•
Rating:
If you call it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, one expects it to faithfully reflect the work of the English author. However, this film by Kenneth Branagh, dated 1994, is not in all respects a faithful reproduction of the novel. There are many differences between the film and the book, but I will mainly talk about the most important ones:
1-In the literary work, Victor (here played by Branagh himself) encounters the monster's shack while walking in the mountains. Inside, the two will have a conversation in which the monster recounts his adventure on the farm to his creator. An adventure during which he learns to read and understand various family ties. This is shown in the film, but what's incorrect is that the "demon" (Robert De Niro) arrives at the farm after escaping from Ingolstadt (the city where he was "born"), and consequently, we are not shown the meeting between the two.
2-The meeting is shown later when the two hunt each other down for mutual revenge. During this chase, they will talk, and the monster asks Victor to create a "woman" for him so that he is not alone in the world. This dialogue in the novel does not happen while they are hunting each other down.
3-This is honestly the point that perplexed me the most. In Shelley's work, Victor, although reluctantly, decides to satisfy his "creature" and to do so, he heads to Scotland with his friend Clerval. After completing his task, he decides to destroy the female specimen for fear of the pain it could cause humanity given the malignancy of the "male" specimen. In the film, the journey to Scotland is omitted, and consequently, so is the period Victor must spend in prison. The director interprets in his own way and has the protagonist create the "female" by combining two women: one is Elizabeth (Victor's bride), the other is Justine the maid. A choice that seems out of place and not at all belonging to the soul of the book, dissected from the literary context. Furthermore, the moments following this creation are quite embarrassing and diminish the film's credibility.
I do not hide the difficulty the director must have encountered in bringing such a work to life, but some scenes like the lightning rod one and the eel one made me laugh. Fortunately, Branagh fares better as an actor, creating a character that is never trivial and in constant conflict with himself. As for De Niro, I've run out of adjectives. I consider him one of the greatest interpreters, if not the best, in bringing to life figures struggling with their feelings. He manages to give the character a soul, making it seem real and not "filmic", and can immerse himself in his role down to the smallest detail. Sublime in this sense are the three most representative moments of the film. Three scenes, coincidentally dialogues, where the interpretative skill of the actors and De Niro, in particular, emerges. The first is the moving dialogue between the monster and the old blind man. The other two moments are the meeting with his creator and the final scene, where the "demon" declares his love to Victor despite everything and everyone...
But isn't it perhaps that Kenneth Branagh had a different version of Frankenstein?
Loading comments slowly
