This one is an interesting case study on how depending on the watcher’s mindset, his/her perception of a movie can vary dramatically. For the context: Guillermo Del Toro won the Golden Lion with “The Shape of Water” in 2017. Another monster story. Back then, I was very much in disagreement with the jury’s choice, although, if I remember well, I did express some appreciation of the movie’s visual quality.
The same visual quality appreciation can be granted to “Frankenstein”, that, we all agreed on. But what each of us took away from the movie as a main impression is very different. I believe that somehow, we all have a point. And if you put all these points together, you end up with a pretty good overall assessment of the picture:
Point 1: what is the added value of another “Frankenstein” adaptation? Especially as this must have been a very costly one – expensive actors (such as Oscar Isaac), impressive visual effects that must have taken loads of working hours on top notch machines, a lengthy movie (2.5 hours)… How many other movies, including first projects by young directors, could have been funded from that huge amount? That is why spectator 1 came out sad and disheartened by this quite obvious money making machine. As a big lover of independent cinema, I cannot disagree with her.
Point 2: my spectator 2 is one who likes when stories are well thought through and make perfect sense up to the smallest detail. Spectator 2 could not help but notice some inconsistencies that made her disconnect from the story. Some concerns were also raised about the need for so many not so pleasant visual details (especially when Frankenstein is assembling his creature by putting together – and cutting and sawing – pieces of dead bodies). Here again, I cannot disagree with these comments.
Spectator 3 had only one main regret (and again, I agree that it is perfectly valid). The fact that Guillermo Del Toro could not help but repeat the pattern of “The Shape of Water” with a monster/human belle love story component that, let’s face it, was a bit cheesy.
And what about my spectator self? Well, to my defence, I would never have gone to watch this picture in standard Brussels circumstances. It is not the kind of movies I am generally attracted to and, as spectator 1, I do have a philosophical problem with these massive productions. But this is also why, as it is unusual for me, I have a tendency to approach them with a kind of curiosity/innocence. Hence my spectator self got swallowed by the visual (and also musical) beauty of the picture – amazing soundtrack, I have to say. I am not sure that I could give you a proper summary of the film’s plot as I approached it as one would approach a painting: absorbing the colours, the decor, the costumes and just enjoying the beauty of what I was seeing. Given the millions that were invested in order to make this film a visual delight, I did enjoy every single second of its aesthetic. Nothing less, nothing more.
Klara's cinema 