Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (4 Stars)

"I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other".

This film was released in 1994 and is often referred to simply as "Frankenstein". I prefer the full name, because it distinguishes it from the other films with the same name. There are some disputes about its quality as a film, but it's recognised as the most faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, written in 1818.

The two characters Dracula and Frankenstein are usually mentioned in the same breath by fans of the classic horror films. Universal Studios' films about the two characters were both released in the same year, 1931, "Dracula" in February and "Frankenstein" in November. If we look at the two films we can see that the film adaptations were handled very differently. "Dracula" was obviously based on Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, not a 100% accurate reproduction, but close enough for those who knew the novel to recognise the story. "Frankenstein" was different. It borrowed the idea of a creature being pieced together from dead body parts, but the story went in a completely different direction. When Hammer made a new version of "Frankenstein" in 1957, the style gothic instead of impressionist, the film was closer to the original novel, but it still borrowed many of the story deviations from Universal's film.

Summing up, there have been many attempts to faithfully tell the story of Dracula on film, with differing levels of success, but this was the first attempt to tell the story of Victor Frankenstein and his monster as Mary Shelley envisioned it.

The screenplay was written by Frank Darabont, one of my favourite directors. What does he have to say about the film?

"Frankenstein is the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I’ve ever seen".

Anyone who reads that statement after watching the film has to shake his head in disbelief. Many people like the film greatly, and even those who dislike the film wouldn't say it's the worst film ever made. Far from it.

Frank goes on to qualify what he means, but before quoting his exact words I'll try to explain his feelings. He wrote the script. He had a dream about the film. In his mind he pictured how the finished product would look. He sold the script to the film studio, who then put it in the hands of the director, Kenneth Branagh. The director interpreted the script and gave the film a style that so greatly differed from Frank Darabont's dream that he was devastated. In his eyes it became the worst film he'd ever seen, because he was comparing it with his dream.

To continue with Frank Darabont's words:

"There’s a weird doppelganger effect when I watch the movie. It’s kind of like the movie I wrote, but not at all like the movie I wrote. It has no patience for subtlety. It has no patience for the quiet moments. It has no patience, period. It’s big and loud and blunt and rephrased by the director at every possible turn.

"Cumulatively, the effect was a totally different movie. I don’t know why Branagh needed to make this big, loud film. The material was subtle. Shelley’s book is way out there in a lot of ways, but it’s also very subtle. I don’t know why it had to be this operatic attempt at filmmaking. Shelley’s book is not operatic, it whispers at you a lot. The movie was a bad one. That was my Waterloo. That’s where I really got my ass kicked most as a screenwriter".

I understand Frank Darabont. I sympathise with him. I know what he means about Mary Shelley's novel. I read it after I'd already seen the Universal and the Hammer films several times. I was surprised by the style. The storytelling was slow and elegant. It was an emotional story that made me cry. Even when Frankenstein's monster killed people I felt sorry for him.

Let me contradict Frank Darabont. The movie isn't a bad one. It's a very good film. However, it isn't a subtle film. It's loud and brash, right from the beginning. It was never Kenneth Branagh's intention to make a subtle film. If he'd wanted to make a subtle film he wouldn't have cast actors like John Cleese and Helena Bonham Carter. Kenneth Branagh wanted to make a brash movie, and he succeeded. It only slows down in the final 15 minutes, but even then the sadness and mourning are exaggerated.

Frank Darabont says that he doesn't know why Kenneth Branagh wanted to make this "big, loud film". I'd like to venture a guess. Branagh must have been well acquainted with the old Frankenstein films. They were big and loud, especially the Universal version. I think he wanted to maintain the atmosphere of the old films while returning to the plot of the original novel. Was this the correct choice? I don't know. The film might have been better if it had retained the subtleties of Framk Darabont's dream. It might have been worse. I can't say for certain because it was never made. I don't know what Kenneth Branagh would have done with it.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that if Frank Darabont had directed the film himself it would have been perfect. I have full confidence in his abilities as a director. He would have brought his dream to the big screen and had the cinema audiences in tears.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de