Skip to main content

You gave me life, and then you left me to die.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
(1994)

(SPOILERS) Or Francis Ford Coppola’s Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, to the plebs. Except that Franny was very quick to disassociate himself from the garbage spewed forth by Ireland’s favourite Englishman. For anyone else, this would deservedly have been a career-ending episode. Just look at what happened to another swirling-camera artisan with another crude goth knock-off; Stephen Sommers struggled to catch a break after Van Helsing preposterously failed to be the next The Mummy. But a trained luvvie with boundless self-regard was bound to bounce back. Sir Ken retreated to Shakespeare for a few years (and an equally overblown “definitive” Hamlet) before eventually returning to the mode of mediocre (at best) Hollywood behemoths with the likes of Thor (the Second Unit saved it), Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Cinderella and Murder on the Orient Express. All of which proved to any doubters that, as a director, he’s a less than talented hack.

And on the evidence of his performance in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, he isn’t much of a thesp either. Yes, the then-heralded successor to Sir Larry is really sucky as a Hollywood star. He’d been noticed by Tinseltown, obviously, because of Henry V. Then Dead Again, his first US foray – complete with requisite dodgy Yank accent – did mystifyingly brisk business. Everyone loved Ken, and Ken was going to show them he was hugely loveable. As loveable and desirable as your Costner or your Willis or your Mel or your Tom. Thus, he attacks the material – Frank Darabont’s material – with misplaced narcissistic vigour, turning Mary Shelley’s mad scientist into a shirtless, potbellied homunculus, a Byronic twat with a MOR-rock mullet.

Ken’s face is devoid of character, a doughy pudding attempting to inhabit a deluded scientist. When he sports a beard, he simply looks like he’s trying much too hard. In a ginger kind of way. His self-belief in his own swoony studliness is by far the funniest thing about the movie (that it seemed to work on Helena Bonham-Carter in reality – to Emma Thompson’s cost, or should that be ultimate good fortune? – is, well… She ended up with Burton, didn’t she? Tim, not Richard).

Whether he’s wooing adoptive sister Elizabeth (Bonham-Carter) or writhing around in a risibly homoerotic pool of post, or pre,-Freudian birthing fluid, Ken is abjectly awful (thematically, the latter sequence echoes the absurdly bloody early scene in which Ian Holm, also stripped to the waist, has his hands up wife Cheri Lunghi in an attempt to deliver their baby. He emerges festooned in her innards, tumbling down an absurdly immense and operatic staircase).

Ken at least isn’t alone in his rubbishness. He coaxes some truly terrible turns from his co-stars too. Frankenstein is an embarrassment of shitses. Right from the off, there’s Aidan Quinn (as a ship’s captain) doing his level best to meet Ken amdram overemphasis for amdram overemphasis. Tom Hulce, ten years on from Mozart, was, I feel sure, cast as a measure to make Ken look good, and if it doesn’t work, Hulce does his darnedest (he apparently replaced Christopher Lambert. My suspicion is that Chris was too tall for pint-sized Ken to share the screen with).

Helena is horrifying, reminding you why she was such an objectionable creature during her Merchant Ivory phase. This is also a rare instance where Holm can come up with nothing to remedy matters. Robert Hardy is solid as a tutor denouncing Vic, while Briers does his patent Briers as the blind hermit. The surprise is John Cleese, with different teeth, hair and delivery, who is actually quite decent in a straight role as an influencer of Vic’s unnatural experiments.

And then there’s Bob. De Niro was beginning to enter his parody phase at this point. Even his work with greats this decade (Casino, Heat) delivered films that were much more notable than his now-familiar performances in them. His creature comes very much from the guy who played Max Cady and earlier still Louis Cypher. Bob makes for possibly the most anaemic creature imaginable, so reflecting the makeup, which is good, but neither interesting nor inspired.

Thus, the diligence of Darabont’s adaptation is buried beneath utterly unnuanced performance and delivery. There’s zero connection between beast and creator, even when they’re slopping about in amniotic fluid. And while the lines are there, any sensitivity of poetry is beyond Bob. “Because I am so very ugly and they are so very beautiful” he tells Briars of why he cannot go home, before spinning on a dime and exclaiming “I will have revenge!” as he burns down the hermit’s home. “He never gave me a name” he commiserates with himself at the end, and cries because “He was my father”. Yet the observation is meaningless because no relationship or connection has been established.

This is typical of Ken’s approach: swathes of bloody overkill but absent any emotional resonance. In his own inept way, he seems to be attempting to ape superhero movies; the super-strength toad leads to a super-strength Bob, leaping at Ken in inglorious slo-mo amid the snow. That and his later leering through a skylight are among the Creature’s Batman moments. Then there’s Elizabeth, reduced to the states of a bride and renouncing affections for either suitor before engaging in some OTT overkill as she rampages aflame down a corridor (that bit was Ken’s bright idea). It’s all quite ghastly.

For Ken, the lack of an iota of artistry means the artifice is evident despite the cost. The ice sequence sets are very obvious sets. DP Roger Pratt, so good for Gilliam, rather combusts under the strain of Ken’s relentlessly roving camera and complete lack of acumen for atmosphere. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein fails even to work as a melodrama, let alone a horror. Crazy camera “save the baby” freneticism is just the start, and the picture never stops. To the point that, when Victor attempts to dance with monster Elizabeth, we’re “treated” to a flashback medley of dizzying camera swirls (lest you assume Ken has matured or become more stylistically conscious with age, Murder on the Orient Express’ signature shot was a zoom in on Poirot walking on top of the train). And yes, we keep returning to the loooong staircase, the looongest ever.

Darabont was not impressed, quite correctly. Here’s Frank being frank about Frankenstein:

I think Ken Branagh will probably think I'm after him now (laughs). We've all heard stories about their work didn't turn out the way they wanted when it hit the screen. This is my prime example of a movie I wrote going down the shitter. In my opinion, I think Frankenstein was one of the best things I ever wrote. Easily equal to The Green Mile. And that wasn't the movie that Ken Branagh wanted to make. He wanted to make something else. What he made I thought was a dunderheaded, ham-fisted mess. But I wasn't the director on that, so...I felt like he tried to reinvent the wheel every step of the way. It's so dumbed down. It's so bombastic, that I was just flabbergasted. And let's describe Mary Shelley's novel: very understated, very smart, conceptually brilliant. I don't know what happened there. Had I known how it was going to turn out, I never would have done it. My all-time favourite book is Shelley's Frankenstein.

He was being too kind there. Although, his dialogue isn’t always so choice (“It’s not often a man has his wedding night” Ken is told by his right-hand man. This is true. Unless you’re John Cleese). The most interesting part of the movie, from the current perspective, is one I wasn’t expecting, less still recalled. Turns out the monster is an anti-vaxxer. But by implication, science creates anti-vaxers and then creates monsters from them. Not unlike The X-Files, science extolling the benefits of receiving the shot also betrays that those doing so are entirely unscrupulous. Victor proudly announces “You take vaccines for instance. Thirty years ago, the concept of vaccine was unheard of, and now we save lives every day” before waxing lyrical about how, if you have a sick heart, you can be given a healthy one. It’s the pre-monster man (played by De Niro, and much more interesting in this brief turn than his monster manifestation) who objects to the vaccination programme of Cleese’s Professor Waldman (the movie’s own Fauci):

Bob: You’re not sticking that in me. It’s got pox in it, I hear.
Woman: Pox? They given us pox?
Bob: Pox.
Waldman: It’s not pox. It’s a vaccine.
Bob: What’s that?
Waldman: It’s a vaccine that will prevent a plague in this city. It’s a tiny, harmless amount of anti-small pox serum.
Bob: You just said pox!
Waldman: I said it was harmless. It’s a necessary precaution without which this godforsaken city would be immediately put under quarantine.
Bob: You doctors kill people. I don’t care what you say. You’re not sticking that in me.
Waldman: Yes, I am. It’s the law!

Now here, the forced vaccinations unsurprisingly lead to violence (De Niro stabs the doctor in the neck with his syringe). And it turns out that everything the “superstitious” “unscientific” fool says to Waldman is fair comment. The key to the afflictions of the urban environment, of overcrowding, bad air, water, vermin and putrescence are the true elements leading to the realisation “This cholera is an epidemic!” But the scientific vanguard of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – the same ones now leading the transhumanist charge – are steeped in early (Pasteurian) virus theory, and their backwardness soon leads to widespread suffering (Briers’ family’s livelihoods are threatened by the quarantine).

Reportedly, Coppola wanted to re-edit the movie when he saw Ken’s cut. I dare say he was minded to bin it entirely. While there’s no doubting his Bram Stoker’s Dracula is riddled with excess and indulgence, it’s also unmistakeably the work of someone with talent to spare. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, in contrast, is entirely bereft. It is a blighted movie. An abomination.



Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.