In the mid-1960s–at almost the same moment that the movie The Agony and the Ecstasy was released–a somewhat different motion picture came to the silver screen. The movie I’m talking about did not star Charleston Heston or Rex Harrison (as The Agony and the Ecstasy did), but instead it starred a lanky actor by the name of Fred Gwynne. Yes, I’m talking about Munster Go Home.
Munster Go Home capitalized on the popularity of the sitcom, The Munsters. Gwynne played a lovable Frankenstein’s Monster who headed a household of monsters that considered itself to be the typical mid-century American family. The TV show got pretty good ratings, and was even nominated for a Golden Globe(!) It was pretty saccharine, but what sitcom wasn’t in those days? True story: In grammar school, the teacher asked me and my classmates to name our favorite shows. I said “The Monsters,” because I naturally assumed that the TV advertisements were mispronouncing the name. I was laughed out of the room.
Anyway, I tell you all this because in my ongoing quest to find interesting Halloween libations for this month’s project, I happened across two Munsters-themed drinks: The Herman (named after Herman Munster, obviously) and The Lily (named after Herman’s vampire wife).
So what are we waiting for? Let’s get to it!
The recipe: Both the Herman and the Lily are heavily based on Chartreuse–a potent liqueur that clocks in at 110 proof. The color of Chartreuse is….hmmmm, I’m trying to think of just the right descriptive word for it. I’m sure it will come to me.
Meanwhile, the recipes are as follows:
The Herman
Add 1.75 ounces Green Chartreuse, 1.25 ounce Creme de Cocoa, 1 ounce fresh lemon juice (strained), and 1 egg white (strained) into an empty cocktail shaker and use the “dry shake” method (without ice) to emulsify the egg white. Add ice and shake until the sides of the shaker form frost. Dip one side of a chilled glass in lemon juice and roll in cocoa powder. Use a Hawthorne strainer to pour the drink over a mesh sieve, and into the chilled glass.
OK–that’s pretty fussy. The Lily is similar but even a bit more fussy:
Combine 1.5 ounces Green Chartreuse, 1 ounce Creme de Cocoa, 0.75 ounce fresh lemon juice (strained), 0.75 ounce raspberry puree (strained), and 1 egg white (strained) into an empty cocktail shaker and “dry shake.” Add ice and shake until the sides of the shaker form frost. Pour it into the same cocoa-powered glass as with the Herman.
What could go wrong?
The Ratings: Here’s where the Agony and the Ecstasy reference surfaces. The Ecstasy is my joy in finding such a cool pair of drinks, based on a campy, cult television show, that remind me of my childhood and look really cool. I mean, look at the pictures from the online recipe!
Herman on the right, Lily on the left.
The agony is how they turned out in reality. I made the Herman first, and its appearance is, frank(enstein)ly, nothing like the recipe picture. The green of the chartreuse was completely obliterated by the creme de cacao, and perhaps also by the lemon juice and egg.
As green as the Mojave in August.
Now, the whole point of this drink is a rich, thick, green appearance, kind of like a Shamrock Shake. As you can see from the photo, my version is the color of turkey gravy.
Now, the only source of the supposed green appearance is the Chartreuse, which doesn’t look up to the task. Here’s a pic of my bottle:
Not exactly up to Fred Gwynne’s standards.
As you can see, the liqueur is too yellowish, and is easily overwhelmed by the other ingredients. The result is an unappealing drink distinguished only by its ugly color. So, I can’t give the appearance of this drink anything more than one point. It’s not appetizing, it doesn’t evoke Herman Munster, and it’s kind of watery.
Now, if you thought the appearance was bad, let me tell you about the taste. It’s true I’ll drink anything (especially when I’ve invested $33 for a small bottle of Chartreuse), but I immediately regretted that action. (My wife literally spit out her sip into her hand–I’m not making this up.) This drink tasted foul. I should emphasize that I faithfully followed the recipe, with its “dry shaking” and straining and chilled glass and whatnot. I was expecting something rich and creamy and sweet, given the presence of creme de cacao and egg white. But the lemon juice (one full ounce of it!) dominated the drink. The Herman has a distinctly sour taste, which fights against the cocoa on the side of the glass. It reminds me of a granite counter cleaner that’s been churched up with yak’s spit.
