Frankenstein: The True Story

This movie was shown in two parts on TV and ran over 240 minutes. It is truly a shame that the publisher of the VHS version saw fit to take editorial license and reduce the currently available version to approximately 122 minutes. If you can find an original full length version, snap it up as this classic is as scary now as it was back in 1973. At the age of nine this movie (when watched in the dark) on Channel 45's Ghost Host Theatre was enough to make me sleep with a light on. Classic acting by James Mason and a very young Jane Seymour made this production exceptional. Michael Sarrazin's portrayal of the monster did evoke sympathy and then fear. In the 240+ minute original, a few parts did drag, but the best way to see it is in it's entirety.

I must add my own two-cents worth to those others who regard Frankenstein: The True Story as the most satisfying film version of of Mary Shelly's 1818 classic. Though it is not a literal translation of the story, it captures the philosophical nature, melancholy mood and epic scope of Mrs. Shelly's novel better than any other celluloid rendition. While keeping the bare bones (no pun intended) of the novel's plot, it dances all around the original story, pulling off plot elements here and there, then sticking them back on elsewhere. For instance, Henri, in the original merely Victor Frankenstein's concerned best friend, is transformed into a mad doctor who gives Victor the monster-making knowledge. In the book Elizabeth was the ward of Victor's father, but Vic is the ward of Liz's dad in True Story. The Dr. Polidori character, played by James Mason oozing evil from every pore, was a brilliant touch, but no such character appears in the novel. Yet, there was a real-life Polidori in Mary Shelly's orbit. He was Shelly friend Lord Byron's personal physician, confidant, and dope supplier. A brilliant young man, who had already published several medical books, he tragically took his own life at age 21 -- according to some, because of his unrequited love for Mary Shelly!

True Story owes little to previous movie versions, neither the mossy old 1930's and 'forties Universal Frankenstein series or Hammer's 1950's/'60's revivals, but is a completely fresh approach. The brilliant script by Isherwood and Bachardy is almost as literary as Mrs. Shelly novel, yet even more exciting and stimulating. True Story is a splendid production, probably one of the most handsomely turned out made-for-TV numbers of all time. Period (1797 and following) sets and costumes are exquisite. The cinematography is beautiful, belying its TV origins every step of the way. Unlike most TV movies of the time and practically all current theatrical movies, it disdains the shot-a-second montage method in favor of the mise-en-scene approach -- every scene starts with a precisely composed long shot, which gradually pans in to close-up. This classic style of cinematography complements the beautiful sets, enhances the melancholy mood, and displays the humanity of the characters better than montage. Here it is used brilliantly by director of photography Arthur Ibbetson and director Jack Smight.

Frankenstein: The True Story is expertly acted by Mason, Leonard Whiting (Victor), Nicole Padget (Elizabeth), Michael Sarrizan (Creature), Jane Seymour (female creature) and the rest of a fine cast. It is dramatically engaging, thoroughly engrossing for its entire three hours, intellectually stimulating, and gorgeously filmed. A delight from beginning to end. Even Old Hollywood would have been proud to have turned out such a complete motion picture.

P.S. -- Those who are interested in learning more about that early 19th century femme fa-tale and the origin of her famous monster story would do well to read Miranda Seymour's superbly researched, highly readable biography of Mary Shelly (Grove Press, NY, 2000).

I was so pleased and surprised when I saw the DVD of this film for rent recently. I originally saw it on TV back in '73 (I was about 8) and it has stayed with (haunted?) me every since. A number of people have posted about how it made such an impression on them at the time, and I am certainly in that camp. Judging by other comments, it would seem that the only audience that actually watched the whole thing was between the ages of 5 and 10 :}.

Anyway, watching it again last night with much more seasoned eyes, I was able to appreciate so many more aspects of this very well done film. While not a direct interpretation of the novel, it is certainly among the top three film versions of the story. It's not what you would call action packed but surprisingly, clocking in at around 3 hours, doesn't drag either, due to a tight script.

It would have benifited from more music throughout as it carries a very sparse score. Guess it wasn't in the budget.

In this release there was a very crucial scene which didn't match my memory, and I've come to find out that it had been edited. It was a somewhat gory scene but for crying out loud, it was on TV in '73! And we couldn't put it on the DVD now?? I don't get it. Other than those couple of points, it really is a somewhat forgotten classic.

I remember seeing the original broadcast of this two-part miniseries back in '73, and how impressed I was by the cast and the writing. Witty, literate, touching and horrifying by turns, it definitely set a pretty high standard for itself just by the title alone, yet then proceeded to exceed that standard, which is something that few movies ever do, let alone those made for television.

The all-star British/American cast and the production design gave it the old-time feel of early films from both the Universal and Hammer Studios genres, yet the sharp writing by Don Bachardy and Christopher Isherwood lent an almost Merchant-Ivory sense of credibility that most films of this kind can't even hope to pull off.

Even more surprising that the director, Jack Smight, was better known for his work on television series and disaster films than on something as well-crafted as this.

And the performances...In a cast of well-seasoned veterans, it's almost impossible to cite stand-out favorites, but if I had to, Michael Sarrazin's Creature is one of the most outstanding to be introduced out of the many versions, and definitely the most multi-layered and sympathetic, (which would not be equalled until twenty-years on, by Clancy Brown in the less-superior THE BRIDE.) Worth equal praise is the rivalry between David McCallum, Leonard Whiting and the always-dependable James Mason as the brilliantly twisted Dr. Polidori (affectionately known now and forever as "Polly-dolly.")

And what review would be complete without mentioning Jane Seymour as Prima. I won't spoil the shock and surprise involved with her character and Sarrazin's, but needless to say that was ONE scene that made quite an impression on my young mind, (and for those who remember, you know EXACTLY which part I'm referring to!) It was quite an introduction to a lovely young ingenue, who would become even more memorable to American audiences less than a year later with her big screen debut, as Bond girl Solitaire in Roger Moore's initial 007 outing, LIVE AND LET DIE.

It may not exist in its original form, as previous reviewers have pointed out, but one can only hope for a newly restored and uncut DVD version of this classic TV gem. In an age of bloated, overproduced blockbusters like TITANIC and PEARL HARBOR, the 240-minute version of this outstanding drama would be more than worth your time. Now here's hoping we'll get the opportunity to see it again, as it was intended.

I rented this movie the other night. I was impressed by how many well known actors were in it. The acting was very good. Leonard Whiting was very convincing and seemed to really share a bond with his monster. The monster didn't seem to be all that evil until people started being mean to it. I think the movie tried to show us that beauty is only skin deep. Jane Seymour was excellent. I recommend this movie highly, it is very well done.