31 Days of Halloween Day 8: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
October 10th 2010 19:44
I have to admit, I never read the book, possibly because, when I was younger, I never felt I had to. Frankenstein's monster (NOT Frankenstein), is such an iconic character, that I grew up knowing exactly who he was and how he was created, so I felt like reading the book would just be somebody telling me something I already knew.
It's a shame I didn't, because, after doing a little research, it turns out that this retelling is the most faithful to the book of all its movie adaptations. Almost everything that occurs in the book is portrayed in the movie, and in the exact same sequence, as if Mary Shelley had written the screenplay herself.
Victor Frankenstein (the eminent Kenneth Branagh, who also directed), is a gifted scientist, and by modern standards would probably be a surgeon or a pathologist. His interest in the chemical processes of the decaying of organic tissue stir up a curiosity about using alchemy to cheat mortality. Bolstered by the recent death of his mother during childbirth, and that of his mentor Professor Waldman (John Cleese), he vows to take up the latter's abandoned research concerning...human reanimation. Which is pretty much what it sounds like.
He throws himself into his work, and refuses to stop even when a cholera outbreak drives several people out of town. When his comely stepsister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) begs him to leave with her so that they may be married (don't worry, it's not weird), he refuses, stating that his work "must come first", and will not even divulge to her the nature of his work. Rather than that be a lesson to her about his priorities (and sanity), she promises to stay and help in any way she can.
We get the great "It's alive!" payoff scene with all the ghoulish enthusiasm we could hope for, but Victor's eureka/euphoria moment is suddenly mashed into a damp squib as he realizes exactly what he's created: something unnatural, not human, and, quite simply, an abomination.
Played by Robert DeNiro, he cuts a truly menacing figure, not least because of his height, but also due to the sheer horror his appearance elicits. Now that a Frankenstein movie has been made since the invention of prosthetics, we can see not only a faithful retelling of Shelley's tale, but add some dirty, Victorian realism into the brutality of how the monster is created. Deep, black, thick stitches crudely connect every limb and appendage, and several run across his face, bringing out the colours of both of his eyes. He literally looks like several pieces of different corpses just stitched together, and the result is truly grotesque.
Immediately after being "born", he realises that he has been abandoned, and sets out into the world (nicking some of his dad's clothes). He tries to befriend a family, but with disastrous results, and upon discovering Victor's journal in his coat pocket, learns to read, and discerns the truth about his birth. Like most Freudian nightmares, he places the blame for his strife squarely with his father, and, after torching that family's home, returns to demand a mate from him. Victor, meanwhile, had completely forgotten about the monster, and had happily married Elizabeth. This is where things take a very grim turn, and the film's final act is both tragic and macabre.
The core of the troubles depicted in this movie is extremely human, monster or no monster. Nobody in this movie is capable of being happy. Victor, who never recovered from his mother's death, has thrown himself into his arrogance that playing God affords him; and both Elizabeth and the monster looked to him for their own happiness, which he cannot provide.
With that in mind, the plight of each character would have benefited from much deeper character development, as the movie suffers under the weight of its own ambition to cross into blockbuster territory by eschewing gritty drama for empty chase scenes. However, if we had not had the calibre of acting from the film's main three, the results would have been very different entirely. Each are more than capable in their own roles, but movie appears to be split into two halves - one showing Victor's perspective, the other the monster's - but neither join to one cohesive narrative, and instead robs each of a little bit of emotional impact.
As a result, both Frankenstein and his monster appear to be a bit one-dimensional.The long closeups of the monster's truly heartbreaking sobs should be tugging at our heartstrings, but it becomes difficult to sympathise with his conflict if his key scenes were ineffective. The monster is essentially an abandoned child or an unloved, ill-treated attack dog, and an empty book, which of course can be dangerous, so it is disappointing that a movie depicting a man of science does not explore the "nature vs nurture" argument at all. This film could have been much darker, and much more harrowing, if the screen time had been extended slightly to allow better scenes showcasing the monster's emotional struggle. But, that aside, this makes for a compelling watch, but certain scenes are not for the squeamish.
It's a shame I didn't, because, after doing a little research, it turns out that this retelling is the most faithful to the book of all its movie adaptations. Almost everything that occurs in the book is portrayed in the movie, and in the exact same sequence, as if Mary Shelley had written the screenplay herself.
Victor Frankenstein (the eminent Kenneth Branagh, who also directed), is a gifted scientist, and by modern standards would probably be a surgeon or a pathologist. His interest in the chemical processes of the decaying of organic tissue stir up a curiosity about using alchemy to cheat mortality. Bolstered by the recent death of his mother during childbirth, and that of his mentor Professor Waldman (John Cleese), he vows to take up the latter's abandoned research concerning...human reanimation. Which is pretty much what it sounds like.
He throws himself into his work, and refuses to stop even when a cholera outbreak drives several people out of town. When his comely stepsister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) begs him to leave with her so that they may be married (don't worry, it's not weird), he refuses, stating that his work "must come first", and will not even divulge to her the nature of his work. Rather than that be a lesson to her about his priorities (and sanity), she promises to stay and help in any way she can.
We get the great "It's alive!" payoff scene with all the ghoulish enthusiasm we could hope for, but Victor's eureka/euphoria moment is suddenly mashed into a damp squib as he realizes exactly what he's created: something unnatural, not human, and, quite simply, an abomination.
Played by Robert DeNiro, he cuts a truly menacing figure, not least because of his height, but also due to the sheer horror his appearance elicits. Now that a Frankenstein movie has been made since the invention of prosthetics, we can see not only a faithful retelling of Shelley's tale, but add some dirty, Victorian realism into the brutality of how the monster is created. Deep, black, thick stitches crudely connect every limb and appendage, and several run across his face, bringing out the colours of both of his eyes. He literally looks like several pieces of different corpses just stitched together, and the result is truly grotesque.
Immediately after being "born", he realises that he has been abandoned, and sets out into the world (nicking some of his dad's clothes). He tries to befriend a family, but with disastrous results, and upon discovering Victor's journal in his coat pocket, learns to read, and discerns the truth about his birth. Like most Freudian nightmares, he places the blame for his strife squarely with his father, and, after torching that family's home, returns to demand a mate from him. Victor, meanwhile, had completely forgotten about the monster, and had happily married Elizabeth. This is where things take a very grim turn, and the film's final act is both tragic and macabre.
The core of the troubles depicted in this movie is extremely human, monster or no monster. Nobody in this movie is capable of being happy. Victor, who never recovered from his mother's death, has thrown himself into his arrogance that playing God affords him; and both Elizabeth and the monster looked to him for their own happiness, which he cannot provide.
With that in mind, the plight of each character would have benefited from much deeper character development, as the movie suffers under the weight of its own ambition to cross into blockbuster territory by eschewing gritty drama for empty chase scenes. However, if we had not had the calibre of acting from the film's main three, the results would have been very different entirely. Each are more than capable in their own roles, but movie appears to be split into two halves - one showing Victor's perspective, the other the monster's - but neither join to one cohesive narrative, and instead robs each of a little bit of emotional impact.
As a result, both Frankenstein and his monster appear to be a bit one-dimensional.The long closeups of the monster's truly heartbreaking sobs should be tugging at our heartstrings, but it becomes difficult to sympathise with his conflict if his key scenes were ineffective. The monster is essentially an abandoned child or an unloved, ill-treated attack dog, and an empty book, which of course can be dangerous, so it is disappointing that a movie depicting a man of science does not explore the "nature vs nurture" argument at all. This film could have been much darker, and much more harrowing, if the screen time had been extended slightly to allow better scenes showcasing the monster's emotional struggle. But, that aside, this makes for a compelling watch, but certain scenes are not for the squeamish.
| 132 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I didn't like De Niro cast as the monster, too well known, despite being under all that make-up. And I can't stand Kenneth Branagh, so that didn't help.
I reviewed the movie here.
Comment by Spring-Heeled Jack
Over.Exposure
For a much more faithful adaptation, see this review of the Hallmark miniseries I did a while ago.
Comment by The Film Geekette
The Film Geekette
I've only ever walked out of the cinema once, and that was because I cracked my tooth on some dodgy popcorn. It had absolutely nothing to do with how crap Lost in Space was.
Comment by Sim1
Fish on Film
The Lives and Souls of Bella-Mae
I'm sad to see that people are dismissing it here in the comments and calling it a 'tawdry melodrama' etc.- what did you think it was going to be? A rom-com?
Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so it's all good.
I love this film, but then I am known for my questionable taste.
But DO read the book, there's a reason it's one of the classics. x