Just for yuks (literally), I tried making it again without the lemon juice. Sadly, this was no better. Trying to isolate the issue, I tried a small sip of the key ingredient (Chartreuse) by itself. Ah, this was the problem. I’d never tried Chartreuse before, and I never plan to have it again. Now, I’m told that Chartreuse is made up of 130 different herbs and other plants (cinnamon, mace, hyssop, peppermint…), that the recipe goes back to the 17th century, that it’s produced by French monks, etc, etc. And maybe all that’s true. But it doesn’t change the fact that it tastes like Altoids dissolved in mid-grade gasoline.
Anyway, the taste of this drink scores a solid zero points.
As for the name: I guess “Herman” is kind of cute. I’ll give it the two points. Whatever.
Grand Total: 3 points.
By the way: I did try making the Lily, and it was slightly better. The raspberries improved the flavor and the appearance. I’ll give the Lily a grand total of 5 points.
My version of the Lily. Nothing to write home about, but at least it’s not the Herman.
Well, here we are at the last day of the month. I’ve slogged through 31 Frankenstein movies, a few of which were actually good. But all things must come to an end, and today’s will be my last FrankenPost. I’ll provide my final Frankenstein movie review; I’ll make some summary observations about Frankenstein’s continued presence in cinema; I’ll list my top five movies; and I’ll end with a few Frankenstein cartoons that have been sent in by loyal readers. Here we go!
“1-Adam 12, see the man in the old castle about an escaped homicidal monster.”
Our final Frankenstein portrayal is “Lizard’s Leg and Owlet’s Wing,” which was a Halloween episode of the TV series Route 66. For those of you not familiar with the show, it was an anthology series that ran on ABC in the early 1960s. Each week two buddies (played by Martin Milner [who’d later star on Adam 12] and George Maharis [who went on to pose nude in Playgirl in 1973]) would drive their Chevy Corvette to another town, where the episode would center on one or more guest stars in some minor plot contrivance.
But what’s especially notable about this particular episode is that it includes the fourth and final time that Boris Karloff appeared as Frankenstein’s monster. You’ll recall that the first three times were for Universal’s Frankenstein movies from the 1930s. This episode aired in 1962.
I consider this episode to be a special treat, strictly for Karloff’s presence. He was 75 at the time this was filmed, and would die seven years later–just a few months after he narrated “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.”
As I see it, you can’t think of Frankenstein without thinking about Boris Karloff. So it’s a rare gift to be able to see him once again in the iconic Jack Pierce makeup for a final outing as Frankenstein’s monster.
The episode is available for free on YouTube. Karloff appears throughout the show, but he dons the Frankenstein makeup around the 51 minute mark.
The Plot: As a story, this episode sucks. It’s contrived and cringe-worthy in many ways. But it had a fun premise for a Halloween episode, bringing together three horror actors from a bygone era: Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and Peter Lorre. The tissue-paper-thin plot meant to justify this assemblage was that the three aging actors are putting together a new horror series on television. But they disagree over whether it should feature the old monsters (as Lorre and Chaney insist), or whether they should jump on a more modern bandwagon and feature space creatures and such (which is Karloff’s preference). As the individual actors live in England, New York, and Los Angeles, they decide to meet up at the O’Hare Inn in Chicago to discuss the matter further and come to an agreement.
Ah, yes, Lon! Any sign of a plot?
Of course, the O’Hare Inn turns out to be the same hotel where Martin Milner and George Maharis have arrived to work as guest liaisons. (Why or how that happened beats me.) That leads to some corny and very 1960s subplots where Maharis is assigned to assist a convention of 40 female executive secretaries, and Milner keeps bugging him to “share” some of the girls with him. Meanwhile, Karloff, Chaney, and Lorre decide to test the relevance of their old monster personas by donning the classic makeup and seeing how the secretaries at the hotel react. After some more tedious subplots, the actors appear in costume and the secretaries faint from the sight of Lon Chaney’s Wolfman and Boris Karloff’s Frankenstein. (Peter Lorre seems to just be himself, and there’s a running joke that the women faint at the sight of him as well.)
I told you it sucks as a story line.
The Monster: It’s Boris Karloff, back in his old makeup. It’s not scary, but rather quite a bit like seeing an old friend! Well, an old friend who’s constructed out of corpse parts.
Stand aside for the master monster
I do think that Karloff (as well as Chaney) are wearing rubber masks rather than the painstaking makeup treatment that Universal used to apply. But it’s still fun to see them in character, as it were.
Karloff appears as the monster for only a minute or two. So I won’t hold it against you if you just fast-forward to that point of the show.
The Atmosphere: The atmosphere is very early-1960s…which is creepy in its own way. Practically the whole episode is filmed on location at the O’Hare Inn.
Can’t you just hear the Mantovani music in the lounge?…and it still seems to be around today (or at least some iteration of it).
General Comments: This is a period piece, for the 1960’s Chicago hotel, the Cro-magnon social attitudes, the breezy and semi-pointless television show, and of course for the swan song of the three horror icons. It’s these points, rather than the story, that makes this an entertaining show.
Peter Lorre would die of a stroke a year and a half after this episode aired. Boris Karloff would die 5 years after that. And Lon Chaney would be gone 4 years after that, in 1973. So ends the golden age of classic monsters.
FRANKENSTEIN IN CINEMA
As we’ve seen, movie makers are still mining Mary Shelley’s story for new portrayals of Frankenstein and his creature. Even though the story is often (but by no means always) set in the 19th century, there’s something timeless about the theme of medical science trying to create life. In part it’s a cautionary tale about what can happen when we try to play God. What’s more, the Frankenstein myth also lends itself to an exploration of how we react to an ugliness and beauty. It is of course notable that only children and a blind man accept Frankenstein’s creature at face value (as it were).
And there’s another, even more interesting level to the Frankenstein story, and it involves the feelings of the creature himself. Even though he might not be human, and might not have a soul, his anguish, sadness, delight, and confusion help us to understand ourselves and the human condition. There’s something universal about this. Ironically, it’s by stripping away the veneer of humanity that Frankenstein’s monster exposes truths about ourselves.
So I’d expect there to be more Frankenstein movies in the future. Meanwhile, if you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend you read the book. And you might also want to watch (or re-watch) some of my top Frankenstein movie picks. Below I’ve listed the 31 movies I reviewed this month, and I’ve highlighted my five top favorites.
Buddy movie with Dr. Frankenstein and Harry Potter
Route 66
1962
You’re reading the post right now!
Last film appearance of Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s monster
TOP FIVE
Her’es the rationale behind my top five picks. Note that they are NOT rank-ordered; I consider them all to be in the top five, without distinction.
Frankenstein (1931): How could I not include this one? It’s the first full-length Frankenstein movie, and as such it came to set the mold for all future Frankenstein movies. It’s iconic, having hugely influenced the way that we think about Frankenstein’s monster to this day.
Young Frankenstein (1974): It’s simply a masterpiece, having captured the look, feel, and many of the tropes from Universal’s Frankenstein films, and then gently, reverentially, and lovingly satirizing them. The movie holds together as a story, and humor holds up surprisingly well after almost 50 years! I know a lot of people for whom this is the only Frankenstein movie they’ve seen. But I think you’re missing half the fun if you haven’t first watched Boris Karloff’s three Frankenstein movies.
Revenge of Frankenstein (1958). Peter Cushing and Hammer breathed new life (sorry) into the Frankenstein story. They focused on Victor Frankenstein, who turned out to be far scarier and more interesting than the creature from prior movies. Cushing is the next name in Frankenstein, after Karloff.
Frankenstein: The True Story (1973). OK, so it’s not really the true story. But this movie is engaging, fun, frightening, and at times stirring. Plus, the acting and sets are consistently impressive. Not bad for a made-for-TV movie.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994). This one has an advantage with its 40 million dollar budget. Its sets, costumes, effects, and (most of its) actors are the best that money can buy. But for me, Robert De Niro makes the movie. His portrayal of the creature is riveting and tragic.
So, there you go! Let me know your favorite film from the month
FRANKENFUNNIES
Several of you sent in Frankenstein comics that have appeared over the past month. Here is a sampling:
Contributed separately by Jonathan C. and Victor R.Contributed by Victor R.Contributed by Jeremy T.Contributed by Harvey N.
FINALLY…
I hope you’ve enjoyed this year’s Halloween blog posts. I hope you all enjoy the Halloween holiday tonight, to the extent that CDC guidelines will allow.
I now return this blog to the service of my road trips.
