Writing Blog Number 2

20250519 Sympathy For The Monster

Sympathy For The Monster

A few online horror sites have been having discussions lately about why the Universal monster series from the 1930s through 1950s are often considered the best monster portrayals (coming in light of the recent version of Nosferatu).
         Yes, the more recent monster portrayals using CGI might be more monstrous (whether they look better is up to the individual; I think too much CGI looks like the animated sequences in Mary Poppins), and Hammer Films might have had better production values and introduced us to gore and realistic kills, and the slasher films that have been there since the 1970s might have more violence and bloodier deaths, but people tend to always go back to those old favourites of the golden age of Universal: Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula, the Invisible Man, Gill-Man, the Wolf-Man, the Mummy.
         They keep trying to remake them. Some work (about 40% of Hammer’s films, Brendan Fraser’s The Mummy), some are okay (about 40% of Hammer’s films, Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein) and too many fail and are just abysmal (about 20% of Hammer’s films, Tom Cruise’s The Mummy).
         So, what is it about the Universal black and white originals that just make them the pinnacle of the monster movie?
         Well, first, on a visual, there is something about the black and white that just works, I think. But visually the make-up is good and the monsters are there and are real, so the others are reacting to physical things sharing a set with them. The sets are real, not green-screened, so they can all interact with all their surroundings. Models? Sure, but physical models with real shadows. But that’s the physical.
         As a writer, there is one thing that makes these resonate – the monsters, the so-called bad guys, have an element about them that induces sympathy in the audience. They are not written as killing machines (this is where a lot of Hammer films fall down and every single slasher), but have something else about them.
         The audience is given a reason for sympathy.
         The least of these is Dracula, but the way Lugosi played him, going back to the stage, was that the vampire was lonely. He was thoroughly evil, but he wanted companionship. That hint of humanity made people think more of him than just some mindless beast.
         Frankenstein’s Monster is, of course, all about the outsider being treated appallingly. Considering the personal lives of the writer and director, it is hardly a surprise. He was created, not born, and he was not given a place in the world. He didn’t understand. And yet he was hounded to a death… sort of. Sympathy for the monster is easy here.
         Just as it is easy when it comes to the Gill-man, (The Creature From The Black Lagoon). This was a creature, a remnant of a prehistoric time, uprooted from his home, taken to civilisation, operated on and then left by the humans. The three films are really depressing, and the fact that at the end of the third film there is a sort of a nice ending for the poor abused Gill-man. But it was so easy to be sympathetic for the being. Maybe too much.
         And this carries on to the Wolf-man. Turned by a bite, unable to control the change, hating the change, searching for a cure, the Wolf-man remained sympathetic throughout his films, even when killing people. Removed from the original werewolf myth, it was an interesting take. And the Wolf-man is, in fact, one of the forms from original folklore, not a movie creation.
         Then there is the Invisible Man. Experimenting on himself, he does lose his mind, but it is gradual and we feel sorry for him as he loses it… and then, at the end, he remembers his humanity. Just. We might lose that sympathy for a while, but it is still there.
         And, finally, we have the Mummy. Forced into his situation by love, later brought back to life through magic, forced to do the bidding of a priest, the love for his princess is still there. The Mummy is not the villain, that is the controlling priest, and we feel for the Mummy and what he is going through.
         So, I think that’s why these films have lasted coming up 100 years as examples of fine monster movies. The best non-Universal example is very obviously King Kong. Taken from his home, shown like a zoo animal, and then killed by humans who just thought of him as an animal. Sympathy abounds. Except in the Japanese remakes of the 1960s and 1970s. They were just awful.

What this boils down to is: making your monster at least a little sympathetic can really capture an audience. Don’t be afraid to show it.