Creating Life, Creating Love: A Double Feature Review of Frankenstein (1994) and Pride & Prejudice (2005)

From Shelley's Gothic Horror to Austen's Georgian Romance: Branagh's Frankenstein Meets Wright's Pride & Prejudice

This movie review blog is assigned by Megha Trivedi ma'am as part of movie screening understandings.

Movie Review: Frankenstein(1994 by Kenneth Branagh) 

It is hard to understate the profound impact of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley's Gothic morality tale of ambition, creation, and consequence on both literature and popular culture. The 1994 release of Frankenstein, directed by Kenneth Branagh, held the promise of being the definitive film version of the novel, remaining true to the source material in ways earlier adaptations had often failed to do. Even with this fidelity to the source material, the film will differ in certain, pivotal ways from the novel and those choices have been met with mixed reactions by fans and filmgoers alike. Here's how Branagh's adaptation incorporates and departs from Shelley.

Sticking to the Story

In many ways, the most immediately striking element of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is that it adheres so tightly to the storyline of the original novel, far more closely than most adaptations preceding it. While previous film adaptations tended to reposition the narrative into a dark, horror story that emphasized the monstrosity of the creature itself, this one dives deeper, focusing on ambition, tragedy, and moral responsibility—and the character of Victor Frankenstein at its center. This focus on character-driven drama makes the film more in line with Shelley, whose original creation centered on the internal struggle that led Frankenstein to wreak such havoc on innocent lives.

The novel addresses the issues of dangerous knowledge and in arrogance over mastering nature that, ultimately, destroys. This is brought to the forefront in Branagh's film through Victor's subsequent obsession with and eventual madness over chasing the secret of life. There are the sequences where, biting his nails, Victor keeps testing, coming up with new recipes, does it work, no, try this, and then finally he looks out and asks himself how the hell can the sun have risen on this creature that he gave life to, cursing himself for hubris and defiance and everything else that sounds in these voiceover videos. De Niro-as-Creature also harkens back to the novel — particularly the aspect of the Creature being inherently innocent and human until spurned by society — that Shelley ponders up until the end of her tale.

Departures in Tone and Style

The story and themes remain, but the tone is very different from the book. Shelley created a hauntingly introspective text steeped in Romantic ideals and Gothic ambivalence, and Branagh's adaptation hits us with visual and emotional intensity and a dynamic, almost theatrical form. His direction plays into the melodrama and spectacle which, at times, conflicts with the film's broader themes of philosophy and morality. The result is a heightened sense of drama that stands in stark contrast to the novel, where horror is fastidiously restrained, tension built through atmosphere and narrative form, rather than visual spectacle.

Branagh's version of Victor Frankenstein, in particular, is not at all the withdrawn, guilt-ridden scientist of Shelley. Victor is often interpreted as a tragic hero, or tragic figure, a man brought to ruin through his passionate pursuit. It lands close enough to the novel, but it's so cranked up in the film that it can, at times, overshadow elements like the creature's agony and the moral questions that are actually central to the work. This is good for entertainment value but really detracts from the philosophical depth that Shelley puts into her characters.

Interpretation of the Characters: Victor & the Creature

Kenneth Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein, and while he certainly does not shy away from depicting the most unflattering parts of the character, he also imbues him with romanticized heroism, making him a man pushed to dangerous extremes by grief and ambition. This is a change from Shelley, whose novel presents Victor more like a man who is slave to a yo-yoing psyche, forever torn between emotions and terror, tormented by guilt but mostly unwilling to own up to it. Branagh's Victor is more visceral, passionate, wild-eyed, making chest-thumping proclamations and then writhing in the depths of despair or wreathed in blissful elation, making him a more charismatic figure than the one of literature. Indeed, some might feel such an interpretation trivializes this still morally ambivalent figure Shelley quite brilliantly depicted.

De Niro shows that there are multiple layers that morph into the tragic nature of the Creature and thus humans have pity for him. He embodies the struggle of the Creature for an identity and someone to belong to — true to Shelley’s nuanced character. In the text, the Creature speaks conversationally and philosophically about his very existence and the inherent evilness of both his creator and man comprised of man-kind. Branagh's film tries to keep this alive by including moments where the Creature begs to be welcomed and wants to learn, but the philosophical nuances of the novel eludes the film. Though De Niro comes across as menacing, the Creature is almost masculine in the primal way he lacks poetry and intelligence that Oliver lets breathe.

Differences in Key Scenes and Plot points  

Branagh also alters some scenes and events more specifically, particularly in the film’s third act. Shelley depicts an unending pursuit across the globe, ending in the freezing wastes of the polar ice — a dreadfilled landscape that mirrors the desperation and horror of their battle. The film from Branagh, however, goes for a big-screen clash, with theatrical confrontations that enter the action zone. But while this provides some great visuals, it undercuts the psychological stakes and looming dread Shelley meticulously builds in the second half of the book.

The other major part is of course for Victor's fiancée, Elizabeth, played by Helena Bonham Carter, who has a bit more to do than she does in the book. Elizabeth functions as the novel’s angel of the hearth, a figure embedded not in the guilt of the troubled Achilles, but on the periphery of his turbulence. But Branagh’s version gives her an enhanced role — and also a different fate, a turn in the story that simply never happens in the book. In doing so, the film tries to offer a new take on Elizabeth, while also providing a detour from the novel's creator and creation that may undermine the power of the book's examination of creator and creation.

Visual and Thematic Choices

Visually, Branagh’s film is a departure from the gloomy, Gothic settings that typically characterize adaptations of Frankenstein. Instead, the film employs bright, lush colors, with lavish costumes and grandiose set designs. This choice creates a sense of spectacle, but it arguably detracts from the oppressive, horror-imbued atmosphere that Shelley’s narrative evokes. The novel’s Gothic tone emphasizes the existential dread and moral questioning at its heart, while the film’s more theatrical style shifts the emphasis toward emotional and visual intensity.

Thematically, Branagh’s Frankenstein stays true to many of Shelley’s core ideas but also makes them more explicit. The novel leaves much of its moral and philosophical inquiries open to interpretation, subtly suggesting questions about the dangers of overreaching ambition, the responsibilities of creation, and the potential for societal corruption of innocence. The film, however, presents these themes with a heavier hand, making the tragic consequences of Victor’s ambition and the Creature’s suffering more explicit and visceral. This approach may make the film more accessible to audiences but risks sacrificing the novel’s intricate layers of ambiguity and nuance.

Final Thoughts: A Mixed Triumph

In the end, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a visually and emotionally engaging film that strives to do justice to its source material. Branagh’s adaptation brings a sense of grandeur and intensity to Shelley’s tale, staying closer to the plot and themes of the original novel than most other cinematic versions. However, the film’s stylistic choices—its melodramatic tone, heightened emotionality, and departures in character portrayal—ultimately make it feel more like an interpretation than a direct translation of Shelley’s Frankenstein.

The film is worth watching for those interested in a passionate and dramatic retelling of Shelley’s novel. It captures the essence of Frankenstein’s tragic tale of ambition and consequence, even if it veers toward spectacle at times. For purists and fans of the novel, however, Branagh’s adaptation might feel overly grandiose and lacking in the introspective depth that characterizes Shelley’s prose. In capturing the spirit of the book’s plot and themes, the film succeeds, but it falls short in conveying the philosophical and Gothic subtleties that make Frankenstein such a timeless and profound work of literature.

Ultimately, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein serves as a reminder of the enduring power of Shelley’s story. It may not capture all the complexities of the original, but it stands as an ambitious attempt to translate one of literature’s most haunting tales to the screen, resonating with modern audiences while sparking reflections on the nature of creation, ambition, and humanity itself.

Movie Review: Pride & Prejudice (2005 by Joe Wright)

Joe Wright’s Pride & Prejudice (2005) is a visually stunning adaptation of Jane Austen's beloved novel, capturing the wit, social commentary, and romance at its heart. With Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, the film blends classic romance with modern sensibilities, creating a dynamic interpretation of Austen’s work.

Faithful Yet Fresh: A Modern Take on a Classic

While staying largely true to the novel’s narrative and social themes, Wright’s adaptation is marked by a more contemporary, cinematic sensibility. The film compresses the events of the novel, cutting down on some subplots and characters, but retains the essence of Austen’s commentary on marriage, social class, and individual agency. The pacing of the film is quicker than the novel’s often measured rhythm, which allows for a more accessible experience for modern audiences without losing sight of the key conflicts, such as the tension between Elizabeth and Darcy.

Wright's use of nature as a metaphor, with sweeping landscape shots and intimate indoor settings, brings an additional layer of emotion to the story. The lush English countryside contrasts with the rigid structure of the Bennet household, symbolizing Elizabeth’s internal struggles and her evolving feelings toward Darcy. This visual technique, which is absent in the original text, adds depth to Austen's social observations and allows the audience to feel Elizabeth’s internal world as she navigates her changing perceptions of Darcy.

