Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein dose not simply butcher the old tail which has influenced numerous bits of culture, but it reinvents it. All the changes and liberties it takes are not only designed to expand upon the plot but also as a reference to earlier works in cinema history.
The mediums of story telling themselves necessitates certain different focuses, after all it is very hard to spend much of a book dealing with scientific concepts that would seem dry on page, but which when portrayed in a cinema are visually grabbing and perhaps even exhilarating. The whole process of creating the monster which was skipped over in about a paragraph in the book was expansively and graphically shown in the movie.
Two of the biggest changes in the plot were the death of Victors mentor and the use of his brain in the experiment, as well as the reanimation of Elizabeth coupled with the creation of the second monster. The former can be seen as a bit of a throw back to the film legend Frankenstein where the monster's brain originally intended to be that of Dr. Frankensteins former teacher Dr. Waldman. The latter is a throw back mostly to The Bride of Frankenstein which actually did show the animation of a second monster which would become the bride of the monster had she not rejected him and the destruction of the laboratory and mansion followed. These throw backs to the classic interpretations of the great story not only help comfort those whom are accustom to only these visions, but allows Branagh the same opportunities that Shelley her self took advantage of during her writing with her constant reference to Paradise Lost and other great literature.
Additionally the combination of these and other liberties taken with the plot allow for a more passion filled and better understanding of the message being delivered of both tellings. where the book seemed dull and wooden the movie allowed for real connection with the characters and the emotions they felt. Where the book was unable to establish a truly fanatic tone the movie was able to create a feeling of intense urgency, regret, and foreboding. Where the book had to specifically state connections between character the movie could show and be more subtle.
This is one of the few movies in history that in this authors book will go down under the category of " Better than the book" because it is so much better at conveying to story and messages of a classic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Well, I agree with you that this was a good movie, but I didn't feel that it really kept with Mary Shelley's novel that well. I mean, yeah, the main story was the same, but there were too many differences for me to say that it should be called Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I realize that he couldn't, for the sake of time constraints, stay completely with the novel, but there were some scenes he changed solely for the sake of shock value. Still, the movie was a good adaptation overall.
kelly
I agree with both Uriah and Kelley that this was a good movie and a good film adaption, but it clearly doesn't stay true to Mary Shelley's story raising the question: Should the movie be called Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? As Uriah points out some liberties must be taken for no other reason than the differences in medium. But Brannagh makes some very big changes to the storyline that may make the storyline in the movie more interesting, but completely change the way we look at the characters and the story. The changes I am talking about were avoidable as far as I am concerned because they were made neither for time constraints or for the sake of clarity. The most notable change is the removing of the part where Victor and Henry travel north together so Victor could create the monster a bride. In my opinion some major character development takes place during this part of hte book and without it completely changes how we view the main character. If Branagh had left out the bringing back to life of Elizabeth there most definetly been time for this part and it would have been just as clear. If he had done this I'm sure it would not have been quite as exciting, which in the end is the point of a good horror movie. But if Branagh was going to make big changes such as this I think he should have chosen a different title for the movie.
I would argue that even though this movie is a throwback to the old Frankenstein movies, it's not only unnecessary, it's distracting to the point of not being true to the source material. The basic outline of the story is the same, but all of the motivations and even some of the characters are wildly different. Some movies can get away with it (like Lord of the Rings), while others can't. I believe this version of Frankenstein falls into that category.
I see what you are saying about the throwbacks - they seem to add a "familiar" quality and draw upon popular movie adaptations of the past.
But it seems to me that the book is FULL of "intense urgency, regret, and foreboding." Every time I read the book, I get a clear sense of these three things. In fact, it seems to me that "urgent" and "regretful" are words that help to characterize Victor, who, throughout, is full of these. And foreboding? I think we do get that sense as Shelley leads us to the inevitability fo the birth of the monster and as the monster continues to wreak havoc in Victor's life.
This seems to make sense. Let us create another monster but this time lets take everyones ideas put them in a blender and spit them out. We know have a version of all the stories compiled into one. What is the main focus of this idea in the movie? Is there a main focus in this book or is it just a compilation of everyones story on a different level. Think about it the stories is all sorts of peoples views in an expanded drawn out form. So was the movie it was just butchered to appease the audience in simplicity.
Post a Comment