a b c 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–" . Retrieved May 28, 2023.

In the decades since its release, modern film scholars have noted the possible queer reading of the film. Director James Whale was openly gay, and some of the actors in the cast, including Ernest Thesiger and, according to rumor, Colin Clive, were respectively gay or bisexual. [58] Although James Curtis, Whale's biographer, rejects the notion that Whale would have identified with the Monster from a homosexual perspective, [59] scholars have perceived a gay subtext suffused through the film, especially a camp sensibility, [60] particularly embodied in the character of Pretorius and his relationship with Henry. Brunas, Michael, John Brunas & Tom Weaver (1990). Universal Horrors: The Studios Classic Films, 1931–46. Qefferson, NC, McFarland & Co. Easy Rider' now listed on National Film Registry". CNN. November 17, 1998 . Retrieved January 6, 2008. Squires, John (June 27, 2017). "Best Buy Getting Universal Monsters Steelbooks With Stunning Alex Ross Art". Bloody Disgusting . Retrieved January 23, 2020.

Following its release with the Code seal of approval, the film was challenged by the censorship board in the state of Ohio. [31] Censors in England and China objected to the scene in which the Monster gazes longingly upon the body intended for reanimation as the Bride, citing concerns that it looked like necrophilia. [33] Universal voluntarily withdrew the film from Sweden because of the extensive cuts demanded, and Bride was rejected outright by Trinidad, Palestine, and Hungary. Additionally, Japanese censors objected to the scene in which Pretorius chases his miniature Henry VIII with tweezers, asserting that it constituted "making a fool out of a king". [31] Reception [ edit ] Colin Clive, Elsa Lanchester, Boris Karloff, and Ernest Thesiger. Whale met Franz Waxman at a party and asked him to score the picture. Whale told him: "Nothing will be resolved in this picture except the end destruction scene. Would you write an unresolved score for it?" [17] Waxman created three distinctive themes: one for the Monster; one for the Bride; and one for Pretorius. The score closes, at Whale's suggestion, with a powerful dissonant chord, intended to convey the idea that the on-screen explosion was so powerful that the theater where the film was being screened was affected by it. [25] Constantin Bakaleinikoff conducted 22 musicians to record the score in a single nine-hour session. [26] Squires, John (September 13, 2016). "Walmart Releases Universal Monsters Classics With Glow-In-Dark Covers!". iHorror.com . Retrieved January 23, 2020.

Bride of Frankenstein is a 1935 American science fiction horror film, and the first sequel to Universal Pictures' 1931 film Frankenstein. As with the first film, Bride of Frankenstein was directed by James Whale starring Boris Karloff as the Monster and Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein. [3] The sequel features Elsa Lanchester in the dual role of Mary Shelley and the bride. Colin Clive reprises his role as Henry Frankenstein, and Ernest Thesiger plays the role of Doctor Septimus Pretorius. Oliver Peters Heggie plays the role of the old blind hermit. Elsa Lanchester and Boris Karloff in Bride of Frankenstein. The bride's conical hairdo, with its white lightning-trace streaks on each side, has become an iconic symbol of both the character and the film. Screenwriter Robert Florey wrote a treatment entitled The New Adventures of Frankenstein— The Monster Lives!, but it was rejected without comment early in 1932. [8] Universal staff writer Tom Reed wrote a treatment under the title The Return of Frankenstein, a title retained until filming began. [9] Following its acceptance in 1933, Reed wrote a full script that was submitted to the Hays office for review. The script passed its review, but Whale, who by then had been contracted to direct, complained that "it stinks to heaven". [10] L. G. Blochman and Philip MacDonald were the next writers assigned, but Whale also found their work unsatisfactory. In 1934, Whale set John L. Balderston to work on yet another version, and it was he who returned to an incident from the novel in which the creature demands a mate. In the novel Frankenstein creates a mate, but destroys it without bringing it to life. Balderston also created the Mary Shelley prologue. After several months Whale was still not satisfied with Balderston's work and handed the project to playwright William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson. The final script, combining elements of a number of these versions, was submitted for Hays office review in November 1934. [11] Kim Newman reports that Whale planned to make Elizabeth the heart donor for the bride, [12] but film historian Scott MacQueen states that Whale never had such an intention. [8] Towlson, Jon (2016). The Turn to Gruesomeness in American Horror Films, 1931-1936. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. p.117. ISBN 9780786494743 ; Mank, Gregory W. (2014). The Very Witching Time of Night: Dark Alleys of Classic Horror Cinema. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. p.143. ISBN 9780786449552 ; "This Day in History: April 19". The Baltimore Sun. March 31, 2017 . Retrieved April 21, 2022 ; " 'Bride of Frankenstein' at Orpheum Tomorrow". The San Francisco Examiner. April 18, 1935. p.12 ; Hanifin, Ada (April 19, 1935). " 'Bride of Frankenstein' Seen at Orpheum Today". The San Francisco Examiner. p.14. a b c d Morris, Gary (July 1997). "Sexual Subversion: The Bride of Frankenstein". Bright Lights Film Journal (19) . Retrieved January 7, 2008.Bride of Frankenstein was subjected to censorship, both during production by the Hays office and following its release by local and national censorship boards. Joseph Breen, lead censor for the Hays office, objected to lines of dialogue in the originally submitted script in which Henry Frankenstein and his work were compared to that of God. He continued to object to such dialogue in revised scripts, [31] and to a planned shot of the Monster rushing through a graveyard to a figure of a crucified Jesus and attempting to rescue the figure from the cross. [32] Breen also objected to the number of murders, both seen and implied by the script and strongly advised Whale to reduce the number. [8] The censors' office, upon reviewing the film in March 1935, required a number of cuts. Whale agreed to delete a sequence in which Dwight Frye's "Nephew Glutz" [8] kills his uncle and blames the Monster, [1] and shots of Elsa Lanchester as Mary Shelley in which Breen felt too much of her breasts were visible. Despite his earlier objection, Breen offered no objection to the cruciform imagery throughout the film – including a scene with the Monster lashed Christ-like to a pole – nor to the presentation of Pretorius as a coded homosexual. [31] Bride of Frankenstein was approved by the Production Code office on April 15. [1] Charisma, James (March 15, 2016). "Revenge of the Movie: 15 Sequels That Are Way Better Than The Originals". Playboy. Archived from the original on July 26, 2016 . Retrieved July 19, 2016. Young, Elizabeth. "Here Comes The Bride". Collected in Gelder, Ken (ed.) (2000). The Horror Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-21356-8. The preparation to film the sequel began shortly after the premiere of the first film, but script problems delayed the project. Principal photography began in January 1935, with creative personnel from the original returning in front of and behind the camera. Bride of Frankenstein was released to critical and popular acclaim, although it encountered difficulties with some state and national censorship boards. Since its release the film's reputation has grown, and it is now frequently considered one of the greatest sequels ever made; many fans and critics consider it to be an improvement on the original, and it has been hailed as Whale's masterpiece. In 1998, it was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry, having been deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant".