FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: This version of Mary Shelley's classic novel takes some chances, including actually roughly following the plot of the novel, while giving a new interpretation of the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster. That would have been a real virtue if the rest of the production was not so bland. As it is, this is a disappointingly uninvolving version of the story. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4).
Last autumn we saw Francis Ford Coppola's allegedly accurate adaptation of Bram Stoker's DRACULA. It turned out to be more faithful than some of the better version, particularly in some superficial ways, yet it transformed the story into one of Dracula trying to regain his lost love, a rather fundamental departure from the original novel. While the old monsters are popular, Ted Turner's organization has financed their version of FRANKENSTEIN, also claiming to be close to the novel. Sure enough, the basic plot and many of its twists are faithful to Mary Shelley, but producer/director/writer David Wicks has decided--like most people making film versions of FRANKENSTEIN--to make some fundamental changes to the story. Incidentally, their is one almost totally faithful film adaptation. It is a 1975 Swedish-Irish co-production called VIKTOR FRANKENSTEIN, or on television, TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN. Leon Vitali plays the doctor and Per Oscarsson is the monster. Except for one scene with a seance, it is a literal adaptation from the novel--faithful, but ponderous and dull. Wicks' FRANKENSTEIN is a little less faithful, but also only a little less dull.
The film starts accurately enough with Victor having chased the monster to the Arctic and being rescued by a ship, then telling his story as a flashback. Frankenstein, it turns out, is a great medical scholar, an exaggeration of Shelley's simple student. He uses a strange process something like an early matter duplicator to create a man. Of course, most film versions say that the monster was constructed from dead bodies, but that is a cinematic invention. Shelley is intentionally vague about how the monster is created. This creation, while unconventional, is in no way inconsistent with the novel. From there the plot followed is a rough approximation of the novel, except for the addition of a strange plot device that is really a fairly fundamental change to the story. The monster, being a sort of matter duplication of Victor, has a physical and psychic link with his creator. If the monster is wounded, Victor also gets the same wound. This transforms the story from its usual allegory of the relationship of God and Man to one of the two sides of a single person's personality, more like Jekyll and Hyde.
The film is generally a fairly lackluster adaptation. The only character with real empathy value is the monster himself, played by Randy Quaid. His makeup is a real departure from standard interpretations of the monster. With his stocky structure and his moustache-less beard, he resembles something between a troglodyte and a Scottish Highlander--with burns on his face. Again Shelley gives us little idea of what the man-made man looks like, except that he is eight feet tall--which even the large Randy Quaid cannot appear. The remainder of the cast, led by Patrick Bergin in the title role, conveys little emotion and helps to make this version bland.
John Cameron's score rarely creates much of a mood either, though its use of choral voices is somewhat unusual and lend the score much of the interest value it has. After a few good Turner productions, including a very satisfying version of TREASURE ISLAND, this FRANKENSTEIN is a disappointing and unmemorable production. (This version can be seen several times this month on TNT.) I rate it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzfs3!leeper
leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews