Dr. Frankenstein's Depravity


Perusing through the posts here, it seems I am not the only one who was a little put off by the Doctor's general depravity in this installment of the series. I much more prefer his character in the other films, which I would describe as detached and amoral, caring only about his pursuit of scientific discovery. Note I said "amoral" and not "immoral" - it isn't that he is evil, its just that he operates completely outside of the realm of morals. If something needs to be done to further his research, he does it without question, but he does not go out of his way to do evil.

In this film, he seems to have become more a of typical evil villain. The rape of the young doctor's wife is probably the most obvious example and totally out of character for him (in my opinion). But in general he just seemed more depraved and evil than usual.

I loved the movie anyway - its awfully hard not love these Hammer horror films - but definitely my least favorite version of Dr. Frankenstein so far (in the Hammer universe of films anyway).

reply

But don't you remember, he was quite evil in The Curse of Frankenstein too? He locked this illicit lover in the room with the creature, and he orchestrated that professor's fall over the tampered-with banister rail.

Must admit, though, his evil was totally unprecedented in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. I still feel shock and sadness every time I watch the scene where he cold-bloodedly knifes poor Anna.

The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk

reply

http://uashome.alaska.edu/~dfgriffin/website/frankensteinmustbedestroy ed.htm

This review does a pretty great job justifying Frankenstein's behavior by placing the film into a post-Vietnam context (sort of a pre-cursor to Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Worth reading.

reply

This is the best review of Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed that I have ever read!

The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk

reply

I agree. I'd never considered Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed as the front-runner of the American revisionist movement, but it's an excellent point. To test the theory, I just watched it alongside Night of the Living Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and it actually holds up quite well next to them. So I think the review is spot-on.

reply

Yes, I figured when I saw the release year that it was going to be more violent than the earlier films. I think that after all the violence, war, bloodshed, etc. that people were used to seeing in the mid to late 1960s with Vietnam and the Manson murders, horror became more explicitly violent as well. Things that you wouldn't dare show earlier were becoming acceptable in that era, so I expected it to become more violent. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thought of the film in a historical context.

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

reply