Classic Horror Movies (was: Creature From the Black Lagoon)

[JamesEightBitStar]

So I just watched Creature From the Black Lagoon, courtesy of AMC, and I must say it left me... less than impressed.

But before I get any further, one question: According to all sources I've seen, this movie originally made use of 3D Glasses (you know--the kinds with one red and one blue lens). Ever since I was born I have been wanting to see a movie in 3D, but I've heard that there are no home video or DVD releases that support this feature. Why is this? And is there a way to see it in 3D?

Now, as for the movie itself... I'm just not getting it. Are we supposed to sympathize with the creature or be repulsed by it? At first I thought this movie would end up being a King Kong-like affair, where the creature gets captured, escapes, and goes on a rampage in a major city. Well, I was right about it getting captured and escaping, but... it's kinda hard to be scared of a creature that apparently only wants to get it on with a human chick. And why do all these monsters wanna get it on with the white girls anyway, wouldn't they naturally be attracted more to their own species?

I must say one thing: Of all the classic movie monsters I've seen, Gillman was the most convincing--moreso even than Godzilla, since they use a 100% man in a suit (whereas Godzilla sometimes used a puppet). I can say that all the times I broke out laughing, it wasn't because of the special effects, but rather because of the plot.

Oh well.

Still, not entirely a waste of time--I generally enjoyed it.

[dcs]

There are only a couple of scenes in it that make use of 3-D anyway.

"The Nightmare before Christmas" is being re-released in 3-D.

[Shalaban]

The DVD Duran Duran Live From London has a 3-D part and comes with the old red and blue 3-D glasses inside the DVD. I don't know if you like Duran Duran; But its in 3-D.

[Deogolf]

Considering it was done in the '50s, not a bad movie - still a classic to me!

As for wanting to get it on with the white women - if I were a monster (and some say I am), I wouldn't mind "getting it on" with the women they have in those roles. So, I tip my hat to the monster for having good taste!!

[JamesEightBitStar]

I just watched another classic horror movie, this time Bela Lugosi's Dracula, and this time, I was rather impressed.

The thing that fetched me most was the music, which was very good.. though at times it sounded out-of-place, almost as if the entire music track had been added later (a check on Wikipedia reveals that this is in fact the case, and that the DVD has the option of watching the movie both with and without the music).

As for the movie itself, it's easy to see why this is the definitive Dracula for many people and it's a pretty enjoyable movie. I didn't stick around to watch the sequels though (I don't have that much patience) but... well... they're out on DVD, so whatsit matter?

Tomorrow AMC plays Boris Karloff's Frankenstein, another classic I haven't yet seen (though I HAVE read the book, in case anyone's wondering).

And yes, I've read Stoker's Dracula too.

[thedungeondelver]

The Hammer Horror Dracula movies are a gory...ahem glory to behold I tell you what.

[JamesEightBitStar]

So, earlier today I was exposed to Frankenstein, starring Boris Karloff.

Now, the big thing I noticed about this film is... who the hell thought Karloff was scary? I thought he was probably the most likable, friendly-looking take on the monster I ever saw--especially the way he was always grinning, no matter what happened to him. Honestly, this murderous fiend seemed to ENJOY the things going on around him.

Otherwise, a fine romp, but not something that would make me want to sit through dozens of sequels.

[JRMapes]

James I think most anyone needs to consider a couple things when they look at these old movies, books, tv-shows, etc

1) You , for example, are intillegent enough and have been exposed to enough modern media and modern standards that you need to put your mind out of your current era and embrace the era for which the product was intended. Yes its difficult, but to understand certain aspects of the why's and wherefore's it needs done.

2) Consider the intended audience.

In the case of Frankenstein, Most adults when it was released wouldnt have found Frankenstein a scarry movie, however most of the kids did find it somewhat scarry. If one were to show, say the movie SAW in the 30's, 40's, 50's you would have riots on your hands, movie houses being torched and thier owners lynched. For that matter you take a B grade flick of the 70's like Simon King of the Witches and nearly the same thing would happen! Even SAW, if released in the 70's and most of the 80's would have completely freaked out everyone aside from a few diehard freeks (most of which i hung out with and woould probably be counted in same).

