It's Always the Witching Hour Here

Yeah! I think that, while gender is absolutely a lens that The Bride! should be analyzed from, I think it falls apart when you approach Ida's/The Bride's relationship with Frank because of the lack of autonomy that she has in that relationship in a lot of ways. But I've only watched it once, so there's a lot more I want to chew on there. (And I also love looking at Frankenstein films, even non-Bride ones, from a gender perspective, so I'm glad to be in good company here!)

(Spoiler alert for The Bride! going forward. I'm going to be analyzing the plot from beginning to end, so there's going to be major plot spoilers in this for anyone who hasn't seen it.)

(I'm also going to give a disclaimer that it's been a few months since I've watched this movie, so there may be elements that I'm forgetting or misremembering, so it's not a perfect analysis by any means. I'm just trying to hit on the major points I was thinking about during my viewing).

What struck me as more present in the film, in a lot of ways, and especially if you want to view Ida/The Bride and Frank's relationship as a positive one (which I think the movie ultimately wants you to), is a disability reading, particularly through the lens of Mad studies and trauma studies.

Ida, from the beginning of the film, is positioned as Mad. She hears a voice, which causes her to involuntarily speak and move, which endangers her, particularly through her speaking out against the mob boss. This is an actively disabling condition for Ida; it disorients her and impacts her memory. She is then killed for her Otherness, for her status as Mad. (And yes, this also intersects with the way she is being punished for being a woman who is speaking out. Madness is often ascribed to nonconforming women, so these work hand-in-hand with each other).

Arguably, Ida obtains this condition through the trauma she experiences during the case, watching women be brutally murdered and the stress of being undercover. PTSD is, of course, a very disabling condition, impacting behavior and memory, and I think it's not a far stretch to read her as a traumatized character whose PTSD then places her in even more traumatic situations.

Ida is then resurrected without her consent (the lack of medical autonomy that women and disabled people face) and lied to about her condition, in part to keep her from being distressed about her condition (again, something that people who undergo treatment for mental conditions often experience), and in the other part to push her into playing the role of Frank's fiancee.

Ida/The Bride then goes through the rest of the movie as a visibly disabled Other, both through the staining around her mouth (the marker of her resurrection and status as undead, which is technically a medical condition, though whether disabling or not is up for debate) and the leg brace she wears to be able to walk. She struggles to gain autonomy from Dr. Euphronious and later from Frank (and arguably from the system that treats Ida/The Bride and Frank as criminals, among other things), who treat her both as 'fragile' from her condition and as something Frank has earned through his suffering.

Okay, so these all have to do with both gender and disability. So, why do I favor approaching this movie from a disability perspective? The answer to that is Frank.

Frank is also positioned as disabled. He is a visible Other (the markers of his resurrection and status as undead), and he also is implied to have a mental condition as well. (I argue that Frank is autistic, as are many iterations of the Creature before him. If you look at his difficulty understanding other's emotional states, his narrow interests, his difficulty with emotional regulation, and his need for routine, Frank reads as autistic. But! That's also something that I've been studying in Frankenstein adaptations, so it's something I'm always looking for.) He's also traumatized from his own experiences post-resurrection, though we don't see it disabling him quite as much as Ida's trauma does to her.

Part of the reason why Ida/The Bride and Frank's relationship ends up being an ultimately positive for the two of them is that they are the only ones who view each other as full people; not damaged people or inhuman, but as complete beings (as much as any of us can be 'complete' or 'whole') who are deserving of full personhood. Of course, this is not the case from the beginning, since Frank denies her full autonomy by lying to her (and thus her relationship is not consensual because she lacks the ability to give informed consent).

However, once Ida/The Bride realizes the truth and holds Frank accountable for his behavior, Ida is able to make an informed decision about her relationship with him. When he is shot and killed, she is desperate to save him, because even after finding out he lied to her, she does love him. She begs Dr. Euphronious to save him, and after Ida/The Bride is also killed, when we see them hold hands upon re-resurrection, it's a celebratory and empowering moment for both of them.

I don't think this ending works through a gender studies lens. We don't get enough of him repenting and changing to warrant them ending up together happily if we consider that he, as a man, has treated her like an object, like someone who doesn't deserve autonomy. Why should she forgive him for that? (Quite frankly, I don't think she should!)

However, if we view it through a disability lens, I think this ending is not only sweet, but also empowering. She forgives him because they understand each other and view each other as equals (and I think that she understands that, to some degree, his decision to lie to her is motivated by the isolation he experiences as a disabled individual; this also helps the audience forgive Frank for his actions). They don't view the other as lesser for their conditions. They don't have the same mental conditions (whatever they may be; I'm not going to diagnose fictional characters for a number of reasons), but they understand each other because they understand the way that the other has been dehumanized. And they even learn to better understand the other's needs over time; she learns to be understanding about his need for routine and his struggle to be vulnerable, and he learns to be understanding about her outbursts and the mood fluctuations that often accompany them. They demonstrate quite a bit of solidarity for each other despite being very different in a lot of ways. It's that solidarity that I think is the foundation of their connection, and when emphasizing that element, I think their relationship really works.

I also think that, through a disability lens, the ending is empowering because they are essentially using their disability (being undead and easily re-resurrected) to overcome, in a rather unique way, the oppression that they face as Others.