REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
Mark R. Leeper
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....@att.com
Ben Hoffman
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Ben Hoffman
Copyright 1994 Ben Hoffman
As Kenneth Branagh "can do no wrong" in my book, I was shaken to
find that I was dumb-struck by the poorly conceived movie I was
watching. Everything about it was bad and big and loud and a
hodge-podge. How could someone as good as Branagh direct and act in a
film so lacking in everything?
To begin with, "the monster," Robert de Niro. Why did the film
need a star of his caliber who had comparatively few lines and those
mostly mumbles. His face was as ugly and off-putting as one could
imagine, filled with oversized sutures for which a surgeon would be
arrested for botching the job.
Karloff was and looked a hundred times better. Karloff was
unknown; his first film was in 1916. Fifteen years later he had some
mild success in The Criminal Code but it was not until his Monster role
that same year in Frankenstein that he became a star. Did Branagh
choose De Niro because he wanted a "name?"
If, as Branagh says, the film is about "Love," the love he does
not give his Creation but lavishes instead on Elizabeth (Helena Bonham
Carter), he missed the mark completely. With perhaps one of the
world's most famous horror stories to work with, Branagh failed.
Tom Hulce has the role of Dr Frankenstein's friend, while John
Cleese is the doctor who first thought of creating life but gave up the
idea. Aidin Quinn and Ian Holm are also in the cast.
1.5 Bytes
4 Bytes = Absolutely must see.
3 Bytes = Too good to be missed.
2 Bytes = So so.
1 Byte = Save your money.
Ben Hoffman
Scott Renshaw
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Scott Renshaw
Copyright 1994 Scott Renshaw
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter.
Screenplay: Steph Lady and Frank Darabont.
Director: Kenneth Branagh.
In the first place, this is *not* Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN. As
iconic and thematically fascinating as Shelley's novel might be, it is
unfilmable as written, a rambling piece more notable for long
philosophical musings than for any action one would consider
cinematically ideal. No, while this version may be more faithful than
most, it is really Kenneth Branagh's FRANKENSTEIN, and therein lies its
crucial failing. While ostensibly attempting to stay close to
Shelley's often tedious narrative, Branagh is more frequently indulging
his bombastic filmmaking style, giving us the gee-whiz camera work of
DEAD AGAIN without any of that film's sense of fun.
Branagh also stars as Victor Frankenstein, the Swiss medical
student haunted by the death of his mother. Determined to find a way
to defeat death, he decides to pursue the experiments of his mentor
Dr. Waldman (John Cleese) into the re-animation of dead tissue.
Frankenstein's experiment is a success, but when he sees the creature
(Robert DeNiro) that is his handiwork, he abandons it. However, the
creature survives, escaping into the country to learn about its own
nature. When it realizes who is responsible for its existence, the
creature decides to seek vengeance, on Frankenstein and his beloved
fiancee Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter).
There are a truckload of bad decisions involved in MARY SHELLEY'S
FRANKENSTEIN, but the most glaring might be Branagh casting himself as
the good mad doctor. As talented a Shakespearean stage actor as he is,
he is also a Shakespearean stage actor on film. Victor Frankenstein is
a character defined by torment, but Branagh's version of torment often
consists of howling and tearing at his hair. The screenplay by Steph
Lady and Frank Darabont does far too little to establish the Oedipal
subtext which is the basis for Frankenstein's obsession, making
Branagh's reaction to his mother's death look comically overboard.
When nearly a full hour goes by before the creature plays a significant
role, Frankenstein's characterization needs to be developed more
consistently and subtly, and Branagh can't pull it off.
He also seems to direct that first hour without any thought of the
audience. It's true that he's dealing with a script that leap-frogs
over twenty years in the first ten minutes, but Branagh's editing
choices are baffling. The opening sequence, which takes place on a
ship in the Arctic, is so loud and fast that it borders on the
incoherent; the next twenty minutes are a crashing bore. FRANKENSTEIN
always looks impressive, particularly the mammoth stairway of the
Frankenstein manor which seems to take on a life of its own, but until
the creation sequence Branagh spends an awful lot of time doing
precious little but creating atmosphere as precociously as possible.
