Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN

From: [email-masked] (Jeffrey Graebner)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 17:38:37 GMT

[Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies.  -Moderator]

			  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