Frankenstein: The True Story (1973)Director: Jack Smight
Writers: Don Bachardy, Christopher Isherwood, Mary Shelley (Novel)
Starring: James Mason, Leonard Whiting, David McCallum, Jane Seymour, Nicola Pagett, Michael Sarrazin, Michael Wilding, Agnes Moorehead
When I first started watching Frankenstein: The True Story (1973) I was hoping for a story that would be more faithful to Mary Shelley's novel. The story of Frankenstein has been told many times on film but none of these films had stayed very close to the story of the original novel. This isn't really a bad thing but I was hoping to see an adaptation that was both interesting and true to the novel.
Twenty minutes into the film I had realized that it was going to take just as many liberties with the story that all other adaptations had done. The difference with this adaptation though is that the changes made would not be the least bit interesting. At a very early point in the story I could already tell that the changes made would be rather pointless. They were not done to make the story more cinematic as they were in Frankenstein (1931), they seemed to be changed for the sole purpose of making the story more convoluted.
Characters in this version of the story are completely different than they are in the book. Victor isn't even the main driving force trying to create life in this film. Henry Clerval, Victor's best friend who has nothing to do with creating the creature in the novel, is the character most obsessed with creating life in this version of the story. There is even a point in the film where Victor refers to Henry as the brains of their partnership. I can not think of any reason for this change and in my opinion it takes a lot away from the story of Dr. Frankenstein.
I am not a fan of the changes made to the creature in this version of the story either. He is not anything like the creature that Mary Shelley had envisioned. I don't want to give too much away about the film but the creatures evolution from gentle creature to monster is nothing like it is in the original story. In this version he is not shunned by Victor, in fact Victor does his best to educate the creature as best as he can. When creature begins to look ugly (he is attractive when first created and slowly begins to deform in this film) he decides for himself that he will not fit in with society and run out on his own. It seems like the writers of this version of the story had no respect at all for Mary Shelley's work.From that point on the film begins to deviate more and more from the original source material. Normally I don't have a problem with a film changing the story from its source material but in this case I do. It would seem from the title that this film would try to stay closer to the source material but the writers seem to have no interest in that at all.
On top of how much the film deviated from the source material, it is overall just an uninteresting film. I did not care enough about any of the characters to be invested in anything that happened to them in the film. Victor was changed so much that the dynamic that normally exists between him and his creation is non-existent. The story told in the film is just dull, as is most of the acting and the directing. With a three hour run time the film just ends up being ridiculously hard to sit through.
Rating: 4/10
3 comments:
This movie was a revelation to me when I saw it as a child; it is my favorite variation on Shelley's Frankenstein, and while it isn't 100% faithful to the source novel, it still features elements that had been left out of previous attempts, namely the climax in the arctic wastes. One of the major appeals of the film for me is the inclusion of the "Bride of Frankenstein" material, and I find the movie wholly engaging and entirely interesting. A lot of this has to do with sentimentality, but I just don't think it's bad, or boring, or a disrespectful homage. It's trying to make the story more plausible, and true to life, hence the title. I will never forget the sequence with the crawling forearm, or the scene where Dr. Frankenstein pours acid on it, or the sequence wherein the monster rips the head off his bride, or the scene where Dr. Polidory is hoisted up to the crow's nest and struck by lightning. I love the entire cast of this film, and I think it's one of the very best television horror productions - but I'm from a different era, and this was released during my pre-teen years when it was able to make a profound impact on me. Honestly, if it weren't for this movie, I wouldn't like 'Frankenstein' movies at all. It was my gateway film.
I will admit that the few scenes you mention are some of the better parts of the movie. The addition of the Bride of Frankenstein type storyline was probably my favorite part of the film. Jane Seymour actually did a pretty good job and she seemed to have based some of her performance on the original Bride of Frankenstein. These things didn't save the film from feeling stuffy and dull to me though.
As for calling the film "The True Story" because it is more realistic. I don't really buy into that. There was nothing in this film that was more realistic than any other version of Frankenstein. In fact I would say that the whole deal with the creature starting out beautiful and slowly becoming deformed is actually less realistic than the way the character was portrayed originally. Overall I just felt the changes added unneeded complications to and already fairly complicated story.
I understand that his film has its fans and I respect that. I guess it is just a matter of what kind of films someone likes. I don't like stuffy British period pieces either and that is what this felt like to me. Their is nothing wrong with those types of movies, they just aren't my cup of tea.
I also understand how sentimentality can play a role in how much you enjoy a film. The first Frankenstein movie I saw was the one with Randy Quaid as the creature. I know it isn't a particularly good version but I also know that when I finally get around to watching it for this blog-a-thon that sentimentality will probably play a role in how I review it.
Thanks for commenting, no need to remain anonymous though. All opinions are valid here. I love dissenting opinions, they promote discussion.
Post a Comment