"Victor Frankenstein", in contrast to the original novel, turned out not so much a movie about a monster as about a person and humanity. And this person is not at all the doctor himself, created by Mary Shelley's imagination, but his assistant Igor, who was put at the forefront in the new interpretation. It is he who is constantly tormented by pangs of conscience and doubts about who he is and what he helped create. From the very first seconds, the focus on the character of Igor, devoid of love, but hung with suffering, turns the movie into a drama, in which thriller, detective and horror are mixed with the persistent efforts of director Paul McGuigan and screenwriter Max Landis. Only these efforts in the end come out almost completely unnecessary, because “ Victor Frankenstein ” took place like a movie and without any monsters, they only stretched the action time to a seemingly strangely long two hours.
At the same time, surprisingly Daniel Radcliffe brings little to his Igor, despite the fact that he had seemingly limitless possibilities for creative improvisation ... Frankenstein himself by James McAvoy turned out to be much more interesting, richer and deeper. Extravagance, which McAvoy very moderately, without overdoses, mixes into his game, draws attention to him in all scenes, despite the fact that the story is Igor. We walk the path with Radcliffe, but sympathy still remains no less on the side of the mad doctor than on the side of the mutilated hunchback.
However, this is only a small part of the confusion in the overloaded plot, which begins to strain by the middle of the second act. The movie manages to accommodate both the love line, and the fanatically believing detective from Scotland Yard, and the action scenes chopped by visual effects, which cannot but upset the dynamics of the picture, clumsily jumping from positive to sad mood, and from energetic blockbuster definiteness to exquisitely slow, almost art -house sophistication. At the very beginning, Max Landis, who wrote the Chronicle before, very skillfully unrolled several plot lines, but when it came time to tie them together for the finale, it turned out that he had too many spinning plates in his hands - he could not keep up with all of them. Therefore, the heroes suddenly began to commit unjustified acts, to die out of the blue, and all logical connections burned out like bridges between the banks.
McGuigan puts a lot of emphasis on the aesthetics of the movie and his own directorial decisions, some of which successfully support the movie, while others pull it to the bottom like a drowned man. The rainy, gloomy atmosphere of the movie and mesmerizing flights of the camera in the landscape of the Frankenstein fortress created by computer animation distract the eyes from the plot absurdities, just as the degree of tension is great. Original room designs, clearly combining a realistic approach and a modern director's vision, help to create a by no means authentic, but at least believable England. At the same time, the decidedly disgusting appearance not only of monsters, but of some other parts of the movie, may well give a particularly impressionable dose of nightmares, and a daring parody of religious fanatics into which Andrew Scott turned his character,
But the fact of the matter is that all these parts do not play any role in what the movie is trying to say, and only get in the way of the creators. Strike at “ Victor Frankenstein ” not at all monsters and not hesitantly staged scenes of battles with them, but the level of thoughtfulness and emotionality achieved by the director and the two main actors. The problems of Frankenstein and Igor, their mental pain associated with the first with loss, and with the second with the fear of loss, are broadcast on the screen vividly, supported by visual cues, but in a deeply personal manner. James McAvoy and Radcliffe are not afraid to be vulnerable on screen, because often behind their vulnerability lies the strength of the spirit, praised by the creators.
Landis, for all the instability of the script, touches on many topics: from God to godlessness, from death to immortality, from physical dependence to emotional dependence. “ Frankenstein ” turned out to be psychologically honest and exciting. Only his ambiguity and excessive unwillingness to be just a drama has a negative impact on the pace of the plot and the depth of development of some themes and characters, many of which remain in their infancy (remember at least the useless cameo of Charles Dance).
So that's it. ... Pay attention to “ Victor Frankenstein ” definitely worth it, if only because it is such a refreshingly original approach to all familiar material. However, this interpretation is free, thinking in its own way and separate from the work of Mary Shelley (want the original Frankenstein, see Danny Boyle's performance of the same name). You can also evaluate the new movie version on a small screen, but you need to get acquainted with it, because this is one of the rare cases when research focuses not on creation, but on the creator. Or, in this case, the creators.
The Topic of Article: Review of the movie Victor Frankenstein. Assembled in parts.
Author: Jake Pinkman |
