Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I just took advantage of the glorious opportunity to see the encore screenings of the National Theatre's Frankenstein (play by Nick Dear, directed by Danny Boyle, with Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller alternating the roles of the Creature and Frankenstein). I first saw it last year.


These are my initial impressions of the Cumberbatch-as-Creature cast, including comparisons between Nick Dear's play as written and as performed.

Here are my thoughts on the differences between the Cumberbatch-as-Creature and Miller-as-Creature casts.

First of all, the lead performances in both versions were stunning. Absolutely stunning. I can't say this loudly or often enough. That said, my personal preference is for Cumberbatch's interpretation of the Creature and Miller's interpretation of Frankenstein. It comes down to the question of consistency, really. (I'll refer to the actors as BC and JLM, for the sake of convenience.)

BC and JLM had very different interpretations of the Creature. BC played him as a being cobbled together from the pieces of the dead, and it followed that he focused his research for his movements on injury victims who were trying to learn how to get their bodies working again. JLM played the Creature as a baby/rapidly-aging child, and it followed that his research focused mostly on his then-two-year-old-son. This contrast was made manifestly clear in the opening sequence; BC's Creature staggered, badly uncoordinated, clearly swept along by his own momentum; if he stopped, he'd fall flat on his face. JLM's Creature rocked on the ground, discovering his own body, at one point drawing his foot to his mouth and chewing on it.

The result of these differences in approach is that, once BC's Creature learned speech, he remained fairly consistent throughout the rest of the play. He was damaged goods, at the level of his very nerves and cells. JLM's Creature, on the other hand, "grew up" and shed much of his physical/verbal "strangeness," and the signs of those things - a stutter, a spasming of his leg, a nervous tick in his jaw and chin - only reappeared toward the end at moments of extreme distress.

Of the two, I strongly prefer BC's interpretation, which maintained the Creature's "Otherness" throughout. Sometimes JLM appeared rather inconsistent, more like a merely ugly person than a new life form, and I'm sure that's in part because of the premise from which he was working.

One of the scenes that's most pivotal to me is the bedroom scene between the Creature and Elizabeth. BC's Creature visibly had tears in his eyes and trembling lip as he apologized to her for what he was about to do, and he seemed to go through the mechanics of the rape for its symbolism as an act of revenge, although it pained him. JLM's Creature made the apology like something he knew he should do (without tears), and seemed to take animal pleasure in the act (which was longer and more graphic) before then showing genuine remorse.

To put it another way, BC's Creature seemed like a Good Man who Falls (or is pushed, as it were) and bitterly mourns the fact, whereas JLM's Creature seemed like an Innocent who becomes Disillusioned (and thus Angry). If that makes any sense.

That said, JLM's Creature was remarkable in the scene with his would-be Bride; he stood beside her, holding her hand, screwing up his eyes and nearly hyperventilating as he waited to hear Victor Frankenstein's decision about her. Very powerful.

As for Victor himself, the interpretations again were different, though more subtly so. I feel JLM was done a bit of a disservice, because his Victor was taped when he obviously was very hoarse, and so he came across as perpetually rather "shouty" just so his lines could be understood. His JLM felt very, very focused to me, holding an intense and even note - as I say, consistent. BC's Victor vacillated between moments of great hubris and moments of great doubt, and that made him quite sympathetic at times (more so than JLM's), but also a bit hard to pin down.

When JLM's Victor told the Creature to look down at the town, with its "little men, with little lives," he was stating a cold scientific observation; BC's Victor was openly sneering in contempt. When JLM's Victor told Elizabeth he loved her, he sounded as if he was trying to convince himself; when BC's Victor said it, he meant it, and it was an anguish to him. When Elizabeth kissed JLM's Victor, he didn't kindle for her, but he wished he could; BC's Victor was genuinely tempted and aroused, and had to pull himself away and remind himself of his priorities.

JLM's Victor was more thoughtless, oblivious even, out of his emotional depth, than cruel. BC's Victor had real moments of cruelty. When he realized he could exhibit a female Creature, his voice dropped an octave, and the audience had no doubt he would go back on his word. Later, when he asked what the Creature would do if the Bride "wants to live with a Man, not a Monster," he dipped her suggestively, pressing against her, undulating with her, as if suggesting he could "perform" where the Creature couldn't.

Two of Victor's key lines in particular worked better for me with JLM. When Victor asked the Creature what it feels like to love, and the Creature gives his wrenching description, JLM's Victor choked up and asked "Is that what it feels like?" as if he wished he knew and was well aware that he didn't. BC's Victor asked in an abstract kind of way, as he was already clearly a step ahead in his plan on what to do to the Bride.

Another example: when the Creature called Victor on the fact Victor didn't anticipate that he would have feelings, BC's Victor brushed him off by saying he was "an equation, a theorem," nothing more. Next question? JLM's Victor made it an accusation, an indictment with a weighty pause, and the audience gasped, both from his delivery and the obvious impact the blow had on BC's Creature.

