Gothic

I have read some, quite of lot, of the viewers' critiques before watching this movie again, from start to end, and form a final opinion. I did see the movie, which I have seen whole or in fragments previous times and some things became clearer to me.

You have to know enough about the background of the story and the heroes to understand the plot. Otherwise you will think that they are a bunch of raving maniacs. I happened to be interested in the Romantics, thus I knew a lot about the stories generated from the time spent in the famous villa. There the most famous novel of Mary Shelley, Frankenstein was conceived. I had read the novel in the English language with a dense introduction that was describing the preoccupations of Shelley's circle, the infatuation of the age with the newly discovered electricity and the belief that it could generate life. Also I knew about the intricate relationships of the characters involved.

If someone without this background tries to understand what the movie is about, he will be disappointed unless he has such a fine artistic sensibility and general education that can fill the gaps of the ignorance of the facts and emotions surrounding this coterie of quite exceptional people.

All the information relevant is contained in the dialogues and images but unless you knew that before you would be unable to make the relevant connections or understand why the characters behave in such a manner, why and what they speak about and the whole purpose of it all.

The actors are good I think for their roles. Gabriel Byrne has the latent evil touch and subdued lasciviousness that we attribute to Byron, Julian Sands is truly, the "Mad Shelley", as he was called by his fellow schoolboys when at Eton, Timothy Spall gives a grotesque image of Dr. Polidori, which is perhaps unavoidable given the fact that tradition has so much focused to the personalities of the two great literary men that his reputation has been eclipsed, therefore a normal appraisal is perhaps impossible. Myriam Cyr as Claire Clermont follows the conventional interpretation of her character as a sensuous girl attracted by the fame of the poets and lacking herself the depth and gravitas of Mary Shelley. Natasha Richardson is the most normal character among the protagonists and has a fine sequence of scenes, near the end, where she sees as if a prophetess the ensuing fate of many of the characters, which latter developments validate. The other point I wanted to make about Claire Clairmont is that when she is not portrayed as a slut with cultural pretensions, she is shown in a condition of animalistic primitivism or as possessed by demons. Dr. Polidori is also a buffoonish homosexual who eyes both the great poets. It is clear that because Claire Clairmont and Dr. Polidori were the ones of the company that did not achieve literary fame, because the were not the "literary monuments" the other two and to a lesser extent Mary Shelley later became, they have to suffer in the hands of posterity when a director has to cast their roles so as to fill the required quorum along with the "great ones". Not only life but also posthumous reputation is unfair....

Sound and visual effects are adequate and achieve surprise and fear, especially the first time the movie is watched. A lot of demons and related creatures occupy the screen. One though must not blame the director for overdoing it because those elements formed the staple iconography of the so called "Gothic" atmosphere and the diaries of the heroes contain references to hallucinations and the like, perhaps because of drug taking, or just because the symbiosis of some of the most active and strong imaginations alive during that particular time.

The best word that I can use to describe this movie is "uneven". It has good actors, it is supported by sound and scenic effects, it has costumes that look authentic but at times it becomes disgusting, chaotic, devoid of a real plot and radiates hysteria. There are attempts towards sexual explicitness, though by today's standards not so offensive; it must have been for the eighties though...

I was interested in the movie because I am very interested in the Romantics. Otherwise it can be seen as a story of rich people indulging to their decadent appetites for sex, drugs, aimless philosophising and self-absorption, reminding one of a company of people devoted to Marquis de Sade's idea of pleasure(graphic illustrations of his books are page-turned by Mary). Mind you, if tabloids had existed during that time the story would have been a scoop. It might even hit YouTube. When famous people follow their fancies or get their kicks, it is always different from simple plebeians....

Apart from the literary fame of the characters, which in their lifetime was actually secured only by Byron, Shelley and even more Mary Shelley were to be vindicated by posterity; and Shelley was actually more famous-that is- notorious for his unconventional sexual mores, his atheism and his political radicalism, rather than for his verse, is this a story actually worthy to be made to a movie? I can not give a definite answer. Would such a story of drugs, free love (actually sex), hallucinations and sheer self-absorption be of interest to anyone? But of course it produced Frankenstein the most famous of Gothic novels …. I do not think that all this creativity was portrayed in the film. It focused more on the "bad, mad and dangerous to know" aspects of the characters. In that sense I do not think it does justice to what happened in the villa of Geneva and mainly to what was produced. Not all hedonists produce novels of enduring value. Stressing on the eccentric aspects of the lives of the characters the film has betrayed their literary significance and succumbed to sensationalism and cheap thrills.

