Hello and welcome to Camp Kaiju Monster Movie
Reviews. We are your hosts, Matt Levine and Vincent
Hannum. And we're talking about all of our favorite
monster movies, the good, the bad, and the downright
campy, and asking if they stand the test of time.
Traditional kaiju, creature features, space invaders,
the supernatural, and everything in between.
All strange beasts are welcome here. Camp Kaiju
is sponsored by BanditsEmporium .com, where you
can shop exclusive monster -inspired t -shirts
with part of the proceeds supporting this show.
BanditsEmporium .com, hit the link in our bio.
As they say, we sell shirts. As Camp Kaiju says,
stay campy, everybody. Camp Kaiju also says,
sometimes in order to experience death, you have
to F a gallbladder. Is that the quote? That's
maybe more of a paraphrase, but tonight we are
talking about Flesh for Frankenstein, in which
Udo Kier, as Baron Frankenstein, speaks that
immortal line. So welcome to the episode, and
welcome back, Frank. Yay, Frank! Not the most
family -friendly episode for not the most family
-friendly movie, I guess. Well, I'm not going
to like start swearing right off the bat. I'm
going to censor myself at least initially, but
probably not going to last. That line is so wickedly
over the top. It deserves the full Monty. So
sometime by the end of the episode, Matt, just
let it rip. Nice. I definitely will. Unless Frank
wants to. I know Frank loves that line, too.
Well, I have to tell you, too. So while I was
watching this movie the other night, I. I actually
rewound that part and got my phone out to video
it and then texted it to my brother to make him
laugh because I knew he would think that was
really funny. And there were a couple other lines
of dialogue, too, which I guess we can get into
later, which I did the same thing for, actually.
I did that like three or four times during this
movie. Frank, what did your brother... Has he
seen this movie? I know he's a big horror fan.
I don't think he has, surprisingly. I actually
had asked him... last time i saw him if he had
a copy of the movie um but he did not which surprised
me a little bit because i saw um you know the
companion film to this one uh but oh god now
i'm blanking on the name is it blood for dracula
yeah i i watched that one with him years and
years ago and remember not really liking it um
but i just figured since you know that he would
have seen this one too but apparently not apparently
He has not seen this one somehow, even though
he's a huge horror aficionado. I would imagine
that he'll be amused by it, to say the least.
I have not seen Blood for Dracula, but if it's
anything like this movie, I really do want to
watch it soon. I've heard that it's not as good
as Flesh for Frankenstein, but not as good might
be kind of a relative phrase in this case. Right.
What I've heard is that it maybe takes itself
more seriously. That's one person's take. I haven't
seen Blood for Dracula. I have heard there is
humor in Flesh for Frankenstein. I see that what
people talk about, the aforementioned line, for
example. But I will get into it later, but I
feel like the humor was a bit lost on me. Maybe
not my type. yeah no that's certainly understandable
um i feel like any range of reactions to this
movie from just like completely hating it and
thinking it's the worst piece of trash ever made
to like loving it and like watching it constantly
and being totally delighted by it all like both
of those reactions totally make sense to me in
this case which is great i mean i love a movie
that can elicit such a wide response yeah um
i'm interested to see what you guys think about
it and later on i'll I'm burying the lead here,
but I'll let you know how I feel about it as
we move along. I would expect so. Yeah. So thank
you again, Frank. Frank Olson has been on the
show several times in the past. It's always a
pleasure to have you on. Thanks to all of you
out there as well for hanging out and listening
to the show. Please rate and review Camp Kaiju
wherever you listen. You can also share this
podcast with a friend. Also, make sure to check
out our website and Patreon. Vincent, do you
want to talk a little bit more about those? Sure.
CampKaijuMovieReviews .com features past episodes
of this podcast. Links to other reviews of ours
that matt and i and potential guest uh reviewers
are typing up weekly and links to our patreon
you can visit patreon .com slash camp kaiju for
all sorts of bonus features special series and
other kinds of perks our lowest tier is just
three dollars a month and our highest is only
15 a month all that money helps us support the
show and give back to all you for your support.
So thank you to you all, including Frank. You
are a patron. And Chris and Kelly and Peggy and
our anonymous patrons. And for you all, we have
one very special gong to hit. Frank, are you
ready and willing to hit the Gamera gong? I am,
and I know it's an audio medium, but yes. Imagine
that I'm swinging it like a mace above my head
here. Wow, that was worth like the six windups
you gave it. It was like a cartoon Looney Tunes
windup. It was really impressive. Good job. I
hope I didn't break it. We have some other great
stuff coming up on Camp Kaiju as well. Later
in April, we're going to be talking about The
Valley of Gwangi, which I think is our first
Ray Harryhausen movie that we're going to be
talking about on the podcast. Yeah, some dinosaurs
and cowboys. Very excited to talk about that.
Then after that, we're going to get back to Godzilla
with Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah from 1991. And
then... rounding out the rest of this first half
of the year. Wolf, directed by Mike Nichols,
I believe, and starring Jack Nicholson. I've
heard it makes it. Yeah, it is 94. You're right.
Yeah, I'm excited. I've heard mixed things about
it, but it sounds very interesting to me. A friend
of mine described it as not so much a werewolf
movie and more about the publishing industry.
So I am intrigued. And Gary Dansu, former Camp
Kaiju host, will be returning for both of those
two films. Wolf and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah.
Then we're going to talk about the OG blob from
the 1950s. And then our final movie before Kaijulai
is Porco Rosso. And Frank, are you still on to
help us talk about that one? Yeah, yeah, looking
forward to it. Yeah, I saw that, I don't know,
maybe 10 or so years ago and remembered really
liking it. So it's been one I've been wanting
to revisit anyway. Yeah, definitely excited to
get into that one. Me too. The whole Studio Ghibli
is like a whole world unto itself. I'm going
to enjoy doing my homework for Porco Rosso. Yeah,
I really love Miyazaki, but I've only seen for
the most part, I've only seen his latter day
movies and not a lot of his earlier movies. So
I'm excited to visit Porco Rosso for the first
time. Yeah. All right. So Flesh for Frankenstein
is the movie that we're talking about tonight
from 1974, directed by Paul Morrissey. I've always
been really fascinated to see it. I mean, it
just sounds so sleazy and trashy and gory and
like filled with sex and nudity and just like
such a product of its time in the early 70s.
