Victor Frankenstein

Though it's been a number of years since I've seen this movie, it still leaves an impression as the best and most faithful adaption of Mary Shelley's wonderful book. The two leads were very well cast. It's a shame no one else I know has seen it. This film is way better than Branagh's "rock and roll" version (even though DeNiro was great as the monster).

One of the more faithful adaptations (though that doesn't say much) of Mary Shelley's novel, this film is worth a look if you can see it without spending much money...particularly if you're a fan of the book, as I am. It does, unfortunately, leave out some key points of the novel, but not as many as most adaptations.

Cinematically, the film is rather drab. Too many sustained static shots and a rather sparse score bog the film down a bit, and the acting is too uneven. Some performances are great, while others are mediocre, and a few are simply bad.

Overall, the film feels a bit uneven and minimalistic, but it doesn't stray into some of the ridiculous areas that many Frankenstein films do. If only the direction were a bit more lively and the running time a bit longer (in order to include more of the important notes from the novel), it could have been a great film.

One considerable step down from Kenneth Branaugh's 1994 adaptation.

Forget the hype about MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1993) and FRANKENSTEIN THE TRUE STORY (1974) being the most faithful versions. This neglected Swedish-Irish co-production is still the only movie that's a sincere attempt to accurately portray the characters, events and prevailing mood of Mary Shelley's novel. In fact, it's a lot closer to the original story than any of the other movie versions. Victor Frankenstein (the perfectly cast Leon Vitali) is presented as an intense, moody, headstrong, somewhat neurotic medical student whose tunnel-visioned sense of righteousness is shattered when he sees his Monster awaken for the first time and suddenly feels only horror. As in the book, Victor is completely unable to face the consequences of his experiment, trying at first to convince himself that he must have dreamed the whole thing and then simply running away from it all and pretending nothing ever happened. It isn't that easy for the Monster (Per Oscarsson), who is also much nearer to Shelley's concept of the character than in most movies. Instead of a growling robotic killer, Oscarsson's Monster is an accurate portrayal of the confused, desperate and reasonably intelligent creature described in the novel. He only becomes a hateful, bitter, resentful fiend after he's had plenty of time to think about who and what he is. Oscarsson is one of the best Frankenstein Monsters in movie history in terms of performance, but he has to work hard to overcome the entry-level monster makeup he wears. There are no bloody stitches, neck bolts or misshapen features here, and one wishes they had made his appearance a little more monstrous. His main physical shortcomings are black lips, red-rimmed eyes and a sallow complexion, making it seem more likely that the 'normal' people he meets would view him as a sick person in need of medical attention instead of reacting with fear and total revulsion when they see him. We learn almost nothing of the nature of Frankenstein's experiments in this telling, which eschews most of the medical/surgical/electrical details common in movies. Again, that's following the original text's example, as very little in the way of scientific detail was discussed in the book. About the only element of the Monster's creation that will be familiar to movie audiences is the fact that Frankenstein uses a kite to attract a bolt of lightning to infuse his creation with life. The creation scene, usually the highpoint of Frankenstein movies, is handled in a strangely offhand, nonchalant manner here. It's mostly offscreen and happens very quickly with hardly any buildup. Many passages have very little dialogue and even background music is used sparingly, creating an oddly sedate atmosphere. The period setting and scenery are superb and help to ensure that even the slow parts are watchable. Many of the indoor scenes have a nicely spooky, dramatically shadowy lighting scheme, one of this (very literal) film's few concessions to gothic horror tradition. Don't expect pulse-pounding action or spectacular visual effects, but if you'd like to experience a thoughtful, authentic looking, well-acted version of the classic tale that faithfully follows the source material and treats it respectfully, this is definitely worth watching. It's also known as VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN and it was released in the U. S. by Independent-International, even though it's a far cry from their usual horror fare (BRAIN OF BLOOD, DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN, HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS, etc.).

