Revenge of Frankenstein - how did it ever pass the MPAA? in Hammer Horror Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Revenge of Frankenstein - how did it ever pass the MPAA?

Author	Comment
Here 4 help	Revenge of Frankenstein - how did it ever pass the MPAA?	Lead	[-]
Jan 2 10 1:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've been thinking about this. Is Revenge of Frankenstein the first horror film in which the bad guy wins? Frankenstein, an escaped convict and murderer, is responsible for the death of a graverobber and then amputates healthy body parts off the working classes in his hospital to use for his experiments. In the end he gets his brain transplanted into another body and gets away with it scot free. How did this ever get past the Breen office? I thought bad guys weren't supposed to win until the code got ripped up in the late 1960s. What sort of moral message does this send out to our young people? Tim Lucas claims that Black Sabbath is the first horror film which ends with evil triumphant (at least in the US edit) but surely it is this film??
	Remove this ad
Monsterpal		#1	[-]
Jan 3 10 2:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When I saw this in 1958 I took note of that ending, I assure you, and so did the other kids at the matinee. Special dispensation from punishment for mad scientists made me want to become one.
Dennman		#2	[-]
Jan 8 10 5:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Pretty brutal beating Peter takes as well, although mostly off screen.
Earl B		#3	[-]
Jan 9 10 12:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	How did this ever get past the Breen office? Maybe it was considered a 'fantasy' (i.e. not to be considered seriously). There's a great article I read in - if memory serves - LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS, about Hammer being caught between the British Censor and their US distributor for CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF: The censor was refusing to pass the script (citing such problems as rape, murder, blasphemy, etc, etc), and Universal was pressuring them to start filming, because they were planning to release it here during school vacation when the kids were out!
Grant		#4	[-]
Jan 9 10 12:25 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	At the other extreme, the pretty "weasely" janitor never gets killed, which is a little surprising.
ScareBear	Weasley??	#5	[-]
Jan 10 10 2:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Grant wrote: At the other extreme, the pretty "weasely" janitor never gets killed, which is a little surprising. Was it this Weasely???
APE		#6	[-]
Jan 22 10 9:36 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Technically...Baron Frankenstein dies at the end of the film
Cadaverino		#7	[-]
Jan 23 10 3:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Motion Picture Production Code changed incrementally from 1930 to 1968, when it was dropped in favor of the letter rating system. After Joseph Breen retired in 1954, the changes accelerated.
Here 4 help		#8	[-]
Jan 23 10 3:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There's a great article I read in - if memory serves - LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS, about Hammer being caught between the British Censor and their US distributor for CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF: The censor was refusing to pass the script (citing such problems as rape, murder, blasphemy, etc, etc), and Universal was pressuring them to start filming, because they were planning to release it here during school vacation when the kids were out! Same thing with Revenge of Frankenstein. The BBFC didn't like the cannibal idea at all and they strongly objected to the original idea of Karl deteriorating from mange. Hammer had to eliminate mange and have Karl regressing to his old twisted self. They didn't bother to change the dialogue to refer to this and this regression is convey in the visuals only and its reasons are never explained. Frankenstein is seen examining Karl's brain but we never find out the results of this (it doesn't help that the last section of the film was severely edited because the picture was too long and scenes were put in the wrong order). The MPAA weren't bothered by the subject matter at all but instead objected to a couple of "my God's", some dialogue between Frankenstein and a woman patient that referred to "pills" which they thought was a reference to contraception and insisted that Frankenstien not be seen with his ear pressed on Vera's breast (hence the dissolve at that point). Very minor.
hermanthegerm	The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)	#9	[-]
Jun 5 12 9:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It could be because he is not as villanous here as is often the perception. Frankenstein is still working towards the benefit of humanity. Regardless of the initial scene at the guillotine (which we don't see and thus might imply that it was not Fankenstein who kills the priest or causes him to be killed,) the most evil thing he does here is amputate an arm that may not have needed it, but we do not know for sure. The Karl transplant is not necessarily an evil thing. The experiment would not have failed were it not for the damage Karl suffers at the beating (much as the bad brain/good brain switch.) Frankenstein is mostly a victim of circumstance, but as it has been said, he is, technically, beaten to death. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
grgstv338		#10	[-]
Jun 5 12 4:30 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Frankenstein is mostly a victim of circumstance LOL! I dunno, Herm, this sounds like a defense attorney's summation. In reality, the Baron is guilty as hell. Does he himself murder the priest? No, he had his hands bound, so it was surely Karl. But the Baron is the one who conspired with Karl, obviously forging a plan to save himself from the guillotine, (Karl's reward is a new body), so he certainly plotted the murder. So, why do we find ourselves rooting for the Baron in this movie? Well, first, that priest murder. Do we know the padre? Has he become a likeable character, a Father Flanagan of Hammerland? No, no - it's just the start of the movie, he's a stranger, and keep in mind we also don't even see the actual dirty deed. In fact, we don't even realize until later that it was the priest who had been killed; for now, we only hear an off-screen struggle. As for the graverobber who discovered the priest's body? He conviently has a heart attack and keels over. (But consider - what if he hadn't? Think the Baron & Karl would have let him go? As soon as the Baron announces himself, we know there's no way this guy can be allowed to live). But, hey, he's a graverobber. And what about the people who are serving as a spare parts shop for the Baron's experiments? Are they poor, needy orphans who would naturaly get our sympathy? Nope, mostly dirty, wheezing pickpockets or ne'er-do-wells. Most significantly, though, Hans, our supposed good guy character, the one who we'd expect to be our "moral authority" (like Paul in CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN), is instead someone who actively helps the Baron throughout the movie (and even "rescues" him at the very end). In short, the Baron becomes our hero here because he's charming, ruthless, efficient, compelling... and because no other character is allowed to usurp the good guy mantle. Actually a bit of nifty sleight of hand by scripter Sangster (and still my favorite Hammer Frankenstein!)
