The Bride of Frankenstein: James Whale’s Queer View on “Otherness” and Identity

The Bride of Frankenstein: James Whale’s Queer View on“Otherness” and Identity

Courtney Peters

Flagler College

June 26, 2015

The Bride of Frankenstein: James Whale’s Queer View on “Otherness” and Identity

The genre of science fiction is one that has captured the

imagination of audiences both on screen and through the printed

page for centuries. With iconic images of spaceships, the cosmos,

robots etc., legends of the “sci-fi” world have made a place for

themselves in the hearts of people of all ages. Acting as a

direct product of humanity’s feelings about change, science

fiction expresses the fear associated with scientific

advancements and technological developments throughout time.

While the most popular sci-fi stories take place in a world other

than our own, they give us glimpses of reality meant to expand

individual’s views and emotions. Balancing a fine line between

irrational and the believable, science fiction strays from

fantasy in that it draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge

while maintaining a physical influence on the direction of

humankind. Its ability to show backdrops of not only the past and

future but also of other universes and dimensions is truly

2


powerful in stimulating audiences’ minds beyond the qualities of

the present and into an endless realm of possibilities.

Basic themes of science fiction often deal with similar

ideas of the “Other”, catering to the basic human need of

providing answers to the unknown and as a manner of explaining

our individual existence. Frequently, sci-fi put emphasis on the

motif of human nature, placing people in situations that seclude

them from the rest of the world in a way that forces them to look

inside themselves to unveil their true disposition. When removed

of basic societal structures, the characters in these stories

explore not only what it means to be human but also how it is

possible to maintain a satisfactory sense of morality. Similarly,

as the premises of the programs typically shatter the constraints

of reality, the idea of limitless knowledge often aims at

expanding the minds of audience members so that they may view the

world from a different perspective. In a plausible domain that

has no boundaries, people cannot afford to be judgmental or

biased. Once outlandish topics such as interspecies relationships

and otherworldly civilizations are accepted through film, normal

3


human prejudices based on race, social status, and sexuality

begin to seem minute. This more open type of thinking that

science fiction allows gives audiences a critical lens through

which to view current-day issues as well as better understand

causes and effect throughout human history.

II. Context

Historically, one of the most popular stories of the science

fiction genre has been Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. First published

in 1818, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was an uncompromised

illustration of science and medical exploration. Looking closely

at the presence of technology in society, the novel provided a

critique on the issues of letting experimentation go unregulated

and without concern for human dignity, thereby questioning the

moral standards of scientists and industrialists who develop

technological advances for selfish purposes. By doing so, Shelley

was able to show society a reflection of itself, causing the

creators of progress to become a source of fear rather than the

their respective inventions. Even though she wrote in an era

before the biotechnological revolution, Shelley was able to

4


predict the effects society would face when science became too

powerful, rendering Frankenstein one of the most important and

timeless stories of the modern world.

Over the past two hundred years, the story of Frankenstein has

been so integrated and repeated in culture that it has developed

its own mythological presence. Instead of being viewed as a

possibility of the future, Frankenstein’s technological foundation

is now a mythic vehicle for teaching people how to live in a

contemporary society driven by technology. In 1931, Universal

Pictures released James Whale’s interpretation of Frankenstein,

which instantly became recognized a cinematic classic. The

Frankenstein film openly confronted the space between what society

knows and accepts versus ideas of the unknown, testing the logic

behind the human need for constant advancement. This scheme

parallels the possibility that as humans become more

technological and machinery becomes more anthropomorphized,

society will move closer and closer towards a world in which the

machine is a deity. Thus while it intrinsically exists as myth,

Frankenstein holds a very real social function linked to the

5


collective cultural psyche and the pursuit of forbidden

knowledge.

