Monday, October 12, 2009

It was always Peter


I recently watched The Curse of Frankenstein again and was once again impressed with how boldly Hammer Film Productions, director Terence Fisher and write Jimmy Sangster all worked together to produce such a splendid reboot of a story (before they were called reboots and one year before their Dracula reboot) so familiar to so many fans. How they took the basic framework of the story and twisted it around just enough to make a story they could call their own while still enjoying the benefits that come from attaching the name "Frankenstein" to the end product. I was again impressed with how well Christopher Lee does in evoking sympathy for the pathetic creature he must play, much more pathetic than his original literary counterpart or the 1931 Universal creation. But more than anything I think I realized, or perhaps better put, finally let myself accept, that without Peter Cushing Hammer films would have never succeeded. That is high praise indeed and I intend it to be the highest praise I can give to an actor underrated by legions of non-horror fans and deified by those in the fold.

Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are associated with Hammer more than any other two names but the two films that put Hammer on the horror map were this one and the previously discussed Horror of Dracula and in both, even Dracula, Lee is but a supporting player. It is Cushing that carries both films. It is Cushing that makes both films. Without Cushing neither film would have been the success it was and Hammer, perhaps, would have moved on to other things. Goddamit, it was Peter. It was always Peter.

And it's not just that this film, this Frankenstein, wouldn't have worked without Cushing. The 1931 Universal Frankenstein wouldn't have worked with Cushing in the role of the doctor. That role needed an actor who could exhort wildly that his creation had life and then recede into the framework while we follow the monster and his doings. Colin Clive played that role and did it well. But this Frankenstein is Cushing and nothing else. The creature is damn near an afterthought. In fact, he could have never succeeded in bringing the creature to life and it wouldn't have hurt the movie. He could have just kept on killing people and kept on trying and that would have been enough. With another actor it wouldn't have been but with Cushing? Yes, easily.

Peter Cushing had an intensity as an actor that few like him have possessed. Critics and actors like to use the word "intensity" to describe the Marlon Brandos or the John Garfields of the acting world (or any actor associated with Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler or Sanford Meisner), actors playing a brutal or brutalized working class American raised on the streets of Brooklyn. But Peter Cushing had an intensity that put all of them to shame - And NO, I am not just saying that for the sake of hyperbole, October celebrations or to give respect to a disrespected genre. I am saying it because it is true. How many people remember Peter Cushing in Star Wars? Everyone! He has but a few lines and yes, I know it's among the most popular films ever made so even minor characters are known, but still, with all the action and starfights and light sabers and Darth Vader roaming around all moody-like there's Grand Moff Tarkin, and he stands out. Now, think back to the movie, the whole saga in fact. There is no character working for the Empire, save the Emperor himself of course, who does not tremble in Vader's presence, except Tarkin. Cushing's intensity was such that he simply wouldn't have been believable fearing anyone.

It is that intensity that makes his Dr. Frankenstein such an astonishing creation. His face, his eyes, his build, his manner of speaking all signal to the audience far beyond the machinations of the script that this Doctor is mad. Homicidally mad. And that becomes our story, and would further become the story of more Hammer Films Frankensteins because fans couldn't get enough of this great yet sadly unheralded actor playing crazy. Peter Cushing changed the way horror fans thought of Doctor Frankenstein. There was the Doctor from the Universal films, the Doctor from the television productions that followed the novel more closely or even the Doctor from Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. They all had a madness to them, an obsession that drove their desire to create life from dead tissue. But they were all also, at their core, decent human beings who loved and felt guilt and revulsion at what they had wrought upon the world. And then there's Cushing's Frankenstein. No guilt, no revulsion. This Doctor is a bastard.

While the movie contains many scenes that make this clear, including a scene early on where the good doctor kindly ushers a brilliant scientist guest to his death over the second floor railings just so he can use his brain for his reanimated creature, the scene that projects it best and brilliantly is one of true horror and perversion. Frankenstein has dug up his first failed creature and brought him back to the lab where he has chained him to the wall and brought his former tutor and mentor to the lab to show him off. He orders him thuggishly to "Stand up!" "Sit down!" and so forth while the creature performs these rudimentary actions with oafish inexactitude. His mentor, and the audience, see a pathetic and horrifying display. A mentally disabled man, chained to a wall, clearly afraid, being yelled at to perform like an organ grinder's monkey. But one look at Frankenstein and the audience knows he's thinking, "Isn't this great?! Look at this! That son of a bitch does whatever I tell him - And he was DEAD before! Goddamn I'm good! Aren't you stunningly impressed?" Peter Cushing's Frankenstein cannot, will not, see that he has done something morally repugnant. He can only see personal glory no matter what the cost has been to others (Cushing would have been superb as Colonel Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai - not that Alec Guiness wasn't mind you).

The Curse of Frankenstein put Peter Cushing in the public eye but he never achieved the peer recognition that an actor of his immense talents should have. The Curse of Frankenstein is a fantastic reboot of the Frankenstein story but without Cushing it would have been so much less. The Curse of Frankenstein and The Horror of Dracula that followed set Hammer up for life but none of it would have happened like it did without Cushing. It was Peter. It was always Peter.

32 comments:

bill r. said...

Cushing was a phenomenal actor. One of my favorites, and not just because I'm a horror fan. And I'm glad you go out of your way to point out that the fact that YOU are a horror fan has nothing to do with your very high -- and rightly so -- praise. He was fantastic.

It's been a while since I've seen Curse..., but Frankenstein Must be Destroyed, which I've seen more recently, gets across everything about Cushing you describe in this post. Your point about intensity is a good one, because ordinarily, as you say, actors who are described as "intense" are yelling and breaking mirrors a lot. The actors may or may not be great in the role, but the role is intense, and big, whereas Cushing was often so quiet, so seemingly under control, although, as Frankenstein, he had clearly lost it many years ago. For as long as he was able, he kept that madness and intensity inside himself, or so Cushing played him, which just highlighted the live-wire nature of the character.

Goddamn he was good.

bill r. said...

Oh, and if you haven't seen the film, and want further proof of how much Cushing brought to the table, check out Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. It is, I believe, the last of the Hammer Frankenstein movies, and was also the last film Fisher directed. And it's just not that good. Fisher is going through the motions, and Cushing was still reeling from the death of his wife three years previously, something from which he never actually recovered, even though he would outlive her by 23 years. But he's still great! He'd been better, sure, but he still elevates the film to a lever higher than it had any right to. It's still not a good movie, but Cushing reminds you of what it could have been, had Hammer not been spinning its wheels by that point.

Greg said...

because ordinarily, as you say, actors who are described as "intense" are yelling and breaking mirrors a lot.

Bill, that's a great description of what people think of with "intense" performances. Physical histrionics often fool people into thinking an actor is delivering more than he is but someone like Peter Cushing brought a "quiet intensity" to his roles. He wasn't on fire, he was seething below the surface.

I haven't seen the last Frankenstein movie of Hammer's that you mention but I don't doubt a word of what you say. I haven't seen Peter Cushing in anything, ever, not even his small role in Top Secret, where he wasn't stand out good. And in Top Secret he's not even speaking forwards!

Arbogast said...

Sorry I'm late. My driver dumped me off at The Borgo Pass and I had to walk the rest of the way.

Arbogast said...

Funny how we've both spent some recent time watching Cushing. Talk about him tends to put me in a bad temper because so much of what is said in the horror community is the verbal equivalent of autotext ("Saint Peter!" ... "Filmed while the actor was grieving for his beloved wife Helen..."). Even though it's all glowing stuff it's just so mindless - so little written about Cushing is fresh or has any critical significance.

Cushing was a craftsman and I'll take a craftsman over a "brilliant" actor any day. Watch Brides of Dracula and see how the theatrically-trained actors walk all over everyone else. They understand "business" in a scene and the proper manipulation of props and how they should stand in conjunction with other actors in the frame. So much of what constitutes acting is pre-verbal that the dialogue is almost an afterthought. Cushing understood this. As a craftsman, as a journeyman actor, he brought his craft to the stage, to TV and to films, understanding the requirements and limitations of each medium. Not only did he exhibit incredible ease and athleticism in front of the camera but he knew the exact spin to put on every phrase and how that phrase linked into the rest of his dialogue and how his dialogue hooked up to the dialogue of his fellow actors for the purposes of telling a story. You think scrimshaw is a lost art?

Arbogast said...

Nice Malpertuis banner, BTW!

Christopher said...

I love the music in Curse o Frank.and I think I like this movie a little better than Horror of Dracula..
Universal had towns like Vaseria.while Hammer always had Frankenstein bergs with "Statd"in the name..Ingolstadt...
We always used to laugh at Cushing watching these as kiddies,cuz he always pronounced his name Fronkenshteen..Revenge of Frankenstien,the follow up to this,is also good.I watched it again a week or so ago..

Greg said...

"Saint Peter!"

I said they deified him, not canonized him!

I still tell people about my acting class on Constantin Stanislavski in college. We read all three of his books about acting, An Actor Prepares, Building a Character and Creating a Role. Before reading them I had heard teachers gripe about how Strasberg and Adler had botched the whole approached and misplaced importance on the very first stage, getting into the feelings of the character. Then I read the books and I knew exactly what they meant. The Method - the proper method - places much more importance on the second and third stages of preparing the role through mannerisms, inflections, and yes, even costuming. Like you said, the dialogue is almost an afterthought at that point. The actors who actually followed the method (Cushing, Olivier, Gielgud) were never the actors associated with it. I have great respect for the actors who are associated with it, don't get me wrong, but Adler and Strasberg really did get it all wrong.

Greg said...

Christopher, I love Revenge as well. I've got that DVD too and plan on watching it again later this week.

Greg said...

Arbo, if I ever get a banner past you it'll be a cold day in hell. You know 'em all.

bill r. said...

Talk about him tends to put me in a bad temper because so much of what is said in the horror community is the verbal equivalent of autotext ("Saint Peter!" ... "Filmed while the actor was grieving for his beloved wife Helen..."). Even though it's all glowing stuff it's just so mindless...

Sorry...

Pierre Fournier said...

I feel so lucky having seen all the Hammer Frankensteins in theaters as they came out. Cushing was electrifying up there on the screen, with the clipped delivery and those razorblade cheekbones. In REVENGE, my favorite Frankenstein, he does an amazing scene where he washes his hands, walks around, then sits and has chicken for lunch, all the while debating Francis Matthews.

By the way, I love FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL. Cushing’s Baron is old, hands crippled, and clearly and sadly gone all the way around the bend, yet he is as commanding and inflexible as ever. Got to love him dropping a discarded brain on the floor and kicking it away.

My favorite Frankenstein quote is not “It’s alive!”, it’s “Pass the marmalade”, from CURSE. Second favorite is from HELL: “Ah, kidneys… DELICIOUS!”.

Greg said...

from Bill...

Sorry...

Nice going Arbo, you hurt Bill's feelings. Don't worry Bill, that's just Arbo being a big fat jerk! Also, for what it's worth, he's a mysterious fucker.

Greg said...

Pierre, no one on Earth is better qualified to critique Frankenstein movies than you. I love Revenge too, as I told Christopher. I have to watch that one again next and then Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, if only to watch Cushing kick a brain across the floor.

Arbogast said...

that's just Arbo being a big fat jerk!

Do I really look fat?

Greg said...

You cut the figure of a god!

Anonymous said...

tdraicer here:

Great appreciation of a great actor.

Cushing in The Hound of the Baskervilles is my favorite Sherlock Holmes (though it helps that in Andre Morell he has the best Watson).

Greg said...

yes, Peter Cushing is great as Sherlock Holmes! I think he may be my favorite as well. I've got to see that again soon.

Fox said...

Nice dedication, Greg.

I'm in the bunch that under appreciates Cushing b/c, well, I just haven't seen him in many films. But that's what's valuable about your posts on old/"forgotten" actors. My problem is that I haven't seen enough of the old horror films that you (and Arbo and Bill) frequently reference.

He also has an amazing name.

Greg said...

Fox, good to hear from you. Peter Cushing does a great job in everything and I think you'd enjoy many of the Hammer films he was in. And his name is great as well, agreed.

Arbogast said...

Cushing in The Hound of the Baskervilles is my favorite Sherlock Holmes

I remember not liking that all that much or Cushing in particular in it. Mind you, lesser Cushing is still preferable to most actors on their best day but I found Cushing's take on the character here to be grating in a way that didn't involve me. Not a bad performance so much as a (to my eyes and ears anyway) flawed one. YMMV, of course.

Greg said...

I've put it in the queue already because I do want to see it again and know my wife and daughter would probably like it as they like all kinds of mysteries. It's been a long time. Maybe I'll like it as much as I remember, maybe I'll find it as you did. Either way, I'll probably never get around to writing it up so you'll never know.

Rick Olson said...

Goddamit, it was Peter. It was always Peter.

No need to curse. We all hear you just fine

I think that without Cushing Hammer horror would not have become the icon that it was. He was fucking brilliant.

But he wasn't the best Holmes, I'm afraid. That honor belongs to the late, great Jeremy Brett.

Greg said...

Goddamn, sorry about that. Hey, I've never seen Jeremy Brett's Sherlock. Boy, tdraicer and I appear to be in the minority on this one. I wonder if the Brett Holmes' are available. I'll have to see. Goddamnit.

I don't know why but this reminds me of a funny story. There was an assistant to the Dean of the Cathedral (I used to work at the Washington National Cathedral) who was terrific. Fun, intelligent, good natured (and like me, ushered out the door for our years of service). Anyway, years ago we had a different Dean than they have now and he was great. Anyway, I saw her one day in the employee lounge and she was laughing and laughing. I asked her why and she said she had just been on the phone with the Dean, for those unfamiliar with such things, a man of the cloth. He was away at a conference and was asking her for some info. In the middle of this she spilled her coffee and shouted full volume into the phone "Jesus Fucking Christ!"

Then she said she froze, realizing what she had just done.

After a second or two she could make out muffled laughter on the other end of the phone followed by a quick "Bless you my child."

Rick Olson said...

Used to work at the National Cathedral? Is that where you got your love of all things religious?

Great story, by the by.

Greg said...

They were Episcopalians. It's barely a religion. I'm not even sure they believed in God.

Rick Olson said...

Old Episcopalian jokes: "Episcopalians are so liberal they have 6 commandments and 4 suggestions."

and

"Wherever 3 or 4 Episcopalians are gathered together there's a fifth."

Greg said...

You could easily substitute "Catholics" for the second joke.

Arbogast said...

Or alcoholics!

Anonymous said...

>Boy, tdraicer and I appear to be in the minority on this one

tdraicer-

I always fall back on Mark Twain: In matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.

Greg said...

Works for me.

Anonymous said...

Just watched Hound of the Baskervilles tonight, which is why I googled and found this site. I LOVED Peter Cushing in this role. (Didn't really like all the changes made to the storyline but that's another matter). I have seen many actors attempt the role of Holmes, and I can now say that Peter is my favorite by far. He is the embodiment of Holmes in so many ways! So, sorry, Jeremy Brett (RIP), I loved ya but you ain't no Peter Cushing!