The creation sequence does signal a significant improvement in
FRANKENSTEIN, and that is largely due to the surprisingly expressive
performance of Robert DeNiro as the creature. Even under mounds of
gruesome latex, DeNiro gives the creature an interior life, and some of
the scenes which focus on his interaction with a peasant family are
extremely touching. But he is frequently failed by Branagh's
direction, because Branagh doesn't want to concentrate on the story's
philosophical underpinnings--he wants to film an opera. He directs
the same way someone once described Whitney Houston's singing: he
never walks when he can cartwheel.
There are moments of undeniable power in MARY SHELLEY'S
FRANKENSTEIN, including a horrifying sequence involving the creation of
a bride for the creature, and they are so strong that they almost make
up for the flotsam between them. Unfortunately, for the most part
FRANKENSTEIN the movie ends up a lot like the creature itself:
alternately lumbering and chaotic, and a patchwork mess.
On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 creatures: 5.
--
Scott Renshaw
Stanford University
Office of the General Counsel
berardinelli,james
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by James Berardinelli
Copyright 1994 James Berardinelli
Rating (0 to 10): 7.4
Date Released: 11/4/94
Running Length: 2:04
Rated: R (Violence, gore)
Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter,
Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, Richard Briers,
Robert Hardy, John Cleese
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Producers: Francis Ford Coppola, James V. Hart, and John Veitch
Screenplay: Steph Lady and Frank Darabont based on the novel by
Mary Shelly
Cinematography: Roger Pratt
Music: Patrick Doyle
Released by TriStar Pictures
"In the last 20, 30 years, [FRANKENSTEIN has] been claimed by a whole
generation of academics and scholars as a seminal piece of literature of
that time. [It's] something which now, post-Freud, they feel reveals so
many observations about family life, and incest, father-and-son
relationships, and husband and wife relationships. [FRANKENSTEIN] speaks
loudly to people, partly because it's so elusive. There's no definitive
interpretation of it--it's certainly more than just a monster story."
- Kenneth Branagh, director of MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN
During the course of more than thirty adaptations, sequels, spin-
offs, rip-offs, and spoofs, the name of "Frankenstein" has become
associated with one of the world's most recognizable movie monsters.
The creature, as typified by Boris Karloff with outstretched arms,
flat- topped head, and ubiquitous neck bolts, has met the likes of
Dracula, the Wolfman, and even Abbott and Costello. It has been played
by (among others) Charles Ogle, Karloff, Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi, Glenn
Strange, Christopher Lee, Fred Gwynne (as Herman Munster), and now,
Robert De Niro. Rarely, however, has a cinematic interpretation of
"the daemon" approached the level of three-dimensionality with which it
is portrayed in the novel.
As conceived and written by Shelly, FRANKENSTEIN was more of a
gothic melodrama than a horror story. Considered in its most basic
terms, the tale is one of actions and their consequences, and of what
happens when man, in his hubris, attempts to usurp the role of God.
For the most part, however, motion pictures have chosen to ignore the
weightier issues of the book to concentrate instead on the "monster
movie" aspects. With this latest cinematic depiction, director (and
uncredited co-writer) Kenneth Branagh has taken a less-traveled path.
He has chosen to view FRANKENSTEIN as a tragedy of Greek (or, given his
background, Shakespearean) proportions.
What Branagh should recognize better than anyone, though, is that
tragedy is at its most effective when allowed to cook slowly, basting
in its own juices. This version of FRANKENSTEIN moves so frantically
that far too many subtleties get lost along the way. The result is a
rousing, occasionally-chaotic (especially during the choppily-edited
first half-hour) piece of work that, while undeniably entertaining,
lacks a depth that might otherwise have been attained. Patrick Doyle's
bombastic score helps only to underline the melodramatic elements of
this production, rarely allowing a quiet or reflective moment.