If you watch some of the best made horror from any generation it will still give you a few tinglies but even in these cases it is never what is seen that makes it scary-- its what is implied.

There is also another factor that one must consider in movies like Frankenstein, Dracula, etc. That is that many of these movies, as well as their original stories were written as morality plays, political commentary, or religious commentary. Heavy doses of irony and dichotomy abound.

Of course when looked at from a modern standpoint in a purely entertainment value perspective, then yeah some of these movies come of as completely lame and one would stop and think what the hell makes this a "classic." But rest assured there is more to it than that simple perspective in judging what is a classic and what isn't. This is also why a movie like SAW would completely freak people out back then and completely freak a few people out today. There is nothing beyond entertianment value in movies like SAW. Its there simply to produce a response in the quickest way and usually most disgusting way possible. There is no story, no lesson-- just reaction.

On a side note- i found out that i can't go see Saw III till sometime later in november. I was really hoping to see it along with The Prestige on Halloween. But seeing both has to be delayed which completley sucks.

[JRMapes]

In case there is any wonder, I was not posting the above necessarily at James.

Consider this my "lite" movie version rant on the "if its olden it SUX!" crap.


Jerry

[JamesEightBitStar]

I would actually argue that Saw DOES have a message of sorts, since the movie is about a killer who uses near-deathtraps on people to give them a new perspective on life. Obviously the film is saying, "Don't take life for granted, because you never know how good it is until some psycho comes and turns it upside down."

I never realized that Frankenstein the movie was intended for kids. That DOES explain a lot.

One question: Are there actually people who instantly dismiss old BOOKS? I can imagine shallow people dismissing old movies due to the lack of color and special effects, but I would imagine books would be harder to flippantly dismiss.

[JRMapes]

I wouldnt say Frankenstein was "intended for kids" as in the way that the Little Mermaid was intended for kids. After all, here in KS it was banned due to its "cruelty and debase morals". But as shocking as it was it never came off as terrifying. It was the religious and moral aspects that made it such a taboo.

Within 10 or so years of its release it was well on its way to being a regular at the local movie houses for saturday afternoons. My uncles said that by 1941, they must have seen Frankenstein and Dracula at least 6 times a year since '38, it was that popular and primarily it was popular with teens and young adults. When The Wolf Man came along in '41 and was a huge hit once a month the local theatre would play all three in a row.

all of these early movies raised a stir. But not due to being scarry. they simply stepped on many religious and moral toes (or they at least seemed to according to the sore-toe crowd).

[John Stark]

Jerry makes many insiteful points about why the "classic" horror movies are, indeed, classics. One thing I'd add about why these old black and white horror movies (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolfman, The Mummy, etc.) are classics of their genre was because they were at the time breaking new ground in a time when movies in general were breaking new ground. While there had been horror movies previous to these, like Nosferatu, they were silent films. Dracula and the string of classics that came after were incorporating sound at a time when silent films were first falling out of fashion. This is especially noticeable in Dracula, where there are long stretches of film where there is no background music, which makes for scenes where there is no sound at all given that the characters aren't saying anything or doing anything that makes noise or little noise. It didn't take alot of time for the "talkies" producers to realize that they needed to fill in quiet scenes with mood music, but it didn't happen all at once, and the classic horror films are an interesting snapshot of the evolution of this felt need. Watch the horror classics in the order by year in which they were produced, and the inclusion of more sound effects and background music becomes apparent as the genre grows.

Further, the industry was still growing and learning in regards to filming techniques, camera angles, perspective, lighting and shadows, editing and cuts, costumes and make up, the early stages of special effects, and so on. Indeed, it might be said that the special effects industry that we take for granted today found its roots in those early days of the horror classics, and that the genre pushed the expansion, use, and fine-tuning of special effects in other movie genres in general, as horror (and later scifi) movies needed effects to carry parts of the story. Other film genres would pick up on the use of effects to do things that were needed to tell their own stories. Thus, the early horror classics were on the cutting edge in their day in terms of movie technology and techniques.

