Of Men and monsters 2:

(Image from: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2009/10/30/movie-monsters)

Monsters come in many shapes and sizes.  Depending on the context in which a person classifies them, there are times that the ‘monster’ of a film is more desirable than the hero of that same story.  We can choose to believe that ‘monsters’ are one sided, evil, destructive beasts that don’t care about the human world, however it would be a false assumption.

Welcome back, readers!  Kaie here, ready and excited to go through more discussions of monsters that paved the way for our current obsession with the immortal, inhuman, and beastial characters that have pushed boundaries in the mainstream about taboo subjects that are becoming not only accepted, but yearned for by a modern audience.

(Image from:  https://deadlymovies.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-real-monster-squad-tearing-it-up-1930s-style/)

Stepping into the 1930’s, hot on the heels of several monster films, Universal Studios took the reigns and let loose the flood gates!  There were so many monster films created over the course of the decade, one of the top being Dracula, played by the enigmatic Bela Lugosi.  Frankenstein came to life, as well as The Mummy, which have both gone on to spawn very passionate fandoms.  While I would love to discuss these films, there is limited space to dig into the vast expanse of monster films from the Great Depression years.  

The two that we will visit are the Bride of Frankenstein and King Kong.  

(Image from:  https://www.paristheaternyc.com/film/the-bride-of-frankenstein-gdt)

Frankenstein didn’t end well for our misunderstood monster, and the Bride of Frankenstein didn’t start very smoothly either.  First of all, how do you want a creature who didn’t ask to be created, to be calm when a rowdy mob is chasing him with pitchforks and torches?!  That group isn’t exactly one that you can settle down and have a chat with…

Boris Karloff donned the mantle of Dr. Frankenstein’s creation in the follow up to the first film, and once more brought humanity to a being that most people labeled as unworthy of common decency.  He was not like “us” so kill it!  In the Bride of Frankenstein, the Monster was looking for peace, looking for a place to belong and therefore demanded help to have someone just like him.  A being who didn’t fit into society and could only ever be labeled a monster.  Unfortunately, the Monster didn’t find love eternal because the Bride made for him rejected him by screaming at the sight of him (1).

(Image from:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bride-of-Frankenstein)

What did our Monster do?  Go on a rampage?  Start a war?  Murder innocents in the street!?  Chase villagers with pitchforks and flame…

No.  He did what was probably most humane for both creations and sent them both to their deaths.  Was this murder?  Was this wrong?  The lines between right and wrong were already blurred by what Dr. Frankenstein started in the first film by creating life from death.  He played God for his own purposes, and many suffered for it, including the creature who relied on him most.  

(Image From:  https://judgement.substack.com/p/midnight-movie-monographs-bride-of)

The beauty about these early monsters is that they aren’t anywhere close to being evil, and though they do not fit societal standards for being ‘attractive’, that concept in and of itself is subjective to the audience.  I’m sure there would have been plenty of women who would have taken the Bride’s place and loved the Monster!  He was sweet and kind, which are two of the main criteria any of us look for in a partner!  While most thoughts at the time were potentially sympathy for the monster, as society felt for Quasimodo and Orlok, it’s not a very far leap to attraction and later, desire.  

(Image From:  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1312221/)

In our current age of film with Frankenstein’s remake, the infatuation is full blown and romanticized by countless fans.  All of this started with Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel before it was brought to life over 100 years later.  From there new tales were spawned such as The Bride of Frankenstein.  Sympathy for the Monster may have been the first emotion experienced, though I am not sure it was the final thought on the matter.  With the Monster’s evolution through film and television over the past 90 years, it’s rather apparent that society drew him in close rather than keep his character and lore at arms length.

(Image From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong)

Alright!  Now technically this was, at best, a one sided a love story between Beast and human.  In the 30’s and even today, society doesn’t ship humans with animals unless there are clear human qualities present such as speech and a shape that resembles a human anatomy.  Lately, the current landscape of romantic stories do have humanoid creatures that are actual animals with the ability for speech or humans who shapeshift into animals and are very much loved in that shape.  King Kong was neither of these, yet it’s important to consider that maybe, he helped bring about interest in an inhuman beast that had the capacity for loyalty and devotion.

While the film is renowned world wide as one of the greatest monster movies of all time, I want to focus primarily on the Monster and the apple of his eye.  Women of that age (and for decades to come) were portrayed in a certain “damsel in distress” fashion, if we look beyond that typical trope for female characters, we can see that our Monster is far from uncaring.  Ann was in distress, but maybe if she would’ve taken a deep breath and evaluated the situation, she would have realized that Kong was her hero.

(Image From:  https://horrorobsessive.com/2022/03/14/king-kong-and-the-dignity-of-women/)

On King Kong Wiki, a rather poignant description of Kong from Cynthia Erb’s book is mentioned that provides depth to a character not well explained during his debut.  The site says, “Erb argues that the portrayal of Kong is one of a “noble savage” and a fighter rather than a “sexual aggressor” (2).  There are numerous forms of torture and mistreatment of women, however one of the most horrific is that of sexual assault.  Ann was never in any danger of such a fate.  Even breaking down the title of “noble savage”, by using a specific definition and not looking into the racial themes that plagued films and novels of the time:

Savage:  Kong is an animal and a force of nature.  He is indeed fierce and violent toward the beasts that threaten him or Ann.  There are facets to him because he uses violence to protect, not to destroy everything in sight.  While he is uncontrolled in certain moments, because its hard for small humans to control a creature far larger than them, he exhibits control by not harming Ann physically.  

For noble, we will look at definition 2 because the aristocracy is a human construct that doesn’t fit into the animal kingdom where its survival of the fittest.  Kong showed fine personal qualities in that he kept Ann from dying by a T-Rex and other monsters, and he never, never hurt her!  Did he scare her?  Yes.  But did he bring physical harm to her person?  No.  

There is a callous innocence toward humans, as he brings destruction and death in his wake while in New York, however can he truly be blamed for this?  He is a creature of his environment which is not ruled by human thoughts and rules.  Is he infatuated with a human woman?  Is it love?  Maybe, maybe not.  Perhaps it is just an obsession?  Either way, can the audience deny that his actions toward Ann are noble?  Afterall, he fights, protects and in his own way – cares.  Even in the very end, during his final moments he makes sure Ann is safe before he plummets to his death (2). This is reflective of gender roles at the time, where the female is innocent and morally steady, and the male, in this case Kong, plays the role of protector where he is forced to commit violent acts for the sake of the female.  At the time Kong was created, the Temperance Movement symbolized role of women as the moral compass, where the men who went to the war and did horrible things in order to preserve their way of life and to protect those who couldn’t fight

(Image From:  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/king-kong-review-1933-movie-1070365/)

I believe it’s safe to say that Kong exhibits some of the important qualities that women look for in a partner, and I dare say that our noble King may have been a jumping off point for our current infatuation with a love interest that embodies anything other than purely human.

————————————————————————————————————————

Venturing into the war ravaged years of the 1940’s, both during and after WWII, our monster loving audience received countless sequels to the 1930’s monster films.  However, there was one that catapulted a long term obsession onto the silver screen and into our hearts.

(Image From:  https://decider.com/movie/the-wolf-man-1941/)

1941’s The Wolf Man was not the first werewolf movie, however it was the first to gain massive acclaim and success (3).  There is no denying the impact werewolf stories have made on the public, especially in novels.  While The Wolf Man wasn’t a pack leading alpha with a magical bond to his beloved, he gave us a look at a hairy man beast, dangerous and unchecked, that spawned questions of ‘what if’ in the minds of novelists, story tellers and visual media creators that have taken us on countless journeys with beloved characters that pushed our boundaries of what is humane and what is monstrous.

It should be noted that The Wolf Man was one of three films Universal put out that was not created from a written text (3).  If he hadn’t been brought to life in those formative years of monster movies, would we have the incredible fictitious worlds thousands of brilliant minds created for us?  Maybe our Wolf Man wasn’t a hero and he met a grisly end, but maybe he did pave the way for our love of shifters in all forms.

—————————————————————————————————————————

(Image From:  https://nbrehmer.medium.com/histories-of-horror-the-creature-from-the-black-lagoon-0f2a11de623b)

From the 40s to the 50s, the public continued their love affair with monsters though romantic infatuation declined to focus more on the horror of man’s folly.  In the 1950s, mankind was focused on nuclear war and exploring space’s unending possibilities of ‘what’ and ‘who’ would we find (4). Film decided to explore radiation horror stories and the potential danger of aliens from worlds beyond our own who may not have our best interests at heart (4).  

There was one film that brought love into the mix and piqued the interest of a young man who would go on to shape horror romance throughout the early 21st century, but we will get to him later.  The film however, we will discuss now.

The year was 1954 and Universal delivered another hit with Creature from the Black Lagoon.  

Once more the trope of “monster in love with a human woman” continues.

We have our Monster in Gill-Man, a beautiful love interest in Kay, and foolish Americans who have to go bother with things that don’t belong to them in the name of science.  The story wasn’t new, in fact it had been told many times before.  What was new was the Monster and the slippery slope from animal to humanoid being with animal traits that could pose as a real love interest to the female protagonist.    Naturally, she didn’t let him because the Creature was never meant to win the affections of a woman.  However, for the audience, he opened up the question of whether or not a creature who walks on two legs but bears no other human qualities can be someone’s Prince Charming.

(Image From:  https://adamnfinecup.com/2019/09/20/the-rear-view-mirror-creature-from-the-black-lagoon-1954/)

Dracula, Frankenstein, the Hunchback, Count Orlok and the Wolf Man were all humans with afflictions.  Kong may well have been the first actual creature that wasn’t human to pique our interest for a heroic love interest that would risk life and limb for his beloved’s affection.  Gill-man may have been the first widely accepted iteration of humanoid beings that blended animals with the body of a man who would be acceptable to love.  

Maybe?  Maybe not?  But there is no denying his impact on visual media since the day he graced the silver screen.

—————————————–

In our next segment, we will explore our continuing love of monsters through the 1960’s to the 1980’s, through multiple types of media.

Until then, keep your curious minds alert and your questions set to stun!

Don’t forget to like and subscribe!  Thank you all for joining us!

(Image Screenshot google search monster romance)

——————————–

1. Henderson, Jan A., and George E. Turner. “The Bride of Frankenstein: A Gothic Masterpiece.” American Cinematographer, 26 Oct. 2022, theasc.com/articles/bride-of-frankenstein

2. “King Kong (1933 Film).” King Kong Wiki, Fandom, https://kingkong.fandom.com/wiki/King_Kong_(1933_film).

3. “The Wolf Man (1941 Film).” Universal Monsters Wiki, Fandom, https://universalmonsters.fandom.com/wiki/The_Wolf_Man_(1941_film).

4. “20 Million Miles to Earth (1957).” Cinema Crazed, 9 Oct. 2013, www.cinema-crazed.com/blog/2013/10/09/20-million-miles-to-earth-1957/. . Accessed 26 Dec. 2025.