“I busied myself to think of a story which would speak
to the mysterious fears of our nature and awaken thrilling horror. One to make
the reader dread to look around, to curdle the blood, and quicken the beatings
of the heart.” – Opening narration of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Last time I took a look
at Hammer Film’s Frankenstein series;
each one of their films steeped in moody, Gothic elements which made them all,
on some level, creepy, and true horror films. Speaking of the Frankenstein
story, which, more-or-less, created the horror genre as we know it today, I
couldn’t help but take a look at another adaptation of Shelley’s novel – the
1994 adaptation directed by/and starring Kenneth Branagh. This is a film which
is, I think, unfairly judged and put down today. Why? People were expecting it
to be something which it was not.
Interestingly, in the
1990s, Francis Ford Coppola was involved in three literary adaptations – all of
which were ostensibly horror films. The first was 1992’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula which found Coppola directing; the second Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) and
the third Sleepy Hollow (1999), the last
two on which he served as a producer. Now both Dracula and Sleepy Hollow
are (on a whole) horror projects, so already modern audiences are being
misguided looking back. Seeing Coppola’s name attached a Frankenstein project
in the ‘90s could easily make one believe that the finished product was an
out-and-out horror film. It is only one of the elements which could lead modern
audiences astray. Frankenstein, in
today’s popular culture, has become a horror product. 1931’s Dracula may have gotten the ball rolling
for horror films in Hollywood, but it was Frankenstein,
released the same year, which showcased the possibilities of horror films, and
sent every major Hollywood studio scrambling to follow in Universal’s wake.
Frankenstein
continued to be portrayed in this light throughout most of the twentieth
century. I’m think it’s probably safe to say that the horror-movie incarnations
of Mary Shelley’s creation are a little better-remembered today. After all,
Frankenstein’s Monster, like Dracula, has simply become part of our culture
(even if we do insist on calling the Monster Frankenstein – but I digress). So, for anyone who, like me, was
going into this movie today, we had several decades worth of preconceptions to
put up with. However, there was one vital difference between Kenneth Branagh’s
1994 film and all the others: it was called Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
Now, I do not purport to
be anything like a literary professor who has analyzed Shelley’s writing time
and time again, but I like to think that I know a little bit more about the
novel than the average layperson. And there is one little, albeit very
important fact, which I would like to contest: Mary Shelley’s novel isn’t very
scary. At the time of its initial publication, I do however feel that Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus
sent a shiver or two up the spines of its readers. The idea was pretty taboo,
especially in 1818. The idea of a man, a mere mortal, playing God and creating
life was a thing of mythology, like Prometheus of the novel’s subtitle, or
Pygmalion. The concept of the mad scientist was simply unheard of in fiction
because it had never been done before. The other thing, which most people do
not seem to realize, is that Frankenstein
was not a Gothic novel. Mary Shelley’s novel was written during the Romantic
era, a literary movement which dwelled on emotions, and the importance of life.
Gothic novels were almost the polar opposite; preoccupied by death and decay.
It’s actually an interesting reversal; the original Frankenstein was preoccupied by life while the movie adaptations
which followed were constantly moored in death.
So, with a title like Mary
Shelley’s Frankenstein,
the style and the tone of Branagh’s film would have to mirror the original
novel. So, what we get is not exactly an out-and-out horror film, but a very
convincing drama. Now, I think I ought to mention how much I like Kenneth
Branagh. He has rapidly become one of my favorite actors/directors; his 1996
adaptation of Hamlet being a film of
truly epic proportions, and it is criminal that the film is so overlooked today
(however that’s all discussion for another time). Now, Branagh as a director,
prior to 1994, was mainly known for his Shakespearean work: he debuted in 1989
with Henry V and prior to Frankenstein had worked on an uproarious
adaptation of the Bard’s Much Ado About
Nothing. The point is I cannot imagine a director like Branagh, so skilled
in classical drama, being attracted to a project like Frankenstein based solely on its horrific possibilities.
Under Branagh’s hand, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein becomes an
evocative character study of Victor Frankenstein, his fiancée Elizabeth, and,
of course, The Monster. In this way, the movie is quite like its literary
counterpart. Branagh manages to do all this while managing to jettison the
book’s philosophical discourses. It’s a very well-handled drama, which, while
not exactly scary, is still engaging viewing.
That’s not to say that
the film is entirely without thrills. One of the film’s most thrilling scenes
comes not from Shelley’s novel but the screenwriters’ imaginations. One of the
other complaints leveled at the film is that a movie entitled Mary
Shelley’s Frankenstein,
the movie does change some of the plot. I should put up a SPOILER warning for
the following passage so… SPOILERS. Following the death of his wife, Elizabeth
(per the novel), Victor Frankenstein goes off his rocker and decides to bring
her back to life. He is successful in his endeavor, only to be confronted in
his lab by the Monster who believes the resurrected Elizabeth is his requested
bride. Elizabeth cannot handle the pressure of the situation and lights herself
on fire and in the process burns Victor’s lab to the ground. END OF SPOILERS
That bit of final act
mayhem is certainly not in Mary Shelley’s original, but it serves to add a
little bit of horror to this film which so many people complain is not scary.
By doing what he does, Victor goes completely off his rocker; in the process of
creating a human being, Victor Frankenstein completely loses his humanity. It’s
not the blood-and-thunder, in-your-face type of horror which so many associate
with Frankenstein, but it’s a subtler kind of horror, more in-keeping with the
original novel and its tone. Retaining the tone and nuance of the novel is
something which cannot always be said for Coppola’s own horror film Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
So, here’s the point in
all of this: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
is a great film. Sure it isn’t exactly scary, but neither was its source
material. And despite keeping its creator’s name in the title and then going
and changing plot points, those changes don’t conflict with the original story
or its original tone. Today, it’s a film which is sadly overlooked because
modern audiences level mediocre reviews at it. So, I say give it a try. Just
make sure that you have a completely open mind going into it, and you too can
see what a minor masterpiece the movie actually is.
*
As a side-note, I will be
changing things up a bit next time as I have looked at horror films quite a bit
lately on this blog. What can I say: I like horror movies?
