[quote=“CalMeacham, post:33, topic:453343”]
Here’s the prologue (featuring that dress) on YouTube. I can’t make out any of the details in the dress myself.
I’ve never sen a picture of the dress, and have no idea where it is now.
Oooo…thank you for that clip, I can see there were a lot of sequins all over the dress, there are probably yards of fabric. It’s a beautiful scene with that fireplace, and a beautiful gown.
And two pretty boys.
The dogs were a nice touch, too.
That’s Una O’Connor, by the way (“Minnie,” the comic relief in the rest of the movie), who’s holding the dogs’ leashes.
No kidding. I never noticed that.
I can’t tell from looking, either. She’s in shadow, in silhouette, and there only briefly. I got the information from some movie site.
Another bit of trivia to screw with Bride of Frankenstein’s date:
according to IMDb:
If you are talking about this: Frankenstein - Chase Scene w/ The BQE Project and Tom Nazziola - YouTube I think it is purposeful. It is meant to look like the rain is beginning to come down from the clouds and is part of the painting. See how it starts lightly in a different part at Frankenstein - Chase Scene w/ The BQE Project and Tom Nazziola - YouTube and then is worse in the next scene? It’s meant to be the progression of the coming storm.
I agree the special effects are not up to modern standards though. 
That looks nothing like rain and everything like a backdrop that was hanging loose.
That’s exactly what I thought the instant I saw it. Curtains don’t wrinkle like that.
Dennis
One of the small delights of Bride of Frankenstein is Gavin Gordon’s outrageously over-the-top acting as Lord Byron.
Nope – if you watch on a good copy of the print it’s clear that the backdrop is simply hanging that way. It’s not meant to represent rain falling from the sky.
The effects in that scene aren’t up to 1931 standards.
Others have noticed this, too. This is listed under the IMDb trivia page under “Revealing Mistakes”:
In David J. Skal’s book Screams of Reason (1998), p. 131 he observes that, when the film came out, the review in the Cleveland Plain Dealer expressed surprise that they could “count the wrinkles on the cyclorama” [backdrop]. during the climactic chase scenes.
That contemporary reference ought to settle any question about audiences not noticing it because this was a “new medium.”
Here’s a better quality video that shows the awful backdrop (beginning at 2:37)
I’ll never be able to not see those wrinkles now.
You’re welcome.
Sorry about that.
It may have taken eleven years, but I’m glad someone finally debunked post #3.
I’m willing to concede that they could be wrinkles rather than painted-on streaks; but I still say they did it on purpose. Haven’t you ever seen rain falling in streaks like that? In a hail storm, when the wind is gusting?
They didn’t do a great job of it, but I think that’s what they were trying to achieve.
Sorry – not looking like that.
I doesn’t look like that to me. In any case, the streaks run across the clouds from the the top of the screen to the bottom of the background, rather than emerging from the clouds themselves. If they represent rain it should be raining in the foreground as well.
I didn’t mean to be so abrupt.
To me the “streaks” are so obviously ripples in the backdrop that I really can’t take them as anything else, let alone a representation of falling rain.
If it really was supposed to be rain, there would surely be such ripples or streaks elsewhere on the backdrop, and not just in one upper corner where it would be most likely to be loose.
I watched the original Frankenstein again last night (Yep, those wrinkles in the backdrop are still there. And definitely wrinkles) in order to see if the original has obvious indications that it’s set in 1931. Certainly the clothes that Frankenstein, his close friends, and the medical students are wearing are typical 1930s clothes, and don’t belong in an earlier era. It’s also true that the lights use in the medical lecture hall certainly appear to be electric lights, not gas or oil. But it’s also true that there’s a LOT of candle light in the film, especially in Frankenstein’s house, where you’d expect electricity. The lights in many rooms could be either electric or non-electric ones. The most conspicuous light in the entire movie is the sunlight that the Monster reaches toward, which comes in through a skylight. Just before that scene, Frankenstein reaches up to extinguish the overhead light that he and Prof. Waldman had been talking under. He doesn’t use a wall switch, but reaches up, and it’s not clear if he turns a switch, unscrews a bulb, or turns a wick*. And, of course, there are plenty of fireplaces and the classic torches (I think this is the film that introduced the trope of the “angry mob with torches”. The mob in Metropolis didn’t use torches.)
I also note that Frankenstein uses a set of headphone to detect the approach of the storm. Those were invented in 1910, so based on that the film couldn’t be taking place more that 20 years before 1931.
So the film is actually a little ambiguous, which I hadn’t noticed before. I’ve no doubt that James Whale used all that castle imagery and flaming brands and torches to give an Old World atmosphere to the film, and suspect he didn’t mean to imply that it took place before 1931, but it can be “read” as if the era is a little unsecured.
*You could argue that they’re in an old, isolated watchtower, which wouldn’t be likely to be wired for electricity. But, on the other hand, this is Frankenstein’s laboratory, filled with electrical equipment. He was getting some power from the lightning of the storm, but that wasn’t running all of his equipment, which is clearly working well before the storm’s arrival. Surely he had at least a generator on hand.
Hollywood in general is an alternate universe. I saw about five minutes of Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed the other night, and saw the Monkees-style haircut on Dr. Frankenstein’s handsome young assistant, and the long flowing hair on the leading lady, and said to myself, “Late 60s!”. I checked the guide, and it was, indeed, 1969.
Womens’ hairstyles in the movies are almost always current to the year it was made (mens’, too, to a lesser extent). Not exclusive to the horror genre, either. Long flowing '60s locks are all over the spaghetti westerns of the period.