FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN

Italy/France, 1973, 95 minutes, Colour.
Joe Dallesandro, Monique Van Vooren, Udo Kier.
Directed by Paul Morrissey.

Flesh for Frankenstein: a parody shows great awareness of an original and pays it the compliment of spoofing it by funny parallels. Mere spoofs take characteristics of an original and send them up, usually by farcical exaggeration. This film is only occasionally parody, generally send-up spoof. As such, it is not bad, at times quite funny. The gory scenes - even in 3D - would scare hardly anyone. Joe Dallessandro is in and out of costume as usual declaiming 'Huh' and so on. For a Warhol-backed film, this is remarkably coherent. The photography is often beautiful (again in 3D and the music dignified, the sequences with the children quite effective. A fair send-up.

1. The tone of the title? Was it an enjoyable film?

2. What is the nature of a parody? How close is a parody to the original in themes, style, tone? What is the relation of a spoof to an original? A camp style send-up and satire? Was this a parody or a send-up?

3. Comment on the film's use of horror techniques - for atmosphere,, 3D, the use of colour, music, storms etc., the laboratory, the gore, the monster and his terrorising etc.? How closely did this resemble original horror films?

4. How close was this film to the original Frankenstein stories? Did it use any parody of the originals well?

5. How good was the dialogue in this film? The tone of the dialogue? The accent on horror, the accent on sex? The playing of Joe Dallessandro and his non-acting? Did this add to the humour or take away from it? The character who became the monster and his dialogue?

6. How funny was the film? What kind of humour? Was the humour in good taste? The blending of sex and violence in the horror genre, appropriately done?

7. Did this film bear the signs of an Andy Warhol-backed film? Why? Comment on the continuity, the acting, the editing.

8. Was the character of Frankenstein well explored in this film, or was he a caricature, his obsession with the monsters and life? His relationship with the sister and children? To Fritz? To the housekeeper? The nature of his laboratory and his work, his infatuation with his work? Seeking the perfect bodies, stalking the men at the brothel, the beheading of the victim? His desire to make a super-race and perpetuate himself? The perverse nature of this power, relationship to sexuality? The nature of his death, the deadpan irony of his lack of achievement? How humorous was this drawing of Frankenstein? Were there serious points made?

9. Comment on the character of the Countess - as a mother, wife, sister, discussion of the background of the family, the parents? Her preoccupation with sex and power? The nature of her death because of her lust for power and sexuality? Was the character well drawn? Her relationship with Nicholas?

10. Nicholas - the point of his being in the film? Joe Dallesandro's lack of articulate personality and style? Sex symbol? Integrated into the theme of the film? His relationship with his friend? His work as a servant? Relationship with the children? As a type of hero for the film? The irony of the ending?

11. The young man who became the monster ? the story of his wanting to join the monastery. his reactions in the brothel? The pathos of his become the monster? His wanting to die? Did this character become more real for the film?

12. The function of the mid in the film and her gory death - audience response to this?

13. The role of the children in the film, especially during the credits with the atmosphere of a genuine horror film, their spying an their mother, the picnics etc., the meals, the final stealing of the anatomy, and their final raising up of Nicholas to destroy him? Did they blend with the rest of the horror film or were they different?

14. Comment on the settings of the film, the use of the colour photography, especially in 3D: the castle, the forests, the rather elaborate laboratory, the rooms of the castle etc.

15. The gore was obviously artificial; and was poked in the audience's eye. How humorous was this, how 'corny'? The satire in the heap of dead people at the end? The way that the stitches of people came undone paralleling the handling of the entrails during the film by Frankenstein and Fritz etc.? How did this compare with the menace of the children sequence?

16. How valuable is it to laugh at the horror genres? How valuable was this as a parody satire film?