MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Unevenly-paced rendition of the famous horror story takes far fewer liberties than most versions, but still does not really deserve to call itself "Mary Shelley's." Kenneth Branagh has a few bizarre images worth seeing, but much of his film lacks the spark really to capture the imagination of general audiences. Fans of the story, however, will find the film rewarding. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) (This review contains spoilers for people who do not already know the plot of the original novel. I don't believe they would hurt the enjoyment of the film, but reader discretion is advised.)
The novel FRANKENSTEIN has been filmed in at least eleven previous English-language versions (listed at the end of this review). But perhaps it is more accurate to say that it has failed to be filmed for nine of those versions. Most adaptations take only an idea or two from the novel. They stitch those ideas together with ideas more from the filmmaker in attempts to infuse the story with the spark of life on the screen. The problem is that the novel has almost no visually dramatic images beyond that of the creature itself. The original novel shies away from describing in any detail the process for creation. This is in part because Frankenstein, who in the novel tells the story, does not want to give away the secret. It also worked out conveniently for the teenaged Mary Shelley, who had only a slight acquaintance with science and could not realistically describe such a process herself. As a result the novel, while exciting, is extremely non-visual. DRACULA, on the other hand, was written by a man in the theater professionally, and that horror novel is extremely dramatic visually. The treatment DRACULA has gotten at the hands of filmmakers is far more shameful since a filmmaker has much more to work with.
But in adapting FRANKENSTEIN to the screen a filmmaker is always faced with the dilemma that the more accurate a film version is to the book, the more ponderous and less dramatic the film must be. Calvin Floyd's VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN (TV title: TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN) is the only version I would call a faithful adaptation of the novel. But that film, an ambitious Swedish-Irish co-production, turned out impenetrably static and dull even for a Swedish film. Dan Curtis made a middlingly faithful version for television in 1972, and most other filmmakers have not even tried to be faithful to the book, either because of the nature of the book or because they have just been sure that they could improve on Shelley. But adapting this novel to the screen in a way that is both faithful and entertaining is a real puzzle comparable to, say, giving modern audiences something they can enjoy from Shakespearean plays like HENRY V or MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
So Kenneth Branagh has taken on the ambitious task of adapting FRANKENSTEIN to the screen in a reasonably faithful manner. Sadly, this film will not be his crowning achievement, but it is not a disaster either. People looking for excitement on the screen and people who wanted to see Shelley's novel accurately done will probably agree that this movie is just okay, but nothing great. But, in fact, Branagh has a sort of a moral victory on both fronts. He perhaps has created the second most faithful screen adaptation and still has managed to make it moderately entertaining. And fans of the horror film will find he has infused some of the most interesting and bizarre original visual images since James Whale did the 1931 version.
The script does take liberties with the original story but generally these changes show the expert hand of Frank Darabont as the co-writer. Darabont, who wrote and directed THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, has a remarkable ability to see minor strategic revisions to a story that have maximum impact in improving the resulting story. For example, modern readers of the novel are usually surprised that Frankenstein is not more concerned when his creature escapes and disappears. By the minor addition of setting the creation during a bad cholera epidemic, the script explains how Frankenstein is able to find "parts" as plentiful as he does, adds some visually exciting street scenes, and explains why Frankenstein had reasonable motivation for believing that his escaped creature will perish on his own. The epidemic is a very minor liberty which pays major dividends to the story-telling. With the exception of purists, most people should appreciate that the story works better with the change. There is a sequence toward the end of the film that is a major departure from the novel. It picks up the interest in a section of the story that would be slow and pays homage to another cinematic Frankenstein story.
Generally Branagh's style in telling the classic story is to take less dramatic scenes in the novel and to goose them up so that they are considerably more engaging in film version. For example, while the ship in the framing story just quietly gets locked by ice, the film version has an exciting scene of the ship foundering as the ice closes in on it while in the background huge icebergs rear out of the water. Time and again this film has scenes from the novel but gives them more dramatic interpretations, which is exactly what the story needed. Scenes that would normally have some dramatic impact, like the creation scene, are further energized by short quick cuts.