Character Interpretations: Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy

Knightley’s portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is sharp, lively, and defiant, yet deeply sensitive. Unlike some other portrayals, she channels Elizabeth’s quick wit and intelligence, but also highlights her vulnerability, especially in her relationship with Darcy. The film shifts Elizabeth’s usual characterization slightly—she is more visibly emotional, particularly in her confrontations with Darcy. This interpretation gives more immediate insight into her thoughts and feelings, while Austen’s Elizabeth, though equally strong-willed, remains more reserved in her expressions.

Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy is more somber and introspective compared to the novel’s Darcy, whose aloofness is often the result of his social awkwardness. Macfadyen’s portrayal adds a subtle vulnerability to Darcy, showcasing his internal battle with pride and love. This emotional depth makes Darcy’s eventual transformation feel more intimate and less abrupt, enhancing the sense of growth in his character.

Visual Aesthetics and Cinematic Language

Wright’s direction elevates the narrative, not just through the story but by using the camera as a tool for emotional exploration. The film opens with an iconic shot of Elizabeth walking across a misty field, a visual cue to the internal conflict she faces as she begins to question her initial judgments of Darcy. The camera work in the film uses close-ups to capture moments of subtle emotion, from Darcy’s stilted attempts at courtship to Elizabeth’s bewildered reaction to his declarations of love. These close-ups, while not in the novel, work well to enhance the intimate, almost personal connection viewers develop with the characters.

Furthermore, Wright emphasizes the film’s emotional beats with a subdued, yet powerful, score by Dario Marianelli. The music complements the shifting moods of the film, from tension-filled moments between Elizabeth and Darcy to the final, sweet resolution. The score, like the film itself, evokes the emotions of the characters while staying true to the novel’s deeper social commentary.

Major Differences: Novel vs. Film

While Pride & Prejudice (2005) stays true to Austen’s exploration of class, marriage, and self-realization, there are notable departures in the film that affect the overall tone. One of the biggest changes is in the portrayal of the Bennet family, particularly the relationship between Elizabeth and her father. In Austen’s novel, Mr. Bennet is more sarcastic and distant, often using wit as a shield. In the film, Donald Sutherland’s Mr. Bennet is softer, showing more concern for Elizabeth’s happiness and providing a greater emotional connection.

The film also condenses many secondary characters and subplots for the sake of pacing. The scheming Mr. Collins, played humorously by Tom Hollander, is given less screen time than in the novel, and the nuanced relationship between Jane and Mr. Bingley is simplified. These changes, while perhaps necessary for the film’s runtime, make the social dynamics at the heart of Austen’s narrative feel less complicated than in the book.

Additionally, Wright makes some creative decisions to enhance the story’s emotional resonance. The film introduces an imagined scene at the beginning of the story where Elizabeth gazes out at the vast countryside, as if contemplating her own future. This scene isn't in the book but sets the tone for Elizabeth’s character development, visually suggesting her desire for something beyond the restrictive confines of her social world. These visual liberties, though not in the novel, offer a new layer of interpretation for modern audiences, while still capturing the essence of Elizabeth’s independence.

Themes: Then and Now

At its core, both the novel and the 2005 adaptation of Pride & Prejudice explore themes of social class, marriage, and self-understanding. The film does an excellent job of conveying Austen's critique of the marriage market in early 19th-century England, where societal pressures often dictate whom one marries. The emphasis on love over convenience or status comes through clearly, particularly in Elizabeth’s refusal to marry Mr. Collins, and in Darcy’s rejection of his own pride and societal expectations to pursue Elizabeth.

However, Wright’s adaptation brings these themes into a more modern context, presenting Elizabeth’s independence not just as a reflection of her individual growth, but as a message for contemporary audiences about the necessity of self-awareness and mutual respect in relationships. The film effectively presents the concept of “marriage for love,” which resonates beyond its historical context and speaks to modern notions of personal fulfillment and equality in partnerships.

Conclusion: A Visually and Emotionally Resonant Adaptation References:

Pride & Prejudice (2005), directed by Joe Wright, stands as one of the most visually stunning and emotionally rich adaptations of Jane Austen’s novel. By blending breathtaking cinematography with a thoughtful exploration of character relationships, Wright succeeds in bringing new life to a classic tale. While some purists may argue that the film simplifies aspects of Austen’s social commentary, its focus on intimacy, emotion, and character development makes it accessible and engaging for modern audiences.

The 2005 film offers a fresh perspective on the timeless themes of Pride & Prejudice, making it not just a beautiful love story but also a thoughtful commentary on the importance of self-reflection and respect in love and life. Whether you are a long-time fan of Austen’s work or new to the story, Joe Wright’s Pride & Prejudice provides a rich and captivating experience that continues to resonate with viewers.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley%27s_Frankenstein_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mary-Shelleys-Frankenstein

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23416363

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/sep/18/features.review1