Despite it's uninspiring title, Ken Russell's "Gothic" is actually an intriguing, and uniquely inspiring piece of cinema. Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" is one of the stories that has helped to shape horror cinema, and so the story behind it is guaranteed to interest horror fans. This film isn't exactly the story of how the story came to fruition; but rather a compilation of ideas surrounding "what could have happened" (but quite clearly didn't). The film takes influence from the enigmatic Lord Byron more than anything, and it's always him that springs to mind as we watch the small cast delve into their imaginations, culminating in an orgy of sex and violence. The story is simple, and focuses more on imagery and the ideas behind what is happening on screen. We follow Percy Shelly and his wife to be, Mary; along with her sister Claire, who travel to the self-exiled home of Lord Byron. While there, the four of them; along with Byron's biographer, decide to indulge in the art of making up ghost stories. However, the fun gets out of hand when the quintet begins to believe that they have actually created a monster.

The film has a very 'intellectual' flavour, but the fact is that there isn't a lot below the surface of this film. Gothic, to me at least, is a visual treat rather than food for thought - with Ken Russell's imagery providing more than any deep and complex substance. The imagery is stunning, and fits into the film very well. Russell's sets compliment the story excellently, and the atmosphere in which the film takes place is more important than the story itself. Lord Byron's house is almost a character within itself, and when combined with the actual characters; Russell has provided horror fans with a very surreal film indeed. The cast is excellent. Films with a small cast rely more on their actors, and this film certainly doesn't fall down in that respect. Gabriel Byrne leads the cast, and does an excellent job of holding the film together. Julian Sands, Natasha Richardson, Myriam Cyr and Timothy Spall, who all portray their characters excellently, join him. On the whole; I can easily see why people dislike this film; as it's somewhat messy, and doesn't adhere to common horror standards - but if you like your horror different, this is highly recommended.

It must be said, I love the work of Ken Russell. If he were of any other nationality or generation he'd be subject to a veritable tome of critical analysis; with amazing films like Elgar (1962), The Debussy Film (1965), Women in Love (1969), The Devils (1971) and Savage Messiah (1972) all standing out as some of the most radical, imaginative and visually impressive feature films of the last fifty years. Too often his excesses got the better of him, as in films such as Lisztomania (1975), The Lair of the White Worm (1987) and Salome's Last Dance (1988), but despite the overall quality of those films, the results were always interesting and visually unforgettable. Gothic (1986) has much in common with the latter collection of works, being somewhat messy and decadent whilst still trying to remain somewhat conventional in its approach to character and narrative. It is this aspect of the film that is the weakest, with the story and the characterisation often feeling somewhat weak or unformed, particularly in the first half. However, once the film gets going - and the wild images and hallucinations begin to accumulate - Russell's energetic style and talent for creating outré and unforgettable visual compositions and ideas really begins to take off; creating a film that is fascinating and open to deeper interpretations regarding the character of Mary Shelley and the unfortunate circumstances of her life that may have led to the creation of her classic and iconic horror story, Frankenstein.

Naturally, the roots of the film are based in fact, taking place in June of 1816 - the "year without summer" - when the five central characters met at Lord Byron's Villa Diodati by Lake Geneva. From here, the film creates a fictional back-story to the wet and windy night that would give birth, not only to Shelley's Frankenstein, but also Polidori's celebrated novel, The Vampyre. What follows is a bizarre and overwhelming example of pure visual storytelling, which is all the more impressive when you take into account the obviously limited budget. However, if you can overcome this aspect - as well as the rather poor performances from Julian Sands as the exaggerated Percy Shelley and Myriam Cyr as Mary's half-sister Claire Clairmont - then the film will reward with a truly astounding final act filled with Russell's typically surreal and lurid imagery, an escalating sense of fever-dream-like horror and exaggeration and the three fine performances from Gabriel Byrne as the seductive Lord Byron, Natasha Richardson as the tortured Mary Shelly and Timothy Spall as the beleaguered Dr. John William Polidori. The tension is also heightened by the choice of location, with the film taking place almost entirely within the Byron estate, and almost entirely at night; although there are two separate framing devises, one of which takes place in the present-day and helps clarify some of the scenarios depicted in the film's aforementioned final act.

