Why do these old films look so AMAZING? The photography is breathtaking. I’d love it if you made a video about cinematography from this era and maybe some history of the the old camera/lighting techniques and practitioners of the time!
I am an English relative of James whale,. Before he served in ww1 He was a sign writer, and quite a gifted artist, traits shared with my father. He worked with boris karloff , Claude rains, Paul robeson etc A gifted and talented man.
That is so cool and I'm sure you are proud of his achievements. I work in a/e ambulance and love finding out about patient backgrounds ( if time permits ). One regular lad had same spelling of Laughton as the famous Charles but had no idea who I was speaking of when I brought it up. He was also from Scarborough so he asked his parents and it turned out he was related but they'd never thought to check before. The lad had never seen any of Charles's work and being of a modern generation was not very interested in old movies.
Very interesting, and very well made! I enjoyed the scenes from Whales's movies very much. It's hard not to admire James Whale for having the nerve to be open about his sexuality, and if nothing else, living as somebody who's always "different" (at best!) must have given him an insight and sympathy for monsters. And those tiny people - king, queen and cleric - in the Bride of Frankenstein were so hilarious, they were the best part of the movie. I always thought it was a bit selfish of the creature to ask for a female who would suffer the same state he did; a bit like ordering a mail-order bride knowing full she'll have sod-all of a say in things.
Bride of Frankenstein blew my mind when I first saw it. After that I started watching all of the Universal monster movies. Unfortunately none have lived up to that film.
Subscribed to your channel a few months back. I am continually impressed by your emotion maturation which manifests in the films analysis, selected lexicon and no transparent desire to lead or control the opinions of others. Will take a chance at emailing you...would luv an opportunity to research with you on a project. There's so much too render from J. Whale's significance. Continue on with your Channel. The work and your voice is appreciated. Thanks A Plenty.
Gay, or not, these films are legendary👍!!! And they WOULDN'T BE THE SAME, without his artistic flair. Him being a gay man with talent, is what made these films have soul, perhaps🤔??!! I even knew his movie's, were different, as a little boy. Been LOVING his 'spooky' movie's, for more than the past 50 years, or so.
All credit to Whale for being true to himself. He showed great fortitude living openly gay in a period where being so was unusual and subject to oppressive laws ( in Britain at least - not sure of US law at the time ).
Mark of the Vampire isn't a direct sequel. While it shares a director, star, and costume with Dracula, it is based on Tod Browning's own film, London After Midnight, from 1927. The character Lugosi plays is (spoiler alert) not a vampire, but rather an actor pretending in order to suss out a killer in an old dark house. Also, Mark of the Vampire was an MGM production. Thanks aplenty for watching, and for bringing up Mark of the Vampire.
Always an important question to ask, and as a screenwriter, I would of course be inclined to agree fully. Frankly, your comment inspired a lot of thought. Your question is one we all benefit from asking when viewing cinema. I think perhaps the answer is, "it depends." Many directors have authorship of a film. I believe James Whale did. Screenwriters certainly do, some more than others. William Peter Blatty guided the vision for The Exorcist. True producers (those that actually do the job instead of just getting a vanity credit) often influence a motion picture. Val Lewton's horror films at RKO remain distinctly recognizable as Lewton's productions, even as screenwriters and directors put their personal touches on these films. Ennio Morricone's music speaks to the soul of the movies he scored, and I'd say he had authorship over most of the films he did, along with his collaborators of course. And then there's editors, who are often the unsung heroes of cinema. If you watch closely, you tell the difference between a Ridley Scott film edited by Terry Rawlings, Pietro Scalia, or Dody Dorn - which is fascinating. Each editor brings aspects of their artistic expression to the films. A film is rewritten many times over. First by the screenwriter (or often, a parade of screenwriters), then by the director and the actors, and finally in post-production. The final product includes the authorship of several people, which makes cinema both fascinating and frustrating. It is so very easy to give credit to a single individual - usually the director - but it isn't necessarily wrong to do so either. At least not in cases like James Whale, who pushed a thematic ideal through several productions. However, that shouldn't diminish the contribution of others, and it is, admittedly, a slippery slope to apply the (overly simplistic) auteur-theory to anything that was a collaboration - because it is so very easy to overlook the essential contributions of others.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the musical score for Bride of Frankenstein! Both romantic and bone-chilling.
Why do these old films look so AMAZING? The photography is breathtaking. I’d love it if you made a video about cinematography from this era and maybe some history of the the old camera/lighting techniques and practitioners of the time!
I am an English relative of James whale,.
Before he served in ww1
He was a sign writer, and quite a gifted artist, traits shared with my father.
He worked with boris karloff ,
Claude rains, Paul robeson etc
A gifted and talented man.
Im also a relative of James Whale (on my fathers side)
That is so cool and I'm sure you are proud of his achievements. I work in a/e ambulance and love finding out about patient backgrounds ( if time permits ). One regular lad had same spelling of Laughton as the famous Charles but had no idea who I was speaking of when I brought it up. He was also from Scarborough so he asked his parents and it turned out he was related but they'd never thought to check before. The lad had never seen any of Charles's work and being of a modern generation was not very interested in old movies.