Also, the early horror classics offer insight into the transition from films essentially mirroring the traditional stage in the way many things were done on the movie set, to doing things that modern movie watchers have become accustomed to. In other words, elements of stage production that we would see in a theatrical play were still being employed at the time, but were increasingly being replaced with new techniques that worked better for the film medium. The early horror classics still had many vestiges of the theatre that would, over time, be jetisoned for the most part from movies. Bela Lugosi had been a stage actor previous to being immortalized as Dracula, and was chosen for this reason (along with his foreign accent). It was felt that someone was needed who had a "stage precense" to carry off the horror that was being expressed in the Dracula story. IIRC, Lugosi had successfully played Dracula many times on the stage.

Something else to consider is the fact that horror movies in that day and age still had to be careful of how far they pushed the envelope, in terms of controversial subject matter. Jerry is perfectly correct that those movies in their time challenged general views, and were in their day quite controversial. That being said, there were still limits to how far that could be pushed, and frankly I think that was a good thing for a few reasons. First, the films were made, as Jerry rightly pointed out, to be morality plays, commentaries on certain things, and even propoganda to a certain degree for certain view points, philosophies, etc. Consider Frankenstein, which departed from Shelley's book significantly, but certainly spoke to the times. While most people think of "the monster" when the name Frankenstein is mentioned, the real star of the film is not the monster, as indeed the doctor is "the Frankenstein" in the movie, the mad scientist who attempts to play God by using his new technological gizmos to "create life." While a bland and passe theme to modern viewers, given that scifi and horror films have played upon it for decades, at the time the movie Frankenstein did much to popularize the general concepts of "progress" and the technological possibilities (and dangers) that lay open to mankind given the industrial revolution (a concept that is ingrained in our culture today, but which was still relatively new at a time that science was still viewed as somewhat mystical and something to be feared by the general public, [perhaps rightly so]). Thus, the early horror classics had stories to tell and lessons to be learned.

However, that is tangential to my point, and I don't want to get too far afield. As I stated at the beginning of the previous paragraph, even though the early horror classics were pushing the envelope in their day, they still had to work within certain constraints; and yet, IMO, this adds to thier brilliance and charm, precisely because these limits forced the producers of these films to hint at many things while leaving much to the imagination of the viewer. Today, everything is forced down our throats, and nothing is left to our imaginations. Violence is very realistically and graphically simulated in film, no subject matter is taboo or verboten, and nudity/sex is obviously often quite real/near-real and used extensively in film today. The classic horror films had to be far more subtle, and frankly I think that makes them much better films than most of the drek today. They "fire the imagination," a phrase that has bandied about quite a bit on this site when it comes to the early and best incarnations of D&D/AD&D. Much like the "modern" incarnations of gaming, the modern horror film forces us to see what it wants us to see, rather than suggesting to us something deeper and darker than what is actually being shown as the classics tended to do. Since they couldn't depict out-and-out scenes of violent brutality, sensuality and sexuality, perversion and evil, the classic horror films had to hint at them, and thus play upon our minds and feelings in ways that modern films fail to. They are disturbing to the audience because they allow us to disturb ourselves, to think about what is not being said or shown, and thus we feed into our own imaginative fears and terrors.

One thing that'd I'd have to at least mildly disagree with Jerry about is whether the films were scary or not, and whether audiences saw them as such. Certainly the producers of the films sought to scare their audiences, and if memory serves audiences did find Dracula to be quite disturbing back in the day. In fact, the opening scene of Frankenstein has the same actor who played Van Helsing in Dracula (who plays Doctor Frankenstein's college professor) come on a stage before the movie even starts to explain that Frankenstein is disturbing and scary, and that the audience should be aware of that fact before viewing the film. The producers of Frankenstein appended this opening monologue to the movie precisely because they thought that people might be too shocked at the content of the film, and that it might cause a backlash against it and the genre. So, the film makers of the horror classics certainly intended that their audiences would be scared; or, at least, perhaps "thrilled" in some macabre sort of way, perhaps in the same way we would be while reading Poe or Lovecraft. Consider, for example, the movie "The Raven" (another Lugosi film, casting him as a mad doctor/psychologist) which really had little or nothing to do with that Poe poem, but blended in elements of the Pit and the Pendulum with the "mad scientist" them to introduce to the audience the topic of torture and murder in the name of lunatic science. This was certainly intended to frighten the audience, to disturb, and to play upon conscious and hidden primal fears universal to most of us. In other words, the intent of the films were to move and disturb the audience, and they were wildly successful. The advertisments and movie posters, with their declarations of "shocking!" and "horrifying" declare their intent, and generally I'd say the classic horror films were received by the respective audiences with that peculiar thrill that comes when dealing with the macabre.

