“Remembering Hollywood’s Hays Code, 40 Years On,” by Bob Mondello on NPR describes the pre-code time up until 1922 as quote, “come to seem like a moral quagmire, even by the bathtub-gin-and-speakeasy standards of the Roaring 20’s,” referring in particular to the scandals that had overtaken Hollywood at the time. Some of the scandals that created enough outrage for the Hay’s Code to take hold of the industry are noted in the NPR article as Fatty Arbuckle being charged with manslaughter of a fellow actress, various stars dying of drug overdoses, and other murders linked directly to the community. The article goes on to state that under Postmaster General Will Hays the Hollywood studios decided to self-impose restrictions but due to this list having no real consequence nothing much came of it.

The Wexner Center for the Arts notes that in 1933 the movie I’m No Angel starring Mae West simultaneously saved Paramount from bankruptcy and took things far enough for calls, both manufactured and real, internal and external, for studios to crack down on the Hay’s Code restrictions. Mondello went on to write that the Hay’s Code had strong influence from the religious community and stated to want to have a production code that considered what they felt to be good taste. During this time a great push to not negatively influence audiences grew, drawing a connection between movies and perceived failing societal morals, quote, “that no picture should ever “lower the moral standards of those who see it,”” and implying that depicting evil, crime, and wrongdoing would cause audiences to emulate that behavior in the real world.

...are all Universal Studios made movies based on gothic fiction elements. In contrast to the happy, light image of life that escape movies portrayed, Universal Pictures Studios, newly headed by Carl Laemmle (Lem-Lee) Jr, became the leading producer of horror films during the 1930s. Britannica details how these movies, the Universal Monster movies, became characteristically low budget films that allowed Universal, one of the Little Three studios at the time, to stay afloat during financial hard times. Commercially successful in the box office, the movies created a genre out of necessity that would go on to transform cinema forever.

Having created the horror movie niche with the various monsters Carl Jr., less than respectfully known as Uncle Carl around the studio, helped transition the studio into “talkies” after they faced challenges under his father’s management. The article “Universal Studios and the Rise of Horror films” notes that Universal was financially strapped and took advantage of gothic elements on sets that they could use for various projects.

In a 1998 documentary Kingdom of Shadows: The Birth of Cinema the word “monster” is explained as having derived from Latin meaning “divine warning,” connecting this to not only the way that the authors Shelley, Stoker, and Wells used the monstrous characters in the stories they wrote but the way those stories are reimagined for various other media and time periods. The Birth of Cinema makes a clear distinction between what does and does not qualify as a monster, stating that monsters have to be displayed, are a warning that lessons can be learned from.

The idea being that the threat of the monster is a tool to govern and encourage people to behave in ways the community sees as morally and ethically good. For example, Frankenstein, is a lesson in the negative outcomes to defying God and trying to upset the natural order, something of great concern when the novels were written in the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century, or the period between 1800 and 1899 according to “Decade by Decade Timeline of the 1800s” on ThoughtCo.com, has similar themes to those that tinge society today. The Victoria era in particular, described as 1837-1901 is one of quote-“expanding horizons of education and literacy, as well as by an increased desire of the people to question religion and politics,” from British Literature Wiki.

...the first horror movie monsters originated in England aside from all being published in the 1800’s. Despite Mary Shelley’s novel being published a whopping 79 years prior to both Stoker’s and Well’s own monster creations Count Dracula is regarded as the character with the most adaptations of all time. From Guinness World Record’s website the character Count Dracula from Bram Stoker’s novel had been portrayed in 538 films as of August 2015 with the closest literary character being Sherlock Holmes created by Arthur Conan Doyle appearing in 299 films.

Not only is Dracula the most portrayed character but in addition Bela Lugosi’s Count Dracula from the 1931 film is often cited and praised as a key and iconic horror character portrayal that sparked countless others. Despite the image of Dracula being that of Lugosi's, the actual appearance in the book is more similar to that of Nosferatu when utilizing his vampire abilities than a charming, intense but handsome gentleman with a cape and painfully slow advance on prey. Frankenstein is the only character I’d have thought to be most common if Dracula hadn't become synonymous with horror.

