Oh! The Horror!!!

I am very well aware of your fondness for monster movies; duh! Why do you think there are so many series and movies circling around vampires, werewolves, giants, and whatnot. And the blockbuster is also proof so there's no point in denying your appetite; it's cool, I'm just messing with ya. Don't mistake this as a review; coz it ain't a review. Ah well now that it's proven we all love horror or monster movies per se; I bring, not one but three classics. And the movies are the Hollywood version of Dracula, Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But these movies aren't recent, and by not recent I mean very very old. Basically, this post is about monster movies of the old.


Image Source

Dracula (1931)

Ooh, the ever so mysterious and enigmatic Dracula. He has been an obsession since Bram Stoker authored it in 1897. Even though it's not the first vampire movie, the attraction is still there after more than a century has passed since the earliest publication. What is it that draws you to such supernatural or mythical movies are something only you know; yes living agelessly forever is a benefit, no? But I'm sure you have plenty of other reasons to pick from.


Image Source

I'm not sure if you'd enjoy a monster movie this old. Imagine 1931 and its technology and they did the best they could. Although you'd hear wolves crying out but there's no wolf on sight; you won't see Dracula transform into a bat in a flash but often see him slide away and a bat flying over the co-stars' heads. Even in the movies of the 50s or 70s, Dracula was hard to kill but here he was lying in his coffin while a stake was hammered through his heart; he was dying practically defenseless. Back then the director and producer were afraid if it's going to be well received by the audience in Hollywood. Prior to Dracula (1931), there were a few supernatural horrors but always with a hint of comedy in them, but this movie was a full-length horror flick with comic relief thousands of miles away. I may have criticized it somewhat but I do understand the time that it was produced and as though everyone knew about the fiasco regarding Nosferatu(1922), and to be fair even though it was a silent film, I prefer Nosferatu (1922) than Dracula (1931). It's possible the only few things I liked in this film are Bela Lugosi and Edward Van Sloan acting and perhaps the opening credits presented with Swan Lake in the background; I'm particularly fond of Tschaikovsky's “Swan Lake.” Now imagine seeing this movie this year.

To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious! - Count Dracula

Frankenstein (1931)

Now, I tell you this isn't the first Frankenstein movie; there were a few that graced the screen prior to this particular one. You know at first I used to call the monster Frankenstein but my error was corrected a few years back. Even in some movies, the monster is still referred to as Frankenstein; perhaps the lack of name has given rise to the situation that the monster gets called by its creator's name; I didn't mean by the author of the book but Henry Frankenstein the protagonist of the book.


Image Source

I guess the fascination with Frankenstein is quite understandable as people are quite curious about life and death and if there is a way to live forever. Don't be surprised to see the initial message from the presenter; people weren't adapted to supernatural horror films yet. I think I preferred this movie more because of the lack of use in technology. So, everyone even the Creature delivered his best performance that I believe and it too was very much liked by the audience. What I found funny was that both Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye were in Frankenstein and Dracula of the year 1931; I guess many others weren't too keen on attempting a movie such as this and that didn't stop it to achieve its fame.

I made him with these hands, and with these hands I will destroy him. - Dr. Henry Frankenstein

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

They say the line between good and evil is very thin; a slight tip of the scale and it dwindles. Even the best of men can lose his way and may find himself at the deepest chasm from which he may never come back to himself. Yes, my friends, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) is a story such as this.


Image Source

If you have seen any of the adaptations of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde then I don't need to tell you anything further about the plot. It's a silent movie; you'll only hear the background music and perhaps you'll develop the art of lip-reading if you try. Title cards are shown every now and then to explain what's going on about the movie. Did I just make fun of silent movies? Nevertheless, it is a fine movie I tell you. I guess Dr. Jekyll was vain from the beginning about his conception of having no traces of evil in his nature, and that's what caused his subsequent downfall. He thought he could have it all; giving in to evil and not scarring his soul is what drove him to experiment on the duality of human nature. Believe me, throughout the whole movie from Dr. Jekyll helping the poor to embrace temptations to transforming into Mr. Hyde to the chaos he spread in all of London is one captivating experience. This one monster movie may not much be of a monster kind but more of an interpretation of how the man himself can turn into a monster.

For the first time in his life, Jekyll had wakened to a sense of his baser nature. - Title Card

An endnote? Do I need to say more about my point of view? I thought I have said enough. Well, I was thinking about what more I can do. Till then.


surrealfia.gif

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Join the conversation now
Ecency