Just four years after the initial film’s premiere, on April

22, 1935, a follow-up film entitled The Bride of Frankenstein hit the

big screen, offering a sympathetic addition to the traditional

Frankenstein story. As the first film of the time to present the

world with an iconic female monster, it was attractive to a much

broader audience and had an intrinsically approachable nature

unlike the other Gothic-inspired scary movies that thrived during

the same decade. While the film borrowed from its predecessor and

still focused highly on the dangers of progress, it took the

critical lessons of Frankenstein a step farther by emotionally

appealing to the audience and following the Frankenstein

monster’s doomed path of existence to make a bold proclamation on

the nature of humanity. Although the movie lacked fame and

prominence compared to its many counterparts of the 1930’s and

40’s, it was one of the first horror films in cinematic history

to blend suspense with humor and compassion to openly question

ideas of gender roles, autonomy, and identity.

6


In his role as auteur, The Bride of Frankenstein’s rhetor James

Whale uses a homosexual perspective to construct ethos in the

message of the film by implementing the Frankenstein monster and

his bride to represent the archetypal “Other” figure in society;

individual’s of different appearances or behavior than what is

viewed as conventional in relation to mankind’s basic paradigms.

By doing so, he makes a powerful commentary on the harm of

judgment and the injustice of isolation within society.

III. Theoretical Framework

According to philosopher Michel Foucalt, “homosexuality is

of comparatively recent origin” (Spargo, p.17). Growing out of

the context of the 1870’s, the homosexual category did not become

a subject of systematic inquiry until the late 1900’s with sexual

revolutions in the Western world. Rapid development of gay and

lesbian studies in universities throughout the 1990’s was

“paralleled with an increasing deployment of the term “queer” as

the latest institutional transformation (Jagose). Broadly

speaking, queer can describe any gestures or models that

dramatize inconsistencies with stable relationships between

7


gender, chromosomal sex, and sexual desire. However, as it has

expanded, the term has been used to explore aberrations of post-

structuralist identity “as a constellation of multiple and

unstable positions” (Jagose).

Within the study of queer theory, gender and sexual identity

help to construct the idea of the monstrous “Other”. Branching

off of feminist studies, queer theory can be applied to a text to

explore the relationship between one’s intrinsic characteristics

and urges with his or her social role in the world. The

marginalized view often associated with homosexuality may act as

a scope from which to observe all minority Other groups within

human culture. The word “queer” in itself does not only apply to

the recognized modern deviations from traditional sexuality but

can refer to anything that is “differing in some odd way from

what is normal or usual” (Gove and Webster, 1993). In The Bride of

Frankenstein, James Whale represents his social Otherness as a

homosexual just like Mary Shelley was an “Other” as a female

author of a major novel in the early 1800’s.

8


When the film was released in 1935, the term “gay” was not

used as it is today, nor was there any real concern as to

defining homosexuality. Having sexual relations with a member of

the opposite sex was not necessarily outside the norm, but

neither was it openly discussed. The beginning of the 1930s was

really the time that culture saw a shift in expectations of

masculinity and many homosexuals were “closeted”, so to speak.

During this period of transition, heterosexuality became the

accepted lifestyle and being gay was branded as not only abnormal

but developed into an offensive severance from social ideologies.

James Whale, as one of the few men of early Hollywood to be

openly gay, was then the perfect target to experience the

cultural confusion over homosexuality and dealt first handedly

with the struggle of being labeled as the “Other.”

After his considerable success with the first Frankenstein

film in 1931, Whale realized that he had an opportunity to direct

his attention at another narrative that would both carry on the

Mary Shelley myth and allow him to voice his personal distresses

to a broad audience. Working with his team that made the original

9


Frankenstein release so efficacious, Whale agreed to begin

production on The Bride of Frankenstein once he got assurance from

Universal Pictures that he would have full control over the

content and overall feel of the film. The plot of the film was

completely outside the realm of the alternative Frankenstein

reality that Shelley created, as Whale approached it with the

intent of conveying a very different message to the audience than

its predecessor. While the first Frankenstein production harvested

inspiration from Shelley’s work and criticized society as a whole

by promoting a distrust of science and technology, The Bride of

Frankenstein takes a much different approach by calling upon

sensitive charm and focusing on the idea of the “Other” on a more

personal scale.

James Whale’s expressionistic style comes through in The

Bride of Frankenstein with its stylistic combination of Gothic design

and delicate elements of nature. He inverts traditional elements

of Western culture and plays upon basic structures of

civilization and religion that make the film feel familiar and

comprehensible to the audience without blatantly revealing itself

10


as a major critique on society. The level of sympathy that Whale

adds to the film makes it stand out as one of the only

horror/sci-fi films of the time to be more focused on human

values than eliciting scares. Whale’s attitude towards his

audience is very personal; in fact, he refused to do the film

unless it was all on his own terms. Because of this, The Bride of

Frankenstein was a triumph for James Whale that truly put his

personality and emotions on the line, presenting the audience

with an intimate understanding that the “Other” is not always

fearsome and that one’s identity cannot be determined for him/her

by predetermined notions of the general public.

IV. Analysis

The rhetorical act in The Bride of Frankenstein is very

straightforward and happens in a chronological, narrative

fashion. The film begins exactly where its predecessor left off;

however, rather than depicting the story of the Frankenstein

monster’s creation, this film follows the creature’s journey into

the world and essentially his development from a childlike being

to a more mature, understanding individual. As he continues on

11


his path, each obstacle he faces acts as a moral lesson for the

audience. Viewers learn at the same pace as the monster, thereby

taking on his fears and distrust of other human beings. Because

the audience sees through the monster’s perspective, they are

able to identify with him more greatly and understand the claims

that Whale is making on just how destructive people can be in

their treatment of others. Similarly, it adds a tragic undertone

to the life of the monster, giving the horror film villain a

whole new layer of appreciation. Were the film structured

differently, it is likely that it would not be as impactful in

its emotional appeal to the audience and would have left a less

meaningful statement on humanity as a whole.

The character of the Frankenstein monster itself is the

perfect conduit for exploring the role of the “Other” in society.

At the end of the first film, the monster is seen trapped in a

burning laboratory, presumably dead after being attacked by an

angry mob of townspeople. It is revealed however in the opening

sequences of The Bride of Frankenstein that the monster has survived.

When he first awakens in the lab, the Frankenstein monster is

12


very childlike. He is naïve, curious, and innocent until

frightened or provoked. As he matures throughout The Bride of

Frankenstein, he becomes more intellectual and gradually even

develops the power of speech and independence. However, as he

matures, the audience is able to see how other people and the

established structures of society thrust evilness upon him and

force him to become much more defensive and monster-like.

From the very beginning of his existence, the Frankenstein

monster is doomed to live a life of being unaccepted. Not only is

he different than societal norms in his behavior and appearance,

but by the laws of nature he should not even exist. He is the

ultimate “Other” and at no point does he find a way to integrate

himself into the hegemonic expectations of modern culture.

Despite the fact that he appears fearsome in the first film, The

Bride of Frankenstein presents the monster in a sympathetic light by

showing the audience how detrimental judgment and a lack of

compassion can be to those who do not necessarily “fit it” in

society. His pale complexion and squared off face allow for him

to appear as sort of a blank canvas upon which anyone can see

13


parts of themselves and thereby identify with the monster’s

torment.

In the entirety of the film, the singular character that

shows the Frankenstein monster any real form of kindness is an

old blind man. Obviously, not being able to see the monster, the

old man is not frightened by his outlandish appearance and opens

his heart and home to the monster, thrilled by the fact that he

has made a new friend. Both of these outcasts live together in a

cabin, learning from each other and experiencing the only form of

companionship either of them has ever really known. During his

time with the disabled hermit, the monster takes on a notably

more cheerful demeanor and undergoes drastic changes in his

personality.

During their time together, the two men develop an

alternative form of familial bond “in which both accept each

other’s differences and limitations, and their status as

outsiders” (Lugowski, 2005). The relationship created between the

monster and his older acquaintance can be read as queer in that

they are two adult men who find solace in each other’s

14


companionship. This is the most important part of the monster’s

development, as he realizes that it is not the world that is

wicked but individuals within it that are condemnatory and unable

to accept that which is different from them. Ultimately, this

helps boil the film down to the age-old question of “What makes a

monster, and what makes a man?” Although Frankenstein is labeled

as monstrous because of his nature, it is the scientist who

created him and the people that deny him who are the real

villains. Calling upon what was happening in society at the time,

Whale is here able to point a finger at the people who created

destructive stereotypes for the homosexual community and place

blame upon those who judge others for their divergences.

As a film that is primarily concerned with society’s

outsiders, The Bride of Frankenstein is arguably one of Hollywood’s

first films to face the problem of “queerness” head on. While the

archetypal Frankenstein monster represents a very essential

separation from assimilated “physical and cultural identity”, the

bride character that is introduced in this film emphasizes

“Otherness” through the perspective of “othered female eroticism

15


in patriarchal society” and her existence as a female with an

unnatural identity (Winters, 2009, 118). Unlike her male

counterpart, the bride appears to be mostly human. She is clothed

in a classic white dress, does not have visible scarring, and

would be considered by most as beautiful. The image of her

electrified birdcage hair is still iconic to this day, and she is

one of the only movie monsters that appear to be aesthetically

appealing.

Despite her aura of innocence, the bride is often

stereotyped as a femme fatale in that her presence ultimately

leads to her mate’s destruction. When she is brought to life, she

is portrayed in an animalistic way; frightened of everything

around her and hissing like a threatened feline. She is very

frail and anxious; a stereotypical attribute often given to women

in popular culture. However, because she is made by men (and for

men), the film is suggesting that the typical fear and weakness

associated with the female gender are characteristics that have

been shaped by the ruling patriarchal males. Similarly, by

rejecting her mate and the idealized institution of marriage, she

16


directly challenges patriarchal norms and “refuses the terms of

homosocial exchange” (Phelan, 180). In doing so, she is not meant

to be the film’s villain but its savior.

The motif of female Otherness is exploited many times

throughout the film, as nearly all female characters are treated

as inferior, often being told to “shut up” by the men and being

written off as delusional whenever they appear to be too

emotional. As in Mary Shelley’s original novel, the film

“specifically portrays the consequence of a social construction

of gender that values the male above the female” (Mellor, 2012,

356). The only woman in the film who warrants any respect is the

character of Elizabeth, Dr. Frankenstein’s soon-to-be wife. In a

sense, she is also the “bride of Frankenstein”, and she and the

doctor act as foil characters to the monster and his mate. While

Elizabeth may represent the interchangeability of “female roles

within a complex system of gender exchange”, she is slightly

tainted as a neutral female character in the sense that she is

not only wealthy but also marrying a successful man (Winters,

119). Because she is monetarily stable and a member of the upper

17


class, it can be inferred that the only reason her character

receives more attention than other females in the film is due to

the fact that she is a member of the elite.

From this standpoint, the film is criticizing the fact that

otherness can be ignored if the “Other” is considered an

important member of society. As a director, James Whale most

likely found more social acceptance after becoming successful and

recognized in Hollywood whereas he may have been shamed for his

sexuality beforehand. The thought that otherness is so easily

resisted by the upper class yet thrust upon those who have been

born into less fortunate situations is one of the film’s greatest

critiques of society, as its predominant “Other” characters are

shown to have absolutely no control over their placement in the

social ladder. Just as the monster and his bride are

intrinsically abnormal due to their human creator, people that

are labeled as queer in society are typically innately born with

their otherness. Whale’s argument then is that people should not

be outcast based on their distinctive human characteristics, even

if they differ from society’s accepted norms.

18


Another character in the film that represents queerness is

that of Dr. Pretorious, an unusual-looking older scientist who

has similar dreams to those of Dr. Frankenstein in creating new

life. As he cohorts with Dr. Frankenstein and takes him under his

wing as a partner and student, Dr. Pretorious acts as a “queer

surrogate for the eliminated patriarch” (Phelan, 2000, 176).

Rather than coercing Dr. Frankenstein to hide his interests,

Pretorious encourages him to fully explore his peculiar desires.

His presence points to the underlying theme of queerness in the

film as he not only promotes the ideal Other but also ends up

being an unexpected source of sexual tension.

