Frankenstein
Now we come to the Batman of our Justice League (Im liking this comparison less and less) Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one of my favourite novels and one very close to my heart. So, due to the complete diversion of the universal series, its not my favourite (Although without it we would have no Gods and Monsters or Young Frankenstein). However, they are undoubtedly good films, and it is this interpretation that everyone recognizes. Everyone thinks Frankensteins monster is actually the Frankenstein of the title, and is a green, mumbling, lumbering lunk with bolts in his necks and scars across his head. So Universal play on that. Not many people remember Branaghs superior film, so they can do what many cynical studio execs do in regards to remakes of adaptations and say they are closely adapting the book and not the famous film (Stand up True Grit and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory). This is another case of adapting the book to some extent, but the story has been told to death so they need to do the opposite to Dracula and choose and writer and director who will give the tale a new twist to not only to appeal to a contemporary audience, but make it worth seeing. Make us see the legend in a new light, similar to what they would have done with Dracula. Something Branagh and composer Patrick Doyle got right, and later Danny Boyle and Underworld in the fantastic 2011 play, is that the novel is very much a product of the romantic period of poetry and art. They play up the vanity of Victor (in particular, the Creation scene where Branagh gives life to the creature, with his top off for no good reason), the melodrama of it all (the performances, and Patrick Doyles seeping, emotionally manipulative score) and understand it was written at a time where men thought they could play Gods, and everyone beheld the marvel of nature and the power of invention. Thats why its a damn good film and the truest adaptation. Whoever directs, and I would choose someone like Danny Boyle because of his incredible play adaptation, should perhaps be a little more grim to keep with the tone of the series. And in addition to a fantastic score, they would need a hell of a cinematographer (Someone like Roger Deakins comes to mind). And to top all of that off, they would need a fine actor to portray the creature, someone like Adrien Brody- someone who understands how Artaudian and physical the role is (like Benedict Cumberbatch did perhaps a little better than Jonny Lee Miller). After all it is the creature that audiences want to see. But in addition, they would need a damn fine actor as Victor himself, perhaps someone like Edward Norton. I think the Boyle play on the nights Cumberbatch was the creature and Miller was Victor, where Cumberbatch played up the intelligence of the well-read monster, and Miller played Victor as more emotional like Branagh did and as he is in the novel. In fact, perhaps if Boyle adapted his own play, it would work.
Now we come to the Batman of our Justice League (Im liking this comparison less and less) Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one of my favourite novels and one very close to my heart. So, due to the complete diversion of the universal series, its not my favourite (Although without it we would have no Gods and Monsters or Young Frankenstein). However, they are undoubtedly good films, and it is this interpretation that everyone recognizes. Everyone thinks Frankensteins monster is actually the Frankenstein of the title, and is a green, mumbling, lumbering lunk with bolts in his necks and scars across his head. So Universal play on that. Not many people remember Branaghs superior film, so they can do what many cynical studio execs do in regards to remakes of adaptations and say they are closely adapting the book and not the famous film (Stand up True Grit and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory). This is another case of adapting the book to some extent, but the story has been told to death so they need to do the opposite to Dracula and choose and writer and director who will give the tale a new twist to not only to appeal to a contemporary audience, but make it worth seeing. Make us see the legend in a new light, similar to what they would have done with Dracula. Something Branagh and composer Patrick Doyle got right, and later Danny Boyle and Underworld in the fantastic 2011 play, is that the novel is very much a product of the romantic period of poetry and art. They play up the vanity of Victor (in particular, the Creation scene where Branagh gives life to the creature, with his top off for no good reason), the melodrama of it all (the performances, and Patrick Doyles seeping, emotionally manipulative score) and understand it was written at a time where men thought they could play Gods, and everyone beheld the marvel of nature and the power of invention. Thats why its a damn good film and the truest adaptation. Whoever directs, and I would choose someone like Danny Boyle because of his incredible play adaptation, should perhaps be a little more grim to keep with the tone of the series. And in addition to a fantastic score, they would need a hell of a cinematographer (Someone like Roger Deakins comes to mind). And to top all of that off, they would need a fine actor to portray the creature, someone like Adrien Brody- someone who understands how Artaudian and physical the role is (like Benedict Cumberbatch did perhaps a little better than Jonny Lee Miller). After all it is the creature that audiences want to see. But in addition, they would need a damn fine actor as Victor himself, perhaps someone like Edward Norton. I think the Boyle play on the nights Cumberbatch was the creature and Miller was Victor, where Cumberbatch played up the intelligence of the well-read monster, and Miller played Victor as more emotional like Branagh did and as he is in the novel. In fact, perhaps if Boyle adapted his own play, it would work.