1976's "Terror of Frankenstein," more commonly known under original title "Victor Frankenstein," does indeed focus more on the scientist, played as a medical student by 27 year old Leon Vitali, though the accolades clearly belong to Swedish actor Per Oscarsson as The Monster. Director Calvin Floyd had already done the feature length documentary "In Search of Dracula," in which Christopher Lee doubled as both narrator and real life Vlad Tepes, so his take on Mary Shelley purported to be at least as faithful to its literary source as Michael Sarrazin's "Frankenstein: The True Story," both versions concluding in the Arctic wasteland. Frankenstein shares his tale of woe with the captain of a ship caught in the ice, how his obsession with conquering death meant a desire to find the secret of life. His education required months away from his family in Geneva, experimenting on animals until he found a suitable human body to meet his goal; horrified at the sight of his newborn creation, Victor abandons his ambitions to return home, unaware that The Monster will follow to seek revenge for a lifetime of loneliness. Coming upon Victor's younger brother, its attempt to reach out for a potential friend is dashed once he learns the boy's identity, leaving the corpse in the snow to remind Frankenstein of the wrong he had committed. The Monster reveals himself to his creator to explain how he learned to speak and reason, demanding a mate to ease his burden in solitude far away from humanity. Victor's inability to follow through proves the final straw for his embittered antagonist: "I will be with you on your wedding night." On location shooting in Ireland does not compensate for an excruciatingly slow pace, a full half hour buildup to Per Oscarsson's first appearance, merely the barebones of Shelley's story to be played out for another hour in entirely predictable fashion. This was Vitali's only starring role (just his third feature film), his performance little different from the insufferable Lord Bullingdon in Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon," a wholly weak central character that utterly fails to engage, quick to give up at the first sign of trouble, a literal harbinger of death to all his loved ones. Per Oscarsson uses his great height and minimal makeup to ably portray Shelley's creature as it was on the printed page, soft spoken, less verbose but more effective. His features are easily visible, hardly a fearsome visage with his blackened lips and eager to please demeanor, not as sympathetic as past Monsters but still fascinating. Floyd's double bill of Frankenstein and Dracula both found US release through Al Adamson's Independent-International, likely less successful at the box office as Paul Naschy titles "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" or "Night of the Howling Beast." Its small cast and obvious low budget need not be a detriment, Per Oscarsson offering the only reason to view this forgotten version of an oft told tale, sadly yet aptly named for its defeatist protagonist.

People who, like me, grew up in the nineties believing Kenneth Branagh's 1994 film was the ultimate and utmost faithful adaptation of the legendary Mary Shelley novel "Frankenstein" really ought to seek out this rare but excellent Swedish/Irish co-production from 1977. Except for one or two storylines and few design details, "Victor Frankenstein" closely follows the original novel, and - moreover - it's a magnificent but sadly forgotten horror film.

I can't think of a logical reason why the film is so obscure, but I can name several reasons why it's so good and comes so highly recommended. For starters, the story that Mrs. Shelley penned down remains unique and worth telling in all its original glory. As much as I love the James Whale classic, starring the immortal Boris Karloff, or Hammer's gruesome version featuring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, those classics made (too) many changes to the character of Victor Frankenstein and the "creature" he resurrected. Shelley's novel, and hence the screenplay of this film, revolves around a scientist who isn't evil or megalomaniacal, but simply obsessed and blinded by ambition. Once he succeeds to bring a human corpse back from the dead, Victor abruptly realizes he isn't entitled to play God, and abandons his creation. The Monster, who never asked to exist or live in solitude, seeks revenge and murders Victor's loved ones. The fallen scientist pursues his "mistake" to the end of the world (literally, the North Pole) to destroy him. In short, there's a lot more drama and melancholy in the novel - and in this faithful adaptation - than in most "Frankenstein" film versions out there.

Also, everything about "Victor Frankenstein" looks and feels exactly right! The gloomy early 19th century setting, the atmospheric scenery and filming locations (like the morgue, Frankenstein's attic, the blind man's house...), the slow but unnerving pace, the ominous music, the cruelly nihilistic murders committed by the creature, the minimalistic but highly efficient make-up, and the sublime casting. The depiction of Frankenstein's Monster, by the great Per Oscarsson, is fantastic. He authentically looks... dead. The skin is pale, the eyes are blood-red, the lips are black, but his posture nevertheless remains imposing. Leon Vitali is also perfect as Victor Frankenstein. He's not an arrogant and all-knowing scientist/doctor, but a young and naïve student who overestimated himself and underestimated the consequences of his acts.

Of course, there are elements that could be considered as weaknesses or shortcomings. The whole resurrection process, with the electrical offloading via a kite, seems ridiculously simple and unscientific. The creature is also astonishingly eloquent, intelligent, has a phenomenal sense for orientation, and travels at the speed of light over land and water. However, I'm not sure if these illogicalities can be blamed on the film, as they may have been taken over straight from the book. I should read it again. Everyone should...