Victor Frankenstein

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...

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.

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.).

Greetings and salutations, and welcome to my review of 1977s Terror Of Frankenstein.

Before I get into the review, here are my ratings for the movie.

The story gets 1.5 out of 2: The Direction a 1.5: The Pacing receives a 1.5: While the Performances get 1.5: And my Enjoyment level earns a 1.5 out of 2: Terror Of Frankenstein, therefore, receives a total of 7.5 out of 10.

To begin with, I'm getting controversial: Terror Of Frankenstein is one of my favourite adaptations of the Mary Shelley story. I can see I may be in the minority here on IMDb. Consequently, can I back up my statement? Well, let's see.

Writers, Calvin and Yvonne Floyd stay true to Shelley's classic in story, motivation, and atmosphere. There's a very tangible dark and depressing feel to this creation. I appreciate the way we comprehend nothing about Frankenstein's monster. In previous adaptations, the scriptwriters give reasons for the reanimated man's evilness. But here, the Floyd's don't offer any reason because there is no evident reason. In all truth, he sees himself as a monster because the people around him regard him as such. When in all actuality, he's a newborn man struggling to grow and learn. His creator Frankenstein is a coward and runs from his creation, hoping he's dead or just a fever dream. Driven by a deep and unearthly urge, his creation travels through the county, country, and the world, searching for his master. What he uncovers is a man with a family who loves him and who he loves back. Why can't the man who fathered him offer him similar consideration? When he realises this will never happen, he strikes a deal with Frankenstein; construct a woman for him, and they will live out their days away from humankind. Regrettably, Frankenstein reneges on his deal. Leaving his creation to adopt the attitude of, if you want a monster, then you get a monster. So begin the slaughters.

Calvin Floyd also directed this film and maintained the boundaries of his emotional story. Terror of Frankenstein is not a fast and glorified and pretty Hollywood picture. Floyd sets the pace to slow and moody, which works well to reveal the creature at his best. He throws in some wintry vistas that depict the loneliness and desolation, not only of the surrounding area but of Frankenstein and his creation.

There are times when the tempo picks up a little; these are principally around the action sequences. Regrettably, they don't add much excitement. It's a pleasing aspect of the tale because it's not about excitation but the characters and their journeys. Floyd is a dab hand at using natural lighting and dark shadows to their best advantage. The effect of the lighting doubles due to his composition skill. Terror of Frankenstein is a perfectly constructed piece of filmmaking, and Floyd should be rightly proud of it.

The lack of special effects may cause people to place this film on ice. But remember, this isn't an FX-flick. The creature himself is nothing but Per Oscarsson in whiteish make-up and a slightly droopy eye. This creation is a reanimated corpse and not a cross-stitched mess of body parts with a damaged brain. It's Oscarsson who has to develop the audience's belief in the creations persona. He achieves this superbly. He gives the creature an air of melancholy, sadness, loss, and loneliness. I perceived myself supporting him more than Frankenstein.

Leon Vitali portrays Frankenstein and delivers a decent rendition of the driven genius. You can see Frankenstein considers interests most beneficial to humanity. Regrettably, it's his drive that takes his final experiment too far. Realising his mistake, he runs away like a coward, only to later find his backbone and hunt down his creation. Vitali portrays all these emotions superbly.

I would gladly recommend this version of Mary Shelley's story for everyone to watch. You have to bear in mind that the film is slow. The leisurely pace may not be for everyone: There's no bare-chested star swinging through the rafters, which isn't a terrible thing to do without. I have watched my share of boring films, and this is not one of them. Not once did my attention shift from the screen. Granted, there are some thing's that could have been handled better, like Frankenstein and Elizabeth's romance, which needed more romance. And a few scenes needed more suspense to work perfectly. These moments are few, though.

Take Care & Stay Well.

Jump on your dog sledge and mush your way on over to my Absolute Horror, The Final Frontier, and Obsidian Dreams lists to see where Frankenstein's creation caught up with his creator.

I had always been intrigued by this Swedish-Irish production(!) - a follow-up to the same film-makers' lackluster IN SEARCH OF Dracula (1975) - for being the screen's most faithful rendering (even more so than the disappointing "official" 1994 adaptation by Francis Ford Coppola and Kenneth Branagh) of the oft-filmed Mary Shelley horror tale; while it is decidedly uninspired and choppy in treatment, its essentially literate and stately approach makes the most of the novel's classical plot and, as a result, it remains full of interest throughout. At first, I felt that Leon Vitali – who, after appearing in BARRY LYNDON (1975), became Stanley Kubrick's long-time assistant! – was too youthful in appearance to be convincing in the title role but one must remember that, after all, he was supposed to be a medical student. On the other hand, distinguished Swedish actor Per Oscarsson (whose face is effectively made up in a deathly pallor complete with darkened lips) brings out all of the creature's various qualities: an imposing build, his confusion and solitude and, eventually, a lust for vengeance towards his resentful maker. Though obviously a low-budget effort, the film still manages to approximate the narrative's epic sweep without, however, resorting to overstatement – a fault which lies at the heart of the later 'definitive' Hollywood version's artistic (and commercial) failure. For the record, even though I am familiar with many another film version of the famous story, there are still a few more which I need to see, namely the 1973 Dan Curtis TV-adaptation, the darkly-comic modern French take of Alain Jessua's FRANKENSTEIN '90 (1984) and the futuristic Roger Corman version, FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (1990).