The year 2015 was the last time I watched a Frankenstein movie in the theater. It was when I watched Victor Frankenstein with my brother Dave at the Tower Theater in Sacramento. The only reason I didn’t walk out was because I would have had to wake the person seated next to me.
But let’s review this fairly recent entry in the Frankenstein pantheon.
The Plot: This is essentially a buddy movie, with Victor Frankenstein (the forgettable James McAvoy) and Igor (Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame). Victor is pursuing experiments in resurrecting life, while Igor is a hunchbacked circus performer whom Victor takes under his wing. The two of them work together on Victor’s experiments, which climax in a horrific creation of a living human created from corpses. There’s a subplot, where Igor’s girlfriend, Lorelei (the same name of Marilyn Monroe’s character in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, by the way) objects to Victor’s experiments. (It should be obvious that none of this has anything to do with Mary Shelley’s book.)
“Always.”
But wait! Victor’s proto-Nazi classmate, Finnegan, is intrigued by Victor’s experiments and wants for him to create a race of supermen. (Sound familiar?) Finnegan supplies Victor with a laboratory and funding to create this super being (named “Prometheus,” in an obvious reference to Shelley’s subtitle). Finnegan plans to weaponize the new creature, a motivation which Igor has divined. So Finnegan attempts to murder Igor, though he survives.
Seig Heil.
Victor manages to create Prometheus, and the process unintentionally kills Finnegan. The creature (Prometheus) then kills a police inspector, and attempts to kill Victor and Igor, until they manage to kill the creature. Victor goes off to Scotland, and leaves Igor to enjoy his life with Lorelei.
The Monster: This is a true monster. But there’s no character development, no focus on its feelings or motivations. It’s just a brute. It’s just a problem to be eliminated.
Wouldn’t be out of place in the Castro district.
The creature is played by Spencer Wilding, an imposing actor who has played Darth Vader and has been in the Harry Potter series.
The Atmosphere: The atmosphere of this movie sucks. It’s why I almost walked out on the movie. The action sequences with the creature, as well as earlier scenes with Frankenstein’s reanimated monkeys, rely heavily on CGI. It’s just numbing, all this overwrought action with no meaningful storyline.
Don’t be scared; it’s just CGI.
There’s also an annoying habit of illustrating Daniel Radcliffe’s knowledge of anatomy with little schematics that keep showing up on the screen. This is another of those movies that seems to think you can compensate for a lack of engaging plot and good acting with lots of whiz-bang graphics. This is a mistaken premise.
General Comments: Even though this movie is titled “Victor Frankenstein,” it’s told from the perspective of Igor. And Igor, of course, was not a part of Shelley’s original story. This whole movie introduces motivations, plot devices, and characters that have nothing to do with Shelley’s novel. And it’s much more focused on CGI than any real story line. I can’t recommend this movie.
Tomorrow, we have our final installment of this month-long review of Frankenstein movies. I can sense your disappointment that it has to end. The final installment will be a surprise, but let’s just say that it returns to Frankenstein’s cinematic roots. I’ll also provide a listing of all the movies we’ve reviewed, and will reveal my picks for the top five Frankenstein movies.
I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong. And boy, was I wrong the other day when I called Roger Corman’s Frankenstein Unbound “quite possibly … the absolute worst Frankenstein movie ever.” I apologize profusely to Mr. Corman. His movie is friggin’ Citizen Kane compared to what I watched today. It’s now clear to me that the title of “worst Frankenstein movie ever” goes to The Frankenstein Theory.
I give you Frankenstein Unbound!
The Frankenstein Theory is one of those “found footage” movies that were all the rage for about 15 minutes after The Blair Witch Project won an award at Cannes in 1999. But this is no Blair Witch Project. I say this because The Blair Witch Project had a discernible plot.
So let’s get on with the review, so we can afterwards wash our hands of this execrable dog of a movie.
The “Plot”: In the current day (well, 2013) an expelled university student holds a theory that his great, great, great (etc) grandfather, Johann Venkenheim, was the real-life scientist on whom Mary Shelley based her book. What’s more, he believes the creature that his ancestor created is still alive, living in the Canadian north. So he assembles a small documentary film crew, and they set out to find the creature. But each member of the group is killed, until no one else is left. The end.