And like, you know, the idea of like taking that
approach with such a classic of literature, Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein, which this movie sort
of bastardizes quite a bit, I think you could
say. Despite this movie's many flaws, I still
think it's going to be pretty fascinating to
talk about. So I'll turn it over to Frank. What
was your experience with this film and just kind
of this whole world of films around this time?
I had seen Blood for Dracula. To be honest, remember
that one being kind of boring. You know, that
one was filmed, I think, like immediately after
Flesh for Frankenstein and done as kind of like
a, you know, he convinced the studio to finance
both of them together, basically. So there's
a lot of the same cast and crew and everything.
But honestly, when you asked me to come on to
do this one, I was willing to do it, but I wasn't
super thrilled about the selection necessarily.
But this one I think is a more interesting movie.
I don't really have a lot of knowledge of what
Paul Morrissey has done. I know he kind of comes
from the Andy Warhol Like, that group of, you
know, just eccentrics that Andy Warhol hung out
with. And, you know, I know this movie also had
been released under the title Andy Warhol's Frankenstein.
And somehow, sometimes known as that, even though
it seems like Warhol had basically nothing to
do with it. You know, I know a little bit about,
like, Andy Warhol's movies. I've seen a handful
of them, and this doesn't really resemble them
in any way. Pretty different than, like, his...
you know movie empire which is the like eight
hour uh continuous shot of the empire state building
so maybe flesh for frankenstein is the empire
of sleazy horror adaptations yeah um but yeah
no let's i'll turn it over to vincent now vincent
what is your experience with flesh for frankenstein
if any well i first heard about this film last
fall september i was In one of my yearly Frankenstein
deep dives. For long -time listeners, for you
guys, you probably know Frankenstein, the 1933...
No. Oh, my God. What year did that movie come
out? The original one was Boris Karloff. Or maybe
31. I think it's 31. It is 31. 31 is right. Oh,
wow. I just lost my Frankenstein cred there.
Okay. Yeah. Grew up with that movie. Love that
movie. But for the longest time, the Universal
series was really my only exposure to cinematic
Frankensteins. And this movie definitely had
me curious with the Andy Warhol name attached
to it, which is the point of his whole producing
there. And yeah, I didn't see it, though, until
just last week. And it was... Both what I expected
and also not what I expected. I can't wait to
talk about it. I love the production history
of this movie. I love how it came into existence.
I would also like to add that you wrote your
own adaptation of Frankenstein, a stage adaptation.
So I don't think your Frankenstein credentials
can ever be revoked. I think they will last you
your entire life now. Thank you. Thank you. I
like to think... No, then that gets in my way
to like, I, I love the Frankenstein story so
much. I don't mind seeing it bastardized, like,
whatever, I don't care, like, make something
interesting. But sometimes it could also get
in my way of like, no, that's not the that's
not how Victor Frankenstein should act. And it's
like, well, how should he act? That's the conversation.
So probably more interesting to see something
that's not faithful to the original source material
you know because it's so well known at this point
but you know what's the point of really making
an ultra faithful version of it anyway so right
so i i do want to see all the other crazy sounding
frankensteins like frankenhooker or blackenstein
or frankenstein meets the space monster there's
just a whole slew of of those types of frankenstein
adaptations that i'm here for even if i don't
like them i'm here for them i hope we talk about
many of them on this show in the future blackenstein
was on the criterion channel recently and i really
really wanted to watch it and then i think it
left at the end of march so i did not get a chance
but bummer uh it looks uh unique i'll probably
refer to flesh for frankenstein as unique numerous
times because like that avoids me saying good
or bad which like You know, so it's a good invasion
in that way. Right. Well, if you guys are ready,
we can jump into a brief plot synopsis. Let's
do it. This gory, campy, sex -filled adaptation
in name only of Mary Shelley's novel features
a more sadistic version of Baron Frankenstein
than you've ever seen before. He's married to
his sister and even has two kids with her. So
right off the bat, the movie is chock full of
incest. The Baron and his assistant, Otto, attempt
to reanimate two beings, a male and a female,
using dead tissue from corpses. The Baron's ultimate
goal is to create a master Serbian race descending
from himself. He also achieves sexual gratification
from the female monster, fondling and opening
her surgical wounds and doing unthinkable things
with her innards. Disappointed with the lack
of sexual libido in his male creation, the Baron
and Otto find a handsome farmhand named Sasha
as he's leaving a brothel and decapitate him,
hoping to plant his head onto the monster's body.
The plot thickens when Sasha's friend, Nicholas,
is hired by the Baron's wife -slash -sister,
Katrin, as a manservant and to provide her with
sexual favors. It all leads to a violent climax
filled with disembowelment, death by lovemaking
and an impalement that must have really been
something in the film's original 3d release yeah
and i actually didn't realize it was released
as a 3d movie something like something like the
end impalement totally makes sense now why it
was shot that way but at the same time the way
it's framed regardless of the 3d nature i was
like that's a dynamic shot I really enjoy that
shot too. There's also the moment pretty early
on when the Baron and Otto are first sort of
like handling a bunch of guts and like the Baron
is like holding all like all the entrails like
directly out to the camera pretty much. And yeah,
like I also didn't realize till after I saw it
that it was released in some areas in 3D, but
only some in other places it was released in
2D. There were a lot of different versions of
this movie that were released. So, yeah, like
it's kind of like, you know, all the sort of
horror 3D movies like Friday the 13th 3D and
Jaws 3D and stuff where like there are so many
or there are some gratuitous moments where like,
you know, viscera pops out of the screen to like
take advantage of that 3D technology. And it's
yeah, it can be kind of fun in this movie at
times. The 3D element of it and, you know, watching
in, you know, not 3D. It's not nearly as distracting
as it is in a lot of other movies like this.
There's not like the cheesy stuff where someone's
like, you know, got like the ping pong paddle
that they're like shaking directly at the screen
or any like real obvious stuff like that. Like,
you know, like you were saying that that kind
of impalement shot toward the end is just kind
of a cool looking shot, even in 2D anyway. Yeah,
I would agree with that. And I do love the end
of this movie, just like how many people die
like right in a row and their bodies are literally
piled right on top of each other. I can only
assume that's intentionally humorous because
I found it hilarious. The film was directed by
Paul Morrissey, pretty interesting figure in
himself. It was part of Andy Warhol's factory
for quite a long time. worked with Warhol, co
-directed with him on several films. Chelsea
Girls might be one of the most famous films that
he directed. I think he co -directed that one
with Warhol, however. Morrissey also directed
The Velvet Underground and Nico, A Symphony of
Sound in 1966, and a movie called Flesh from
1968. which also stars Joe D 'Alessandro. We'll
talk about him in just a couple moments here.
Morrissey also directed the first film featuring
a transgender actress. Her name was Holly Woodlawn,
and the film was called Trash from 1970. That
film also starred D 'Alessandro. So, you know,
Morrissey seems to be kind of like a countercultural,
forward -thinking, somewhat, you know, pushing
the boundaries of film form a little bit. However,
at the same time, he was a self -avowed right
-winger. He called himself very conservative.
He served in the US Army. He publicly protested
against immorality and anti -Catholicism. That
kind of, you know... anti -immorality strain
goes back to his first short, All Aboard the
Dreamland Choo Choo, which sounds like a very
disturbing and abrasive movie, and it's kind
of a scathing indictment of hippie culture and
just how hippies can't take gratification in
anything, and even the most extreme sex and violence
fails to excite them. So, just a lot of contradictions
here. The fact that Morrissey made this movie
and has worked with Warhol so much, who was such
an avant -garde leftist figure. even though Morrissey
apparently was not, although that's obviously
open to discussion. The film has Andy Warhol's
name attached to it, but he didn't really have
very much to do with the making of the film.
He reportedly visited the set once during production
and then once again during the editing process.
So that was really a case where his name was
attached to it in a way to generate publicity
and get more people to see the movie. Well, just
a little bit about him. He was an American visual
artist and was really at his height in the 60s
counterculture. But he started his career in
the 50s and all the way up until his death in
1987. His works generally explore the relationship
between artists and their expression, advertising
and celebrity culture. So you see those things
in some of his most famous works like the Campbell
Soup. cans and the Marilyn Diptych silk print.
So he worked a lot in silk screens, as well as
painting, photography, film, and experimental
films like Empire, which keeps coming back. So
that's, yeah, that's Andy Warhol in a soup can
for you. Despite Warhol's relatively limited
involvement in the film, it still seems like
a pretty good example of Warhol's, you know,
post -modernism. He's like one of the most...
like emblematic postmodern artists of all time
and like the flesh for frankenstein still definitely
seems like a movie which like and it's kind of
like crude aesthetic and it's sort of uh extremely
self -aware approach to the material still seems
identifiably like it's coming from warhol's factory
i think the second unit director antonio margariti
who shot some of the special effects scenes Margariti
was actually credited as the director in some
of the Italian prints so that they could get
tax breaks from the Italian government. We also
have the film also has music by Claudio Gizzi.
Surprisingly, very somber score, I think. At
times, this movie kind of plays like a parody
of a European art movie, in my opinion. And I
think the music goes a long way in suggesting
that. Cinematography by Luigi. Cuvée, who had
an accomplished career working on films such
as Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion
by Elio Petri, and Avanti, I've heard of that
one, by Billy Wilder, Dario Argento's Deep Red,
and many others. And the special effects were
by Carlo Rambaldi, who worked with Mario Bava,
Federico Fellini, Pier Paolo Pasolini, and Dario
Argento, so like all of the big names of Italian
cinema from that time. He did special effects
work on... on other things as well like planet
of the vampires deep red which i just saw recently
uh the 1976 remake of king kong close encounters
of the third kind possession alien et the extraterrestrial
the original dune so wow a bit of a big shot
in the special effects world there Yeah, and
this is one of his earliest special effects productions
where he was kind of the head of the special
effects for the film. And they're, you know,
they're definitely bare bones. They seem very
cheap at times, but sometimes they're pretty
well done. They're pretty stylish and visceral,
I think. There's a decapitation scene, which
I definitely will be talking about later. So
moving on to the cast of the film a little bit.
Udo Kier. The legendary Udo Kier is Baron Frankenstein.
He's maybe one of the main reasons I think this
movie has such a cult status because every single
one of his line readings is so over the top and
hammy and ridiculous and amazing. He was an openly
gay actor who, you know, all throughout his career,
he was very open about his homosexuality. He's
appeared in over 220 movies throughout his career.
He's collaborated with Lars von Trier on almost
all of von Trier's movies since 1987's Epidemic.
He's also in Dario Argento's Suspiria, Fassbender's
Lily Marlene, Gus Van Sant's My Own Private Idaho,
not to mention Hollywood blockbusters like Ace
Ventura Pet Detective, Barb Wire, Blade, and
Armageddon. Just one of the weirdest filmographies
you can possibly find. I know him best from Ace
Ventura Pet Detective. I had no idea but those
eyes he's very striking eyes that I was gonna
say I always think of him as being sort of like
you know Christopher Walken if Christopher Walken
was German then like not a very good actor basically
he has the same kind of just like general like
weirdness where he just like looks like he you
know does not belong on this planet basically
And he just has the voice and the accent where,
like, you could listen to him read from the phone
book for hours and I would be totally entertained,
you know? You've also got Joe D 'Alessandro as
Nicholas, the handsome stable boy. Morrissey
had directed D 'Alessandro in Trash, which predate
the sexual frankness and the dark humor of Flesh
for Frankenstein. D 'Alessandro became a sex
symbol for the gay subculture in the 60s and
70s and is bisexual in real life. He had a troubled
childhood running away from his foster family
numerous times and stealing cars and joining
gangs in New York City. And he started modeling
nude at 16 years old before meeting Warhol and
Morrissey. Yeah, and he plays a lot with, no
pun intended, Monique Van Voren, who plays Katrin,
Frankenstein's wife and sister. She was a Belgian
actress, musician, and writer. sardan zelenovac
as sasha ironically the only serbian in the cast
even though frankenstein is supposed to be serbian
in this movie and constantly comments on serbs
being the quote superior race that that whole
serbian thing really threw me off in this movie
like i the first time uh frankenstein mentions
like the serbian master race and like the superiority
of serbian noses or whatever i'm like is he saying
serbian like like clearly german and he's he's
got that teutonic accent it seems like they're
you know trying to sort of make him you know
stand in for nazi scientists and stuff like i
i don't quite get the serbian thing in the movie
but it is something they bring up frequently
the way that he always says nazim to talk about
the Serbian nose, I think is really funny and
almost kind of, like, cute in a way. Like, the
character is not cute at all. He's very, very
disturbing and sadistic. But, like, his obsession
with the Nazim, I find very funny. Yeah, yeah.
So, yeah, getting into the backstory, the production
of the film a little bit. According to Paul Morrissey,
it was Roman Polanski who originally pitched
to him the idea of making a 3D version of Frankenstein.
Who knows if that's true or not. Morrissey's
own kind of, you know, tall tale, I guess. Yeah.
Like we said, Morrissey was part of what was
called the factory. So this was the headquarters
of Andy Warhol. It was a literal factory where
he employed people to produce his silk prints
of his art. Of course, its reputation is beyond.
Just that it was like a legendary hangout for
Warhol and his closest friends and colleagues
and artists and people like Keith Richards, Mick
Jagger, Grace Jones, William S. Burroughs, just
to name a very, very small number of really pop
culture icons of the late 60s and 70s congregated
there. There's a lot of drugs. There's a lot
of sex, a lot of rock and roll. But it produced
a lot of inspired art, I would say, including
Flesh for Frankenstein, which I don't love. But
I will say it is inspired. Like there was a there
was some imagination going on in here. Yeah,
definitely. Like the factory had like a lot of
clout, I guess you could say, among like underground
circles by this time, by 1974. So it's not hard
to imagine why. Morrissey would be invited to
Italy by executive producers Carlo Ponti and
Andrew Brownsberg. Morrissey, again, had made
a handful of movies, and his films with D 'Alessandro
especially had a pretty big following in the
underground gay communities, especially in New
York. When the production went to Italy at the
invitation of Ponte in Brownsburg, only Flesh
for Frankenstein was originally supposed to be
shot. But Morrissey convinced the executive producers
to also fund the companion piece, Blood for Dracula.
So that's why the two films were essentially
shot back to back. I actually read earlier today
that they finished shooting Flesh for Frankenstein,
took a break for lunch and then started shooting
Blood for Dracula in the afternoon, which I think
is kind of awesome. And maybe an example of the
level of preparation they had going into these
movies. Flesh for Frankenstein was all improvised,
right? Well, actually, no. Interestingly enough,
Morrissey wanted it to be improvised, but because
a lot of the cast was speaking English, which
was not their first language, like that wasn't
really a possibility. So Morrissey would kind
of write dialogue every day, like on a day by
day basis, he would scribble out the dialogue
and and give it to the actors to shoot later
that day. So not exactly improvised, but certainly
kind of like written on the fly. And I think
it's pretty easy to get that sense from the movie,
you know. Yeah, it definitely sounds like a lot
of the actors, including, you know, some of the
main characters are reading the dialogue fanatically
as they go. I again, I just really love the line
readings in this movie, which make already ridiculous
dialogue even more absurd. So I'm OK with it.
You know, I think for me, it's it works well
in its own way. So production of the film took
place at Cinecitta Studios, a legendary film
studio in Rome, 99 -acre studio lot. Films such
as Ben -Hur, La Dolce Vita, Cleopatra, Gangs
of New York, many, many others were shot. This
is just a legendary studio in film history. There's
a real distinct Cinecitta look to the sets and
stuff. You know, it's mainly like a sleazy exploitation
movie, but every once in a while you get these
just like stray shots where you're like, am I
all of a sudden like watching a Fellini movie
or something? Like, especially like the doctor's
lab set. And also there's one just kind of like
randomly beautiful shot of them around the dinner
table at one point. You really get just like
the benefit of the Shinoshita studios, just like
making things look good. Even one of the filmmakers.
don't always seem totally confident you know
it does like sometimes it even made me think
like maybe the filmmakers do know what they're
doing but like are intentionally going for a
kind of like grade z aesthetic you know and i
know that's like a very uh generous way to of
looking at it but but you're right that there
are some moments where the sets and the cinematography
and like i said before i think the music is is
pretty effective at times too like there are
a couple seconds here and there where i'm like
oh they actually do know what they're doing and
then like a moment later you're like maybe not
that's yeah uh yeah yeah it really kind of reminded
me of uh caligula which i i believe was also
shot in italy i don't know if they did it i mean
this is a much more entertaining movie than Caligula
I think Caligula is pretty terrible but but that's
another like super sleazy movie that has you
know just these moments where you're like man
what this elaborate set is really beautiful and
it's like so weird that it's in this the sleazy
cheesy movie um the film was released in the
United States and West Germany as Andy Warhol's
Frankenstein The original Italian version, I
find interesting, had less explicit sex scenes,
but more gruesome violence. It was initially
banned by Italian censors before it was recut.
It was released with an X rating, at least in
the United States, which actually wasn't all
too uncommon at the time in the early 70s. Midnight
Cowboy was released in the late 60s, famously
as an X rated movie. Today, we hear X rating,
and it's very pornographic. But at the time,
not necessarily the case. The movie was a success,
actually. So taking all that into account, the
estimated budget was $300 ,000. And in 1974,
the LA Times reported that the film had grossed
$7 million. BanditsEmporium .com is the official
t -shirt partner of Camp Kaiju. Check out BanditsEmporium
.com or hit the link in our bio to check out
their selection of monster -inspired tees. Part
of the proceeds goes to supporting this very
show. So visit BanditsEmporium .com. Whatever
your style, they have you covered. As they say,
we sell shirts as Camp Kaiju says. Matt, what's
the line? As Camp Kaiju says, to no death, Otto,
you have to fuck life in the gallbladder. Was
that good? Brilliant. One take. And that's the
end of your sponsorship deal. Yeah, exactly.
We're going to force Bandit's Emporium to change
their slogan to that line of dialogue. One of
the most interesting things about this movie,
I think, is... it's camp value and you know we
we talk about camp a lot on camp kaiju we have
our the good the bad and the campy section um
and you know for the most part we've had a pretty
loose definition of camp kind of just anything
that's funny and ridiculous we throw into that
category and i love that i think that's the way
you know uh the way it should be on camp kaiju
But there is a more true and exact definition
of camp, especially as offered by Susan Sontag
in her famous essay, which I think is called
Notes on Camp. And Flesh for Frankenstein like
so utterly fits this description. So Sontag wrote,
camp is a sensibility that revels in artifice,
stylization, theatricalization, irony, playfulness,
and exaggeration rather than content. It is seen
as connected to postmodernism and queerness.
Sontag wrote, by exaggerating sexual characteristics
and personality mannerisms, queer inflected camp
could be said to contend that all behavior is
really performative. And finally, Sontag wrote,
camp sees everything in quotation marks. Many
examples of camp are things which, from a serious
point of view, are either bad art or kitsch.
That last line in particular, I think, just so
like exactly applies to Flesh for Frankenstein.
So in my opinion, this might be the most purely
campy movie we've talked about so far in Camp
Kaiju. Which I that doesn't make it good or bad.
I just think it's like it's such a fascinating
reflection of like this. It's not even really
a subgenre, like kind of a category or like an
artistic mode that is so hard to describe. But
I feel like this movie fits it to a T. it's so
funny we're talking about camp on camp kaiju
getting a little meta but but this these words
are really great in highlighting the specific
identity of camp because it's for me it's kind
of like you just know it when you see it um in
this movie i don't know maybe maybe it was so
so campy it just like it went over my head a
little bit Like I understand, like it was, it
was larger than life, but I, my initial reading
was, this is just bad art, which is Sontag's
whole point. Yeah. And I think like in a way.
It's kind of Warhol's point at times, too, like
when he does the paintings of the Campbell soup
cans, for example, or the Marilyn diptych, which
is, you know, Marilyn Monroe kind of repeated
several times, twice, I guess. Yeah, like I feel
like part of his postmodern mission as well is
to say like the boundaries between like highbrow
and lowbrow and like. classic art and postmodern
art are kind of irrelevant uh like really trying
to break down all those boundaries you know uh
i think you know like how intentionally flesh
for frankenstein is trying to do that is another
question maybe it's not really trying to do that
and it's just a poorly made movie but i think
the end result is it's campy as hell and like
Just interesting to think about what it's trying
to do, if anything. Is it just a poorly made
movie? Or is it trying to take this enshrined
classic of gothic literature and make it as sleazy
and trashy as possible? Again, a generous reading.
But I think the choosing of such an established
classic in which to bastardize seems intentional.
Otherwise, they could have just made an original...
sexploitation film which sure but the whole point
of camp or post -modernist approach to established
classics is to turn it on its head you know that
the political viewpoint of the movie and talking
about the viewpoint of the movie which you know
is also a little bit hard to figure out what's
intentional and what's not and what the point
of view is if there is a consistent point of
view here Because some people see it as like
a denunciation of the upper class as represented
by, you know, kind of these despicable, wealthy
characters who live in this castle and exploit
and demean their peasants and their servants
around them. And, you know, even literally take
their lives for their experiments in some cases.
And some other people also see it as like a conservative
mockery of the counterculture. with people who
are so disassociated that no kinds of sex or
violence can satisfy. But whether or not the
movie actually has anything politically coherent
to say is debatable, I think. I would agree with
that. It seems to kind of throw everything at
the wall to try to provoke people, but probably
doesn't have a clear viewpoint of its own. I
feel like I've seen movies that are just as exploitative,
but... the focus is sharper where any sort of
messaging is loud and clear while also being
campy and gory and sexy and blah, blah, blah.
And this movie for me just wasn't focused enough
in the madness. Like, you know what I mean? Definitely
a long history of, you know, horror movies and
other kinds of exploitation movies that do have,
you know, a clear political point of view and
are, you know, sometimes either. smuggling that
message in or or just making it very overt but
uh but yeah this one definitely is not as as
clear about what its meaning is and you know
like we're saying it's not even clear if there
is really an intent there Yeah, yeah, exactly.
I you know, reading about some of Morrissey's
early short films, which I haven't seen myself,
but like reading descriptions of them, like his
first short All Aboard the Dreamland Choo Choo
is about somebody who is taking drugs. I think
it's heroin, although I could be wrong about
that. And then they kind of just like look very
vacant and passive and then like stab themselves
in the leg with a knife at the end of the short
film. That film has been read as like, again,
a mockery of hippies who just like no matter
how many drugs. they take or or what they do
they just can never sort of like experience uh
a thrill or like passion from life it would be
easy enough to like extend that theme to flesh
for frankenstein but then we have the baron and
katrin sort of explicitly saying like we're so
much better than all these peasants they're worthless
they're just like literally flesh for us to use
so so yeah that's just a like i totally agree
that like what it's trying to say is all over
the place and and i don't think you can really
get one clear interpretation out of it have you
guys I don't know. Have you guys been to the
MoMA in New York City? Museum of Modern Art?
I haven't. Not for a long time. I was there like
20 years ago, I think. Well, that's just like
the best example of a modern art museum I can
think of. But any type of modern art, like when
I was a kid, I was like, this is just a waste
of time. But now as an adult, like I do love
it. I do love sitting in a dark room in a museum
and watching a weird avant -garde film for eight
minutes. where at the end someone just stabs
themselves in the leg um translated to a feature
-length film it kind of runs out of steam for
me with like flesh if flesh for frankenstein
is like an art house piece great but for a feature
-length film again it ran out of steam for me
yeah and there are very tedious long stretches
of this movie where like just yeah like for you
know for all the mayhem and carnage and ridiculousness
that happens in other parts in the movie like
there are other scenes and stretches that are
just pretty boring to be honest so it's like
yeah it kind of um over indulges that for sure
um so one theme that becomes very apparent from
the beginning is like the the quest for a superhuman
race of men um which echoes the fascism of nazi
germany And for me, yes, the story is always
about Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein creating
the perfect human, whatever that is. But in this
adaptation, it's very explicit. I think master
race is used, like even that language, which
to me runs counter to Shelley's warning of of
super men run amok. In this one, the Baron is,
that's what he is seeking. He wants a master
race of Serbians. But in the early 1970s, there
was no way that Italian and other European audiences
wouldn't have connected that anyways with World
War II and the Holocaust and Hitler's ambitions.
One of Frankenstein's speeches is even accompanied
by a piece from a Wagner opera. So this all seems
to be very intentional. Yeah, only like 30 years
after the end of the war, the shadow looms large
over this film in ways that, again, I don't know
what is trying to be said by Morrissey. Are we
espousing the eugenics here in the film? Or is
it a criticism of the eugenics in the film? Unclear
for me. I think he's definitely supposed to be
like, you know, a villainous guy. But yeah, making
it, you know. The fact that you could watch it
and be unclear about whether the Nazi is supposed
to be a good guy or not is a good indication
of how kind of muddled this movie is, though.
Like, you know, the question for me is like,
the connection is so obvious to the recent history
in Europe at the time this movie came out of
fascism and xenophobia and genocide and eugenics
and all that. But like, what is it trying to
say about that? Like, if it's kind of just like,
again, trying to be provocative and, you know,
make these allusions to the Holocaust. this movie
is so like schlocky and sleazy that it's not
really kind of intentional or sophisticated enough
to like make those connections meaningful, you
know? So like, it's like, it's a provocative
connection, but at the end of the movie, I'm
like, all right, but what is, what's the point?
What are you saying about that? You know? Right.
And this is a great movie, great piece of art
to talk about. Like, does art have to have meaning?
Does it have to have a clear thematic message
or can it just be? And. My personal taste is
that it stands the test of time more if there
is a clear message. But if not, I mean, that's
OK, too. It's Vincent. Like, it's definitely
a valid point that like art maybe doesn't necessarily
have to have like a theme or a thing to say or
whatever. But I think if you're making a connection
to the Holocaust, like there should be a pretty
good reason for it is my thinking, you know,
like. So that, you know, even though I do like
and appreciate this movie in many ways, like
all of that stuff just seems excessive to me.
And I know the movie is trying to be tasteless,
but that's like a level of tastelessness that
is hard to get over, I think, at times. So I
wanted to bring up the kind of circularity of
the plot, which I think is kind of interesting.
The film begins with Frankenstein's human children,
which he... has had with his sister they're kind
of like dissecting a stuffed animal with these
scalpels and then at the end of the film those
same kids are like they have their scalpels again
they seem like they're like about ready to start
their dissection but it's like a human body that's
like there for them to do experiments upon which
seems to be a theme of like the sins committed
by the father will be you know perpetrated by
the children and like continue on for like the
next generations so if i think if there is a
theme of like all these points about fascism
and the holocaust and stuff maybe the movie is
trying to say probably giving the movie too much
credit but maybe it's trying to say that like
future generations can and probably will commit
the same atrocities that our forefathers have
done you know that's all i can get out of it
i can buy that i think the inclusion of the children
is probably the closest thing to an obvious through
line of messaging of themes. So I'm glad that
it had that button that it did bring it full
circle. Flesh for Frankenstein and I think a
lot of other exploitation movies from this period
really lives on the border between trash and
art. And as we already talked about, that's kind
of like the postmodern tactic of like erasing
those borders between highbrow and lowbrow. But
I just think it's really interesting because
you have these great 60s European modernist movies
by like Antonioni, Bergman, Fellini, like, you
know, those kind of great. directors are like
very artful purposeful directors and i just think
there's a fairly clear like lineage from those
movies to movies like flesh for frankenstein
and i'm not trying to put them at the same quality
level because that is absolutely not the case
but i think it's interesting to think about how
like the themes of alienation and like human
degradation and uh lack of connection things
like that that some of those directors were trying
to get at it's almost like it rots and decays
and because become something like totally sleazy
and disgusting by the 70s when at the same time
like censorship constraints were just like thrown
out the window and you could put any kind of
sex and violence and like atrocity into movies
you know so even though i don't really like exploitation
movies and many of them seem very like cruel
and uh empty provocation kind of i do think it's
sort of interesting to think about like the connections
between a movie like flesh for frankenstein And
like, you know, something by Fellini or Antonioni
or whatever. It reminds me of the fact that Last
House on the Left by Wes Craven was a remake
of The Virgin Spring by Ingmar Bergman. So I
think, to be honest, I haven't really like thought
through the connections here all that much. But
I think we can trace this sort of like sordid
genealogy from those great movies to something
like this kind of schlocky, sleazy trash or whatever,
you know? And I think that's really interesting
to think about. That sounds like an essay just
begging to be written, Matt. Yeah, we'll see
if I ever have time to write that one. I don't
know. And maybe there's nothing really there.
It's very possible. But my mind was running,
you know, just doing somersaults while I watched
this movie thinking about that. The one thing
that I'll add here, I guess I could put this
in my bad category, but just like such an ugly
film stock. I think even if like there are some
like nice tracking shots and nice sets in this
movie, but still, I was like, wow, like I don't
know what it was about film stocks that they
used in the early 70s, but they just do not look
very good, especially compared to like, you know,
like the nice, beautiful, shadowy black and white
or like the brilliant technicolor of like the
40s and 50s. You know, it had gotten pretty ugly
generally by this point. Think of all the beautiful
color movies, color cinematography movies from
the 40s, 50s, and 60s. And there aren't nearly
as many of those in the 70s. It is just kind
of a flatter, more TV -style look that things
move into. I guess presumably maybe for budget
reasons, but yeah, definitely not for the better.
I like a beautiful visual aesthetic, and I missed
it quite a bit in this movie, I would say. Vincent,
do you want to start us off with the good category?
The first thing I did note that I was like, I
like this is the score. I felt like whatever
nonsense was happening on the screen, the music
grounded it in a sincerity that I appreciated.
Mostly like I love, you know, there's a pulsating
pair of lungs and a couple shots. I thought that
was really well done. And then finally, my favorite
thing was just the set design of the lab. And
there's like cut off limbs hanging out in a pile
in one corner. There's like naked bodies over
laying in a mangled pile in another corner. And
there's like Greco Roman statues everywhere.
I thought this is not like any other Frankenstein
movie I've seen. And I love it. Yeah, I think
that early like tracking shot through the lab
is pretty cool, too. It has like sort of a weird
elegance to it and a movie that otherwise. not
very elegant um but where it's just you know
they've got like a body up on like a gurney and
they're moving it around and then at the end
it kind of gets uh put in this heap of other
bodies that have been hacked up and stuff which
you know it's really like macar but it it has
a sort of like weird beauty to it just the way
the camera is gliding around the room for me
with with this movie the the good and the campy
categories are kind of inseparable. I mean, I
was mostly really entertained by the, just some
of the like terrible line readings. They're really
like amusingly terrible ones. I mean, there's
one early on where Baron Frankenstein is explaining
to his assistant Otto. uh like a little bit about
his plan to find parts for his male monster because
he's got at that point he's got the female one
set but he needs a male one to mate her with
and uh he's explaining how you know at some point
in his past he's been to uh bordello and then
although it goes like oh bordello you baron and
then and then he's like yes yes me or whatever
and he's like oh and that that one made me laugh
i uh recorded that one and sent it to my brother
uh there was another one later when they're actually
at the brothel or they're outside the brothel
kind of waiting for the people to come out and
uh there's like two naked women that run out
and uh they see the one guy emerge and uh says
uh it's something to the effect of like two women
one man he must be very powerful i was like oh
my god that's like that sounds like a line from
young frankenstein yeah yeah for sure um for
me in the good category uh in addition to all
that stuff and like just all the kind of like
uh putting it in like its historical context
of like camp and post -modernism and stuff like
that uh there are some moments that i think must
be intentionally funny because it's just impossible
that it wouldn't be intentional for example the
part where the baron's hand is cut off towards
the end and he like tries to reattach it just
by like shoving it back on his stump and that
doesn't work and then he throws his own hand
at nicholas yeah like that's so silly like that
has to be intentionally funny um and then the
part where katrin and nicholas are having sex
uh or they're not quite having sex but she's
like trying to uh you know get him to do so and
the way that she does so is by like sucking his
armpit uh like very loudly and for a very long
time one last thing that i want to mention for
the good category uh there are just like entrails
that are just like bright red crimson just like
dripping with like viscera you know um and you
know for a horror lover it is very visceral it's
you know to use the actual origin of that word
it's very visceral it's really intense it's sort
of it looks pretty cool at times and you know
like the the best example is uh sasha's decapitation
with the garden shears where bright red blood
just starts like spraying out like a geyser and
then we see this headless body kind of just like
stumble around and blood is still flying everywhere
uh obviously it's very disgusting over the top
tasteless but i mean you know if you love horror
that's probably what you're watching this movie
for and i think that scene is pretty well done
the high point of the film for sure on that note
um yeah moving on to the bad i can start real
quick i feel like i have less in the bad category
than you guys you know we've already talked about
a lot of the bad stuff the kind of boring stretches
it doesn't really look all that great And and
I would just say that for a movie like this,
it's it's hard. You know, the fact that you can't
really take it seriously means that it's not
like emotionally powerful or it probably won't
really stay with me all that much. So, you know,
a movie like this can never really be a masterpiece
because it seems like it's not even taking itself
seriously. Yeah, I found the performances. way
not just over the top but just like bad like
some of the supporting actors whoever it is who
who has a he didn't even try to cover up his
New York his New York accent he's just he's just
hey I'm in New York and but now I'm in Europe
that rubbed me the wrong way the rape of the
female body the or necrophilia um it was like
really slow and drawn out And Baron is grunting
and orgasming. And my stomach's getting a little
queasy thinking about it right now, which maybe
is the point, but not for me. Yeah, I'm with
you. Like some of the campy gore, like I was
just talking about, is entertainingly over the
top. But that scene is just really gross and
disturbing at a level that like, you know, again,
if you're going to make something so repugnant,
like I think you should have a pretty good reason
for it. Like, um. You know, the movie Solo by
Pasolini, which I have to admit I've never actually
seen, but that's just a movie about like the
lowest depths of like human behavior. And so
like if you're making a comment like that, I
feel like maybe you can like get away with depictions
like that, but not so much in flesh for Frankenstein.
That scene is like like extremely disturbing
for no real discernible reason. Because it didn't
even come off as campy or over the top. It was
like real. There was no sense of absurdity to
it. And I think that's what made it uncomfortable.
It's not really even like disturbing or anything
either. It's just kind of like, it's just disgusting
basically. Yeah. It's kind of like partially.
you know, the line of dialogue at the end of
that scene, like partially kind of justifies
it. I was going to say, you kind of have to feel
for the actress, right? Who's like, you know,
naked the whole time, like she's strapped down
to this table and it looks extremely uncomfortable.
Like, yeah, I mean, I'm sure she was a willing,
willing actor, a paid actor, obviously, but like,
it must have been like pretty. you know difficult
and uncomfortable to be in that scene for her
i would think on the subject of the sex scenes
too i like one kind of nitpick you know they
do the thing in this movie a few times where
you see like the uh the male and and female creatures
kind of like propped up on on stuff uh so that
they're kind of in a standing position and they're
naked except for like cloth over their like these
cloth patches over their genitalia And I always
think it's stuff like that. Like, okay, if this
was like somehow a real situation, which obviously
this is totally ridiculous, but if it was somehow
a real situation, like they wouldn't have those
cloth pieces on. And I'm not saying like, you
know, the actor should have been forced to do
full frontal nudity, but like, I don't know,
maybe just like shoot it in a different way then
where you're just only showing them waist up
or something instead of just, you know, doing
these things that draw attention. Right. Because
I don't think Baron or Otto have scruples about
that. That was just for the audiences. Not a
big deal, but just one of those things that was
sort of annoying me. Yeah, it makes an already
very implausible movie even more impossible to
believe. For the most part, I think the worst
thing about this movie is kind of what we've
brought up a few times, where it just doesn't
seem to have any particular consistent point
of view. you know point that it's trying to get
across or basic viewpoint it just it seems overall
pretty random and and while it has you know a
lot of entertaining individual moments it doesn't
doesn't really hold together for me as a full
movie definitely all valid criticisms for sure
yeah um we've already talked a lot about the
campy aspects of the film uh do we want to say
any more of the ridiculous lines of dialogue
just to have a little bit of fun here at the
end well i i have one thing i want to add to
my campy okay a couple things they involve auto
so auto after cutting off what's his name's head
he like beats the body with a stick or something
but that was very funny and also at the end when
they put the the male and the female now living
creatures together uh both the baron and otto
are like peeking down at the male's genitalia
to see if there's any sort of arousal it's just
like otto is just doing this as a choice by the
by and i was like this is cracking me up this
is so funny but that whole scene i think it's
the same scene where um uruk here keeps going
like kiss kiss yes yes kiss him yeah Pretty entertaining
moment. So another one of my favorite examples
is during that same scene you were talking about,
Frank, where Frankenstein is talking about how
he was convinced to go to the bordello by his
school friends or whatever. And he's talking
about the prostitutes and Frankenstein says,
with their filthy movements and dirty talk, it
was terrible. I really love that line a lot.
And then later on when he says to Katrin, his
wife slash sister, shut up, you sex maniac. I
really love that line as well. There are probably
dozens more lines that we could say right now,
but those are my favorite. All right, we have
four ratings here on Camp Kaiju. Our highest
rating is, it is a timeless classic. It definitely
stands the test of time. Our second rating is,
there may be some antiquated moments, but overall
it's great and stands the test of time. Our third
rating is, it may be historically significant
or just fun, but it doesn't stand the test of
time. And our worst rating, it is not worth revisiting
and definitely does not stand the test of time.
You know, I do kind of admire this movie in some
ways. Like, it is really trashy, really sleazy.
It has a lot of flaws for sure. But I think it's
really interesting to think about. I think it's
like a pretty interesting reflection of like
where cinema was at in the early 70s. I think...
like placing it in the context of like uh yeah
camp and post -modernism and like low art versus
high art uh and then kind of connecting that
to warhol's factory a little bit all that stuff
is pretty fascinating to me but the movie itself
is not like yeah not not especially well made
and doesn't really seem to have anything to say
so i want to be a little provocative maybe i'm
inspired by the movie So I'm going to say there
may be some antiquated moments, but overall,
it's great and stands the test of time. I can
see myself watching this movie again in the future
and just being really like amused and like bewildered
by it all over again. I love it. I disagree.
But I get what you mean. If I'm being generous,
I would say that this film is historically significant.
I can give it that. But I got to be honest, you
guys, first time I watched it, I couldn't finish.
I fell asleep. The second time I tried to watch
it, I also fell asleep by the end. The third
time I was just skipping around the last 10 minutes
because I was like, this movie has just completely
devolved into mayhem. And I don't understand
what's happening. I don't care what's happening.
Nothing interests me anymore. And it started
off strong. So it's a shame that by the end,
I was like, I don't care. Though I don't think
it stands the test of time. Historically, sure.
Yeah, I would put it in that same category as
you, Vincent. I disagree slightly because I don't
know that this movie is that historically significant.
I don't know. I do think it's somewhat fun, though.
I mean, a lot of the terrible dialogue delivered
by terrible actors, like we've talked about,
is kind of fun. And there are some actual, like,
you know like we've talked about some cool sets
uh you know a few few cool camera movements and
things like that but uh but yeah i i don't think
it's a very good movie overall i'd say it's not
one i'd probably go back to again Honestly, I
was kind of hoping that we would have like a
pretty wide range of reactions because it's a
very polarizing movie. So certainly understand
your criticisms. I think they're all extremely
valid. I'll stick up for this movie a little
bit more. I get tired of liking everything I
see. So it's good to really dislike something.
Yeah. If nothing else, I'm proud of bringing
a movie to the podcast that you actively hated.
I feel like I achieved something. There's always
Porco Rosso. I'm excited to talk about that in
a couple months. On that note, thank you again,
Frank. It's always a pleasure to have you on
the show. This was a great conversation. Thanks
for having me. Yeah, thanks, Frank. And thank
you all for hanging out. If you liked what you
heard, please tell a friend, leave a rating and
review, and visit CampKaijuMovieReviews .com,
Instagram, or Patreon .com slash CampKaiju for
more monster movie content. We can't thank you
enough. And before I forget, Camp Kaiju is sponsored
by BanditsEmporium .com, where you can shop exclusive
monster -inspired t -shirts with parts of the
proceeds supporting this show. BanditsEmporium
.com. Hit the link in our bio. As they say, we
sell shirts. And as Camp Kaiju says, thanks again,
friends. Until next time, stay campy. To know
death, Otto, you have to fuck life in the gallbladder.