There are several scenes throughout The Bride of Frankenstein that

show uncomfortable triangular relationships with Dr. Pretorious’s

presence. In each of these situations, Pretorious and another

male find themselves strangely sexually intertwined with a female

character. It is through the withdrawal of the female character

who is usually the subject of the male gaze that the men in this

film are able to come together queerly. These triangulated

structures “attack the binary structure” that ultimately depends

19


on polarized and fixed gender positions, thereby challenging the

constructs of accepted heterosexuality (Phelan, 173). Ultimately,

even Frankenstein’s monster finds greater solace in his

relationships with the other males throughout the film than he

does with his intended bride. The film does not end with the

typical closure of heterosexual coupling as often seen in

conventional cinema, appropriating its overall manifestation as a

testimonial on queerness.

According to queer theory, the “Other” must similarly

attempt to fight the status quo by rejecting “society’s norms and

challenging existing modes of behavior” (2009, 8). By failing to

resist normative values of heterosexual society, the “Other” is

thought to be maintaining and perpetuating these norms. For James

Whale, his responsibility as a member of the queer community to

fight against society’s established structures was opportunely

available to him through film. At the time that he began working

on The Bride of Frankenstein, democratic society was beginning to see a

shift in which there was only room for “those people who conform

to acceptable standards of the dominant ideology” (10). While in

20


Shelley’s time there were more strict regulations on behavior and

independence, the 1930’s (in America no less) were supposed to be

a decade of cultural progress towards social diversification,

liberty, and acceptance. Despite this, preexisting sources of

power made it difficult for “Others” to find acceptance.

This point is furthered by the inclusion of quite a bit of

religious imagery, calling upon the intrinsic sense of morality

in viewers to distinguish between right and wrong. In the way

that they were composed, both the bride and the Frankenstein

monster were essentially “born” without any autonomy or ability

to make decisions about their own identity. By intertwining

concepts of independence and self-choice with religious

undertones, the film makes a greater criticism on the church’s

disapproval of “Others” who challenge heteronormative structures.

The Bride of Frankenstein, in this sense, is an allegory for members of

religious groups who blame individuals for their Otherness. The

film argues that individuals are born with innate characteristics

that should not be determined nor influenced by social

constructs.

21


Dr. Frankenstein, in creating the monsters, emulates a God-

like role as he is meddling with the sanctified power of bringing

life. Contrastingly, although the monster and his bride are

viewed as sinful creatures by the townspeople, they are in fact

meant to represent heavenly beings in the film. As the

Frankenstein monster runs through a cemetery looking for

sanctuary, he is directly contrasted with the image of Jesus

Christ nailed to a cross. By the end of the film, it is revealed

that the monster and his bride choose to accept death rather than

continue living as beings that were put into existence by the

wrong hands. Their ultimate sacrifice for the greater good is

clearly evocative of the Christian associations with Jesus acting

as a martyr for the rest of humanity. The constant underlying

motif of good versus evil is meant to act as a moral barometer

for the film’s audience. Frequently, these allusions to heaven

and hell coincide with imagery of environmental forces (be they

destructive or beautiful, i.e. fire and lightning), furthering

Whale’s argument about fundamental qualities and adding in an

22


important analysis of elements of the natural world versus those

that are man-made.

V. Analysis

As The Bride of Frankenstein centers on the developmental journey

of the Frankenstein monster, it is most likely a parallel of

James Whale’s own life trying to find his place as a homosexual

male. However, the film feels like more of a personal account

rather than an attack on social structures and is therefore easy

to identify with for a variety of viewers. This adds to the tone

of the film in that each viewer can profoundly interpret it in a

respective manner. Especially for the time that the film was made

and released, it would have been very difficult to make such

large claims about members of society that are typically outcast

were the film to take a literal approach.

Born into poverty, James Whale was no stranger to class

striations and “shaped his image into that of an English

gentleman”, recognizing that “money was central to his security

and adopted persona” (Lugowski, 2005). From 1930 to 1951, Whale

23


openly lived with a producer from MGM named David Lewis, earning

him the deriding title “the Queen of Hollywood”. It was his

queerness that prevented him from being accepted in the film

world as a respected auteur, despite the notable strides he made

as a director. The biggest problem with his work is that he was

able to “identify more with the outlandish” than the mainstream

audience and everyday familiarities (Lugowski). However, as it

had historically, the theatre proved to be one of the only

platforms that acted as a social haven for queer representation.

By using a theatrical approach, sexual and gender-based anomalies

could be performed from a critical distance and in a controlled

environment.

For Whale, showing the world what it means to be an “Other”

was his distinctive responsibility. Choosing to expand upon a

story that was based in classic literature was a very cognizant

decision in that he knew he could draw upon the public’s trust in

traditional organizations and standards to provide them will a

tale of queerness that felt familiar and safe. His directorial

influence on The Bride of Frankenstein is the central contributing

24


factor to the overall statement that the film makes on not only

what it means to be different but also how to treat those who are

different from one’s self. Interestingly, although the novel was

written by a woman, this sequel film devised by James Whale does

not take a very feminist perspective. While one would expect the

audience of this film to be targeted more at the female

population than most monster films, its appears that Whale was

more concerned with reaching men, as he (being a gay man) had

familiarity being ostracized by his male colleagues in society.

Using his past experiences, he was able to create The Bride of

Frankenstein with the perfect blending of comedy and horror;

tradition and innovation; rebellion and compliance.

At its core, The Bride of Frankenstein attempts to make society

look at itself and realize the destruction that occurs when mob

mentality and social expectations cause people to act violently

against the archetypal “Other”. It points a finger at the elite

that are obsessed with progress and success, blaming them for the

plight of the lower classes and objectification of all who are

not born of nobility. Similarly, by focusing on scientists and

25


members of the upper class, Whale calls to those who dictate

society and attempts to give them an understanding of the dangers

of advancement as well as how their hegemonic structures affect

the remaining lower half of the population. However, because The

Bride of Frankenstein calls to the empathy of the audience, it can be

applied to anyone, as it is an important lesson on the treatment

of others in addition to how people must value themselves and

their own thoughts and desires. Although the bride has been

immortalized through popular culture as “the monster’s mate”, she

is an iconic example of feminine empowerment and autonomy and a

commanding leader of equal acceptance for all members of queer

communities.

26


Works Cited

Cossman, B. (2004). Sexuality, Queer Theory, and “Feminism After”: Reading and Rereading the Sexual Subject. Mcgill Law Journal. 49(4), 847-876.

Gove, P., & Webster, I. (1993). Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.

Hatch, J. C. (2008). Disruptive Affects: Shame, Disgust, andSympathy in Frankenstein. European Romantic Review. 19(1), 33-49.

Jagose, A. (n.d.). Queer Theory. Retrieved June 25, 2015, from http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-Dec-1996/jagose.html

Kemp, J. (2009). A Queer Age: Or, Discourse Has a History. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 6(1), 3-23.

Lugowski, D. (2005, October 20). James Whale. Retrieved June25, 2015, from http://sensesofcinema.com/2005/great-directors/whale/

Mellor, Anne K. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” Frankenstein. By Mary Shelley. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. Norton Critical Editions. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 355-368.

Phelan, Lyn. “Artificial women and male subjectivity in 42ndStreet and Bride of Frankenstein.” Screen 41.2 (2000): 161-82. Print.

Spargo, T. (1999). Foucalt and Queer Theory. Totem Books.

The Bride of Frankenstein: Adaptation and Mutability. (2014,February 9). Retrieved June 25, 2015.https://criticalhit009.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-bride-of-frankenstein-adaptation-and-mutability/

27


Winters, B. (2009). “There Have Been Developments:” Frankenstein’s Monster Finds a (Mahlerian) Voice. Interdisciplinary Humanities. 26(2), 116-127.algree

28

The Bride of Frankenstein: James Whale’s Queer View on “Otherness” and Identity

Documents

Transcript of The Bride of Frankenstein: James Whale’s Queer View on “Otherness” and Identity