Hmmm. Surely there must be some point to this movie…
Seriously, that’s the whole story. Sure, a few other things happen, like the protagonist (Jonathan) has a fight with his girlfriend. And the cameraman has the hots for the documentary’s pretty director. But these have exactly zero to do with the plot, and are a waste of time.
The Monster: We never really get a good look at the monster. (The clear, well-focused image on the advertisement at the top of this blog never made it into the movie.) The clearest image we have in the movie is an eyewitness drawing that makes the creature look like the Unibomber.
We don’t even get a glimpse of the creature until the last 9 minutes or so of the film. And even then, the image is either a dark silhouette or a brief, out-of-focus shot. The creature has no speaking lines, but we do hear some off-screen grunting and howling that sound more like an animal than a humanoid monster. And it goes without saying that we learn nothing of the creature’s motivations, feelings, or history.
That’s the clearest glimpse of the monster that you’re going to get in this film.
The creature is played by Roger Morrissey, whose main claim to fame is standing 7’4″. This has earned him such notable movie roles as a stuntman on House of 1000 Corpses.
The Atmosphere: This is your standard “found footage” movie, so it’s all shaky camera work, green-tinted night footage, and poor editing. (If that’s not enough to entice you, consider the fact that there’s no real plot!)
Have we found the plot yet?
Most of the action (and I use that word loosely) takes place in a snowy Canadian wasteland (though the filming actually took place in Alaska).
The dialogue is composed of about 1/3 small talk among the crew, 1/3 whimpers and screams by crewmembers as they are being picked off by (presumably) the monster, and 1/3 F-bombs.
General Comments: Seriously, why was this movie made? The premise (that the Frankenstein story was real and the creature still exists) could conceivably drive some interesting plots. It could be a thriller where we slowly discover the cover-up that disguised the Frankenstein story as fiction, or it could be a life drama that focuses on what the creature has been doing for the past 200 years, or it could be a mystery that follows a series of deaths in the Canadian north. Or it could take any number of other approaches. But instead, all that happens is people try to find the creature and they all get killed. The characters are never really developed, so we don’t care about them. So what’s the point?
I will be happy to Venmo a refund to anyone who paid YouTube to watch this movie based on my suggestion at the end of yesterday’s blog.
Tomorrow, for the penultimate film of this month-long series, we try a slightly more recent production: Victor Frankenstein (2015). It’s available on YouTube.
FRANKELLANEOUS: The answer to yesterday’s trivia question is: The Grateful Dead’s “Ramble On Rose.” The relevant stanza in the lyrics is:
Just like crazy Otto, just like wolfman jack, Sittin’ plush with a royal flush, aces back to back. Just like Mary Shelly [sic], just like Frankenstein, Clank your chains and count your change and try to walk the line.
It was inevitable in a series of Frankenstein reviews that at some point we’d come across the name of Tim Burton. And today that happens! For Tim Burton had the bright idea of transferring the Frankenstein story to a boy and his dog. In 1984 he released a short (29 minute) live action, black and white film titled Frankenweenie. But then, almost two decades later, he re-made that same film as a full-length animated movie. And, as thoughtful, deep thinkers, we have to ask ourselves: Why??!
Normally it goes the other direction–an animated film gets the bigger-budget, live-action treatment. Like The Flintstones. Or Scooby Doo. Or Dick Tracy.
But here we have a filmmaker who makes a live-action movie, and then decides, “hey, maybe this would be better with drawings of people instead of actual people!”
In my opinion, there’s really no reason to watch the animated version. So the focus here will be on the live-action original, although I’ll point out a few aspects of the newer movie…mainly just so I can criticize it.
The Plot: Suburban kid (Victor Frankenstein) has a dog (Sparky) who is his best (and perhaps only) friend. Sadly, Sparky gets struck by a car and dies. Victor is distraught, but the next day his science teacher demonstrates how electricity can be used to get a dead frog moving again. (See where this is going?)
So Victor gets some books on creating life, secretly builds a laboratory in his attic, and goes to a very gothic-looking cemetery and digs up Sparky. He takes the dog’s body home and secretly reanimates it. It works, and Victor tries keeping his restored dog hidden in his room. But Sparky gets out and terrorizes the neighbors, and his parents figure out what has happened.
And here’s where the two versions of the movie depart. Let’s start with the 1984 live-action original: Victor’s parents (played by Shelley Duvall and Daniel Stern) are totally cool with the fact that their son has dug up and reanimated his dead dog. And they want to make sure everyone else is cool with it to. So, to quell the neighborhood uproar about a crazed monster dog on the loose, they decide to invite all the neighbors over to introduce them to the new Sparky. But after everyone arrives, there’s the predictable disaster when at the moment they are presenting Sparky he jumps out of Vincent’s arms, knocks over a lamp, and gets the whole room in an uproar.
Sparky escapes and goes to hide at an abandoned miniature golf course in the windmill…which you’ll recall is where Karloff’s monster went in the 1931 Frankenstein. (Well, I mean the windmill, not a miniature golf course.) The neighbors follow him with flashlights, which of course bring to mind the villagers’ torches in the Karloff version. One neighbor tries to shine a light into the windmill with his lighter, and accidentally sets the the thing on fire. So, we now have a full-on spoof of the 1931 Universal film.
Can you even tell which is the Tim Burton version? (It’s on the left.)
Sparky runs into the burning windmill and pulls Victor (who’d gone inside looking for him) to safety. Victor is saved, but Sparky dies from injuries sustained from the fire. The neighbors, witnessing Sparky’s bravery and Victor’s grief, have a change of heart and accept Sparky. They all band together and connect their car batteries together to create enough electricity for Victor to restore life to Sparky. It works, Sparky is revived, and kisses a poodle that has a “Bride of Frankenstein” white streak in its fur. The end.
Elsa Lanchester, eat your heart out
The 2012 animated version incomprehensibly decides instead to have all Victor’s classmates discover his secret for creating life, and they all resurrect their own pets, which become monsters that terrorize the town. It feels like the last third of the movie is just nonstop chaos as these monster pets smash cars, attack people, and create havoc, all while Danny Elfman’s usual melody-less score screeches louder and louder. Finally Victor and his friends manage to subdue and/or kill all those monsters. But Sparky is dead, and we end with the car battery scene described above.
Is this really necssary?
The Monster: Sparky is played by a bull terrier also named Sparky. For the movie, they gave him a bunch of stitches and electrodes on his neck, but he’s not scary. And he has the same, sweet disposition he had when he’d been just a normal, living dog.
This “monster” has no Angst, no murderous impulse, no issues at all. He’s just a happy pet dog. It becomes clear that the Frankenstein story loses all its interest when there’s no psychological or social problems with the creature. Plus, since Sparky is a dog, the story avoids all the metaphysical questions about souls.
Here’s Sparky from the 2012 animated version.
The Atmosphere: Filmed in black and white, this movie seems to try to honor Universal’s classic Frankenstein movies with Boris Karloff. Frankenweenie employs numerous Frankenstein tropes, but sets them in a suburban kid’s world. For example, Victor’s “mad scientist laboratory” uses bicycle cranks, Christmas decorations, kitchen appliances, a kid’s phonograph, and other household items as components.
Kenneth Strickfaden must be rolling over in his grave.
There are references to Mary Shelley, the Bride of Frankenstein, the electrical storms, grave robbing, angry villagers, and a number of other elements from prior Frankenstein portrayals.
The overall feel of this (live action) movie is sweet with gentle humor. The actors’ performances are a little cartoonish in a way that reminds me of Pee Wee’s Playhouse. But the overall effect is a charming, if not intellectually demanding, film. Kind of like an after-school special.
General Comments: I think it should be clear that I prefer the original, live-action version of this movie to its animated remake. What’s more, I can’t understand why Tim Burton felt that this new version was even necessary. It’s as though Disney decided that the brains of 21st-century kids had become so softened by incessant video game playing that they would only watch a movie with the same basic sensibilities: animated graphics, lots of violence and action, the simplest of plots, and a sneering contempt for suburbia. Do yourself a favor and watch the original. It’s worth 29 minutes of your time.
FRANKELLANEOUS:
Loyal reader Chris F. brought to our attention this awesome, short clip about cereal monsters. You have to see it to believe it. It’s totally worth another 4 minutes of your time:
Also, Ron P. offered this trivia question: In what Grateful Dead song are Mary Shelley and Frankenstein acknowledged? The answer will appear tomorrow.
Speaking of tomorrow: We will review The Frankenstein Theory. It’s available on YouTube.
Chasing Phantoms 