Out of the genres within cinema, none have quite historically served as an expression of the deeper more hidden thoughts of society as much as horror. Horror has offered a platform for subtle social commentary for decades exposing the fears of society in means that often can be read as deeper than they initially appear. One of these themes found time and time again in horror is the LGBTQ+ experience. From the beginning of cinema, the LGBTQ+ community has gone through massive change regarding their place in society.
From being ostracized and attacked as having a mental illness to being embraced in the modern context with continued fights with some groups, the relationship between the LGBTQ+ community and the rest of society has produced fear for both sides. Even before the community was accepted, they were alive within society which is one of the most important things that can be gained from films like 1935’s The Bride of Frankenstein. Directed by openly gay filmmaker James Whale, The Bride of Frankenstein is one of those films to undergo a modern reappreciation as an expression of the LGBTQ+ experience speaking to the social importance that horror can carry.
Film Road to Halloween: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
This reading of the film can be found both in the plot and thematic choices the film makes. Starting with the plot, the relationship shared between Doctor Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and Doctor Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) can easily be seen as one with a homosexual subtext. On the night of Doctor Frankenstein’s wedding, Doctor Pretorius goes to him and together they leave the wedding early to start work creating who will eventually be The Monster’s Bride (Elsa Lanchester).
One of the fundamental ideas within the Frankenstein series is man stepping outside of his role and playing god. Together, the two men work together to defy god and create life. This easily can be seen as an allegory for gay relationships that are said to defy god and gay couples with children defying the societal norms of the time. With Doctor Pretorius being a brand new addition to the story not having originally appeared in the novel by Mary Shelley, it is clear that Whale had a purpose to adding him, potentially being this subtext.
Where this metaphor and plot point of two men prioritizing each other and the creation of life over traditional societal traditions like a wedding is enough to get the brain turning, it is on the thematic level where the story of The Monster (Boris Karloff) truly finds its deepest queer identity. The Monster is a character cursed by its taboo nature. Seen as something unnatural that goes against the correct order of life, everyone turns against The Monster and attacks him for his taboo identity within society. It is shown that when treated with kindness and respect by The Hermit (O. P. Heggie), The Monster means no harm and is able to get along with yet society still turns against him at every point.
In Praise of James Whale
One of the largest issues to plague the LGBTQ+ community is the taboo label put onto them by society especially due to their religious backbone of morals and ideas. The LGBTQ+ community for the longest time and still to a point today are attacked not for their actions, but their simple existence. It is this homophobia and expectation from society that turns the community into monsters for those against them, not the communities actual actions.
Even if The Monster isn’t queer himself, something that can be debated about depending how one wants to look at his relationship with The Hermit, this core identity matches that of the queer experience with an eerily similarity. This is something that James Whale, who was openly gay in the filmmaking industry, must have known all to well. To look past the filmmaker’s personal experience and the subject of the film sharing such a strong thematic connection would be disserviceable to the film and Whale’s craft.
In this sense, the true horror of The Bride of Frankenstein is ironic. If viewed under through a queer lens, the audience watching the film is the very thing the film is criticizing. Where the movie has its iconic monsters, it makes it clear that the true horror is the society which tears them down and even leads The Monster to commit suicide at the end. The Bride of Frankenstein is ultimately a tragedy because of the horrors of the society willing to attack a creature just because he doesn’t fit into the traditional mold that society expects a creature to fit into. The same audience in 1935 which experienced this was the same society that would turn around and attack the LGBTQ+ community blindly for the same reasons.
Film Road to Halloween: The Invisible Man (1933)
Even if The Bride of Frankenstein might not be overtly queer in text, the thematic weight of the LGBTQ+ experience feels undeniable due to those making the film. The Bride of Frankenstein is a prime example of how horror can shine a light on a deeper nuanced perception of society and play with expectations. The horror doesn’t come from the fictional monsters, but the real society that exists beyond the screen all around us.
That is the fear that haunts those in the LGBTQ+ community. Everyday when someone from the LGBTQ+ community has to come out or correct someone when they use the wrong pronouns or react poorly to gleaned knowledge of sexual orientation, there is the primal fear that society will turn against them for no reason but that they have a preconceived notion against the LGBTQ+ community viewing them as monsters. When viewed in this light, especially for those within the community, The Bride of Frankenstein becomes a much more complex and haunting experience, exposing a truth not normally revealed and seen on screen.