As far as its faithfulness to the source material is concerned,
MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN frequently differs from the book on plot
points, but the two are thematically in synch. Several movie
characters bear little resemblance to their book counterparts beyond
having the same name (Dr. Waldeman, Frankenstein's mentor, being a
chief example), and there is a significant alteration in the last act.
Surprisingly enough, although it reflects nothing written by Shelly,
this scene is effective in underlining the weaknesses and strengths of
both Victor Frankenstein and his creature.
Can a man create life, then abandon his creation because its
appearance horrifies him? To whom are its actions then attributable:
the creature or the being who brought about its existence? Shelly did
not answer these questions, but she certainly posed them. Following
her example, Branagh does the same.
The greatest strength of MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN is that it
illustrates both the good and evil qualities in each of its main
characters. Of the two--Robert De Niro's creature and Kenneth
Branagh's Frankenstein--the former is, perhaps surprisingly, the more
sympathetic. In part because of the script and in part because of the
acting (De Niro gives a stronger performance than his
director/co-star), the creature seems almost the more "human" of the
two. In its own words, it is capable of great love and great rage.
Frankenstein, on the other hand, often comes across as petty,
self-serving, and ambitious. Only towards the end, when he finally
grasps the full consequences of his actions, does the scientist capture
a measure of our understanding.
Despite the presence of John Cleese--who is excellent in a
straight, if somewhat limited, role--there is no comic relief in MARY
SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN (or at least none that is intentional--a few
lines here and there are too-obviously overacted, which can lead to a
chuckle or two). However, since the screenplay is not relentlessly
downbeat, the bursts of action and horror are effective enough in
lessening tension that breaks of levity are not needed. In fact, given
the tone of this film, humor might easily have seemed an unwelcome
intrusion.
Shelly was never concerned about the scientific realism of
Frankenstein's actions. She describes neither his experiments nor the
practical (as opposed to the philosophical) reasoning that leads to
them. In this film, while Branagh doesn't attempt to fully remedy this
lapse (something that obviously can't be done), he presents enough
pseudo- scientific evidence to suggest how the creation of a life might
plausibly be accomplished. Suspension of disbelief is, of course,
requisite for the viewer at this point.
One area where this FRANKENSTEIN meets expectations is in its
cast. The weakest link is Branagh (and that's not to suggest that he
gives a bad performance, because he doesn't), whose Victor is more than
occasionally overwrought. De Niro, although buried beneath hours'
worth of makeup, is less monstrous here than in films like CAPE FEAR
and THE UNTOUCHABLES. The sequence where the creature befriends a
family, anonymously providing them food (instead of firewood, as in the
book) while observing and learning from them through a chink in a wall,
is marvelously moving, and possibly the best moment offered by the
film.
Helena Bonham Carter gives a feisty and fiery interpretation of
Elizabeth, who eventually becomes much more than merely Frankenstein's
love interest. Richard Briers (as the blind patriarch of the
creature's adopted "family"), Ian Holm (as Frankenstein's father), Tom
Hulce (as Frankenstein's best friend and fellow student, Henry
Clerval), Aidan Quinn (as the north-pole bound explorer Robert Walton),
Robert Hardy (as the odious Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (as
Justine, the Frankensteins' housekeeper) and John Cleese (as Waldeman,
Frankenstein's mentor) round out the supporting cast.
The film has a striking visual look, which owes as much to the set
design and special effects as to the soaring cinematography of Roger
Pratt. Although Branagh does not opt for straight horror, the gothic
element of the tale is very much in evidence as a result of the
carefully-crafted atmosphere of several key scenes. From the Arctic
Ocean to the Swiss Alps and the plague-riddled streets of Ingolstadt,
MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN is a wonder to behold.
