Flesh for Frankenstein

At the outset of the movie, Udo does in fact have the female wombie fully completed, but he needs the final component to complete her male counterpart. To finish his male wombie, Udo in fact needs the proper "nazzum", and nazzums, evidently, are reasonably difficult to acquire. So, Baron Frankenstein, with his sidekick, Otto (the same guy that played his sidekick in Blood for Dracula) sets out for his nazzum. He needs a vigorous nazzum, the kind that frequents brothels and enjoys fornicating with any and every type of woman. At this stage, we have the same slouching Communist stable boy from Blood for Dracula, and his good buddy who wants to go join a convent or something. In the dark, Udo mistakes the the buddy, rather than the whoremongering Communist, for the nazzum he wants, and ends up, much to his despair, with a homosexual nazzum. Great Scott!!!

So, Frankenstein throws the two wombies together, kiss him, kiss him, kiss him, kiss him, KISS HIM, but unfortunately the male wombie with the insufficient nazzum ignores the female wombie. In desperation, Udo throws the male wombie to his wife, Baroness Frankenstein (who looks a little bit like Skeletor with a blonde wig), but, not only does the wombie fail to become aroused, he kills the baroness as well. Good golly miss molly, what a waste! Simutaneously, Otto, the hackneyed sidekick, learns that he has his own Mortal Kombat Fatality--pull out their guts and let them see them before they die trick--which he promptly launches against the housekeeper and the female wombie when they both dispassionately spurn his groping Torgoesque affections.

Udo, disenchanted, runs into the laboratory, kills Otto, then fails to defend himself against the vengeful male wombie. My favorite line: "My experiments will go on. I will not die in wain..."

Flesh for Frankenstein is a retelling of the famous Mary Shelley story. Mary Shelley wrote it as a heavily veiled allegory for the evils of then modern science and the hubris of Man. In the DVD extras, Morrissey and some film historian would have us believe that Morrissey was consciously attempting to throw his own slant on the allegory angle. He would have us believe that he was intentionally going over the top with the gore and the sex as an affront to the liberal hippy movement which was clamboring for more of it. This sounds delightfully poignant until you take a closer look at how this film got made.

Morrissey was given creative control to direct several Andy Warhol financed films in Europe. The money that Warhol provided was certainly not without its strings attached though. In fact, Warhol was the king of creative marketing. He and his Factory were making films for fun not profit. That they made money was due to the fact that he had already engratiated himself with the artsy crowd in New York with his airbrushed art and his advertising art (i.e. the now famous Campbell's Soup can). Warhol never took himself all that seriously. He laughed himself all the way to the bank.

Morrissey was doing the same with these films. He was pushing the envelope in gore and sex, but was it for noble artistic intentions? I seriously doubt it. However, since he narrates that it was all intentional, we have no other factual basis to counter his claim.

However, I think, as with many of the now famous artists and poets, writers and filmmakers - their work is famous not because of its original genius, but rather because somebody who has the ear of those who are in power, yet gullible, promoted them as such at the time of their creation or after the fact.

Allowing the film to stand on its own is no crime. When we take a historical look at how cinema was being presented at the time, Morrissey was actually far ahead of his time. That much is true. Hammer Films in England had long been derided as going too far with the gore in their horror films and since they were still going strong at the time this film was made, they really were still the only company doing such films. Along comes Morrissey and he really blew the established film standards to pieces by making this film. Excessive gore, nudity - both male and female, sex acts only slightly veiled, and foul language - it was all in this single film.

The sets and costuming are really masterpieces. The clothing is dynamite when you think of the budget that Morrissey had to work with. And even moreso, the sets are out of this world. They are authentic locations throughout Europe. The set aspect also has me wondering when this film was "really" made. I ask this because the Dr's laboratory is obviously the inspiration for Lou Adler's Frankenfurter's laboratory in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". TRHPS actually duplicates this set in great detail, down to the glass tank, the tile walls, and the statuary in the room.

What makes this film unable to hold the title of great is the acting, the script, and the editing. I don't buy it that the poor acting is intentional. I think it was all they could get and since the people in charge didn't have any real filmmaking background or lots of money, they simply couldn't get capable actors. Udo Kier, they would like us to believe, is intentionally acting over the top. I've directed lots of regional theatre and I can assure you he's not acting over the top - he's just not a good actor. He has proven that in the 30 years since this film that, while he is better now than before, he is no actor. Dallesandro - he was Warhol's personal pet project. Warhol insisted he be used - and arguably, because of "Flesh", Dallesandro was popular in Europe. Monique Van Voohren - is only one of the worst actresses ever to be filmed. As the both the Dr's wife and sister, she simply cannot do much other than bear her body with belief (the sister/wife aspect is yet another aspect taken for TRHPS). The character of Otto is the only one who can get away with the poor acting in this film - because his over the top style is somewhat expected for the mad scientist's assistant. The "monster" is intended to be more of a stud puppy hunk than a monster (another steal from Richard O'Brien for TRHPS, I think). In fact, the creepiest aspect of the film are the Dr's children. They creep about like little ghouls throughout the film.

The extremely gory climax of the film is, frankly, Morrissey's masterpiece for the flim. With this scene, he obviously takes a page from Shakespeare. The set is simply strewn with bloody corpses in various states. And then there is the anticipation he leaves of with - of what is to come - as the children menacingly begin to come into their own scalpels gleaming.

I won't give it all away, because it is a really fun film. I've bought it for myself and I know I'd previously seen it five times. So my harsh criticism of the high brow aspects of it don't diminish my enjoyment of the film as a whole. It's really a cool film to see, if you know what history is involved in its making.

This film along with "blood for dracula" were filmed back to back in Italy. This one the more controversal of the two originally received an X rating by the MPAA. Is is based very loosely on Mary shelly's novel and follows Dr. Frankenstein creating a male and female zombie and his attempts to get them to breed.

Udo Kier playing the role of Dr. Frankenstein is excelent because the actor is German and has a great German accent.

The Criterion collection has audio commentary and an 18 minute slideshow with photos from the film and its production along woth an audio soundtrack of music from the film.