“What struck me in this story so many times told is to get into the mind of the monster, to feel his confusion and pain.”
Bernard Rose, London-based director and creator with Clive Barker of the Candyman myth, returns to pure horror with a classic story that has become immortal, yet still incredibly relevant: Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” 200 years after the novel’s publication, science has yet to prove it can create a consciousness, a dream that still remains impossible for anyone: the creation of a more intelligent human being, endowed with perfect health and long life. That is what an eccentric pair of scientists (played by Carrie-Anne Moss and Danny Huston) attempt in the film, thanks to a super-technological 3-D printer, but the young man, Adam (played masterfully by Xavier Samuel), soon evidences unforeseen complications and is suppressed and abandoned because he is left for dead. But something goes wrong. Adam manages to escape from the laboratory and is forced to confront the violence and viciousness of the people around him. This perfect creation, which has become a disfigured monster, will come to terms with the horrible nature of humanity.
Set in present-day Los Angeles and told entirely from the Monster’s point of view, Rose’s Frankenstein, which he directs from his own original screenplay, is a bold contemporary reimagining, an intense, authorial, violent and at times moving film. The British director proves that he is now a complete auteur, who knows filmic timing perfectly, who is able to take the viewer by the hand and accompany him into his world and into Adam’s head, into his pain, into his suffering once he discovers the rejection of his beloved mother, and into his extreme loneliness, ostracized by all but a blind homeless man (Tony Todd, who returns to work with Rose since Candyman). Rose surprises with singular and prodigious images and sequences, peppered with clever and valuable camera movements. Curating the excellent make-up special effects was six-time Emmy nominee Randy Westgate. There have been many adaptations of Shelley’s novel, but Rose’s Frankenstein is perhaps the most intimate and is one of the best versions made in recent years.
Interview with Bernard Rose
What Mary Shelley recounted in her novel was the creation of life, but although 200 years have passed, science has not yet succeeded in its purpose. Did you choose to make a classic like Frankenstein because, unlike the other classics, it is still the most modern and current story?
Yes, that’s right, we have not yet been able to accomplish what you have told in your novel. Take Jules Verne for example, everything he wrote about we have done. We have been to the moon! We even know what is at the center of the earth! Shelley’s projection into the future was very profound and prescient. Creating life is still something that haunts us. Frankenstein remains as relevant today as it was two hundred years ago. Its central premise, that the ultimate purpose of science is to create life, resonates with us because it is the truth and because only in our age is this possibility becoming decidedly real.
So how did the project come about?
I read the book several times, and I really enjoyed those passages in the story where it is spoken from the monster’s point of view, where the monster himself tells Dr. Frankenstein about his experiences in the new world where he has been catapulted. It seemed like something that could have a strong cinematic charge, telling the story from a different point of view. That’s what attracted me to this old story, the fact that you could get inside the monster’s head, feeling his confusion and pain; sensing his growing curiosity as he discovers the true nature of his origins and wishes he had the answers to the questions that sooner or later everyone asks: who am I? Where do I come from? What is my destiny?
The film, unlike the latest adaptations, is set in the present, but what are the main differences between the newer and older versions?
Almost all the adaptations are set in the past, most of them in the period when the novel was written. But I think that’s a mistake because the novel was not written as a story of that time, but as a contemporary story, with themes that are still very current. To do it even today would be a bit of a stretch. Even if you look at James Whale’s film, it is not set in 1819, but in 1930. Everything is very 1930s. And even the other versions, the Hammer one is set in the 1860s, Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation around the early nineteenth century. But in my opinion it is still wrong, because two hundred years ago it was not possible to create life, whereas today we could, and that makes the story even more vivid and interesting. In the present day, the idea of shaping flesh by using a 3-D printer is a reality, and the concept of creating a new life gains more credibility.
So for the first time the story is told from the monster’s point of view. To make it more believable you used the protagonist’s voiceover to explain his thoughts.
It was a way to make it look like the monster was telling its story to someone, through a kind of inner dialogue. The creature is unable to express itself, but it has this very complicated and sensitive inner life. It’s not stupid, but a very intelligent being, even though it can’t communicate. And I thought the addition of the voiceover could add an extra layer of tragedy to the story.
