Despite I, Frankenstein tanking at the box office and not being very good [though I didn’t find it as bad as many others did], there still seems to be great interest in Mary Shelley’s creation[s]. There’s a TV show being developed, plus Mary Shelley’s Monster and maybe a Guillermo Del Toro film, while I’m sure Universal are thinking about the version they’re going to make to tie in with their Universal Monsters franchise. First up though is Victor Frankenstein, starring James McAvoy as Frankenstein and Daniel Radcliffe is Igor. Now we’ve all read the synopsis:
James McAvoy is Victor Von Frankenstein and Daniel Radcliffe stars as Igor in a unique, never-before-seen twist on Mary Shelley’s classic 19th century novel. Told from Igor’s perspective, we see the troubled young assistant’s dark origins, his redemptive friendship with the young medical student Victor Von Frankenstein, and become eyewitnesses to the emergence of how Frankenstein became the man—and the legend—we know today.
This sounds interesting, though I don’t quite understand the fascination with Igor considering he wasn’t in the book and only ever appeared in two Frankenstein pictures Son Of Frankenstein and Ghost Of Frankenstein and certainly wasn’t Frankenstein assistant, though Frankenstein did have a hunchback aide called Fritz in the 1931 Frankenstein. In any case, Collider.com spoke to Radcliffe about Horns, and the actor revealed some more about his next film:
“I think our Frankenstein is a really kind of rip-roaring, fun adventure movie version of Frankenstein. I would really struggle to class it as horror. I think there are horror elements to it and nods to previous versions of Frankenstein, but it’s much more a film about – the thing that I hope will make it stand out is the relationship between James’ character and I. Victor and Igor are two people who come to need each other very much. The thing for me of the movie is actually about creation and, you know, Igor, my character, is taken out of this horrible abused life at the beginning of the movie and James sort of saves him and gives him this new life, sort of creating him in some sense, in creating this life that he has, and so because of that and because of the life he’s been saved from, Igor feels forever that he has this sort of debt of loyalty and the film then becomes about how much can that debt be pushed? How much can that loyalty be pushed before – at what point do you have to step out from the shadows of the person that created you and go, ‘I am my own person?’ Or, do you forever defer to the person that is responsible for your life? So it’s sort of, it’s a film about relationships set against the backdrop of creating monsters.”
Radcliffe also explained how Frankenstein’s monster fits in:
“One of the biggest differences between us and other Frankensteins will be that, generally speaking, the main relationship is between Frankenstein and the monster and the monster is created in the middle of the movie, and in our version it’s created right at the end and the journey up to that is really about how we come to that eventual idea. I’ve heard other people call it kind of an origin story for Frankenstein, but it’s an origin story for a Frankenstein you have never met before, if that helps. The quote that I got in trouble with with the producers was saying, ‘If you like the book, you’ll hate the movie.’ [Laughs]”
Sounds like a good film, but maybe not so much a good Frankenstein picture? I have no problem with the monster being created at the end – Hammer came close to that a couple of times with their Frankenstein films, which placed the emphasis on creator rather than creation – but I’m just not ‘feeling it’ yet. Hopefully my mind will be changed soon!