For all of its hype and claims of being "true to the source," I find Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is not even close to the source material. While it takes artistic liberties with a lot of things that I'll grant are necessary for movie production, it takes liberties with a lot of the motivations of Victor and his associates, and even disregards or otherwise changes other characters entirely.
Frankenstein isn't a hard book to translate to film, it only requires a few key plot points and a few key characters. Somehow, however, Kenneth Branagh managed to mess that up, even. Plot points and characters such as Henry Clerval, who have critical importance to Frankenstein's emotional state in the beginning of the book, and important roles in the endgame of the book, are redirected to minor roles, where plot points and characters who were minor, such as M. Waldman, are given far more important roles than they needed. Other plot points and characters, such as Victor's stint in prison for being framed for murdering Clerval, are completely ignored.
Victor himself is transformed from a logical, but not far-thinking, INTJ (based on my own probably inaccurate assessment) chemist into a bumbling emotional medical doctor who can't handle death. His entire motivation for creating the monster changes, and how he goes about it as well. In the book, Frankenstein gets visions of grandeur about creating a whole new race of beings, and how he will be viewed as their god. In the movie, Frankenstein tries to complete his teacher's work, and later on tries to revive his dead lover, who was killed by his attempt to complete his teacher's work.
While the movie is consistent with itself (I won't fault it for being inconsistent, that's one aspect Kenneth Branagh does well), it's completely inconsistent with the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That is to argue that the novel doesn't leave glaring plot holes on its own. Entire sections of the story that strike us as completely relevant are hopelessly neglected in the novel, down to a fair amount of what Victor's actually thinking of.
I would say that this movie does preserve itself in some perspective.
You didn't mention that the movie keeps the fanatical side of Victor longer than the book or the fact that this movie is closer to the book than most.
I agree that some of the liberties taken were neccesary for the production of the movie but others were taken for seemingly no reason at all. Some of the others in the class have argued that the changes could be out of respect for older film adaptions or to make a more modern horror film, but I would say if this was the case than the title should not imply that this version's intentions were to remain true to Mary Shelley's orignial vision. In my post I pointed out that trading Victor and Henery's travels north could have been easily traded for the reincarnation of Elizabeth and the same is the case with Henery's role in Victor's life instead of Professor Waldman's. These changes seemed very unneccesary if the intention of the film was to remain true to Mary Shelley's novel.
I find it fascinating that you put in so blatent terms, that in the movie Victor could not deal with death. It is very true in the movie, but not in the book. In the movie his mothers death seems to spark his mania, which is to say he cuoldn't handle death. However I do feel that the integrity of the movie was similar to the book, the movie took steps necessary to create a fantasic more modern approach to horror, and may be why you believe it does not resemble the book.
You bring up a very good point. There were some vital details that were left out. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it doesn't even come close to the source material. The movie does alter some characters, but they have the general feeling of the book down. Although they did leave out some of the most vital scenes, this movie is probably the closest you'll get to the book.
Post a Comment