Comparison's with 1992's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA are inevitable,
especially since both came from Francis Ford Coppola's American
Zoetrope production company. Considering the merits of both movies,
however, there is little doubt which is more effective. Kenneth
Branagh's film is stronger thematically and visually, possesses more
solid characterization, and boasts Robert De Niro and Helena Bonham
Carter rather than Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. MARY SHELLY'S
FRANKENSTEIN may not be the definitive version of the 1817 novel, and
the director likely attempted more than is practical for a two-hour
film, but overambition is preferable to the alternative, especially if
it results--as in this case--in something more substantial than
Hollywood's typical, fitfully entertaining fluff.
- James Berardinelli (bla...@cc.bellcore.com)
Freddie Elmer Mullins
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Freddie Elmer Mullins
Copyright 1994 Freddie Elmer Mullins
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Goes Back To Its Source For
Inspiration
The original FRANKENSTEIN, released in 1931, is one of the most
beloved, imitated, and spoofed movies of all time. It presented Boris
Karloff with his square head and electrodes on each side of his neck.
His characterization of the monster endowed it with a childlike
innocence that underlined the malevolence it was forced into.
Tackling such an enduring screen image is a daunting task, but
actor-director Kenneth Branagh (HENRY V, DEAD AGAIN) has managed to
carve out his own niche in the gallery of monster movies.
The plot closely follows the original novel by Mary Shelley, and
this may result in some surprises for anyone with preconceptions of how
a horror movie should be. Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein as a
person who becomes immersed in the quest for forbidden knowledge
instead of your stereotypical "mad scientist." Frankenstein is
influenced early in his life by the death of his doting mother due to
complications from childbirth.
This leads Frankenstein to resolve to find a way to improve the
quality of life en route to his ultimate goal of cheating death.
Frankenstein takes these ideas with him when he travels to medical
school. His professors dismiss his "radical and immoral" postulations
of ways to combine new discoveries being made(this is the middle of the
Scientific Revolution) with ancient philosophers. Frankenstein finds a
kindred spirit in Professor Waldman (Monty Python's John Cleese in a
fine dramatic turn), who had the same type of questions and striving
for the elusive mystery of life. With access to Waldman's knowledge
and equipment, Frankenstein soon decides to try to "construct" a life,
using the corpses of the victims of a recent outbreak of cholera.
The death of Waldman accelerates Frankenstein's plans and he
collects all of the necessary materials: bodily organs, the body of a
recently hanged beggar (Robert De Niro), and most importantly Waldman's
brain. The sequence where the creature is brought to life needs to be
and is extremely impressive. Branagh runs through his lab bare-chested
pushing buttons and flicking switches, until finally unleashing the
electric eels onto the piecework body to give the necessary electrical
charge. Branagh cautiously underplays these scenes in contrast to
Colin Clive's famous scene in the original movie where he runs around
screaming "It's alive! It's alive!" Branagh thinks his creation is
dead, but it escapes along with his journal.
All of the action up to this point is extremely involving and
exciting. However, after De Niro's version of the monster escapes, the
story gets bogged down in soggy melodrama. Frankenstein is having
complications with his fiancee/foster-sister, Elizabeth (veteran of
numerous Merchant/Ivory films, Helena Bonham Carter), and the monster
tries to learn about human nature by helping out a family who
ultimately shun him.
The best sequence in the movie occurs towards the end when the
monster gives Frankenstein an ultimatum: make him a mate or the good
doctor will lose his wife. Frankenstein and Elizabeth try to flee, but
the monster exacts his revenge in a manner similar to something out of
an Indiana Jones movie. Branagh obviously can't accept loss very well
because his denial of Elizabeth's murder leads him down the same path
of self-destruction. He tries to bring Carter back to life, and the
results are predictably bad. The sequence of Carter's re-animation and
her subsequent reaction is the eeriest in the film, and one wishes the
tone established could have been present through the whole movie.
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is an elaborate production which has
obviously had a lot of blood, sweat, and tears invested in it. Robert
De Niro's (MEAN STREETS, GOODFELLAS) interpretation of the monster is a
complex characterization that can be easily misconstrued. He is truly
a menacing sight. A literal version of Mr. Potato Head with his
stitched together appearance, shaved head, twisted features, and his
characteristically gruff voice, De Niro is quite a menacing sight. His
character's role is wrote solidly, and De Niro manages to interject a
feeling of sympathy for the tortured character that he plays. It is a
combination of Max Cady from CAPE FEAR (1991) and Jake La Motta from
RAGING BULL (1980).
The major problem with the movie is Branagh and his portrayal of
Frankenstein. Instead of being a deranged man approaching knowledge not
meant for mortals, Branagh comes off as a normal guy who just wants to
make sure no one else's mother ever has to die. He needs to add a
larger dose of neurosis to his character, and he approaches that level
towards the end of the movie when the mental strain of his marriage and
dealing with the problem he himself created begins to show. There
needs to be more a mad gleam in his eye, and it just isn't there.
Another problem is some of the set design. The staircase in the
Frankenstein mansion looks like the one out of CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI
(1919). It doesn't seem possible that these stairs could exist
if the audience is supposed to believe it exists in the house shown in
the exterior shots.
In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola (APOCALYPSE NOW) re-defined the
modern horror picture by taking a well-defined character and presented
it in its original context with BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. This set off a
trend of examining classic characters in their contemporary setting.
This is important to remember when viewing MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN.
Shelley's novel dealt with the consequences of man learning too much
about the ways of the universe and the ramifications of the application
of such knowledge. It examines important issues such as dangerous
obsessions, the true nature of knowledge as good or evil, and how we
must take responsibility for our actions. Kenneth Branagh has managed
to craft a motion picture that captures the intentions of Shelley's
original work and its original implications.
Michael J. Legeros
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Michael John Legeros
Copyright 1994 Michael John Legeros
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont,
from the novel by Mary Shelley
Cast Robert DeNiro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter,
Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, Richard Briers, and John Cleese
MPAA Rating "R" (what else?)
Running Time Approx. 120 minutes
===
"Did you ever consider the consequences of your actions?"
- DeNiro to Branagh
No FRANKENSTEIN film should ever be boring. Period. Not THE
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, not YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, and certainly not MARY
SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN. But boring is as boring does and this
refreshingly literate monster movie is one creation that never comes to
life.
Don't blame the source material. Shelley's story always contained
more philosophy than atrocity, and writers Steph Lady and Frank
Darabont doctor the horrors appropriately. With one eleventh-hour
exception, their transgressions are all very tasteful. This
FRANKENSTEIN is a thinking's man's monster movie, where The Creature
spends more time learning language than lumbering.
With appropriate tweaks to the original story--such as electric
eels as energy sources--there should be enough scares here to spook
anyone. But the surrounding story never comes together. The tone
isn't quite right, and parts of the plot always seems to be missing.
Did test screenings do this? The generous leaps and bounds of the
story suggest serious snipping in post-production.
The film stinks for subtext, as well. Director Kenneth
Branagh--the man who put Shakespeare in the cineplex--offers no
commentary on the horrors of 16th-century medicine. Nor does he
effectively examine the relationship between Victor and his adopted
sister (Helena Bonham Carter). His worst omission: a sense of humor.
This FRANKENSTEIN should be brimming with sly winks and subtle nods to
earlier incarnations. But, no, not once does the doctor even so much
as yell "it's alive."
(And what's with that "circling" camera technique? Is the
director trying to infuse into ever scene a sense of action?
Excitement? Dizziness?)
Playing the infamous Victor Von, Branagh is all buffed and
beautiful for his steamy laboratory scenes. But his eyes burn with
neither malice nor madness--he's a good boy who's too good. Better is
DeNiro, a stitch (sorry) as The Creature. His misshapen mass of
serrated scars and slurred syllables is a welcome presence in the
second hour.