In fact, the creation scene is a study all by itself. The laboratory that is the setting seems strangely organic instead of mechanistic as is the case in many film versions. Mammoth bags of electric eels pulsate over the body. As we approach the instant of creation Branagh uses a frenzy of shorter and shorter cuts, then at the instant of the creation the pace changes to a long languorous shot. I assume the male readers will understand what just that particular pacing has to do with the act of creating life. It is amazing what you can do with editing. Moments later we see the creature pulled from its watery artificial womb amid a torrent of spilling fluid, again a very powerful birth image. The laboratory mechanisms are as bizarre for us today as Kenneth Strickfaden's electrical gizmos and Jack Pierce's neck bolts must have been to 1931 audiences. Whatever faults the film might have, and it certainly has them, the creation sequence makes up for.
The set design is often sumptuous. Much of what we see of Frankenstein's palatial family home takes place in a huge front hall dominated by a mammoth stairway that is at once both beautiful and dangerous-looking, another very symbolic image. Street scenes have a realistic feel.
Some of the script touches seem not well thought-out. It is tempting to say these touches were made after Darabont's work since they seem uncharacteristic of the care he seems to take with a script, but of course there is no way to tell for sure. At one point Frankenstein writes in his journal that in the morning he will destroy this journal. So why is he bothering to write? Did he have a surfeit of ink? In another sequence Frankenstein is standing in the middle of his home's enormous empty front lawn. He turns to the house, but from nowhere we see the previously undetected creature reach out his hand and grab Frankenstein. What did he do, burrow up from underground? Hoe do you sneak up on someone standing in an open field?
Most film versions interpret the creature as a sort of zombie--the resurrected dead. Shelley saw the creature more as a baby in the artificially-created body of a large and powerful man. Branagh really gives the creature both aspects and walks a tightrope between them, much as the Karloff films did. The creature sees the world with fresh eyes, but can draw on memories of a former life. Branagh's version has Frankenstein initially inspired by the wish to bring his mother back from the dead, so he himself thinks of his work as resurrection as much as it is creation. In another departure in interpretation, Shelley's creature was powerfully strong, but only humanly so. Branagh's version chooses to give him superhuman strength. Most film versions do this, of course, but VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN and the Dan Curtis version do not.
As Frankenstein, Branagh is intense and angry. Unlike the moody Colin Clive or even Peter Cushing, Branagh is vital and alive in the role. Top billing goes to Robert De Niro as the creature. It is a casting decision that I still do not understand, unless it was a role that De Niro himself was anxious to play. I do not think it is as hard to play the creature well as most people think it is. I have always contended that it takes far more acting talent to play believably a Georgia cotton farmer than to play Frankenstein's creature. The creature should have some humanity, but also some feel of being alien. But as long as an actor gives him that, not much else he can do with the role can be wrong. The creature needs imposing physically--which De Niro is not--and beyond that just has to be a good creative actor. Except for stature problems De Niro is fine in the role, but is over- qualified for the role that should have gone to encourage the career of promising but less recognized actor. The surprise of the film is John Cleese in a rare serious role. He is terrific as an aging scientist who could have created life himself but who lacked the final spark of courage. His Dr. Waldman is a man broken by his own cowardice at taking that one last step (at least that is my interpretation). His is the most interesting character in the film, ironically. Helena Bonham-Carter is her usual pouty character as Elizabeth. Tom Hulce is just a little too naughty-schoolboy-ish to play Henry Clerval.
This interpretation does not always work, but at its best it is a vital interpretation of the Shelley book. I would have to give Branagh's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Previous film English language versions with the actor who played the creature:
- FRANKENSTEIN (1910)--Charles Ogle - LIFE WITHOUT SOUL (1915)--Percy Darrell Standing (I have not seen it) - FRANKENSTEIN (1931)--Boris Karloff - CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)--Christopher Lee - HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970)--David Prowse - FRANKENSTEIN (1972)--Bo Svenson - FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1974)--Michael Sarazan - ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN (1974)--Carlo Mancini - VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN (a.k.a TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN) (1975)--Per Oscarsen - FRANKENSTEIN (1984)--David Warner - FRANKENSTEIN (1993)--Randy Quaid
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@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