Editorials
[Exhumed & Exonerated] ‘Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’ (1994)
Every decade has its ups and downs when it comes to cinema, no matter the genre. Horror fans love to loft on high the output of the ‘30s & ‘40s, the ‘70s & ‘80s, and the more recent decades. More often than not, however, the 1990s are labeled as the worst decade for the genre. Not only that, but ‘90s horror tends to be written off as a whole, beyond a handful of undisputed classics. The purpose of Exhumed & Exonerated: The ‘90s Horror Project, is to refute those accusations by highlighting numerous gems from the decade. Stone cold classics will be tackled in this column from time to time, but its main purpose will be to seek out lesser-known and/or less-loved titles that I think deserve more attention and respect from fans. Let the mayhem begin!
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Screenplay by Steph Lady and Kenneth Branagh
Based on the novel by Mary Shelley
Produced by Francis Ford Coppola, James V. Hart, John Veitch, and Fred Fuchs
Starring Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Hulce. Ian Holm, Aidan Quinn, and John Cleese
Released on November 4th, 1994
After the death of his mother, Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) becomes obsessed with using science to conquer death. Upon attending university, his “mad” ideas are further fostered by a friend (Tom Hulce) and an eccentric mentor (John Cleese), culminating in a horrific artificially-created man (Robert De Niro). When this “monster” is abandoned and forced to fend for himself in the wild, the cruelty he endures incites him to seek vengeance against his careless creator.
A few of the films I have covered in this column thus far have been critical darlings and/or commercial successes. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was neither. These days the film is rarely spoken of; seemingly lost in the cinematic ether of time. On the few instances where it is brought up, the film is almost never spoken of in a positive light.
Near as I can tell, this is not a well-regarded film. It bombed domestically upon release, with the larger portion of its earnings coming from international markets, and it was widely panned at the time. It currently holds a 39% critical rating and a 49% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I don’t put much stock in aggregate scores, but it helps to illustrate where audiences stand on the matter. Furthermore, both producer Francis Ford Coppola and screenwriter Frank Darabont have virtually disowned the film.
I’m sure they have their reasons, but I do not agree with either of them. Both take issue most with Branagh’s interpretation of both the source material and the script, claiming that he simply went far to loud and theatrical in his execution of the tale. There’s no arguing that he did just that, but to both gentlemen (as well as those who agree with them), I ask only this: why in the world did you hire Kenneth Branagh to star in and direct your big, bold monster movie if you didn’t want him to bring his particular brand of theatricality to it? That’s like writing a quiet concierto, hiring Slayer to record it, and then wondering why the music turned out so loud and angry.
In many ways, this film mirrors its titular character. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a big, ambitious, ugly, raging, misunderstood, and unjustly abandoned piece of work. It’s also, in many ways, incredibly beautiful. This is a haunting and striking work that has gone under-loved and underrated for far too long.
I mentioned ugly a moment ago and I don’t mean that the production design and cinematography are hideous. While not as audacious as its sister film, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, it is beautifully design and shot. Like its predecessor, it also has an appropriately-bombastic score, this time courtesy of Patrick Doyle. Instead, the ugliness I was referring to involves the film’s portrayal of flesh and humanity.
While not an action-packed offering, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein portrays violence in swift and brutal acts. Stabbings, beatings, hangings, maimings, ripping out organs…none of it is nice to look at in the way that gory bits are supposed in horror cinema. Here such events aren’t meant to be marveled it, but instead cause reacts of revulsion. The scientific end is no different, with body parts, medical procedures, and bodily fluids (both blood and otherwise) treated in a very cold and matter-of-fact manner. At times, it’s just downright gross.
The ugliness of humanity within comes in many forms. Victor is a horribly selfish and irresponsible person. He might be a wealthy, healthy young man filled with intelligence and big ideas, but he’s incredibly selfish and tends to make the worst possible decision at every turn. These moments come not only in regards to the monster, but also his personal life. His treatment of friend Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce) and adopted sister/fiancée Elizabeth is abominable, especially the latter. Branagh plays the role as big as such an emotional, overzealous, and ambitious character requires, imbuing the part with so much passion that you want to feel sorry for Victor…even though you know he’s just a massive asshole.
Then we have the Monster himself. Unlike Victor, De Niro’s unnamed creature was born into a world of neglect and cruelty. Abandoned by Victor upon birth, his stitched together life is a patchwork of pain. It’s no wonder that, like a child, he resorts to angry tantrums when things do not go well for him. Problem is, unlike a toddler, he’s fully grown and super-strong. Instead of kicking and screaming, he’s hunting and killing. Despite his monstrous power, his needs are simple. He wants to be loved. Not by many, but only one, and De Niro sells every minute of it.
Fate is cruel, however, so every instance of love he finds is taken from him at every turn, even by Victor himself. As he says at one point to his creator, “I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.” Which basically means “give me what I want and I’ll go away”, out of sight and out of mind, to leave both Frankenstein and humanity alone for all time. Victor being Victor decides not to comply, leading to two further deaths and his own eternal unhappiness. Forever immature and self-serving, that Victor!
Nothing in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is so monstrous, however, as what befalls poor Justine. One could argue that the off-screen death of child William is the most egregious act of murder within, but there’s also the simple fact that the Monster’s killing acts are always portrayed as uick and powerful elsewhere. As awful as the child’s death is, he likely did not suffer much. Justine, while meeting her end with a quick drop and a sudden stop, is tortured psychologically as she is led through the streets by a vicious mob intent on hanging her for a crime she did not commit. In an age where society is quick to pass final judgment on anyone and everyone without having all the facts, it’s a violent act that still stings of truth.
I could carry on more about the other performances and characters. Hulce, Holm, Carter, and Cleese are all great, with the latter giving a particularly memorable dramatic turn. I could also illustrate the ways in which it is far truer to its source material than the majority of the other adaptations out there. I think I’ve prattled on about this film for long enough, however.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not for everyone. It is a far cry from most other incarnations of this oft-told tale and it is executed in ways that are clearly extremely off-putting to most. I completely get that. I just happen to love it and consider it to be among the better horror films of this oft-maligned decade. I urge you all to revisit it. When and if you do, you might find that you like it more than you remember. You could also find that you dislike it more than ever. Whatever reaction it elicits from you, chances are that it will be a strong one. That’s more than we can say for a lot of forgettable horror films that have been released, both in the past and the present.
I’ve been tackling a lot more well-known fare of late. I’ll be mixing it up by injecting more obscure and offbeat choices very soon. That said, now that I’ve gone down this particular rabbit hole, I might as well complete the journey and tackle its neighbor…
Up Next: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
Previously On…
Species | Mute Witness | Popcorn | Wishmaster | Alien 3 | Cast A Deadly Spell
Disturbing Behavior | The Sect | The Addams Family | The Ugly
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer | Arachnophobia | Ernest Scared Stupid
Cape Fear | Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
The problem with filming sequels back-to-back is that, unless you can afford expensive reshoots, there’s no easy way to adjust course in between movies if fans react badly to where the story is headed. That’s why it’s important to have a complete narrative thought out well in advance lest you accidentally kill a budding franchise.
However, this isn’t always the case. Every once in a while, it seems like the cinema gods smile upon certain chaotic productions and gift moviegoers with complete franchises that feel like more than the sum of their hastily produced parts. Ted Nicolaou’s Bloodlust: Subspecies III is precisely one of these miraculous pictures, with the raw talents of the artists involved (as well as the continued support from Romania) turning the feature into an effective conclusion for a series that kind of made things up as the filmmakers went along.
That’s why I’d like to invite my fellow readers to join me on this third part of our journey through the Subspecies franchise as we look into Bloodlust and talk about how it remains a surprisingly satisfying finale to the original trilogy.
A Trilogy Planned on the Fly
Released only a year after Bloodstone found plenty of success in rental stores and mail-in VHS catalogues worldwide, 1994’s Bloodlust was produced at the same time as its predecessor in (mostly) the same locations and with the same team. This means that the movie benefited from all the same upgrades as Bloodstone, with the crew now being more experienced with the ins and outs of surviving a low-budget Romanian production and the cast really settling into their characters.
