Fathers and Monsters: Netflix releases "Frankenstein" in Russian

A Gothic horror film based on Mary Shelley's classic novel Frankenstein, or the New Prometheus, was released online two months after its premiere at the Venice Film Festival and limited distribution in the United States. Netflix provided the film not only with Russian subtitles, but also with full-fledged professional dubbing, and the picture itself contains a number of references to the history of Russia. Immediately after the online release, a copy of the film went online and is available, including on domestic resources. Some critics consider it a masterpiece and the best film adaptation of the novel since 1931. Others note her conservatism and lack of ingenuity in comparison with del Toro's early work. Izvestia believes that the truth lies somewhere in between.

The new "Frankenstein" is linked to Russia

Almost twenty years from conception to implementation - this is the path that Guillermo del Toro and his "Frankenstein" project have taken. During this time, the director turned from a cult Mexican author, whom ordinary people always confused with Benicio del Toro, into a Hollywood movie superstar, won three Oscars and a Golden Lion and grossed hundreds of millions of dollars with his films. Moreover, if you follow his filmography since then, it becomes clear that "The Shape of Water," "Pinocchio," and "Crimson Peak" were like sketches for a film that del Toro hoped to make one day.

And now this project has been released, we can sum up some important results. We don't know how del Toro saw the film in 2007, when he first announced it. Perhaps at that time he was closer to the plot of the novel, but it is known that even then he wanted to make a story in the spirit of John Milton's Paradise Lost, that is, strengthening the motif of God-fighting and adding Mary Shelley romanticism. And also — by strengthening the political component of the plot.

Let's start with the most obvious differences. The novel was published in 1818, and the action was moved to 1857. In particular, in order for the investor of Frankenstein's research (Oscar Isaac) to become a British military industrialist (played by Christoph Waltz), who made a frenzied fortune in the Crimean War. Moreover, to assemble his monster, Frankenstein uses body parts of slain British soldiers from the battlefield. So it turns out that the monster was created jointly by the Russians, who killed British soldiers, and the British, who breathed life into this constructor and raised it to the detriment of humanity. It's hard not to notice a certain geopolitical irony in this. And so that no one has any doubts about this, the mention of St. Petersburg will be heard already in the prologue.

How does a movie differ from a novel?

Structurally, the film repeats the novel. First, on a Danish ship stuck in the Arctic ice, we get to know Frankenstein and his creation. And then first the scientist, then the monster, tell their version of the tragic story that took them both so far from their homeland. In two and a half hours, we will learn a lot of things that were "left out" in the novel. For example, how Frankenstein's father raised his son to be a monster, and he then used the same pedagogical method to make a monster out of an animated corpse. And it turns out to be a continuous chain of fathers and children, which leads to disasters.

The adult Frankenstein appears to us as a psychologically unstable, but charismatic and charming showman in his own way, a kind of rock star. Therefore, del Toro agreed with Isaac that he would add David Bowie and Mick Jagger to the image. Not literally, of course, but energetically, this Frankenstein is exactly the kind of intimidated and weak intellectual that Mary Shelley writes out. This man is, of course, a crazy scientist, but girls are crazy about them, and the plot of the film is partly based on this.

In any case, we won't spoil the viewing pleasure, but the further we go, the less similar the book and the movie will be. And this will be all the more effective because the film is deliberately made in an old-fashioned way. Almost everything is hand-built, even the most complex decorations. The monster does not seem to be computer-generated, and due to this, Jacob Elordi's game is perceived more realistically. In general, due to this old-fashioned nature, the film turned out to be very beautiful and large-scale, and the fact that it is almost impossible to see it on the big screen is a pity. In some shots, playing with light, combining del Toro's favorite red and green colors in millions of shades, and detailing each interior cause an unpleasant feeling that no Netflix, even on the largest home screen, fully conveys the visual splendor of the picture.

How did "Frankenstein" turn out?

Does this mean that we have a masterpiece in front of us? It would seem so. A perfectly shot and acted movie, an original plot with respect for both the original and past adaptations, two and a half hours in one go – all this is there. Elordi has achieved special jerky movements, and the choreography of the monster has become such that you immediately and unconditionally believe in him. And he plays with his eyes like no Frankenstein's monster before him. Moreover, it is also a smart, relevant movie. By weaving real wars, the Bible, Frankenstein's psychological experiments, and the motives of Rousseau and Voltaire into the plot when it comes to raising a monster, del Toro forms an impressive extended metaphor about how conditional "fathers", but in fact entire states, and just ourselves, are forever creating monsters, not realizing that to do with them, demanding from them without knowing what, infantilely turning away from the fruits of their labors. By the time you watch the film to the end, you'll believe that del Toro has revealed the nature of the crisis that our entire civilization is in today.

But, probably, if you work on something for too long, and then you are given full control over the work, it is difficult to maintain the integrity necessary for the masterpiece. That's why it's so difficult to keep Frankenstein's relationship with his beloved Elizabeth, the adventures of a military industrialist, the evolution of the monster's consciousness, the role of the Danish captain in this story, and much more at the epicenter of the audience's attention. And a lot of things become unclear because of this. For example, why does a monster stupidly repeat the same word, despite Frankenstein's best efforts, even though his brain is developing quite well. Or how reading the Bible makes the monster feel exactly like the new Adam, it's so indistinctly written in the script that you have to figure it out yourself later.

You can still go on, but in short, at the same Venice Film Festival a couple of years ago there was another variation on the theme of "Frankenstein" — "The Poor, the Unfortunate" by Yorgos Lanthimos. A project that is much smaller in budget and ambition, but still much more accurate, relevant and, finally, even better played than the giant del Toro. This is especially felt on the small screen, where Alexandre Desplat's symphonic haunting soundtrack sounds unintentionally comical, and the heaviness of the story is especially felt.

"Frankenstein" is definitely an event. One of the best film adaptations of Shelley's novel. But there is a feeling that even this is not always enough. It's like the Russian dubbing that Netflix released the movie with: it's nice, of course, but with the original track, the impression is much stronger, it feels like they've saved money on both the actors and the sound engineer. But it's still good that there's a transfer, and you can't cancel that either.