Reliques du Cinema: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was intended to provide "thrilling horror," "to curdle the blood," "quicken the beatings of the heart."  In a world saturated with torture porn, sadly, the story of Frankenstein's monster appears hackneyed and unbelievable.  It is this way in the book, and even more so in this version of the film, directed by Kenneth Branagh.  The star-studded cast is a who's who of actors and actresses one would want to cast in a film today.  Starting with Kenneth Branagh in the titular role, Helena Bonham Carter as his love interest; John Cleese, his professor; Tom Hulce (most noted for Amadeus), his best friend; and lastly, Robert DeNiro in the role of the monster. 

Most people don't even understand the monster is not named Frankenstein.  This is due, in part, to the previous and earliest incarnations of Frankenstein for the stage and in early film.  This is due, in other part, to ignorance (I too, was once counted in this category). I watched the original movie from the thirties last year after reading the book and was shocked at it's inaccuracies.  This version of Frankenstein was very much more accurate...until...it wasn't.  I was rocking along in the movie and then, suddenly, out of nowhere, I found myself in the midst of the ill-advised sequel to Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein.  I am not quite sure why the director and writer wanted to go there.  It makes almost no sense, but there are many things in this movie that make little sense.

It seems this team of adaptors wanted to make sure the audience understood exactly how Frankenstein was able to create his monster.  The novel leaves this very much up to the imagination of the reader, which is the interesting part of the mystery.  It seems the modern day story-tellers wanted to use all the technological theories in their heads (Amniotic fluid, anybody? How about some electric eels? Yes, I said electric eels) to create a living being.  It seems they liked it so much the first time; inexplicably, they did it again.  It seems, they didn't know how to edit. 

All in all this is a faithful adaptation, to a point.  It leaves off many of the plot points of the novel, to it's detriment.  But, the addition of extraneous plot points is maddening.  So in that vein, I guess it was a "horror" and it did "curdle the blood!"  One accomplishment the filmmakers can claim is an Academy Award nomination for best makeup.  It holds up pretty well after 15 years as the makeup for Robert DeNiro makes him al-most unrecognizable.   This is true of John Cleese, as well.  If all of mankind did not know him by the sound of his voice, he would have passed through this movie without notice. 

I think this is the last Frankenstein adaptation I will watch for a while. It is frustrating when a filmmaker loves a novel so much, he wants to make a movie of that novel.  And then, while making that movie, he thinks he can rewrite it to make it "better."  It rarely happens that this is achieved (once, in my recollection: Forrest Gump).  Although the Mary Shelley classic is a tough-to-get-through read, it is still better than the movie versions I have seen.