Remando al viento

I've always been fond of Rowing with the Wind. Admittedly, it's flawed: the characters are stiffly presented and excessively iconic, and the dialog is often just a series of aphorisms. It would have benefited from a more naturalistic 'mud on the hem' approach. I also believe the American backers insisted a lot of footage be cut out of the original version so that might account for some of the problems. But, on the plus side, the cinematography is gorgeous, the Fantasia on a Theme music is lovely, and the movie does have an elegant feel. I suspect the director was aiming for a somewhat arthouse, dreamlike approach. It might not quite work but it does have its moments.

The recurring presence of the Creature is, I'd suggest, meant to be a psychological projection of the characters growing instabilities and griefs. It's also, I think, a symbol of mortality. Initially the principal characters are shown as young, beautiful, and talented but their lives are haunted by premature death and sadness. Mary's life was even more challenging than the film indicates; three of her four children died in infancy or by miscarriage. I think the movie is suggesting that her real 'child' was the literary one of the Creature; Mary says in a couple of scenes that she feels the Creature has escaped from the book and become real and, in a sense, that did become true; in the two centuries since the novel was written Frankenstein and his monster have become immortal, especially when compared to the tragically short lives of many of the people associated with the original story.

I've been seeking out a bunch of Frankenstein films after re-reading Mary Shelley's novel, and I count ones such as "Rowing with the Wind" to be part of that. It's one of a few semi-historical movies to self-reflexively be about the creation of the story, which itself is about creation. "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), "Gothic" (1986), "Haunted Summer" (1988), "Frankenstein Unbound" (1990) and "Mary Shelley" (2017) also feature the author of "Frankenstein." In this one, the creature of Shelley's Frankenstein comes to life, or rather to apparition, and haunts her through the deaths of those in her life, which is also what happens in the novel to Victor Frankenstein. None of the aforementioned films I've seen managed to accomplish such a feat: of integrating the fictional and historical myths, of the doppelgänger of creature and creator, and of placing within the milieu of 19th-century Romanticism.

This is the second unorthodox Spanish production of a Frankenstein film that I've seen, as well--the other being "The Spirit of the Beehive" (1973)--and while they approach the story in different ways and by different media (this one, by writing; the other through the 1931 film), they are both two of the most complexly layered and beautiful films to portray the monster. Even though, like others, I viewed the butchered Miramax cut, which reportedly eliminates a fourth of the film, "Rowing with the Wind" is a far more intelligent conception than the opium-induced madhouse of "Gothic," which offers only the simplest readings of the book and isn't even especially gothic itself. It was made at Gaddesden Place, which is of Palladian architecture, whereas the relevant scenes of "Rowing with the Wind" look as though they could've been filmed at Lord Byron's Villa Diodati. And even "Gothic" is better than "Frankenstein Unbound," which treats the Frankenstein story as an historical event and reduces Mary Shelley's authorship to that of a reporter taking liberties with the facts. "Gothic" reduced Mary's inspiration to her dead children, and while "Rowing with the Wind" is more encompassing than that, it even handles that part more poetically. The scenes of the monster approaching Mary's son William (also the name of Victor's brother) is one of the more haunting here--especially so for those who've read the book and seen the similar scene of the little girl in Universal's 1931 adaptation.

I also like the beginning shots of a boat in an icy sea, which recalls Captain Walton's search in "Frankenstein" for the Northwest Passage, but also through a recitation of Lord Byron's poem "Darkness" situates this film's beginning in the Year Without a Summer of 1816--when by Lake Geneva, Byron, Mary, her then-lover-and-would-be-husband Percy Shelley and John Polidori decided to compete in writing ghost stories. From that night, Polidori wrote "The Vampyre" and, more famously, Mary began the creation of what would become the novel "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus." Percy Shelley's "Wake the Serpent Not" is also later recited, and the film is full of allusions to the Romantic era in which Mary wrote her masterpiece, including in the classical and romantic musical score and, most impressively, the cinematography, especially of nature. Such lush photography of natural landscapes is especially appropriate given the volcanic winter of 1816 and later Romantic settings--complete with the sailing motif. Even the interior views, including the giraffe in Lord Byron's Venetian residence, and the costumes--Elizabeth Hurley in a men's suit, for instance--contain sumptuous visuals.