These don't necessarily add much to the story - though neither do they detract - simply giving a certain sense of context before Russell gets on with the mind-blowing imagery and finely tuned atmosphere of eroticised dread. Some have likened the film to Dario Argento's classic supernatural thriller Suspiria (1977), with the use of Gothic locations, bold colours and a self-consciously visual approach to storytelling. These similarities stand, though you can also see the film as an extension of the earlier Altered States (1980) and Crimes of Passion (1984); both in certain thematic preoccupations, and in the actual visual presentation overall. The film works simply because of the intensity of the images, but ultimately going deeper than even that; tying the whole thing into the character of Mary Shelley and her own sense of personal tragedy. It gives the film that much needed emotional quality, helped along by the fine performance from the incredibly young Richardson in one of her first leading roles. She's complimented well by Byrne, who takes the role of Byron entirely seriously, even when spouting some incredibly pretentious dialog and attempting to seduce every character in the film. Nonetheless, the intensity of the role shines through and really establishes the character, with his fears and weaknesses going towards the creation of his own personal nightmare that will reverberate through time.

The film suggests that by raising the spirits of the dead you fate yourself to an inescapable evil. This is reflected by the tragic circumstances that surrounded the characters - hinted at in that tour-de-force final - and their eventual fate as documented by history itself. It's very clever once you get past the awkward, slightly giddy and anachronistic-like feeling of the first few scenes and really get into the horror aspect and the more much rewarding sense of human interest. Naturally, it won't be to all tastes, as the factors that Russell tends to highlight in his work - religious symbolism, garishness, sex and sensuality, brutality and anachronistic humour - will obviously cause problems for viewers looking for a more conventional "horror" story. I liked the break in convention, though. After all, there are plenty of horror films that regurgitate the same old stock tactics and scenarios. Gothic goes for a different approach; one that is more eccentric, single-minded and unique, layering the fact and fantasy elements of Stephen Volk's imaginative screenplay with a lurid and sensational approach to the visual telling of the story, rife with his usual themes and obsessions. If you love Russell's work, and appreciate interesting and unconventional cinema, then Gothic is well worth checking out; if not for the bizarre visual aspects and exciting, nightmarish final, then certainly for the nicely judged performances of Richardson, Byrne and Spall.

On a dark and stormy night, in a remote, but lavish country estate, in an equally distant Victorian mansion there resides the charismatic, but often eccentric, Englishman, Lord Byron (Gabriel Byrne). Staged for an exercise in humanistic logic, scientific philosophy and creative writing, he gathers an odd assembly of thrill seeking Bohemian characters. Among the notables, are poet Percy Shelly, his author wife Mary, his personal physician, and of course their host, Lord Byron. Beginning with a blasphemous premise that they are imbued with the power to create life itself, Byron suggests they abandon their earthly inhibitions of morality and civil conviction and drink a concentrated draft of Laudium laced wine. The terrifying after effects manifest themselves in the literal passages later found in the poetic works of Percy Shelley or his wife's most famous novel Frankenstein. With a storm raging high above them, the group evokes sacred beliefs, sacrilegious rites and amoral concepts which create a frightening spectral atmosphere that nearly consumes them. Anyone seeking the foundation of the most popular Gothic monster ever created, should view this film. ****

I've only seen two of Ken Russell's films (Gothic and Lair of the White Worm), but if they are anything to go by, he is one of the best horror directors of all time. It is so nice to see someone going against the mould and not making predictable slasher films or Hollywood 'Sixth-Sense' style horror-thrillers.

It is about the weird night that Mary Shelly and her poet brother spent with Lord Byron, which supposedly inspired her to write Frankenstein.

It is filled with hallucionations and erotic weirdness which bridges it much closer to the work of David Lynch or Cronenberg than to the traditional horror film.

I absolutely loved this film and can't recommend it enough. Even if you hate it, you can't deny that it's an experience! 5/5