The Old Dark House is so awesome, genuinely creepy
Very interesting, and very well made! I enjoyed the scenes from Whales's movies very much. It's hard not to admire James Whale for having the nerve to be open about his sexuality, and if nothing else, living as somebody who's always "different" (at best!) must have given him an insight and sympathy for monsters.
And those tiny people - king, queen and cleric - in the Bride of Frankenstein were so hilarious, they were the best part of the movie. I always thought it was a bit selfish of the creature to ask for a female who would suffer the same state he did; a bit like ordering a mail-order bride knowing full she'll have sod-all of a say in things.
What a beautiful video. Thanks for sharing this with us. ❤
My pleasure. Thanks aplenty.
Bride of Frankenstein blew my mind when I first saw it. After that I started watching all of the Universal monster movies. Unfortunately none have lived up to that film.
Maybe, Frankenstein (1931).
@@Brandingbygabriel Yes, but 'Bride' is slightly better!!! BOTH, 4 stars👍👍!!
Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is typically considered the best of the "Universal Monsters" films.
@@daltonbelflower7331 that's because it is the best !!!! The Invisible Man is second best out of the bunch ❤
Excellent short documentary. Thank you .
Wonderful videos! Always nice to see!
Nice video; love these films
The cinematography on these films are Sooooo perfect ❤ they look way better than anything today
Another terrific video. Would like to see one like this on the history of witchcraft in horror films.
James Whale was a genius & #GodsAndMonsters was a wonderful telling of his life.
Subscribed to your channel a few months back. I am continually impressed by your emotion maturation which manifests in the films analysis, selected lexicon and no transparent desire to lead or control the opinions of others.
Will take a chance at emailing you...would luv an opportunity to research with you on a project. There's so much too render from J. Whale's significance.
Continue on with your Channel. The work and your voice is appreciated. Thanks A Plenty.
This was brilliant --Thx
Please do a Val Lewton episode...
Gay, or not, these films are legendary👍!!! And they WOULDN'T BE THE SAME, without his artistic flair. Him being a gay man with talent, is what made these films have soul, perhaps🤔??!! I even knew his movie's, were different, as a little boy. Been LOVING his 'spooky' movie's, for more than the past 50 years, or so.
All credit to Whale for being true to himself. He showed great fortitude living openly gay in a period where being so was unusual and subject to oppressive laws ( in Britain at least - not sure of US law at the time ).
16:00 Isn't the first sequel to Tod Browning's Dracula of 1931 rather The Mark of the Vampire of 1935?
Mark of the Vampire isn't a direct sequel. While it shares a director, star, and costume with Dracula, it is based on Tod Browning's own film, London After Midnight, from 1927. The character Lugosi plays is (spoiler alert) not a vampire, but rather an actor pretending in order to suss out a killer in an old dark house. Also, Mark of the Vampire was an MGM production.
Thanks aplenty for watching, and for bringing up Mark of the Vampire.
@@historyofhorror0001 I see! Thank you.
Ty
When I hear about director's intent, I ask, "But who actually wrote the film?"
Always an important question to ask, and as a screenwriter, I would of course be inclined to agree fully. Frankly, your comment inspired a lot of thought. Your question is one we all benefit from asking when viewing cinema.
I think perhaps the answer is, "it depends."
Many directors have authorship of a film. I believe James Whale did. Screenwriters certainly do, some more than others. William Peter Blatty guided the vision for The Exorcist. True producers (those that actually do the job instead of just getting a vanity credit) often influence a motion picture. Val Lewton's horror films at RKO remain distinctly recognizable as Lewton's productions, even as screenwriters and directors put their personal touches on these films. Ennio Morricone's music speaks to the soul of the movies he scored, and I'd say he had authorship over most of the films he did, along with his collaborators of course. And then there's editors, who are often the unsung heroes of cinema. If you watch closely, you tell the difference between a Ridley Scott film edited by Terry Rawlings, Pietro Scalia, or Dody Dorn - which is fascinating. Each editor brings aspects of their artistic expression to the films.
A film is rewritten many times over. First by the screenwriter (or often, a parade of screenwriters), then by the director and the actors, and finally in post-production. The final product includes the authorship of several people, which makes cinema both fascinating and frustrating.
It is so very easy to give credit to a single individual - usually the director - but it isn't necessarily wrong to do so either. At least not in cases like James Whale, who pushed a thematic ideal through several productions. However, that shouldn't diminish the contribution of others, and it is, admittedly, a slippery slope to apply the (overly simplistic) auteur-theory to anything that was a collaboration - because it is so very easy to overlook the essential contributions of others.
Where's the music at 0:14 from ? there's a song that samples it I think, called Am i your friend by my little cheap dictaphone
That is the score for Bride of Frankenstein, composed by Franz Waxman.
Another Hollywood Babylon!
just being gay doesn't make someone an outsider