Today on TCM, the movie that slammed two franchise characters together and created a new sub-genre, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Produced in 1943, it began a tradition of taking popular characters and combining them to maximize ticket sales. The two characters had built in audiences and for years to come, both appeared time and time again in their own stand alone works as well as more combinations (the most entertaining probably being Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein). There’s no question as to the popularity of this month’s Star of the Month, or in this case, Monster of the Month, Frankenstein’s monster, but why has he been so successful while others have failed? When it comes to franchise horror, which monsters work and which don’t?
In the movie making industry, the most reliable measure of success is still box office. Awards and good reviews count for a little, though not much, but money talks. When a character or story becomes a success, we all know what the next step is: Make more of the same and hope lightning strikes twice. I don’t fault Hollywood for this one bit. Like any other business in the world, if you find something that works, you’re going to want to produce more of it to maximize that success. But the question is why do some work while others don’t. In horror, monsters seem to work a lot of the time but not always. Certainly Frankenstein’s monster has been a raging success for decades and decades. After early work, including an Edison Studios produced version from 1910 , the character hit pay dirt with the 1931 release of Frankenstein, directed by James Whale, and starring Colin Clive and Boris Karloff. It was such a hit that it’s kind of strange now, in retrospect, why there was a four year gap between it and its sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein, in 1935. Even though the reasons given are clear (script problems, trouble getting Whale on board for a second film, etc) it seems odd that Hollywood being Hollywood they wouldn’t just assign a new director and screenwriter and start shooting immediately. Apparently, a little more care was given to sequels once upon a time.
Or maybe not. After all, King Kong had a sequel rushed into production within weeks of its release. That sequel, Son of Kong, came out only nine months after the original and probably gets a much tougher break than it should. No, it’s nowhere near the greatness of the original but it’s also not as awful as many people make it out to be. Still, Kong himself would continue to achieve success, like Frankenstein’s monster, for decades to come with even more Kong movies coming out soon.
Other famous monsters, from Dracula to the wolf man, have also enjoyed decades long success. But there are some that don’t quite make it. The Creature from the Black Lagoon was a surprise low budget hit but the character himself never really took on a life in sequels and remakes that matched up with those other ones mentioned above. The sharks from the Jaws movies also never quite achieved that kind of success. The first two movies made huge box office but at a certain point, a menacing shark doesn’t have much to offer in terms of character depth. Neither does the creature. But Frankenstein’s monster, Dracula, the Wolf Man, King Kong, and even Godzilla, have a depth to them that allows for repeat outings.
Take Kong and Godzilla. With Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man, there is an obviously human element present. Vampire’s are undead monsters, sure, but they come from our own humanity and even transform perfectly normal humans into them with their bite. Frankenstein’s monster comes from the life of other people before it and a werewolf is, like a vampire, infected by another and transformed. But Kong and Godzilla are pure monsters, with no human element. Except that their creators have always treated them that way. Over the years, both Kong and Godzilla have become characters that audiences understand and root for, and have even produced families! The sharks from the Jaws movies are, by contrast, simply cold, dead, unfeeling monsters. Nothing you can grab onto movie after movie. Nothing with which to identify and commune.
Certainly there are elements of the cold, dead monsters that appeal but more on a genre basis. In other words, zombies are obviously an extremely successful monster genre but not because a famous zombie character was introduced back in the sixties that keeps getting his own movies. The zombies change from movie to movie, show to show. Just as there are plenty of shark movies that aren’t Jaws.
In horror, the movie business is no different than it is with any other genre: if it works, keep making it until it doesn’t (then wait a few years and try again). But what works when it comes to a successful monster franchise is a monster the audience can latch their own humanity onto. That keeps them from the feeling of utter detachment that leads to disinterest and boredom. James Cameron probably realized this when making Aliens, the sequel to Alien, in which he made the final showdown a battle between the alien mother and Ripley, a surrogate mother to an orphaned child. He added some level of humanity to the alien to make it more than just a monster. So as we celebrate this month’s Monster of the Month, the sewn together “child” of Dr. Frankenstein, let’s remember why he has enjoyed such long lasting success: He’s only a monster until you get to know him. Then, he becomes a person.