It’s a perfect tale in part due to its creation during the Year Without a Summer during 1816, in Geneva, Switzerland. Inspired in large part by the ideas at the time surrounding death, women’s place in the world, science, and the nature of life in combination with a challenge issued to a group of friends spending their summer stuck inside reading German ghost stories.

John Polidori, another friend in the same group, would write and publish a short story titled The Vampyre in 1819, about fears surrounding “corrupt aristocracy” according to From Monsters to Victims: Vampires and Their Cultural Evolution from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century by Caitlyn Orlomoski with the University of Connecticut. The idea that monsters could hide among those with status, money, and influence became a theme amongst the Universal Monster movies of this time. Orlomoski also states that this is the first portrayal of a vampire as a gentleman or nobleman, a way to depict vampires which is later replicated in the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker.

While Shelley’s novel started with more intellectually and creatively pure intentions, Stoker’s on the other hand is the 7th book published by the author whose friends claimed he only wrote for money but not seeking fame as a writer; rather he worked in the theatre and sought success in his career there. The themes of the 19th century had persisted throughout the decades and the anxieties surrounding change and the perceived threat from that change, although different, can still be felt in Dracula as much as Frankenstein.

...supernatural, delving into religion as a weapon against the undead whereas Frankenstein is mostly scientific with hints of supernatural elements when it comes to the origin of life, and the question of morality surrounding our actions and divine responsibility for those actions. In a same-but-different-font situation these books’ themes embody the tension and trends in society at the time. Both are considered to be Gothic fiction of the romantic period. One of the definitions of the word “romantic” is “of, characterized, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality” from Oxford Languages. All three monsters’ stories have romantic tones and the three are based on literature generated from novels considered to be part of the Romantic, Neo-romantic and Gothic movements.

The Romantic Movement is described as artistic and intellectual lean of literature, art, music, etc. from 1790 through 1850 on Britannica’s Arts & Culture page dedicated to Romanticism. Originating in Europe, the movement is marked by individualism, awe for the mysteries of life and introspection to name a few. The New York Public Library article “A Brief History of Gothic Horror” by Amanda Pagan describes gothic fiction as a subgenre typically featuring morality, philosophy, and religion. Pagan also writes that the endings are not always considered good and cites Mary Shelley’s work as a shift in the genre—a switch to the human reflection in the villain.

the Wolf Man monster is solely studio created and reflects the sentiment of the studio and Hollywood at the time looking to create commercial successes. Much of the character’s struggles have to do with human nature, what lies beneath a man’s societal exterior. Man as himself is the problem, amplified to deadly levels by the werewolf curse, acquired from surviving the bite of a werewolf. At the hands of one man another meets his own destruction and that same motif plays out in most of the Universal Wolf Man portrayals.

By the time The Wolf Man premiered in 1941 the studio is extremely different, in the clutches of being approved for Hay’s Code compliance certificates in order to play in most theaters and a necessary Supreme Court decision that required the Big 5 studios in Hollywood, which Universal hadn’t been a part of, to address their monopolization of the film industry. Universal Monster films associated with the earlier part of that time period gone over in this video include Dracula and Frankenstein 1931, Werewolf of London in 1933, Bride of Frankenstein 1935, Dracula’s Daughter 1936, and later on The Son of Frankenstein which released in 1939.

Despite the horror films being a product of the Laemmle reign of Universal Pictures they’d proven to be commercially successful and continued into the 40’s and even 50’s with the Count Dracula films Son of Dracula 1943, House of Frankenstein 1944, House of Dracula 1945, the Frankenstein movies The Ghost of Frankenstein 1942, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man 1943, The Curse of Frankenstein 1957, The Revenge of Frankenstein 195, and Wolf Man movies with the character Larry Talbot including The Wolf Man 1941, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman 1943, House of Frankenstein 1944, and House of Dracula 1945.

All of the movies mentioned so far will be gone over in this video with a brief review of each. A lot has changed since the 1930’s and 40’s but the attraction to the darker side is a prevalent theme in all Universal Monster movies and that more gloomy and shadowy tilt to the world mirrors sentiments of the 2020’s just like they did in the past. Obviously with hindsight we can assess some of those quote-unquote “lessons” as self-serving creations. Many of them, like female sexuality leading to societal collapse, or homosexuality being the ultimate sin, to be based on certain people’s beliefs rather than universally held truths about humanity. Despite how they are sometimes portrayed to be.