[John Stark]

So, earlier today I was exposed to Frankenstein, starring Boris Karloff.

Now, the big thing I noticed about this film is... who the hell thought Karloff was scary? I thought he was probably the most likable, friendly-looking take on the monster I ever saw--especially the way he was always grinning, no matter what happened to him. Honestly, this murderous fiend seemed to ENJOY the things going on around him.

The thing is, in its day people did think Karlof was scary in the role of the monster. Remember, at the time people had not been inundated with decades of horror movies by which to compare the film. Frankenstein was one of the first of its kind, the horror genre hitting the big screen as a "talky" when talkies were first becoming all the rage. No had seen such a thing before, and it made an impression upon minds that had as yet not been saturated by a media-driven culture. It was a similar thing when the HG Wells story War of the Worlds was broadcast on radio, and people reacted hysterically, thinking it was real. Today we laugh at the thought of people falling for such a gimmick, but in the day when radio was still new and fresh to people, the broadcast of War of the Worlds caused an immense stir.

Also, as I stated up thread, the point of Frankenstein ultimately isn't the monster himself, even though that has become the primary focus for so many who watch the film. While the monster was intended by the producers to be scary, it was the themes and subject matter that were most disturbing back in the day. Frankenstein is a warning against unbridled science, science that might become detached from morality, tradition, or religion, and the effect that such unbridled science could have upon us. Consider the opening scene, wherin doctor Frankenstein and Igor are in the graveyard digging up a body for their experiments, and shortly after stealing a corpse hanging from a gallows. Later, Igor is sent off to the university to steal the brain of an deceased but esteemed scientist for use in the monster's skull. As Frankenstein's original mentor Dr. Waldman states, Frankenstein was not willing to curb his methods to stay within the bounds of contemporary morality or ethics, viewing his ultimate goal as more important than the means. Thus, in his drive for power and achievement, he becomes willing to stoop to grave robbing and theft to attain his scientific goals. By flirting with bringing the dead back to life, he has (as the character declares in the movie) learned what it means to be God, to play at granting life to a creature. The implication of this should immediate come to the forefront; if man is allowed to grant life, should he not be allowed to take it as well? If Frankenstein is willing to steal bodies and body parts for his important and earth-shaking experiments, would he be adverse to a bit of murder in order to further the goals of science? Is Dr. Frankenstein really a brilliant scientist, or is he actually a throwback to the darkest of necromantic rites, all of his fancy technological gadgets notwithstanding (which merely serving as props more palatable to the modern mind, replacing the boiling cauldrons, chanted spells, and various other magical periphenalia of the medieval alchemist or wizard).

The movie goes further than merely pointing out the big issues that are at hand in the story (such as playing God, or the darker side of human nature). We are exposed to the fallibility and shortsightedness of man, and from this we are to take pause. Man is unable to see all of the variables, to control every experiment, and it is just this lack of omniscience that must be noted when it comes to the failed experiment that is the monster. Igor's failure to secure the "proper" brain for the experiment plays up this angle quite nicely; Frankenstein does not learn about this until after the monster is created, and only then comes to realize that he has invested his time and efforts into giving life to something that should have been better left dead (i.e., the criminal mind that Igor brought after dropping the mind of the deceased but brilliant scientist). This is supposed to show the precarious nature of science, wherein one variable, that could not be taken into account by the fallible and limited scientist, can lead to disaster. (It also probably plays up subtle hint of eugenics; the brilliant mind of the deceased scientist is valued whereas the deranged mind of the dead murderer is reviled, with the suggestion that we are products of our biological heritage, which might suggest the need for eugenics; the murderer is what he is because of the shape and substance of his brain, the scientist likewise is brilliant because his brain is superior, thus leading to the conclusion that all men are not born equal, or tabula rasa-blank slate).

Edited to add: And of course, you rightly pick up on the fact of the monster being a sympathetic character, as its intended that we are to identify with him. The monster is not a monster of his own making, of course, but is the product of the nefarious activities of the briliiant doctor. How can we help but to sympathize with a character that represents mankind in general under the influence of an unbridled, amoral science that operates without regard to tradition, religion, or morality? That percieves as its highest goal the attainment of "progress" and man-made human perfection and immortality? That seeks to shape mankind in its own image, even though it may not know what the image is supposed to be? As you point out, the monster seems to enjoy itself as it goes about its new "life." Consider the scene with the little girl; the monster seems to enjoy the little girl and the flower game she teaches to him (i.e., throwing the flowers into the water), and yet shortly thereafter the monster is tossing the innocent girl into the water, resulting in her death. Certainly this is not only a play upon the "death of innocence" theme, tied to the advances of science in relation to mankind's existence in the world, but is also a commentary on the morality that science and its respective new, modern age has ushered in, namely an age wherein morality is no longer clear cut, wherein right and wrong are no longer black and white, but fall into some kind of relativistic gray area. Playing with the innocent girl and her flowers is as equally a valid activity or possibility as throwing her into the water so that she drowns; notice the monster's "innocence" when he throws her in the water, and the confusion he goes through subsequently as some kind of dim realization penetrates his adled brain that something isn't quite right, even though he does not necessarily understand what what it is that has gone wrong. The monster represents the possible condition of mankind subsequent to an unbridled science in which he may no longer recognize good from evil, confused about his place in the world and no longer understanding the fundamental things that make right from wrong in his quest for progress, improvement, and self-made immortality.

Here the theme of eugenics once again rears its ugly head, which was quite apropos given the cultural clime in the US and Europe at the time. Eugenics was a quite popular idea at the time, and indeed something like 20 some-odd states had passed sterilization laws in the US, in an attempt to weed out "undesirables" from society (the mentally handicapped, retarded, criminal, and so on, even poor or otherwise socially disadvantaged people). The US Supreme Court had upheld the validity of state sterilization laws in 1927 in the Buck v. Bell case, which called for forced sterilization of those likely to produce offspring that would be detrimental to American society. Oliver Wendall Holmes, the Chief Justice of the Court, quipped, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," in regards to the woman who was the subject of the forced sterilization in question. Its not a coincidence that shortly thereafter Hitler would proceed to bring his horrors upon millions with his Third Reich and WW2; he closely studied the eugenic laws in the US, as well as the writings of the eugenics-promoting intelligentia of the day, in implementing his program of holocaust via deathcamp. The monster from Frankenstein represents what can go wrong when mankind seeks to play God, seeks to establish its own utopia or heaven on earth, and seeks to do so by placing the goal over and above the means; when the ends become more important than the means that are used to achieve them and any cost becomes acceptable to attain those ends.

It is this notion of science, of progress, of improvement, that is intended to be the true horror hinted at in Frankenstein; the monster itself is indeed pitiful and to be pitied, the product of that science that would seek to recreate mankind in its attempt to attaint that which is not within its own ken. Its a play on the forces at work in the society of the time, and a warning.

Otherwise, a fine romp, but not something that would make me want to sit through dozens of sequels.

I think you'd be doing yourself a disservive by not watching at least the next two sequels in the Frankenstein series. I'm usually not one for sequels, as most never live up to the first in a series, but here is one of the exceptions. Bride of Frankenstein is excellent, and indeed it might be suggested (and has) that this sequel is actually better than the first. Son of Frankenstein, while perhaps sliding towards the inevitable drift that all series of sequels eventually take (i.e., towards lesser quality), is still a very good film IMO, particularly given that Basil Rathbone (of black and white Sherlock Holmes fame) plays the son of Doctor Frankenstein, and that Bela Lugosi is great in his role as Igor.

