numerous poor people were benefiting from his time & talents without losing limbs or what have you.

Thus Frankenstein in the Hammer series wasn't black or white; he was somewhere in between (disregarding that shoehorned rape sequence, which was out-of-character and pure exploitation on part of the producers). While some of his actions were "black," others were "white," with everything else being in between Plus he no doubt felt his work would benefit humanity in the future. For example, did he not save the soul of Hans in "Frankenstein Created Woman" after he was beheaded? Did he not resurrect Christina and fix her deformity and partial paralysis? Are these not good works that no one else was able to do? How was he to know the vengeful Hans would manipulate Christina to do his bidding, ending with her suicide?

reply

[deleted]

You'll have to take it up with the Baron for his rationalization of having the priest die in his stead, as I don't personally condone it. Yet what I wrote points to the obvious: His work was paramount to him, which couldn't be accomplished if he were dead. So he viewed the priest's life as "collateral damage," a "necessary evil," in a challenging life-or-death situation. To him, it was the only way to survive and carry on his work which he no doubt believed would benefit humankind. In his arrogance he likely felt that the world couldn't live without his remarkable achievements. Hence, the clergyman was expendable.

As for the poor people that he mutilated for the sake of his experiments, I plainly said it was selfish and even evil. The issue isn't what I think about it, but rather what Dr. Frankenstein thinks. He's the interesting character that we're discussing here. He likely justified his actions on the grounds that way more poor people in the region were freely benefitting from his skilled work compared to the relatively few who were unknowingly sacrificing body parts.

His work with Hans' soul and Christina's resurrection in "Created Woman" were entirely experimental and so there was no way for him to accurately predict the outcome. But that's a constant theme in Shelley's original tale, as well as the more faithful sequels: His "becoming God" to create new life with all the justifications thereof inevitably results in tragedy.

I don't believe that Victor's bringing back Hans in Christina's body and fixing her deformity was out of the goodness of his heart


I never said he did it out of the goodness of his heart. I simply pointed out that it bespoke of his extraordinary talents and that preserving someone's life/soul (Hans) and resurrecting someone else & fixing her deformities (Christina) is ITSELF good or, at least, arguably good.

As for "Evil of," it fits into the chronology with a little imagination, as observed in this post https://moviechat.org/tt0058073/The-Evil-of-Frankenstein/58c725395ec57f0478ee0e80/Is-it-the-same-continuity-It-can-be.

This Frankenstein in EVIL actually showed some empathy and concern for his creation, Hans and the deaf/mute girl. He even tried to warn the constable of the danger to the town once he loses control of his creature (thanks to the hypnotist) and after the creature's murder of the hypnotist.


This agrees with my point in this discussion: Victor isn't a paragon of unadulterated evil, like Freddy Krueger or Christopher Lee's Dracula, he's somewhere in between black and white, which makes him a more interesting character IMHO.

To be clear, I don't view Victor as a good person. The proverbial "there is no one who does good" applies. However, I have no doubt that he has good intentions about the work he passionately endeavors to develop and offer to the world, at least in the grand scheme of things. For instance, his techniques for the 'fixing' of Christina's deformity and partial paralysis could be used to heal other people in decades & centuries to come. The evil or morally questionable things he does he obviously justifies so he can live with himself and carry on his work.

This is not consistant with his behavior in the other movies


The films in the series that I've watched recently (and therefore are fresh in mind) are "Revenge," "Evil," "Created Woman" and "Must be Destroyed," which all testify to Victor's good, bad and ugly sides. In short, they don't make him out to be one-dimensionally evil.

He's the worst in "Must be Destroyed," for reasons already noted, yet -- even then -- he heals Dr. Brandt's mind and preserves his life by successfully transplanting his brain into a healthy body. Moreover, he reveals his beneficial goal -- to preserve the brains of brilliant people so their knowledge doesn't go to waste in the grave, but rather will be accessed by people in future generations for the good of humanity.

reply

If only that could be done.

reply