top of page

Young Frankenstein: An example of hype hindering a film.

Mel Brooks' comedies are very hit and miss in my eyes. 'Blazing Saddles' (1974) is superb pretty much start to finish, 'Spaceballs' (1987) has good moments but isn't a laugh a minute, whereas 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights' (1993) and 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' (1995) are mostly poor with a few laughs. Going in to 'Young Frankenstein' (1974) I was expecting something more towards the top tier due to the reputation that the film continues to have today. I had only heard positive things about the film and is often heralded as one of the greatest comedies in film history. With all this in mind, you can imagine the high expectations I went into the film with. That isn't to say I didn't enjoy it because I did, but it was not as funny as I had been hoping or expecting. The film follows Dr. Frederick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder), the grandson of the infamous scientist, who has tried to distance himself from his grandfather's experiments. But when he is called to his familial home in Translyvania he finds the temptation to continue his grandfather's work too much and he himself creates his own monster.

Now, although the film may not have been the laugh riot that I had been hoping for I would be lying if I said that I didn't get a few big laughs out of it. The issue I had was that for the amount of big laughs and chuckles I had there were also a lot of dud jokes throughout. But I would like to say that I think this is more of a personal thing rather than the film being objectively not very funny. Why do I think that? Well, the amount of people that herald this a classic of comedy would suggest that it is much more to do with personal comedic preference than an issue with the film. And like I say it isn't unfunny, there are some great moments and these moments are a result of three brilliant comedic performances from the aforementioned Gene Wilder, Teri Garr as Inga, and Marty Freedman as Igor. Wilder is his usual brilliant self. His delivery is fantastic as always and he has an incredible screen presence which is unparalleled in the film. But I was also very impressed with Garr and Freedman who both put in great performances. Freedman in particular stood out in the film. His facial expressions alone brought more than a few laughs and I would say he was the standout character in the film, at least from a comedic viewpoint.

However, the film is at its strongest in how it looks. The key thing you need to get right when creating a parody film is making your film feel like it fits within the genre you are parodying and 'Young Frankenstein' nails it. Well, at least I think so. I can't profess to be an aficionado of 1930s gothic horror cinema, but I have seen the classics and 'Young Frankenstein' seems to be both a passionate love letter as well as a parody. The set design is spot on with the classic gothic look, stone walls, spider webs, huge fireplaces, etc., and of course, being in black and white helps to give the film the gothic look. But it goes beyond the visuals and into how the actors perform. The acting in the film captures the melodrama of the genre perfectly and this allows for the film to subvert your expectations of how scenes will play out to get your laughs. It even manages to capture the genre in how it is edited, using similar transitions to cut from scene to scene. It may not seem like much but I got a delight just from seeing a film manage to capture the style of the classic gothic horror films this well. I'm not sure how much it will do for other people but it was the best part of the film.

'Young Frankenstein' is a fun and often very funny film, but I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. This is entirely unfair on the film, of course, my expectations were very high due to the adoration that so many people have for this film and as much as I try to go into a film with an open mind sometimes that is easier said than done. Regardless, it is still a good film and I did enjoy it. The performances are all great and the film brilliantly matches the look and feel of the 1930s gothic horror films. It is a film I would recommend, especially as it is so loved. Like I said earlier, comedy is subjective and just because I didn't find as funny as I had hoped doesn't mean it won't be a laugh riot for you.

Single Post: Blog_Single_Post_Widget
bottom of page