I guess that Jane Eyre-ish Secret Garden movie got me in a Gothic mood. . .
Last night (and this morning) I watched Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein.
I didn't really know much about this particular adaptation so I had no expectations, nor reservations beforehand. The opening scenes in the North Pole had me a little confused; "Did I click on the right movie? Do Frankenstein and Santa live in the same neighborhood?"
BTW- I know thisis Herman Munster, but more on him later.
But as I settled into the story, I could see why the frozen, desolate landscape of the Arctic was appropriate for it. This recent adaptation tells us not just how the monster was made, but how Dr. Frankenstein himself was created; his formative years shaping his pursuit of knowledge and obsession with conquering death. This fits the common conclusion that the Dr. himself is more monster than his creation.
However, this version also gives us a story from the monster's point of view. His confusion and yearning for affection in the beginning of his 'life', followed by the shame and frustration when he failed to achieve the Dr.'s expectations. When the Dr. attempts to destroy him, he escapes through the waterway and it's a rebirth for him; he discovers the pleasure that comes from caring for others, and having them care for you in return. He reads books and learns to express himself. It is his desire to have an unbreakable bond with someone that leads him to seek out his creator again, only to be rejected, again.
The film is beautifully presented; rich colors like crimson and emerald green representing Life (blood) and Nature (Earth) contrasted with the stark shades of black and gray in the laboratory, and the arctic landscape, which illustrate loneliness and profound sense of lacking.
The costumes are absolutely stunning
I tried to remember what my first exposure to Frankenstein was, and the earliest version I can think of watching, and knowing what I was seeing, was the faithful father figure in The Munsters, one of the many old TV shows I watched on Nick at Nite as a kid. I knew Herman was supposed to look like 'Frankenstein' but obviously I had not read the book, or seen any movie versions yet. The next version I can remember is the 1984 Tim Burton film Frankenweenie. I used to love renting this movie from our local movie rental place. Again, I knew it was supposed to be like Frankenstein, but I didn't have direct knowledge of the source material. I just loved the idea of being able to bring a beloved pet back to life (and not in the terrifying Pet Sematary kind of way).
The 1984 version is so good- I can't bring myself to watch the 2012 one
Tonight I decided to watch the classic 1931 version; I have seen it in bits and pieces over the years, but I wanted to watch it from start to finish so I could compare the two. The 1931 version is a more straight-forward telling of the story, with the viewer on the outside watching the Dr. make his monster. We don't get any backstory or insight on either.
It's become kind of an expectation for audiences now to get some kind of backstory on our villains; we want to see what made them the way they are. Like, why is the Witch of the West so Wicked? Guillermo Del Toro's version does justice to the stories of both monsters.
One thing about this version is the absence of The Bride of Frankenstein, and I would love to see this story with a feminist point of view, but I won't have to wait long because The Bride! (directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal) is coming out the first week in March. That story looks like a highly-stylized version that examines the idea of woman being created, for a man, by a man. It's titled The Bride! to put emphasis on her, and remove the indicator that she is 'of' a male, rejecting that Handmaiden's Tale type of reality.
I guess before then I will have to make a point to watch the 1935 version, so I'll be ready to compare them.
