I, Frankenstein (2D)
Cert: 12A / 92 mins / Dir. Stuart Beattie
"You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could […] But your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should…"
~ Ian Malcolm, Isla Nublar, 1993.
A confused, shambling bastardisation of the familiar, painstakingly yet sloppily assembled from components which don't fit together neatly or effectively, because established order never designed them to; An achievement of modern technology certainly, yet an insult to its origins and a mockery of everything it tries and fails to be; At first glance, a terrifying abomination, yet if we stop to look more closely, there is a heart beating beneath the surface, struggling to find some purpose among the turbulence it creates; struggling to find meaning.
Oh, and there's a monster in the film as well. BOOM!
I won't beat around the bush, I, Frankenstein is utter shite. From the over-acting of every performer who doesn't play a named character, to the embarrassed under-acting of everyone who does, this is an extended cut-scene from a very average video game which blithely assumes its audience isn't old enough to have any grounding in the source-material. The CGI gargoyles hold about as much weight as the god-awful script, and are only slightly less laughable than Bill Nighy's demon-horde, wearing Reservoir Dogs suits, and masks bought from Docklands Studio's nearest 99¢ store at Hallow'een.
The more the screenplay tries to create bonds with its literary and cinematic forebears, the more excruciating things become, and when Ian Frankenstein delivers his closing soliloquy (vowing to become some kind of Batman-type vigilante if a sequel should ever see the light of day), my toes curled so hard they tore through my shoes*1.
Far more boring than a story of this kind should ever be, 'I, Frankenstein' is a creation which should have stayed on the page, where it belongs.
I would have marked the film a point higher*2, but the shoehorning in of "It's alive… It's alive!" is a far greater blasphemy than the reanimation of a living being could ever be…
Go away.
Go away.
Go away.
Go away.
Go away.
Go away.
I think I might have heard one, or it may have been my brain trying to insert something into the proceedings which would make me smile, kind of like a cinematic "safe place". Either way, I'm not likely to watch it again and find out.
Bill Nighy, I know you have bills to pay, but what price your dignity, man? WHAT PRICE, YOUR DIGNITY?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
On reflection, I think that this version of Frankenstein, with Benedict Cumberbatch as the ethically-bereft doctor and Jonny Lee Miller as his first-draft creation, is my favourite of the two performances. A short featurette before the play has Cumberbatch recalling how he studied recovering stroke-patients for his portrayal of the creature, whereas Miller says a lot of his performance was based around his 4yr old son. And it's Miller's child-like interpretation of the part which swings it for me, if only because I could identify more closely with it (not that BC's creature is any less stunning, but it does have a different feel).
In addition, it seems that Cumberbatch is able to get more out of the role of Victor Frankenstein. Both actors pull off the fraught, distracted scientist well, but BC adds a layer of vulnerability which makes the doctor a more sympathetic character; an interesting dynamic in the scenes he shares with his creation, creating a conflict around who you're meant to be rooting for.
Mrs Blackout accompanied me to this, and while she enjoyed it throughly, she feels the other version has the edge. We also took some friends along who hadn't seen either version, and they were suitably blown-away by the whole thing (although, as is customary, they were raising eyebrows at the opening sequence. I think everyone does, that first time). So y'know, your mileage will vary, but you should still love it either way.
Without wanting to sound clichéd, the story really has held its relevancy, and this production does it justice perfectly. Screenings are continuing into December: take a look at Frankenstein's National Theatre page for details of performances near you.
Apart from anything else, how often do you get to see two Sherlocks on stage at the same time?
As much as it can be, yes.
Yes.
Undoubtedly.
Cinema as an when you can, because there's no DVD on the horizon.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Y'know what, I think there's one buried repeatedly in a music/sound-effects sting that transitions two scenes. But I could well be wrong, so I'll err on the side of no.
Did you get the chance to see this at the National Theatre? How does the atmosphere compare with the cinematic presentation?