Supporting roles go to Ian Holm, Aidan Quinn, Tom Hulce, Richard
Briers, and, as a heavy (!), John Cleese. Why the latter is forced to
wear dental props, though, is never explained. Sorry, sorry.
To the credit of everyone involved, there is one, great moment to
remember. The scene occurs toward the end of the film, when The
Creature does something very bad to someone very good. That brief,
horrible act brings a rush of excitement into the film like oxygen into
a backdraft. And, for a few, fleeting moments, you can clearly see the
terror that should've been there from the beginning. And then it's
gone.
BOTTOM LINE: Frankly speaking, Kenneth Branagh should stick to
Shakespeare.
Grade: C-
--
Michael J. Legeros
Raleigh, North Carolina
Jeffrey Graebner
MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN
A film review by Jeffrey Graebner
Copyright 1994 Jeffrey Graebner
Sometimes, there can be a very thin line between overindulgence
and brilliance. Kenneth Branagh's new film adaptation of MARY
SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN frequently straddles that line, occasionally
ending up on both sides of it. Thankfully, the majority of the movie
stays on the brilliant side.
Of course, Shelley's tale of Victor Frankenstein and his creation
is one of the best known (and most often filmed) stories (the word
"Frankenstein" even appears in the dictionary). Most past film
versions have only stuck with Shelley's very basic premise, while
making radical changes to the specifics. The screenplay to this film,
by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, goes back to the original novel for a
much more faithful adaptation. There are certain changes made to
accommodate the differences between the film and literature, but the
film depicts a number of incidents from the novel that have not been
present in other adaptations. It is also much more true to the *spirit*
of the original story, particularly in its portrayal of the creature.
Unlike the best known adaptations of the past, the creature
(played here by Robert DeNiro) is not a monosyllabic brute. Instead,
he is given a great deal of intelligence and very deep emotion. The
creature has significantly heightened strength, but his feelings are
also equally enhanced. It is these emotions that make him dangerous,
but they also make him quite human. This conflict, along with Victor's
inability to truly understand what he has created, forms the heart of
this film.
As in the original novel, the story is told in flashback as Victor
(played by Branagh himself) recounts his tale to a ship captain (Aidan
Quinn) who encounters him while obsessively searching for a water
passage to the North Pole. We learn that, after his mother dies giving
birth to his younger brother, Victor becomes so obsessed with death
that he begins experimenting with ways to defeat it. In time, this
obsession leads him to the actual desire to *create* life. While
studying to become a doctor, Victor meets Professor Waldman (John
Cleese, who is virtually unrecognizable) who has come very close to
achieving this goal. After Waldman himself is killed, Victor takes
over his work and creates the creature. After Victor becomes convinced
that his creation is evil, he abandons it to die. Eventually, the
creature learns to think, speak, and even read. He reads Victor's
journals and returns seeking either vengeance, peace, or probably
both.
The other key character in the story is Elizabeth (Helena Bonham
Carter), the adoptive sister who eventually becomes Victor's love. The
irony in this romance comes from the fact that Victor is so obsessed
with defeating death that he fails to see that this woman is
representative of real *life*. He is struggling to create life, when
he already *has* it. There is one very pivotal sequence towards the
end of the film which was not in Shelley's novel, but which manages to
explore this aspect of the story in a very powerful and moving way.
Even if it wasn't in the original novel, it is a wonderful
extrapolation of one of the story's key ideas.
While the story of Frankenstein is unquestionably a horror story,
it is important to distinguish between horror and being scary. Many of
the events portrayed in this film are horrific, but they are *not*
particularly scary. People going into the film expecting constant
shocks and scares are likely to be disappointed. The movie is somewhat
gory at times (there are a few bloody scenes and the creation of the
creature involves quite a bit of bodily fluid), but the gore is never
gratuitous.
This is a story that is full of passion and powerful emotions.