[JamesEightBitStar]

It was a similar thing when the HG Wells story War of the Worlds was broadcast on radio, and people reacted hysterically, thinking it was real. Today we laugh at the thought of people falling for such a gimmick, but in the day when radio was still new and fresh to people, the broadcast of War of the Worlds caused an immense stir.

I understand and agree with most of your post, but here's the problem: The War of the Worlds broadcast caused such a panic because it was not announced--no one ever said "We're broadcasting War of the Worlds[/i]", they just started broadcasting it as if it were an actual news report, so naturally, people thought it WAS an actual news report.

Generally, I have found that Radio is one of the best mediums for horror. In fact, the best horror story I've ever heard was The House in Cypress Canyon, which was an episode of the radio show Suspense.

That being said, I think a large part of my problem with the movie version of Frankenstein may have been that I read the book first (in fact, well before seeing ANY movie incarnations). I've already got the message about science, and the movie seemed, well, like it toned all that down (to be honest though, I was a little "whoa" that Frankenstein and Igor were stealing a body straight off the gallows). I honestly didn't like the whole "criminal brain" thing--I didn't like how it implied that the monster was inherently evil, and furthermore I didn't really care for the idea that a man's entire identity is decided simply by what kind of brain he has.

I thought I was going to say more, but the brain-well has run low.

[John Stark]

I understand and agree with most of your post, but here's the problem: The War of the Worlds broadcast caused such a panic because it was not announced--no one ever said "We're broadcasting War of the Worlds[/i]", they just started broadcasting it as if it were an actual news report, so naturally, people thought it WAS an actual news report.

Yes, I understand that the circumstances were a bit different between the release of Frankenstein and the broadcasting of War of the Worlds. Certainly War of the Worlds was broadcast as though it were a real news report, whereas Frankenstein was obvisously a fictional story being told through the visual medium. The point, however, is that the general public had not been broadly exposed to the many themes and ideas that we take for granted and are commonplace today that have been drawn from the horror and scifi genres. In its day, Frankenstein was frightening because it exposed people to new ideas, and the danger of those new ideas. The parallel that I was trying to draw between it and the broadcast of the War of the Worlds was simply to point out that both were things that frightened or "thrilled" their audiences back in the day precisely because they presented ideas to the minds of an as yet unsuspecting consuming culture that had yet to be saturated by them or by the media phenomena in general. This is why the producers of Frankestein appended the opening scene with the actor coming out from behind a stage curtain, to make the point to the audience that what they were about to watch would be shocking. So, while Frankenstein and War of the Worlds were released in different manners (the former as a promoted movie, the latter as a gimmick that attempted to mimic real news reports), the overall effect was the same; namely, to confront the popular culture with ideas that had as yet not been popularized, and to thereby shock, thrill, and frighten that popular culture (as well as to make money, obviously, and to entertain).

That being said, I think a large part of my problem with the movie version of Frankenstein may have been that I read the book first (in fact, well before seeing ANY movie incarnations). I've already got the message about science, and the movie seemed, well, like it toned all that down (to be honest though, I was a little "whoa" that Frankenstein and Igor were stealing a body straight off the gallows). I honestly didn't like the whole "criminal brain" thing--I didn't like how it implied that the monster was inherently evil, and furthermore I didn't really care for the idea that a man's entire identity is decided simply by what kind of brain he has.

See my Edit above (I was adding to my post while you were typing), wherein I went into more detail about the science thing, and the whole bit about our nature being dictated by our brains. This is a common theme in eugenics, which was quite popular in its day, and indeed has simply changed itself into today's talk of "genetics" and how we are determined, or at least predisposed, to certain behaviors based upon our genetic makeup.

While these ideas are not new to us now, they were very new at the time that Frankenstein was released, and were shocking to the general public because they were being confronted by these ideas for the first time. This is part of the reason why these movies are classic horrors films, because in their day they were cutting edge, and because movie makers have been drawing from them for inspiration for decades.