At this point, everything from location scouting to the makeup process had been streamlined, with Wayne Toth and Norman Cabrera, the main duo behind special effects, even switching out time-consuming prosthetics for latex gloves in order to speed up Anders Hove’s monstrous transformation. The titular “subspecies” demons were also once again relegated to a mere cameo appearance due to the laborious puppetry required to bring them to life.
The only real hiccup came from the fact that actress Denice Duff had replaced the first film’s Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and was immediately expected to portray the character as both an innocent victim in part II and as a secondary villain in part III. According to behind-the-scenes interviews, the hectic production schedule that blended two different movies meant that Duff would often find herself having to alternate between two incredibly different versions of Michelle during the same shooting day – though it’s obvious that she’s having more fun with Bloodlust’s more traditionally vampiric version of her character.
In the finished film, we pick things up immediately where the previous entry left off as Rebecca (Melanie Shatner) is forced to leave her vampire sister Michelle (Duff) behind in the dungeons of Castle Vladislav due to the rising sun. This allows Mummy (Pamela Gordon) to use Michelle’s blood to revive the vicious Radu (Hove) so that he may continue his quest for the coveted Bloodstone – a magical artifact that perpetually drips the Blood of Saints.
Meanwhile, the dreamy US embassy agent Mel (Kevin Blair) agrees to help Rebecca plan a rescue mission, though they’re unaware that Radu has become infatuated with Michelle during his attempts to guide her growing bloodlust. This all culminates in a climactic confrontation meant to tie up all of the series’ loose ends in one of Full Moon Pictures’ most ambitious productions.
The Evolution of Radu
Like its predecessor, Bloodlust: Subspecies III was also warmly received by fans who argued that the series was an even bigger success than Full Moon’s other major horror franchise, Puppet Master. This praise wasn’t unanimous, however, as 1994 had seen the rise of a more modern breed of sexy vampire popularized by Anne Rice, with old-school Nosferatu like Radu being viewed as obsolete when compared to the likes of Lestat and Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula.
In a way, one might argue that Nicolaou’s film is something of a swan song for the classic vampire story, as Bloodlust combines all of the traditional elements we tend to associate with these tales into a single tragic yarn that ties a neat little bow on Radu’s story as well as the old-fashioned monster movies that he represents. The finale remains shocking despite the fact that this is the third time we see Radu get brutally killed onscreen, with the brief tease that he may one day return feeling more like a nod towards the nature of evil rather than sequel bait.
The film dabbles a bit in gothic romance and even explores the inherent power fantasy behind transforming into an immortal creature of the night, but the filmmakers never lose sight of Radu as a demonic force even when he’s willing to betray his beloved Mummy for Michelle’s sake. In fact, his twisted “love” for his fledgling makes him even creepier as we get the feeling that his passion comes from a dark and disturbing place.
Anders Hove is at his absolute best in this film, with the effects department boosting his moments of what the younger generation would call “aura farming” whenever Radu emerges from shadows like a 90s version of Count Orlok. There are even a couple of surprisingly effective jump-scares here, which is why I’d argue that Bloodlust cements Radu as one of the most memorable cinematic vampires of all time despite his humble origins.
Subspecies Saves Its Best For Last
Nicolaou and Vlad Panescu also saved the best for “last” (more on that in a bit) regarding the film’s visuals, with the cinematography and overall atmosphere of Bloodlust absolutely surpassing what we saw in the previous films. Everything feels appropriately climactic this time around (including the wonderful soundtrack that was co-composed alongside an authentic Romanian orchestra), and I appreciate how this is the fastest-paced entry in the trilogy since the film doesn’t need to waste time setting anything up.
Bloodlust still suffers from some of the same low-budget blemishes as its predecessors, but there’s so much creative passion here that no amount of wonky effects work or stilted dialogue can get in the way of appreciating the flick’s gothic grandeur. That’s why it’s not surprising that the movie’s definitive(-ish) ending would later be retconned as fans begged for more Radu.
Of course, the next entry in this series would be a different kind of vampiric endeavor altogether, with the filmmakers attempting to engage with the same trends that ultimately killed Radu and his antiquated kin. That, however, is a story for another time. For now, I’ll merely insist that Bloodlust: Subspecies III remains a highlight of Full Moon’s expansive catalogue and is definitely worth seeking out today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.