URL: http://ericrichardson.com/verbal/standing_itwo_ceremony/

  

<h>Standing in the Way of Ceremony: Production Code Objections to The Bride of
Frankenstein

   <p>The year was 1931. Universal was a struggling Hollywood studio.
   Salvationcame from an unexpected place: the horror film. February saw
   the blockbusterrelease of Dracula, and only eight months later
   Frankensteinwas released to become an even bigger hit. Inevitably this
   successled the studio to pursue a sequel, and in 1935 Universal
   releasedThe Bride of Frankenstein, returning the director (JamesWhale)
   and most of the original cast. The film was a spectacular successat
   the box office. What the average 1935 movie-goer saw in the
   theater,though, was a film heavily tweaked from the original script
   Whalehad been pursuing. Unlike its predecessor, The Bride of
   Frankensteinwas exposed to the heavy hand of Joe Breen and the
   Production CodeAdministration; a review of the shooting script and
   notes Breen wroteto the producers reveal forced alterations that
   change the natureof the film and its characters.
   <p>When the original Frankenstein was released in 1931 the ProductionCode
   had not yet been put into enforcement. Censorship was yet thedominion
   of various local and state film boards. Though these groupscut various
   scenes from the screened prints of the original, therewas no federal
   censorship to deal with until the film's re-releasein 1937 (Manguel
   14). Bride of Frankenstein, however, hadto deal with the Production
   Code Administration from the beginning.Many cases of censorship
   centered around the depiction of the femaleform and sexuality, but for
   the most part the issues raised in Brideof Frankenstein were ones of
   violence and religion.
   <p>Breen, as a devout Catholic, was especially sensitive to
   unfavorableportrayals of religion in the movies. In this film Breen
   was especiallyworried by any scenes that would compare Frankenstein to
   God. Veryearly on in the process he cautioned the studio against
   pursuing thisobvious analogy. ``Throughout the script there are a
   number ofreferences to Frankenstein ... which compare him to God and
   whichcompare his creation of the monster to God's creation of man.''
   HereBreen was blunt: ``All such references should be deleted''
   (Gardner66). The subject matter was too tied to the comparison for
   such anultimatum to be completely followed, however, and a
   back-and-forthon the topic went on throughout the production process.
   In one sceneof the shooting script Frankenstein intensely monologues:
   ``I couldhave bred a race and have found perhaps the secret of eternal
   life.All that was in my brain -- my very grasp. I conceived it -- it
   waslike being God!'' (Riley B-7) Predictably, Joe Breen was not
   amused.He suggested omitting the line, saying that it had in the past
   ``provensomewhat blasphemous'' (Gardner 67). Whaler responded by
   offeringto refer to ``being the Creator'' instead, but in the end
   theoffered proved moot as the entire line was cut from the
   theatricalprint. Later in the sequence Dr. Pretorius was to derisively
   tellFrankenstein to ``follow the lead of Nature ... or of God -- ifyou
   are fond of your fairy tales'' (Riley B-26). Breen wanted theline cut;
   Whaler instead changed ``fairy tales'' to ``Biblestories.''
   <p>Another religiously oriented cut provides a good example of the wayin
   which Code-required cuts could alter the attitude of a scene.
   Whilerunning from a pursuing mob Frankenstein's monster happens into
   acemetery. The script called for the monster to happen upon an
   ``imposingmonument'' depicting Christ on the cross (F-8). The monster,
   in ashow of compassion, tries to help the stricken figure, thinking
   itto be a human mistreated as he has been. The monster's effort endsup
   toppling the monument, revealing the crypt entrance below.
   Breenobjected to the scene, saying that Whaler ``should omit the
   figureof the statue of the Christ from this scene, substituting some
   othertype of monument'' (Gardner 67). Changing the monument,
   however,changes how the audience views the monster's actions. Instead
   of attemptingto be compassionate, the monster is instead shown lashing
   out at arandom statue, toppling it in an act that is far more
   aggressive thanthe original was to be. Though Breen meant only to
   prevent a conservativepublic from finding offense in the scene, the
   effect of his actionwas to force upon the monster an entirely
   different motivation.
   <p>Aside from depictions of religion, Breen was primarily concerned
   withthe gruesomeness and violence the film promised. Even after
   primaryshooting had ended Breen wrote to Universal warning them that
   thefilm would not get its seal as it then stood. ``This picture
   seemsto us definitely to be a violation of our Production Code,'' he
   wrotethem, ``because of its excessive brutality and
   gruesomeness''(69). Scenes already filmed were targeted for removal.
   Early in thefilm a man and his wife are left standing by the burning
   wreckageof the mill as the crowd that watched the monster destroyed
   wandersoff. The man moves closer, wanting his eyes to confirm for him
   thatthe monster was truly dead. Instead the man falls into the water
   belowand comes face-to-face with a monster very much alive. The man
   iskilled, and as the monster crawls up to the surface the wife is
   broughtto a similar fate. The script gave a scene in which the drama
   betweenmonster and man unfolded slowly; Breen wanted the man's
   drowning togo unshown. He also wanted deleted the shot of the monster
   pullingthe wife into the water. He won one and lost one, as Universal
   cutthe drowning scene but kept the image of the wife being tossed
   toher death. Later there is a scene where the monster kills a
   smallgirl. This body is viewed by a group of ``little girls coming
   outof church in their white dresses'' and later carried through
   thestreets by the mother. The final print of the film still
   containedthe shot of the girls viewing the off-camera body, but cut
   the onethat would have shown the body itself (69).
   <p>Breen was concerned not just with visuals that might upset the
   public,but dialogue choices as well. The opening shots of the film
   originallyincluded a scene where Mary Shelley says that she, her poet
   husband,and Lord Byron are ``all three infidels, scoffers at all
   marriageties, believing only in living fully and freely in whatever
   directionthe heart dictates'' (Riley A-5). The line, along with most
   of thosemeant for these three, was cut completely from the theatrical
   print.Elsewhere Breen got detailed enough to be squirmish about the
   word``entrails,'' getting it replaced with ``insides.''
   (Gardner67-68). Breen also took objection to the idea of the monster
   as asexual creature. Reviewing an early script he wrote that
   ``themonster's use of the word ``mate'' should be dropped in this
   scene.All material which suggests he desires a sexual companion is
   objectionable.We suggest you substitute the word ``companion'''' (66).
   In theend the monster does refer to his soon-to-be-created partner as
   a``wife,'' though whether this implies more or less of a
   sexualconnotation than mate is debatable (Riley F-16).
   <p>Only a few of the scenes censored in Bride of Frankensteininvolved
   sexuality. In the scene where Dr. Pretorius shows Frankensteinhis
   created miniature creatures, one of the jars contains a tiny
   mermaid.Breen wrote that, ``The scene of the miniature mermaid should
   behandled in such a way as to avoid any improper exposure''
   (Gardner67). The shooting script made gave no guidance on what the
   mermaidshould look like, but the final release made sure the mermaid
   waswell-clothed. Cut entirely from the film were scenes in which
   MaryShelley was considered to be showing too much of her breasts.
   Breen'smemo after photography had finished tersely demanded that the
   studio``Delete all the ``breast shots'' in Reel 1'' (69). Theseshots
   went, and their late removal might have been part of the reasonso much
   of the dialogue from these scenes was gutted.
   <p>The ending of the film was also changed after primary shooting
   hadended, though in this case changes were due more to Universal's
   concernthat the film have a happy ending than to any censorship
   concerns.Where the shooting script has Frankenstein and Elizabeth
   dying alongsidethe Doctor and their almost-human creations, the final
   theatricalprint does not. The principals were brought back to reshoot
   an endingin which the monster allows Frankenstein and Elizabeth to
   leave thetower before its destruction. However refilming the entire
   sequencewas too costly and in the final shot before the tower is
   destroyedFrankenstein is seen still inside, even though just
   previously hehad been shown to leave.
   <p>In the end Breen gave Bride of Frankenstein a seal despitethe fact
   that it had not addressed all the objections he had raised.Just
   because the Production Code Administration signed off on thefilm did
   not mean the rest of the way was smooth sailing, though.Breen warned
   Universal to expect trouble with other censoring agencies:

     <p>It is more than likely that this picture will meet with
     considerablydifficulty at the hands of [state and local] censor
     boards bothin this country and abroad. The nature of the production
     is such asto invite very critical examination on the part of these
     censor boards,and you may well expect difficulty with it wherever
     the picture isshown (71).

   <p>Breen's warning proved to be absolutely correct. A few states didmake
   cuts to the film, but primarily trouble came when the productionwas
   shown abroad. The film was gutted in several countries and
   bannedoutright in a few others.
   <p>Despite its censorship troubles, Bride of Frankenstein was an
   enormousfiscal success. Audiences were able to look past the plot
   holes introducedby the many minutes of footage cut after filming and
   find a compellinghorror film. Today many of Breen's cuts look petty
   and the remainingcontent entirely tame, but to the audience of the
   time this was anamazing film. The Production Code Administration
   greatly affectedthe cinema of its time, and in Bride of Frankenstein
   youcan see how the required changes altered the tone and character
   ofthe film.

<h>Works Cited

   <l>Gardner, Gerald. The Censorship Papers: MovieCensorship Letters from
   the Hays Office. New York: Dodd, 1987.
   <l>Manguel, Alberto. Bride of Frankenstein. London:British Film
   Institute, 1997.
   <l>Riley, Phillip. The Bride of Frankenstein. Absecon, NJ:MagicImage,
   1989.


   eWorld: eric richardson meets the web
   http://ericrichardson.com

