8mm Forum: Bride of Frankenstein 200' vs. 400'

This is topic Bride of Frankenstein 200' vs. 400' in forum 8mm Print Reviews at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000320

Posted by Marshall Crist (Member # 1312) on October 14, 2008, 03:22 AM:

I understand that the 200' may have only been available initially as a silent reel, and that a sound version was issued later. I recall that the silent version had title cards like a silent movie rather than superimposed subtitles. Presumably these were dropped for the sound version; I wonder if this resulted in a shorter-than-usual digest. I think other early Castle digests had these card titles--IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, at any rate.

While BRIDE is not a film I watch that often, I do feel that it is one of Universal's finest moments. The 200' version, however, doesn't do much for me. The feature is FULL of terrific scenes; the 200' doesn't really make any attempt to condense the film. Instead it's two dialogue extracts and the cutdown of the finale. I expected the 400' to be a huge improvement, but based on what little I've heard about it, perhaps not. If anyone can clue me in, I'd be grateful!

Posted by Charles Phelps (Member # 1341) on November 15, 2008, 12:45 PM:

Castle made digests for 16mm sound/silent and 8mm silent in the beginning until the advent of 8mm magnetic sound in 1959. Since BRIDE was released in 1960, it may have been available in 8mm sound then. If not, it would've at least been in 16mm sound.

The silent movie type title cards actually replaced potions of the footage so the sound version was the same length more or less. Sometimes, the sound print had extra credits on the end like in the THE MUMMY whereas the silent went straight to the "The End" logo.

The 400' version has Frankenstein arrive in a coach at Dr. Praetorius' where he sees the homunculi in the glass jars. Praetorius suggests that together they create a woman.
Fade out/Fade in: Monster stumbles through forest, scares sheep, sees reflection in pond, scares shepherdess, is shot by hunters, and escapes through woods.
Fade out/Cut: Praetorius goes to crypt with grave-robbers, checks out female corpse ("I hope her bones are fresh!"), sets up a meal on a coffin, entertains the visiting monster, and promises a friend.
Fade out/Cut: In the laboratory, Frankenstein and Praetorius observe that "their" heart is still beating, and prep for creation sequence. Everything from here on is more or less intact with a few minor cuts. The main cuts though are the monster throwing Dwight Frye off the roof, Elizabeth's appearance and Frankenstein's escape. I don't believe that there is any footage in either version that is not in the other.

Some of the scenes, like the one with the homunculi, are allowed to go on too long. A little creative pruning, some tighter editing, and the addition of some dissolves would've allowed the shoe-horning of some other scenes into this. At this point, I suppose that the original Castle editing staff was gone and U-8, like Ken, was just showing scenes together quickly and cheaply. Can you imagine what Castle editors could've done with a full 18 minutes to work with?

But, the way this is edited, it would've required a 2x400 to make a decent digest. Instead, we get this attempt and U-8 does a 2x400 on THE NUDE "frickin" BOMB.

Posted by Marshall Crist (Member # 1312) on November 16, 2008, 01:36 AM:

I've heard the NUDE BOMB digest was awful. I'd love details, possibly on a thread of its own.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on November 16, 2008, 10:27 AM:

Off topic, but as a huge Get Smart/Don Adams fan, I'm glad U-8 put out "The Nude Bomb", even if it was a poor edit. I'll do a review shortly.

Back to "Bride of Frankenstein", I have the full feature on Super 8mm and it's one of my favorite prints in my collection. The silent 200' Castle was an early purchase in 8mm and I remember being amazed at the excellent print quality.

Marshall, Castle started using superimposed tiles in 1965, so all previous releases had the title cards.

Doug

Posted by Robert Aragon (Member # 181) on November 16, 2008, 01:42 PM:

I had the 400 ft version of BRIDE....it was a disappointment. Perhaps the reason being the full feature is so perfect, it's hard to have ANYTHING cut out. I sold my digest years ago....GREAT sharpness and sound, but had a jumpy picture..printed that is. I own BRIDE on 16 now, immaculate spliceless original. Lucky me!
As for Nude Bomb, I hated the full feature..sort of like the 800 footer. Lastly, Doug.."would you believe....?" I met Don Adams...twice! Sweet man! Mr. Smart was a hero of mine, as I'm sure was one of yours.

Posted by Mike Tynus (Member # 1108) on November 16, 2008, 05:17 PM:

Charles, thanks for that excellent rundown.

Robert, thanks for clarifying the jumpy picture. I thought something was up since the U8 credits are rock steady and then the jumping starts right at the start of the film.

Doug, who released The BRIDE full feature on super 8?

Posted by Marshall Crist (Member # 1312) on April 29, 2012, 04:14 AM:

Doug, did you ever get around to reviewing THE NUDE BOMB?

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on April 29, 2012, 09:01 AM:

I have the 400' "Bride" and I love it. It does have some audio flaws here and there where the audio drops very low and is muffled for several seconds, but overall I thought it was nicely done. I was perplexed as to why they only utilzed the beginning title card and then cut to the 'Castle' credits beyond that. Again, just shows how the care eithic went into the crapper once the U/8 executives took over. This is why I always look for a review of a U/8 digest prior to hunting one down. It seems the U/8 products tend to disappoint more often than not.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on April 29, 2012, 10:30 AM:

So strange that this turned into a Bride of Frankenstein/The Nude Bomb combination thread!

Marshall,
I totally forgot about doing a review of the first Get Smart film. I'll do that after I return from the CineSea convention.

Brad,
U-8 did some excellent cutdowns. I watched Sugarland Express the other day and it's terrific.

Doug

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on April 30, 2012, 03:23 AM:

I have this little film and found it thoroughly charming,yes the
print has some unsteadiness but I forgave U8 that, just for the
pleasure of having this gem.Apart from the scenes Charles has
mentioned all the major scenes are intact.There was one scene
in the 200' that was slightly shortened in the 400' and that was
when Pretorious and the grave robbers are opening the girls
sarcophagus in the crypt,it's only a minute or so,but I spliced
it in.On the whole, taking in the films faults, I still think it is a
very entertaining film and I suppose I'm biased because I just
love the old Universal Horrors.Where they did excel was in the
400' "Invisible Man",where the quality was excellent.

Posted by John Capazzo (Member # 157) on December 26, 2012, 08:19 PM:

Unsure if anyone has reviewed the U8 digest for Bride of Franky, but since I have the entire U8 horror/sci-fi catalog, this is one of the most disappointing editing jobs they've done. The worst part about it is wasting five or so minutes on the shrunken people. That sequence is fine for the feature, but for a 17 minute abridged version? How about the monster meeting the hermit instead? They also seemed to take the lat 45 or 30 minutes of the features and struck down from that time span- as with many of the digests. A positive note is the quality of the prints are superior to most other outfits. Any thoughts?

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on December 26, 2012, 08:21 PM:

I agree with you 100%. My print picture-wise is terrific, but the audio has a 10-15 second drop out which really sucks. There were so many scenes with Karloff that could have been utilized, but, as was habitual practice for U-8 where the b&w classics were concerned, the editors did a rush hodge-podge job just to make a fast buck with no regard to quality.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on December 26, 2012, 08:22 PM:

I just recently watched the 200' Castle of this title and I think that is a good edit but you are right about the 400'....I was a bit surprised about the shrunken people section being so loooong on the digest. That character is creepy as soon as he appears on screen and you don't need that scene to flesh it out when you only have 17 min to tell the story. The hermit would have made a nice addition between the grave robbing and the creation scenes.

Bill [Smile]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 27, 2012, 05:23 AM:

Lets not think all Castle edits of 200's were good,as I mentioned
in a previous thread their "High Plains Drifter" was bad, so were
the editions of "House of Frankenstein","House of Dracula" and
"Ghost of Frankenstein", they required a lot of re-editing to make
any coherence with the release of their 2x200' versions.The 200'
"Dracula" was also pointless and a classic case of showing nothing
in particular.One of their best edits was "Man Made Monster" that
told the tale in key scenes, but lets be honest, they were not all
well edited to this degree, and the picture quality was washed
out in some of these releases.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 29, 2012, 07:05 PM:

As a youngster (I am now a pensioner) I used to run the std8 200ft 'Bride' projected on the house opposite much to the puzzlement of fellow Fulham residents, and cannot honestly recall whether it had title cards or subtitles. On the subject of this venerated film, I never held much esteem for it, as, in complete agreement with Boris himself, I found that when the monster spoke it lost much of it's mystery. It was made as a black comedy, much in the same way as 'Young Frankenstein' years later, as James Whale didn't have much interest in the project.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 30, 2012, 03:38 AM:

quote:
James Whale didn't have much interest in the project.

Whale initially didn't want to do the film as he felt that, in the first place the "Frankenstein" idea had been adequately covered in his first film, and secondly, following The Old Dark House and The Invisible Man he didn't want to become known only as a director of horror pictures.
However, he used the film to get the directors job on One More River.
Once on board, however, he was indeed fully committed to the film supervising several script revisions and music scores personally.

Though it is hailed as Whale's masterpiece, I haven't seen all of Whale's work so it's not possible for me to judge it on that level. It is, however, a beautiful film to look at - brilliant photography, art direction, lighting all combine to offer a creepy atmosphere. Ernest Thesiger, of course, is marvellous, as always.
My own opinion though is that it's become a little overrated over the years.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 30, 2012, 04:06 AM:

Michael, I agree, once Whale was on board with the project he did a technically professional job as would be expected, but as a masterpiece I think it falls short. Check the obsessive reviews on UK and US Amazon. I think the dialogue was stilted and the acting exaggerated even more than would be expected in a film of the thirties. I gave it one star (a little harsh perhaps) and I was alone in the wilderness apart from one other reviewer who agreed.
Have to admit that Thesiger was excellent and entered into the general silliness admirably.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 30, 2012, 04:16 AM:

One star??? Harsh indeed, Allan. [Big Grin]

I'd have to give it four out of five stars simply because, overall, it's an excellent film. It's fun, and it pushes all the buttons for me. The one thing that detracts for me is the whole handling of the Bride scene. It's stilted and feels staged. If anything, it's too short. We could've done with some development of the interaction between the Monster and his Bride before he pulls "the lever". Up to this, the film is a character driven piece - Minnie, Henry, Pretorius... then, it seems the whole Bride bit is geared only towards a quick ending.
Coincidentally, I've actually had reason to watch it twice in the past month, the last time being two days ago. Check out the new restoration on Blu Ray, it really does look beautiful.

ps: A historical point of note - in those days, installers of laboratory equipment always included a lever which, when pulled, blows everything up. They included this for free, I believe [Wink]

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 30, 2012, 07:45 AM:

I got the 'Frankenstein' bluray, which was excellent. Didn't know about the destruction lever being common, perhaps you read my review. Whale, according to James Curtis, author of 'A new world of gods and monsters' wasn't going to make it unless he was in complete charge. He didn't intend to repeat anything from the original and rejected a couple of scripts. The result, according to Curtis was 'one of the most eccentric commercial films ever made'. Don't know about that, but the dialogue and acting techniques were certainly risible in places.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 30, 2012, 08:53 AM:

I agree with the self destruct button,they even had it on the
"Forbidden Planet" to name but one,notice the lever on "Bride"
looks suspiciously like a baseball bat.
The self destuct kits are still available on Amazon at $29.99
explosives extra plus p&p.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on December 31, 2012, 06:12 AM:

I must fit one in case the bailiff calls!

Posted by John Capazzo (Member # 157) on January 01, 2013, 05:03 PM:

200' Bride is decent. I am familiar with all 33 Castle/U8 horror and sci-fi digests and find Bride appealing as far as editing goes. I think Invisible Man, original Frankenstein and Revenge of the Creature among the best. Frankenstein meets the wolfman--a waste of 4 minutes with graverobbing scene.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on January 01, 2013, 06:06 PM:

I wonder why John that 400's of the "Creature films" were not
done,forgetting about the 3D, just straight forward, normal film.

Posted by John Capazzo (Member # 157) on February 07, 2013, 10:15 PM:

I've wondered why U8 never released those two Creature films in 400', either. They did all three Mummy films but not Creature? Hmmm.

Posted by Marshall Crist (Member # 1312) on February 08, 2013, 10:02 PM:

I wonder that too, and also am surprised they never did anything with THE MUMMY'S HAND or THE MUMMY'S CURSE. Would love to be a fly on the wall during those Castle and U8 strategy sessions.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 09, 2013, 05:57 AM:

A mystery indeed Marshall & John, the "mummy" films mentioned
only have an hours running time or so, and it would have been
great to have nice condensations of the "creature" series minus
the 3D palava.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2