	Remove this ad
hermanthegerm		#11	[-]
Jun 11 12 9:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	My point is that the reviewers might have judged the film by itself and not necessarily with thoughts of it being a sequel where F had been established as a criminal in the previous chapter. Should reviewers have character carry guilt, like baggage, from one film to the next? If you look at it this way, it'd have been impossible to judge F to be guilty of the first murder. I am not defending the character, I am attempting to find a rationale for the rating. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
DonM435		#12	[-]
Jun 11 12 10:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Good point. Remember , Lawrence Talbot got to survive HOUSE OF DRACULA, pbly because he hadn't killed anybody in that film. His multiple homicides over the other films were forgotten.
grgstv338		#13	[-]
Jun 11 12 12:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If you look at it this way, it'd have been impossible to judge F to be guilty of the first murder. I'm not talking about the first film; the murder of the priest happens at the beginning of this, the second film (as well as the Baron using his poor ward patients as a spare parts shop). But, as I touched on in my previous post, part of the reason we tend to give the Baron a pass is because most of his crimes & skullduggery happen off-screen here.
hermanthegerm		#14	[-]
Jun 12 12 9:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Not only offscreen, but also it is impossible to judge if F was the mastermind behind it all. Also, we don't know if the arm-ectomy was necessary or not. It is not established. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
grgstv338		#15	[-]
Jun 12 12 9:15 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Not only offscreen, but also it is impossible to judge if F was the mastermind behind it all. Also, we don't know if the arm-ectomy was necessary or not. It is not established. Sure, you could ass-u-me that hunchback Karl was behind it all (of course, the knowing nod between the Baron & Karl pre-execution clues us in that they're in cahoots about something!). And you could conjecture notions that all the spare parts that came from the poor ward were simply limbs that fortuitously dropped off* - all in all, making our Baron one lucky mad doctor! But then, that's the point - and the reason I responded to this, the claim that the Baron is somehow a "victim of circumstance." As pretty much all the Hammer Frankensteins make clear, he's an active, dynamic character, not a reactive, passive one. It would be hard to come up with a lead character who is less a victim of circumstance! *Re monster-makers & lucky limb scavenging, there is a similar scene in the tele-movie FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY, in which David McCallum's Dr. Clerval is seen attending a young man involved in an accident that's shattered his shoulder. Clerval pointedly asks the observing Leonard Whiting's Frankenstein that he agrees that the young man's arm is beyond saving (so it's made clear to us that this is not a needless amputation); I point this out as REVENGE gives us no such reassurance.
hermanthegerm		#16	[-]
Jun 20 12 6:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	...As pretty much all the Hammer Frankensteins make clear... Again, you are judging the character in context of all the films. The reviewing board may not have done so. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
grgstv338		#17	[-]
Jun 21 12 9:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Again, you are judging the character in context of all the films. Actually, I'm responding to your comment that Frankenstein here is a "victim of circumstance." As for the review board for this individual film, since the Baron is not shown committing any murders onscreen, yes, there is always the possibility that the review board overlooked much of what is implied (especially since the priest's murder is off-screen & comes at the very beginning of the film).
scotpens		#18	[-]
Jun 21 12 2:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Cadaverino wrote: The Motion Picture Production Code changed incrementally from 1930 to 1968, when it was dropped in favor of the letter rating system. After Joseph Breen retired in 1954, the changes accelerated. Breen's successor as head of the MPAA Production Code Administration was Geoffrey Shurlock, who loosened some of the code's restrictions. (For example, it was now permissible for movie characters to have premarital or extramarital affairs without suffering punishment -- as long as they expressed remorse for their sins.) By the mid-1960s, although the code was still technically in effect, it was largely a joke. Many movies of that era carried the self-imposed advisory "Suggested for Mature Audiences."
hermanthegerm		#19	[-]
Jun 23 12 11:14 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Code is still a joke, but Cushing talks about it in that Frankenstein mini doc someone just posted not long ago. So they were thinking about it when he was working on the films. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Here 4 help		#20	[-]
Jun 25 12 3:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The MPAA comments on the film are in Kinsey's book. All they were worried about was a few Gawds and the fact that Frankenstein's women patients seemed to undress too readily.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Revenge of Frankenstein - how did it ever pass the MPAA?

Revenge of Frankenstein - how did it ever pass the MPAA?