Both as a director and as an actor, Kenneth Branagh's classical
theatrical background leads him to a style of heightened, almost
indulgent emotion. Branagh very rarely plays anything small, but
instead is virtually always playing scenes out to the hilt. The result
is a film that is frantic and breathless, but also is full of powerful
images and emotions.
Branagh's performance as Victor is one of constant motion. He
shows the obsessive personality of the character by constantly running
from place to place, often dripping in sweat and shouting his dialog.
The performance is very theatrical and occasionally goes over-the-top,
but it all really manages to fit the character. In many ways, we are
able to actually *feel* Victor's obsession through Branagh's grandiose
and passionate performance.
In contrast, DeNiro's performance is much quieter and more
controlled. He is required to go from scenes of quiet tenderness to
other scenes of pure rage. The real key to the character is that he
feels these powerful emotions, but he was never taught how to control
them. After Victor's abandonment, he was forced to mature on his own
without any kind of moral guidance. The makeup effects do a good job
at making DeNiro look frightening while still allowing him to do a
great deal of acting with his facial expressions. DeNiro is often able
to express a lot of emotion with very little dialog. It is another
courageous and fascinating performance by one of the most daring actors
of our time.
The real strength of this story is that neither Victor or his
creation can be classified as either a hero or a villain. While this
is a cautionary tale about the possible consequences of science, it
leaves a lot of question about whether it is the actual *act* of
creating a life that is immoral or if it is Victor's treatment of that
life once the creation is finished. The film introduces the
possibility that the story might have turned out differently if Victor
had nurtured his creation instead of abandoning him.
As Elizabeth, Helena Bonham Carter is often required to serve as
the voice of reason in the midst of all that is happening. She needs
to provide a kind of moral touchstone for Victor. Unfortunately, this
is one aspect of the film that doesn't quite work as well as it
should. For one thing, she simply doesn't have enough scenes with
Branagh. The movie could have used a little more time exploring the
relationship between these two characters. There is nothing
particularly wrong with Bonham Carter's performance but, with the
exception of a few brief scenes, there really isn't a lot of chemistry
developed between her and Branagh.
The film includes a strong supporting cast as well. Cleese gives
a surprisingly effective, purely dramatic performance as Professor
Waldman. Tom Hulce provides most of the film's comic relief as Henry,
a college friend of Victor's. He is also the only other character
(besides Victor and the creature) who is aware of Victor's
experimentation, thus providing an occasional source for questioning
dialog. Another very effective performance is given by Richard Briers
as an elderly blind peasant who is the only person who is able to get
past the creature's appearance and recognize his humanity. As the sea
captain, Aidan Quinn's performance is probably the weakest in the
film. Quinn makes the mistake of attempting an accent which comes and
goes, but is never believable.
The production and set design as well as the cinematography in
this film are all outstanding and very inventive. The actual creation
sequence is one of the most breathtakingly exciting sequences placed on
film in recent memory. Branagh's usual musical collaborator Patrick
Doyle provides a dramatic score that occasionally threatens to become
overbearing, but never quite overstays its welcome. The music
contributes a great deal to the power of some of the key scenes.
This is a very visually oriented film and the dialog does
occasionally seem a bit stilted. The story occasionally becomes pretty
complicated and on occasion writers Lady and Darabont do give in to the
temptation to overexplain things a bit. On a whole, though, the
writing is strong and does a very good job at exploring the many
interesting ideas in this story.
A lot of people are probably going to be turned off when they
discover that MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is not the type of movie they
are expecting. It takes a very different approach from other past film
versions of this story. Some may be turned off by the film's relative
lack of scares while others may be bothered by the giddy excesses of
Branagh's classically theatric style. On the other hand, though, I
think others will, like me, be intrigued by the fascinating themes and
ideas explored while also being seduced by the sheer emotion of the
film. I feel that this is one of the most exciting cinematic
experiences of 1994.
--
Jeffrey P. Graebner
Columbus, Ohio