Science is able to create the flesh, but what happens, however, with regard to consciousness? Despite the relentless process of science, there is no clearer idea of what constitutes consciousness than in Mary Shelley’s time. The monster has an inner life, he is a living being endowed with complex emotions; he dreams, he loves, he hates: he is essentially the Romantic man, and these faculties of his convince us that he is “alive.” We feel empathy for him because of his unjust birth, because of the violent behavior he is taught and enacts to the nth degree, and because of his suffering in being rejected by his fellow human beings.
In terms of the cast, how did you cast the main character Xavier Samuel?
We needed someone who looked perfect, someone who could have a certain kind of connection with the audience like a silent film actor, like Buster Keaton was for example. It’s almost like you can read his thoughts, because he’s incredibly expressive, plus he has a significant physicality and he’s very bold and courageous. During the film he took a lot of beating. At one point in the shoot, as we were about to shoot the dream sequence, where Xavier appears perfect again, without any deformities or injuries, I realize that he was taking really too long in the makeup room. But for that scene, make-up was not to be used to make him a monster, he was to look normal. I asked the makeup artists for an explanation and they said, “We are covering the bruises because he took so many beatings in the previous scenes.” It was very brave, not an easy role at all. He is a great actor, also very demanding, he never complained.
In Frankenstein you returned to work with Tony Todd, whom you had directed in Candyman. And not for a cameo, but in a rather important role as well….
I hadn’t written the role with him in mind actually, but the producers suggested it. So I decided to meet with him, I hadn’t seen him since Candyman, and he was great. He really liked the character, Tony is perfect for the role, and he did a really great job.
The film is also quite gore, unlike what you’ve usually done in the past, apart from Candyman of course…
Yes, Candyman was quite gore, but actually the later films I made were not. With Frankenstein I wanted to shock people. My goal was not to show a story that had never been seen before, but to make the viewer witness something very visceral, frightening and disturbing. I wanted the viewer to tremble from the violence. You know, the difference between an action movie and a horror movie is that in an action movie you sympathize with whoever is killing the bad guy on the spot, but in a horror movie you cheer and get almost symbiotic with the victim. And that’s why you have to see the wounds, the blood, the gore. I hate horror movies that are banned for under 14s, I even hate the concept of the ban.
From Candyman to Frankenstein how has the horror genre changed?
The genre has changed a lot. But Candyman was not the classic horror film typical of those years. It was a very different film, I would say almost bizarre, singular. At that time, the early Noventa years, the genre was at its lowest peak, unlike the 1970s and 1980s. Ninety-nine percent of horror films are still considered trash, the remaining 1 percent are among the best films ever made: just think of such films as Kubrick’s The Shining, Friedkin’s The Exorcist, Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf, Roeg’s In Venice… a shocking red December or Russell’s The Devils. I think the horror genre is well suited to convey challenging and disturbing ideas as well as scares. However, I love the genre because I think it is a particular way of dealing with serious topics that can fascinate and engage a wider audience, not just a niche one. No one wants to see dramatic movies anymore mainly because most of them are so boring….
Your next projects? In an old interview about 10 years ago you stated that you wanted to direct a sequel to your Candyman…
It’s true, that was my intention and I would still love to do it, but I see it very difficult now. Anyway, yes, I want to make more horror films, maybe taking cues from 19th century texts, obviously updated and made more interesting. I would like to “broaden” the genre, telling stories that don’t just rely on easy scares, I don’t like those kinds of movies. Going after someone and shouting “Boo!” is not scary, it’s just scary. The most important things in a movie, horror or non-horror, are the story and the characters. And just because it’s a horror movie doesn’t mean you have to have stupid characters talking shit and doing shit. The best horror films in history, in fact, have incredible characters, as for example in Rosemary’s baby and The Exorcist. These are films that don’t just scare you while you’re watching them, but are even more terrifying a week later. These are the best horror films, the ones that penetrate your mind and you can’t help but think about them. I want to make these kinds of films, and I’d like to continue working with the horror genre. That’s certainly what I’m going to do in the next few years. I already have an absolutely terrifying script ready, but at the moment I can’t anticipate anything….
