There are few words more synonymous with horror than Frankenstein. The story of the gifted but narcissistic Victor Frankenstein and his misguided quest to reanimate the dead is perhaps the genre’s most enduring story, and its flexibility has allowed for a constant stream of fresh interpretations, making it a favorite for aspiring writers the world over. More than two hundred years have passed since Mary Shelley composed her mournful ode to parental neglect and failed scientific experiments during the volcanic winter of 1816 (the so-called year without a summer), and although time has not diminished its magnificence, the casual approach taken by its countless adaptations in the intervening years has made the original story more and more disjointed . Shelley’s novel is a very different beast than what a stereotypical image should be that has been reimagined for centuries, and while some have flirted with sticking to her vision, no one has embraced the idea better than Kenneth Branaghcorrectly named Frankenstein Mary Shelley is an imperfect yet compelling film that remains the strongest adaptation of the greatest horror story yet.
Shelley’s original novel is very different from the Frankenstein embedded in pop culture today
Before discussing the film itself, it is worth establishing what made the novel the masterpiece it is. Simply put, it all comes down to subtlety. Scenes of peasants with pitchforks or mad scientists shouting “He’s alive!” may be good iconography, but they contradict what Shelley conceptualized. Her story thrived on quiet moments, with cryptic conversations about the nature of responsibility and how the environment we grow up in determines the kind of person we become, taking precedence over loud and exciting scenes. The novel may look like horror, but it’s actually closer to philosophical melodrama, where Shelley uses more chilling elements as a springboard to explore broader ideas about the human condition. Notably, his most overtly frightening episodes are left almost entirely in the background (such as Victor bringing the creature to life), giving the story a mystical edge that reinforces the idea that what we don’t see is scarier than what we see.
By far the biggest deviation is through the (titular?) being. Since then Boris Karloff donning the most iconic make-up in horror filmmaking, the prejudice that the monster is a green-skinned abomination with bolts around its neck and a vocabulary that extends to just a few words is so firmly rooted in popular culture that it is sacrilege to suggest otherwise. In reality, however, its literary counterpart is night and day compared to how Hollywood has told us how it should behave. Shelley’s creation was not a monster, but a fully 3D character with exceptional command of language thanks to his love for Milton, which proves useful in describing the pain and hurt he felt after being rejected by a world he barely understands. There is a constant feeling that he only acts like a monster because of Victor’s cowardice after his creation, and if he had faced his problems instead of avoiding them, then the trail of bodies that eventually leads to their death could have been to avoid. They’re not heroes, but they’re not outright villains either, and Shelley’s reluctance to put them in well-defined boxes is what makes them such charming characters.
But such a nuanced approach proves problematic when trying to present the story as mass-market entertainment, which explains why future adaptations downplay its thematic depth in favor of more accessible parts. Already in the productions of the first stage in the 1820s, changes were made to enhance the commercial aspects, but this was James Weila classic film from 1931 when the general perception Frankenstein changed to a modern look. The characterization of the monster, the overall tone, the whole plot beyond the one-line synopsis, everything is different when Keith took the basic structure provided by Shelley and placed it into a more manageable narrative of good and evil. It’s important not to take this as a criticism of Keith - there’s nothing wrong with taking a fresh look at classic stories. Bride of Frankenstein is one of the best sequels of all time for good reason, but its enduring impact on cinema makes it hard for future adaptations to escape its shadow.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the most accurate film adaptation of the novel.
It’s the fact that Frankenstein Mary Shelley avoids it, which is what makes it so outstanding. Branagh has demonstrated a passion for adapting literary classics that have painstakingly matched their source material with Henry V And Much ado about nothing, and apparently the young actor-turned-director was keen to project that love onto stories other than those coming from The Bard. As a result, he set about creating an accurate retelling of Shelley’s novel that would adhere to its history and themes as much as possible, and although Branagh could not resist making a few changes (it is obvious that his unwavering love for Shakespeare remains unshakable), he largely succeeded in this. . Frankenstein Mary Shelley was the first big-screen adaptation that truly lived up to the source material, giving it a distinctive personality that remains unique to this day.