*1 You can read my review of the show with Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature here, and my original 2012 review (also with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature) here.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So as circumstances unfolded, I missed this version of the performance last year. Tonight's showing was the variant with Benedict Cumberbatch as the shambling, slurring and utterly charming Creature, and Jonny Lee Miller as his emotionally anesthetised creator. As you might suspect, BC gets the lion's share of the stage-time in this role, and has that and more of the work to do. This isn't to downplay JLM's performance at all, but as the story is told from the Creature's point of view, it's a necessity that we spend the most time with him.
Mrs Blackout was on my arm this evening, and so was my newbie-by-proxy. She spent the first fifteen minutes or so as I initially did, thinking 'well, this is all very avante garde; do we get a script or is it all expressionism?'. The unannounced, untitled, introductory birthing-sequence does feel longer than it is (even watching it again), yet it's absolutely essential for bonding with the Creature, and by the time of his departure from the farmstead you're glad you shared it with him. Cumberbatch is nothing short of magnificent here, and as much fun as he's having, it never gets hammy or overdone, even when delivering the humourous lines which the script is deftly hiding (although these moments are intentionally more broad when delivered by the other members of the cast). Extra props go to the ever-engaging Karl Johnson and Naomie Harris, whose roles seem almost criminally (if needfully) short.
Whether you're a Shelley aficionado, or have only caught fleeting glimspes of the Karloff-guise, this interpretation of the tale is worth your time, money and attention. Meticulously staged, and thought-provoking without beating you over the head with weighted morality, Frankenstein is definitely "theatre", but definitely worth a watch for even the most hardened cinephile.
Oh, and as it turned out, Mrs Blackout enjoyed it very much. So, all good.
Folks in the UK: The other half of the performance (with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature) is being shown at participating Cineworld, Vue, and Odeon cinemas. Independents are listed on the NT Live website. International screenings are being held, but you'll have to Google your area I'm afraid ;)
Well, it's not really meant to be, I don't think.
I did.
It does.
If you can see Frankenstein at a cinema, do, because it looks like there's no DVD imminent.
I probably will.
If they show it again, I will watch it again.
There isn't.
What's your favourite version of Frankenstein's monster?
Yes, I know it's an obvious question.
That's why I asked it.
*1 You can read my original 2012 review of the show (with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature) here.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
And so the third of this year's horror-themed animations hits cinemas, and if this doesn't school the young'uns in the ways of Classic Creeps and Chills, nothing will...
So, yes. Despite being trailered well in advance of its brethren, Tim Burton's spook-fest limps in last, more than likely using Hallow'een as an excuse for its tardiness. You'd think that with Disney behind the production, some money might have been spent using computer animation, to help the speed, if not the quality, but no. Burton's new film uses old-fashioned stop-motion photography, limiting the things that can be shown on-screen to the extent of the model-maker's skills.
As a further insult to the ticket-buying public, Frankenweenie has been made in black and white, of all things! Apparently this is some kind of tribute to old-fashioned horror films, but if that's the case, why isn't there a Dracula in the film? Or a wolfman? The name Frankenstein is used, but I notice there's no likeness of the monster - probably so that Burton didn't have to pay the full amount of money for the rights to use it. The story seems largely derivative of the classic horror genre, but without any proper namechecks.
Elsewhere, the voice-acting is left to a cast that features Winona Ryder (who's a Burton favourite anyway), and Martin Short as its high-points. If only someone had spent more money and gotten the likes of Adam Sandler and Kevin James on board; they could have injected to much needed humour into the proceedings. Instead, we're treated to 90 minutes about a boy who doesn't learn to let go of his pet dog and becomes a necromancer as a result. What kind of message is that sending to our children?
