Feed My Frankenstein Habit

How many people do you have to reanimate from the dead to make a decent Frankenstein flick? If you paid attention to the tragedies caused by Frankenstein’s actions then the answer should be zero. Seriously though, decent Frankenstein films are something of a rarity and ones that are true to the novel are mostly non-existent.

I became familiar with Mary Shelley’s original storyline (via the Illustrated Classics version when I was 11 and the actual book when I was 22). From 22, I have searched for a good adaptation and found only two that came close to following the books, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Thomas Edison’s silent version of Frankenstein (1910) doesn’t follow the book at all but remains an interesting historical curiosity. James Whale’s films Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) are excellent movies. I wasn’t a fan at first but I came to embrace them after I started to view them as being inspired by the book than as adaptations. As a admirer of the novel, it’s easier to see the themes of the book come together by watching both movies. Son of Frankenstein (1939) is a wonderful gothic thriller but its sequels Ghost of Frankenstein and House of Frankenstein are dismal.

In 2004, I came across another Frankenstein film (1984) on videocassette with some interesting cover art (not the one on IMDB). One of the things that drew me to it was that Carrie Fisher played in it. The results were underwhelming. It didn’t do well as an adaptation or a movie at all. It sort of plodded along with the wimpiest monster to ever hit TV audiences. Horrible despite the Carrie Fisher factor. Also horrible is the 1992 adaptation starring Patrick Bergin and Randy Quaid. For an English major without much of a background in Chemistry or Biology, even I thought that the science that went into making the monster in this film was bogus. Basically, Frankenstein makes a copy of himself that becomes deformed and they have a sort of Corsican Brother bond in which if one gets hurt the other experiences the pain. Ridiculous and boring.

Hammer Studios made a series of Frankenstein movies, from the 50s to the 70s, but none of them followed the book. Regardless, the part they played in Frankenstein film history is legendary. As a character, Frankenstein’s integrity was always in question and in this case Hammer turned him into an all-out Machiavellian villain who will stop at nothing to make scientific progress. The films are sustained by Peter Cushing’s acting (he could make even a bad script look decent or at least not-laughable). Personally, I like them all except Revenge of Frankenstein (dull) and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, which I saw as a wasted opportunity. With a title like that and a tagline about the monster’s soul being from Hell, then they should have made the creature evil instead of a tragic figure.

This brings me to the two that came close. The first is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994). If anything, the movie is true to the spirit of the book and it follows many of the book’s plot points. Frank Darabont’s revision of the script would have made the movie better if all of it were used. The movie touches on several of the books themes in a way that is engaging and thought-provoking. On the other hand, there is a great deal of overacting on part of Kenneth Branaugh and Helena Bonham Carter. The camera is in constant motion in this movie (it would have helped to have more still shots), which makes the actual watching occasionally nauseating. Lastly, some portions, such as when Victor brings Elizabeth back to life, are over the top and the soundtrack becomes overtly loud. In some ways, it is a very bipolar take on the novel. Regardless, for a Frankenstein fan it was a must-see and holds up after repeated viewings. The other is Frankenstein (2005) starring Luke Goss and Donald Sutherland. What’s odd is that this one was a Hallmark movie. Overall, it follows the plot of the books very well but suffers from a low budget and a padded storyline. It definitely has the TV movie feel and it drags in a few places. On the plus side, Luke Goss played an excellent monster.

Frankenstein is one of those books that I might never see an adaptation in which I will ever be fully satisfied with. My only hope at this point is that Guillermo del Toro will go through with making his version. I read his insights on the book and I think he really gets its themes and respects the source material. del Toro has multiple projects in line, so I’m not holding my breath that I will see that movie anytime soon. These are just my thoughts as a horror lit fan and curmudgeon. Frankenstein has been done to death but I might still watch another film if a well-made version hits the theaters again.

Written by Nick Montelongo