This way of thinking is obvious from the start. Frankenstein Mary Shelley retaining a framing device set in the Arctic Sea that was ignored by all other versions (shame because it’s the perfect metaphor for Victor’s isolation). After being rescued by the crew of the stranded ship, Victor (Branagh) recounts the dire circumstances that brought him to the place, in the hope that it will quell similar insane obsessions he sees brewing in the ship’s captain. He talks about his failed attempts to play God after the death of his mother and how he immediately regretted his experiments upon seeing the disgusting creature (Robert DeNiro) he created. When he begins his story, all the sailors think he is crazy, but soon they too share his madness.
Though subsequent events seem similar to other adaptations - rejected by those who gave him life, the creature embarks on a brutal crusade that culminates in the murder of Victor’s fiancée, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) - Branagh avoids the temptation to turn everything into just another cliché monster movie. The themes that made Shelley’s novel so triumphant remain the focus here, and the film constantly raises tough questions but doesn’t provide many answers. In a similar way, Frankenstein Mary Shelley also relies more on the moral ambiguity of its findings. Victor, in particular, comes across as a much more villainous character, to the extent that audiences end up re-evaluating the long-standing notion that “Frankenstein is not the name of a monster.” On the contrary, the creature appears to be a more likeable character, and his brief friendship with the blind man, which ends tragically when his family returns, is undoubtedly the most powerful scene in the film. De Niro may seem like an odd choice, but he penetrates the emotional core of the role with surprising ease, proving that Frankenstein’s creation deserves more than just another movie monster.
But a solid cast and interesting themes mean nothing without a solid script tying everything together, and that’s where Frankenstein Mary Shelley reveals its main advantage - the presence Frank Darabont as a screenwriter. Darabont has already proven his talent for writing effective horror films with films such as Nightmare on Elm Street 3 And A dropand after expanding his skill set to directing with The Shawshank Redemption (released in the same year as Frankenstein Mary Shelley), there was little doubt that he was also one of Hollywood’s greatest storytellers. On paper, FrankensteinThe stilted combination of deep character development and a chilling plot would have been perfect for Darabont - and luckily, it was. Together with Steph Lady (who wrote the first draft), Darabont managed to create an eerily beautiful rendition of Shelley’s novel that didn’t sacrifice any of its gothic overtones or theoretical musings in the name of cheap panic. This is amazing stuff, and reading its script online will leave you in no doubt as to why it has since achieved near-legendary status in the horror community.
Ultimately, Branagh’s theatrical directing style clashed with the source material.
So what’s the problem? The question, unfortunately, comes down to the person leading the project. Kenneth Branagh is a talented director, but subtlety has never been a technique he has much time for, resulting in filmography always playing at the highest possible volume. Massive camerawork, luscious production design and large-scale performances proved to be a great creative solution when he used them in his Shakespeare adaptations, but combined with subdued material such as Frankenstein, they are a complete collision. It’s just too over the top, every second is executed under the weight of such ardent underlining that even someone who views the entire movie on their Twitter feed will walk away with a decent understanding of what it all meant… provided they weren’t turned away from unintentional comedy , that is. Take, for example, the resurrection scene. It’s supposed to be the haunting moment when Victor finally realizes his arrogance has gone too far, but instead Branagh films it as a bombastic action sequence that feels like he’s put his serious horror movie on hold to audition for the next Tarzan movie. (why else is he swinging? on chains without a shirt?). This is stupid and undermines the whole point of a true retelling of the book.
Taken as a whole, Frankenstein Mary Shelley strange movie. In many ways it’s pretty good—great even—but all the reasons it’s so good have to do with what Mary Shelley wrote two centuries earlier. Unlike his 1996 version Hamlet, Branagh’s directing doesn’t elevate or complete the material in a meaningful way (quite the opposite, anyway), but that doesn’t mean the film isn’t worthy. It’s hard to deny that his intentions were far from positive, and his frenzied determination to adapt Shelley’s novel without capitulating to the demands left by his predecessors makes him worthy of praise. For all its flaws, it’s impressive how complex and tragic the original story has been, and the result is the closest we’ve ever come to seeing Shelley’s great opus on the silver screen. In another world, Darabont’s script would have been written by a more restrained director. We live in the wrong world, and yet Branagh made a hell of a respectable attempt, and there’s something admirable about it.
Source: Collider
I have worked as a journalist for over 7 years and have written for many different publications. I currently work as an author at Daily News Hack, where I mostly cover entertainment news. I have a great deal of experience in the industry and am always looking to learn more. I am a highly motivated individual who is always looking to improve my skills. I am also a very friendly and personable person, which makes me easy to work with.
