The next pages feature a conversation between Victor and his wife to be, where he tries to reassure her that she is safe. Then news arrives that Dr. Waldman has been killed. Then the panic that the monster is in the house, the monster confronts Elizabeth, who faints and is discovered by Victor & co - CUT to the father of the little girl walking through the streets. That must be how the movie cut went, no? I'm too lazy to grab my DVD to check.
I just checked the blu-ray and you're correct that's how the sequence goes in the restored version. There's some business with wedding party inside the castle between the drowning scene and the father walking through the crowd scene.
I have that book as well. Before home video, it was THE way you could "watch" the film whenever you wanted! In the Introduction pages by Anobile, he describes the drowning scene that was cut, along with his efforts (in '74) to get images of it. He came up empty handed after contacting Universal and surmised that since it was on nitrate stock, it likely "no longer exists." Little did he know... Not surprising, there are two more (brief) deleted scenes that were restored to the film in '86 that Anobile is missing in his book. However, I was shocked to see that he has the text for dialogue that Henry Frankenstein screams after the monster comes to life: "Now I know what it feels like to be God!" Considered blasphemy by the censors, that line had to be smeared over in release prints for years by adding a big thunder clap to the soundtrack. Now, of course, it has been restored.
As a kid in the 1970s, I loved Anobile's series of "movies in books". They were quite successful and like you said, before the era of the VCR, it was a way to "see" a movie without waiting for a television broadcast to come around. I think home video's emerging popularity in the early 80s finally killed-off the series. According to IMdb, Anobile has been a busy film and TV production manager since then.
I appreciate the quality of the art, but is the monster made up of parts from deceased body builders? And even if he was, wouldn't any monster made up of parts from various bodies be pretty asymetrical? Or do I have the book wrong, as far as how it explains how the monster is put together?
I remember how jarring it was to me as a kid to see that whenever the monster was depicted in color (in magazines, models, etc.) his skin was always colored green! Made no sense! Still doesn't! Always thought he AND Dracula could've only had dead-white skin. Karloff looks creepy in B&W but comical in color! Don't get me started on the Christopher Lee version, even as a kid I saw right through the terrible make-up. Although I gottasay, I thought he rocked as Dracula!
In the original book, Victor describes his skin as being yellow! "His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath..." (Chapter 5) On the pre-Karloff publicity poster (with Lugosi tentatively cast as the monster), the shin was green: The skin was also green on some of the many Karloff posters: Finally: this 16mm home movie (shot by Karloff's wife and not an official color test) when Boris was on the set of Son Of Frankenstein, shows that the make-up was actuallygreen (ish). This is not colorized footage: Info: Son of Frankenstein Boris Karloff Color Test or Home Movie? – The Spooky Isles »
In the book, Victor explains how he toiled to create a creature of perfection. The proceedure of making the monster isn't clearly defined but Victor does tell us: "The dissecting room and slaughter house furnished many of my materials...". When the monster confronts him for the first time, Victor says:"His limbs were in proportion and I had selected his features as beautiful". He then describes how ugly the face had actually turned out.
In the 8os they showed the original Karloff film tinted in "ghoulish green" on tv. Looked pretty good.
I picked this up in Barnes & Noble today: Rue Morgue » And this: This version of this dvd collection has single sided dvds. The previous version had double sided dvds.
whats funny is how does the the father know she was "murdered"? how do they know it was the monster? for all the father know the girls drowned by accident and fell in herself. you could drive a truck through that plot hole
Respectfully, I must disagree about it being a plot hole. The audience is shown that the girl died due to the monster's actions -- murder, in a sense, if accidental. So when the father later appears and makes the statement that she was "murdered," he merely corroborates with what we've seen and know. Since the father's statement does not contradict what the audience knows to be true, the father's evidence of murder falls into the category of "interesting to know," rather than "need to know," as it would not change the storyline.
yes what the audience has seen but unless there was a witness the father himself has no clue who or what were with his daughter and how she drowned
We'll just have to disagree here. I feel the scene with the little girl and the monster is more compelling as it was cut, with the monster running away confused and scared. The film moves on to the next scene without placating the audience with a resolution by the lake (father seeing monster running away or finding large footprints by the shore, pulling the girl from the water, grieving... or whatever else could have consumed another ten minutes of footage). No, it's more powerful as it stands. The audience is left shocked and the story cuts to the next set piece (the wedding party at Frankenstein's house). The next time we see the father it jolts us: he's carrying his dead child through the village streets. "She's been murdered!" he cries. His evidence is implied, not shown, and simply part of the subtext. I believe it was Whale's choice of pacing over exposition.
I have no problem at all with the plot hole - yes it's a big one, but it doesn't detract from my enjoyment at all.
There is this tantalizing video from 1934. It is from Columbia's Screen Snapshots #11. The "Film Stars Frolic" was held May 18-20, 1934. Karloff served on the committee, in charge of "special events".