Spoilers:Oh, of course I enjoyed it. Sure, it's a little self-indulgent, but putting this much love into a film is bound to have that effect. You don't need me spending three paragraphs telling you how gorgeous Frankenweenie is, there are plenty of reviews doing that already ;D It's funny, dark, touching, and above all else, it has an actual message. If you don't enjoy this film on some level, you're a heathen.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Now you know me, I'm not really a theatre person. That's why I go to the cinema as often as I do. It's not a question of location or convenience, it's more that the larger the theatre, the more mainstream the production, so I don't usually bother. I don't really have the frame-of-reference (that I think) I need to get the most out of the theatre, so projects like this are ideal for me. The kind of show I'd be interested in, in a format that suits me down to the ground.
Despite the title-prefix, today's showing wasn't "live" live, but recorded from one production last year, so everything you see happens at the same pace as sitting in the theatre watching the play. The show is a new adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by Nick Dear, directed by Danny Boyle, and starring Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch as the monster and his creator, respectively. Or the creator and the monster, depending on which performance you see. For the live run, the actors swapped parts every night, giving the pair of them a unique insight into their (and each other's) roles.
"Slowly I learnt the ways of humans: how to ruin, how to hate, how to debase, how to humiliate. And at the feet of my master I learnt the highest of human skills, the skill no other creature owns: I finally learnt how to lie."
The Plot: Told largely from the point of view of the monster, Frankenstein follows his journey from a shambling, newborn beast, through his education at the hands of a kindly surrogate father-figure, to the point where his intellect is equal-to and greater-than that of his creator. The point where he learns what it is to be human by causing the same level of destruction as they do.
The Good: Johnny Lee Miller. For the version I watched, JLM steals the show as the monster. I'm confident that Cumberbatch has the chops to equal the performance on his nights in the make-up, but without seeing it, I can't imagine he'll better it. In order for the production to work as it does, the decision was made that the monster would speak. It's handled beautifully, as he learns to talk over the course of the two hours (three years in story-time), progressing through childlike grunts and exclamations to fully coherent sentences that hint of learning difficulties and underlying madness. The fact that he has a fully-developed brain that only has to be filled with knowledge is hinted at, but not spelled out, and it's stunning to watch the literal growth of the monster, yearning for acceptance, understanding and love. There's absolutely no doubt that the monster is more of a sympathetic character than in any other version of the story that I've seen, but it never becomes cloying or forced.
Cumberbatch is also on top form as the crazed scientist who created life because he saw it as an equation to be completed. His whole performance is distant, but always through a lack of understanding, rather than compassion. While the scenes of the play are long enough to justify the sets that have been built, they don't drag, and what appears at first to be a 'minimal' set holds surprises in terms of versatility. It's helped hugely by great lighting, of course, but it doesn't overshadow the cast or the story.
There's little else I can really say without going into theatre-review territory (which again, I don't have the frame of reference to do), so I'll just say that I went to the cinema with an open mind, and left very impressed.
The Bad: Firstly, not all of the acting is as good as the two leads. It's nowhere near AmDram level, but some of the other performers seem to have their tongue in their cheek, somewhat. It's not crisis-point, but it contrasts with Cumberbatch and Miller who play their roles with total conviction. Secondly, it's a bit theatre. Particularly the first five minutes. Yes, I know how that sounds. To the show's credit, there's no attempt to disguise the face that this is a live performance, filmed in front of an audience. The shape and design of the stage means that you can't film all of the required shots without catching them somewhere at least, and while it's minimal, it did keep pulling me out a little. There's a lot of camerawork in the cinematic presentation of the show (ie, it's not just a single static camera filming), so as a cinema audience, you're already seeing so much more than a theatre-patron. But as cool as that is, when a wide/reverse-shot shows the audience sitting enjoying the show, it does pull me out, because that's not what you'd go to the theatre to see. It's a minor-point, and almost nonsensical in mentioning, but it's the only thing keeping me from giving this full marks. It's still better than almost everything else I've seen at the cinema this year.
The Ugly: My only regret is not being at home the other week when they showed the version with Cumberbatch as the monster. Even I can tell that this really does deserve to be watched as part of a duology.
Worth £10? Yes. If you can see this at your local, do. When it finally arrives on DVD/Blu-Ray, I cannot recommend this highly enough. A stunning achievement.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
