Back in 1994, the florid Kenneth Branagh made a film he dared to call Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the hoots and the catcalls haven't stopped yet.  Possibly the loudest sounds of derision came from those who watched the old USA Network in the mid- Eighties and recalled a flick that was much more of a "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" than Branagh's creation.   Now, thanks to the magic of DVD, we can see that once all-but-forgotten Frankenstein flick again and we are delighted to report that it is, indeed...

By HARVEY F. CHARTRAND

Terror Of Frankenstein (aka Victor Frankenstein/1975) marks the only time in cinematic history that Mary Shelley’s book was filmed more or less as written. (Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 misfire, misleadingly titled Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, is not a faithful retelling of the source material. Nor is the erroneously titled but otherwise magnificent Frankenstein: The True Story, a 1973 made-for-TV movie.)

Director Calvin Floyd’s screenplay for Terror Of Frankenstein is a virtual synopsis of the first-ever science fiction/horror novel, taking us from Dr. Frankenstein’s earliest efforts to create synthetic life, progressing through his creation and ultimate rejection of the Monster to the horrible consequences of this rejection, and ending with the final confrontation between the doctor and his patchwork creation in the Arctic wastes.

So, of the 200 or so films based on the story of the Modern Prometheus shot over a span of 95 years, ever since inventor Thomas Edison released his version of the Frankenstein legend to Manhattan nickelodeons in 1910, this obscure Irish-Swedish co-production is the only time we get to see the actual novel pass before our eyes (although it’s a pity the author’s name is misspelled in the opening credits as "Mary Shelly").

This is your single opportunity to view the scene where the Creature murders Victor’s best friend Henry Clerval by throwing him from the top of a cliff. Clerval liked to rock climb and the Monster knew where to find him. This scene appears in no other version of the Frankenstein story--not even in the aforementioned films that trumpet their fidelity to the original story written in 1817.

Leon Vitali (in his last significant role) is excellent as the tormented and remorseful Victor Frankenstein, but the great Swedish actor Per Oscarsson steals the show as the Monster. Oscarsson, a specialist in neurotic and tortured personalities, plays one of the most impressive grotesques ever to lurch across the silver screen.

There is something unsettling and unnatural in the way he moves, looks and speaks. With his long unkempt hair, puffy features, pasty complexion, sunken red-rimmed eyes, thin black lips and flaring nostrils, Oscarsson truly looks like a dead man walking. From certain angles, he reminded me of the famous Golem portrayed by the German silent screen actor Paul Wegener.

Oscarsson uses tremendous imagination in his conception of the role, expressing the Monster’s alienation from the human race in a very subtle and yet heartbreaking way. We watch the eight-foot-tall Monster start off as an innocent child, full of wonder and delight at the beauty of nature. Repeated rejection turns him into a lonely outcast and an ominous figure, propelling himself determinedly through the forests and ice floes.

Oscarsson’s Creature is like no other, more realistic and cadaverous than most. However, the subtle makeup, although an artistic decision, was also an unavoidable one due to Terror Of Frankenstein’s exceedingly low budget. You’ll find no expensive nuts and bolts here.

"The limited budget decided the small format of Terror Of Frankenstein," Oscarsson said in a recent interview with the author. "The same applied to the more realistic appearance of the Monster, but the director also wanted to make him more human."

In Terror Of Frankenstein, the focus is on the Monster's attempts to cope with rejection. Oscarsson easily identified with the Creature and its outsider aspect. "Thirty years as a professional actor taught me a little about how to identify with a character," Oscarsson noted wryly. "In addition, I did not have to say much in English, which helped a lot."

Now isn’t it strange that the lead actor chosen to play Victor Frankenstein has the surname Vitali, a variant of the word "vitality," with all its connotations of infusion of life? Prometheus, a titan in ancient Greek mythology, stole fire from the gods to alleviate human suffering, for which Zeus punished him horribly: Prometheus was chained to a rock and his liver was devoured every night by an eagle; the liver, picked to pieces by the nasty bird, was somehow made whole again the next day. Prometheus also created artificial life in clay figures, which he named "homunculi." These were miniature, fully formed human beings. (And what do we make of the name of the actor cast as Victor’s friend Henry Clerval – Nicholas Clay?)

The term homunculi was first used by the 14th-century Swiss alchemist Paracelsus, who once claimed he had created a false human being that he referred to as the homunculus. The creature stood about 12 inches high, and was able to perform simple and repetitive tasks. However, after a short time, the homunculus turned on its creator and ran away.

Another reanimation procedure involved the use of the mandrake root. Popular belief held that this plant grew where the semen sometimes ejaculated by hanged men during the last convulsive spasms before death fell to the ground, and its roots vaguely resemble a human form. The root was to be picked before dawn on a Friday morning, then washed and "fed" with milk, honey and blood, whereupon it would fully develop into a miniature human being, which would guard and protect its owner.

Victor Frankenstein dabbles in alchemy before studying hard science at university. His experiment with the mandrake root, retrieved late at night in a churchyard cemetery, is interrupted when his girlfriend Elizabeth shows up unannounced and objects to the occult ritual.

The story opens on a ship trapped in pack ice north of the Arctic Circle. As Captain Walton, a polar explorer, contemplates his perilous predicament, he spots a giant man on a dogsled "rushing over the ice like the very devil." This is Victor Frankenstein's Creature. Soon after this sighting, the ill and exhausted Victor arrives, collapsing near the ship. Captain Walton takes Victor aboard and nurses him back to some semblance of health. Victor then relates his story to the captain.

Curious and intelligent from a young age, Victor is self-taught by masters of alchemy. He reads such esoteric authors as Albertus Magnus and Cornelius Agrippa, shunning the Age of Enlightenment’s teachings of natural science. Victor leaves his beloved family and fiancée in Geneva to study in Ingolstadt, Bavaria, where Professor K.A. Waldheim introduces him to the natural sciences. In a moment of inspiration, combining his newfound knowledge of science with the alchemy of the old masters, Victor discovers the means by which inanimate matter can be imbued with life. With great drive and fervor, he sets about constructing a creature stitched together from cadavers.

When the Creature awakens, revived by electricity from a lightning bolt, Victor recoils in horror, disgusted by its appearance and by the enormity of the crime he has committed against God. Swathed in bloody wrappings, the Monster grins and reaches out to Victor, who flees the makeshift laboratory in terror, whereupon the resurrected man disappears. Exhausted and horrified by his unholy experiment in reanimation, Victor suffers a nervous breakdown. He returns to the family estate to recuperate. A year later, Victor is informed that a mysterious stranger murdered his younger brother William while the lad played hide-and-seek in the forest.

Victor tracks down the Monster, who dwells in a nearby cave. No longer grunting, he is now strikingly eloquent, describing his feelings of confusion, rejection and hatred to the man who created and abandoned him. The Monster explains how he learned to talk by studying a peasant family in their cottage through a crack in the wall of an adjoining shed in which he concealed himself. The Monster performs kind deeds in secret for the family, but in the end, they drive him away when they behold his ugly countenance. In retaliation, he burns down their cottage.

The Creature confesses to Victor that he killed William, and that he did so out of revenge. The Monster begs Victor to create a female companion for him, reminding the scientist that he is responsible for ensuring that his creation’s life is as bearable as possible. The least Victor can do is create an ugly bride for the Monster so that he will not be so terribly alone. If Victor does not agree to this second act of creation, the Monster pledges to make his life hell by killing all his loved ones.

At first, Victor agrees to the Monster’s demands. Later, fearful that this experiment could lead to the breeding of "a race of monsters dedicated to destroying humanity," Victor tears up the half-made female companion in disgust. In retribution, the Creature kills Henry Clerval and later Victor’s bride Elizabeth on the night of their wedding. Victor now becomes the hunter, pursuing the Creature to the ends of the earth.

In the climax of the story, the Creature boards the icebound ship and finds the bedridden Victor, who curses him and dies. The Monster justifies himself to the Captain, telling him that Victor deserved his fate for not taking responsibility for his creation, and then wanders off alone, resigned to die in the arctic wilderness.

Behind Frankenstein's experiments is the search for ultimate power or Godhood: what greater power could there be than the act of creation of life? Yet the creation rebels against its creator: a clear message that irresponsible uses of technologies can have undesired consequences. Which is no doubt why Mary Shelley’s book still resonates so powerfully with readers 188 years after its initial publication.

Terror Of Frankenstein is an excellent picture, despite flaws stemming from its low budget. The reanimation scene is so Spartan that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Victor hooks a copper wire to the neck of the oversized corpse, and then attaches the wire to a kite that he flies in a thunderstorm, Ben Franklin-style, from the roof of his loft. A lightning bolt strikes the kite. Electricity shoots down the copper wire, reaching the corpse and galvanizing it into life. This method of powering up the cadaver seems a bit too simple, but the reanimation is sparsely described in Shelley’s book, so here again the film remains true to the original novel. We're just used to big, flashy "it's alive!" scenes, a staple of Frankensteinian cinema ever since Kenneth Strickfaden created those marvelous electrical effects for James Whale’s Frankenstein in 1931.

Still, one aspect of Terror Of Frankenstein’s low budget cannot be overlooked – the lack of extras at key moments. When Victor and Elizabeth are wed in a church ceremony, the only others present are a priest and Victor’s sad father. Surely there should be a few wedding guests scattered about. In another scene, Victor wanders about the University of Ingolstadt, and a solitary figure crosses the quadrangle behind him, when the campus should actually be a hive of activity, with students rushing to class or engaging in vigorous debate with their professors.

Filmed in the unfamiliar landscapes of Ireland and Sweden, Terror of Frankenstein doesn’t so much resemble a Masterpiece Theatre production as it does one of those central European arthouse period pieces like Kaspar Hauser (1993) or Edvard Munch (1974). Terror Of Frankenstein also brought to mind another elegant low-budget horror drama set in the 19th-century--1973’s The Asphyx (reviewed in Horror-Wood in August 2002).

Despite its low budget, Terror Of Frankenstein is a handsome production. With the possible exception of Roger Corman’s Frankenstein Unbound (1990) and Ken Russell’s Gothic (1987), Terror Of Frankenstein more convincingly evokes the Switzerland of the early 1800s than any other film with a Frankenstein theme that I can think of. The Arctic Ocean setting is also impressive, although we don’t see the actors’ breath in the subzero temperatures, indicating that these scenes were filmed on a heated soundstage. The absence of extra cast members aboard the icebound ship is annoying: a captain and only two crewmates are hardly adequate to the task of mounting a polar expedition. And Victor Frankenstein’s frostbitten appearance fails to convince; it looks like peanut butter was smeared all over his face.

The period costumes are attractive, though. The long shots of Victor Frankenstein wandering across increasingly barren northern landscapes with his staff and stovepipe hat remind one of the pursuing doppelganger in the German silent horror classic The Student Of Prague (1926). Another scene where villagers attack the Monster comes closest to capturing the mood of the Universal horror classics, echoing a similar episode in Son Of Frankenstein (1939).

So, all quibbling aside, this low-budget entry is a reel "Frankenfind", deserving of cult film status. The acting is fantastic, the cinematography gorgeous, and the direction superb. Terror of Frankenstein isn’t scary (what Frankenstein film is, really?), but it is morbid, melancholic and thoroughly engrossing, capturing the gothic atmosphere of the original book almost perfectly. All the more remarkable a feat for its limited budget.

Afterthought:

After a second viewing of Terror of Frankenstein, I noticed that two plot points are unresolved.

1. In an early experiment, Victor pierces a monkey’s heart with a knife, but does he succeed in reviving the animal before attempting to reanimate a human? This possible outcome is hinted at during a conversation between Victor and Prof. Waldheim.

2. Near the end of the story, Victor visits his father’s grave in a churchyard cemetery. Victor’s father Alphonse dies of grief and old age in the novel, but the screenplay seems to imply that the Monster may have murdered him.

Thanks, Harv.  It's ironic that the two greatest horror novels that spawned the horror film genre both have been filmed so often and yet their actual story has rarely, if ever, been told on celluloid.   If there is a true "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein," it is this film, Terror Of Frankenstein.  We urge horror fans to accept no substitutes.   It's a shame this sincere and competent telling of the Mary Shelley novel couldn't have had at least a twentieth of the budget of Kenneth Branagh’s bloated ego trip...yet it makes the most of the budget it has and captures the period, the characters, and the original novel's theme just about perfectly.  This is required viewing by classic horror fans and even horror fans in general.

Article copyright © Harvey F. Chartrand

Return To Archives