Although Elsa Lanchester and Gavin Gordon will probably always remain by favorite film Mary and Lord Byron for their one scene in "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), Lizzy McInnerny and Hugh Grant do well here. Certainly, this is a much more developed Mary than I've seen in the other versions, and Grant affects Lord Byron's limp well and provides a more refined variation on the caddish roles he'd later become well-known for. This is also the best Percy I've seen, although, of all the things Miramax could've cut out, they seem to have left in (at least I hope so) all of the many foreshadowing references to Mr. Shelley's inability to swim. The English Polidori, however, seems out of place as played by a Spaniard. And, one of the least interesting things to me regarding this film is its place at the beginning of Grant and Hurley's real-life romance.

I don't care much for the slow speech delivery of the creature, either, and the picture does appear somewhat dull and disjointed at times--likely as a result of the Miramax cuts. Someday, I'd like to see the complete version, but even as it is, this is Romantically gorgeous and an intelligently self-reflexive integration of two stories of creation and horror. In one scene, after facing so much death already throughout her life, Mary states, "I do not want to see a creature born that is destined to die." In the case of her novel's creature, this wish has been fulfilled. Like the one in "Rowing with the Wind," Shelley's monster has taken on a life of its own. Surpassing its 200th anniversary in 2018, it remains very much alive.

You could stop this picture on any frame and have a beautiful photograph suitable for framing. That is the only good thing I can say about it. The acting is generally horrible (although I did like Mr. Gomez) and the former reviewer's description of the hilarity of Hugh Grant howling in a boat is spot on. I blame the writing and directing. Most of these actors are capable of much better when given decent direction and decent dialogue to speak. The female characters are not shown to have any talent of their own, as we know at least Mrs. Shelley surely did. On the other hand, the men don't display much talent, either! This whole film is a bit like a soap opera on TV, but the acting doesn't rise to that quality. Turn the sound off and enjoy its visual beauty.

Rowing With The Wind took an excellent idea from the life of Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley. For anyone who is familiar with the life of Mary Shelley, this film will make more sense and be appreciated better. However, for the average movie-goer, this film will probably be of disinterest. Having said that (and for those of you still reading), I would have to applaud the youthful talents of today stars, Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley, who play Lord Byron and Claire Clairmont, respectively. This Spanish production keeps with European exposure in several nude scenes, most notably of Elizabeth Hurley.

The film in a nutshell describes a visit to Lord Byron by Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, half-sister Claire Clairmont, and Byron's physician Dr. Polidori. According to history, Lord Byron challenged each of them to develop the most horrific story they could come up with. This is when Mary Shelley came up with the idea for Frankenstein, published in 1818. Oddly, Mary Shelley's biography was rife with a large number of deaths of those around her. Her mother died when she was born. One of her sisters died. Her husband's ex-wife died drowning. Ironically, her husband dies drowning.

She loses a couple of children. And on and on. She seemed so unable to escape death soon after the publication of Frankenstein. This film takes on the idea that her abominable creation is the cause of such deaths.

Kudos definitely go to whomever wrote the script for Lord Byron. Hugh Grant plays him brilliantly and in a very intelligently decadent sort of way. He's hilarious! Elizabeth Hurley and the other actors are good, not outstanding. But the film fails, despite its great plot creativity, when it hands out a quick and un-compelling revival of the evening in which Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein. It gives far less attention than it should have, as I would have thought it a bigger turning point in the story.

With better direction and production (beginning of the film is a bit grainy), this would have truly made a compelling story. 5/10

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."