Gothic

Was this a story of Mary Shelly's inspiration for Frankenstein. It could be, but that is not what makes it interesting.

It is not your usual horror film. It is more for those who dwell in the surreal world fueled by opiates.

Shelly (Julian Sands), Mary Shelly (Natasha Richardson), and her half-sister Claire (Myriam Cyr) travel to Lord Byron's (Gabriel Byrne) estate where his biographer (Timothy Spall) is staying. They enter into a realm of drug-induced fantasy, where they conjure up their greatest fears.

It was a mess, wandering all over the place, but it certainly kept my interest.

Films like Gothic, directed by Ken Russell, will not be to most people's taste. Russell is noted for a skewed view of life with very twisted imagery, such as his invariable trademark snake that slithers around in all his films. In this particular film he has devised a story that touches on reality in an unreal way as he brings the famous night that Percy Shelly, Mary Shelly, he half-sister Claire, Lord Byron and Dr. John Polidori spent together that brought about two of the great horror stories of all time about as a result. Between debauchery and Opium laced nightmares this could have been very much what it was really like as this quintet of famous or rather infamous people got together and brought the birth of a new kind of literature, years before Edgar Allen Poe began his writing. Polidori's "The Vampyre" which for many years was attributed to Byron was the forerunner and inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula. Of course, Mary Shelly was to go on and write "Frankenstein." This is how it could have happened.

This feature is intense and not for everyone. Definitely not for young people. But a true intellectual's horror tale.

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.

The beauty of the film is it's theatrical aura. Dialogs proceed like watching a theatrical play. Great actors and director can support the concept. Have seen the movie several times.