BC's Creature hit every note I was looking for from this script, and I simply cannot say enough glowing things about his performance. He was the being who wanted to be good, the being capable of reason and logic, but love and empathy as well, and his Fall is deeply tragic because of it. (An example: the Creature explained to Elizabeth that he was good at assimilation, because from men he had learned "how to ruin, how to hate, how to debase, how to humiliate." JLM's Creature makes this an angry list, rapidly spoken. BC's Creature lingered on each one, mourning over it. That entire scene for BC was particularly spectacular.)

Through my recent viewings I also gained new appreciations for the complexity of Nick Dear's script, from the repetition of "We can only go forward, we cannot go back" motif, to the delicate use of the snow and the solitary moon as symbols throughout the work. It's a great achievement, this play, and I'm grateful I had the opportunity to experience it.

"All I wanted was your love. I could have loved you with all my heart. My poor creator."
- The Creature to Victor Frankenstein, Nick Dear's Frankenstein


( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 8th, 2012 03:15 pm (UTC)
I would have LOVED to see this; as it is, I'm grateful for your detailed review! I fell in love with Frankenstein (the original novel) during undergrad...its various interpretations that fall close to the book rather than pure Hollywood stereotypes have fascinated me ever since. :D

*hugs you*
Jun. 10th, 2012 04:58 pm (UTC)
I'm so, so glad this was of interest to you! Thanks for your lovely comments, my friend. <3
Jun. 8th, 2012 04:17 pm (UTC)
Thank you so much for this review.
Jun. 10th, 2012 04:58 pm (UTC)
My pleasure! Thanks so much for reading and commenting.
Jun. 10th, 2012 05:03 pm (UTC)
I can't wait to discuss this with my husband. We haven't had a chance as he is working all weekend. I linked him to your review. We are fans of BC thanks to Sherlock. This was a wonderful treatment on how actors bring their own life to a character. This is something we've discussed alot in terms of Sherlock. It gives me a great deal to think about in terms of writing as well.
Jun. 15th, 2012 08:26 pm (UTC)
Oh, thanks for sharing my review with him! I'm so glad this was of use/interest to you.

This was a wonderful treatment on how actors bring their own life to a character.

Yes, that's it exactly. (And very interesting to contemplate in light of the different Sherlocks...)
Jun. 12th, 2012 04:05 pm (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I, too, was struck by Mr. Cumberbatch's interpretation and remember feeling so chilled when he told Elizabeth that he had learned to lie. You have already expressed the admiration I have for BC's performance, but I do want to say that it's shown that even The (male) Creature has more freedom than Elizabeth does. I'm sure Dear's play deliberately paralleled the lack of control that both Elizabeth and The Female Bride had over their own lives.
Jun. 15th, 2012 08:24 pm (UTC)
Re: Thanks
Thank you for your terrific comments! You make an excellent point! The parallel between Elizabeth and the Female Creature was well drawn. It was also underscored very effectively, I think, how Victor confused education with intelligence (and thus assumed - very wrongly, as becomes clear - that because Elizabeth had been denied the one, she lacked the other). Naomie Harris did such a fantastic job of communicating Elizabeth's rather profound moral understanding (identifying Victor's sin of pride, offering her friendship to the Creature, etc.).
Jun. 22nd, 2012 11:48 pm (UTC)
I really enjoyed your review, thanks for sharing it! Like you, I prefer the BC-as-Creature version. The remorse and anguish he feels when he commits these atrocities rip at my heart, while I am less moved by Jonny's emotionally undeveloped, aggressive-child approach. Don't get me wrong, I think both versions are fantastic and valid, but the BC/Creature version really moves me. I also preferred BC's birth scene, as I felt JLM's Creature was up and moving too quickly.

I was absolutely fascinated at how the approach to the Creature so affected the portrayal of Victor. JLM's Victor matches up with BC's Creature so well - his anguish over his faults and short-comings is palpable. And the chilling coldness of BC's Victor matches perfectly with the more aggressive, less emotionally-developed portrayal of JLM's Creature. You could not have BC's Victor paired with BC's Creature - the portrayals would not mesh at all. I am so impressed at how both actors have moulded their performances in partnership with the other.

I'm off again this weekend to see the JLM Creature, can't wait! I took some friends to see the first version last week, and I'm taking them tomorrow to see the second. I'm looking forward to seeing what they think of the differences.
Oct. 11th, 2013 05:59 pm (UTC)
I'm so sorry I haven't responded to you sooner. Somehow I didn't receive a notice of your comments! I really appreciate your kind words. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I was absolutely fascinated at how the approach to the Creature so affected the portrayal of Victor. JLM's Victor matches up with BC's Creature so well - his anguish over his faults and short-comings is palpable. And the chilling coldness of BC's Victor matches perfectly with the more aggressive, less emotionally-developed portrayal of JLM's Creature. You could not have BC's Victor paired with BC's Creature - the portrayals would not mesh at all.

Yes! You make such an excellent point here. The degree to which each of the two actors crafted his performance/interpretation to respond to his counterpart's is stunning. It allows the two different shows to be in conversation with each other rather than simply reworking the exact same ground. I'm so glad I saw both performances!

I'm thrilled it's coming back for this Halloween season.

Thanks for sharing your wonderful insights!
Oct. 9th, 2013 01:51 pm (UTC)
Wonderful review!
Oct. 11th, 2013 06:00 pm (UTC)
Oh, thank you so much! :D I really appreciate it.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )