Frankenstein Reborn (2005)

Posted on Oct 12, 2005 under Horror, Sci-fi |

Written and directed by Leigh Scott
Starring
- Rhett Giles
- Thomas Downey
- Jeff Denton
- Joel Hebner
- Eliza Swenson

You’ve got to have a better-than-average reservoir of chutzpah to take on the Frankenstein myth these days. The tropes of the creation who turns against a creator with delusions of godhood are so engrained into Western culture that it’s hard even to approach the material without either finding all outlets of originality clogged by preexisting cliches, or recasting the story elements to such a great degree that the result is rendered pointless in its reference to the original.

Much better than the cliched brain-in-a-jar, don’t you think?

I am thus happy to say that writer-director Leigh Scott managed to revamp and retell the Frankenstein myth in a present-day setting with a better-than-expected degree of success. Though not without its flaws, it’s a movie that surprises and engages with a a thoughtful and sincere “reimagining” of Mary Shelley’s novel.

As in the original, the story proper is contained in a framing device; in this case, psych sessions involving one Victor Franks (Rhett Giles), in intense young Harvard-educateed surgeon whose competency to stand trial for murder is at question. Once Franks drives off every other psychologist on staff, the director Dr. Walton (Thomas Downey) finally takes on the Franks case himself and sits down with him to get his likely-delusional version of events. (Cue harp run and dissolve…)

“Is this setup adversarial enough for you?”

Franks, together with fellow young surgeons Elizabeth (Eliza Swenson) and Hank (Jeff Denton), are a privately-funded research team experimenting with biological nanotechnology. Their ultimate goal is the reanimation of dead tissue; their current half-way project is restoring body function to Bryce (Joel Hebner), a strapping lad recently left in a wheelchair by a traffic accident. Unfortunately, as his body recovers, Bryce’s mind is beset by the “side effect” of violent, sociopathic imagery and fantasies involving those around him, including his doctors. When he eventually “checks himself out” and disappears, Franks and Hank continue their research as best they can, this time going for the brass ring: A corpse. And because they’re going far beyond their corporate mandate (no, you shouldn’t even think about how they could possibly have gotten FDA approval for even the experiments they’ve done up to now), they trade in their spotless lab for a basement lair that fulfills everyone’s best fantasies of what a mad scientist’s workshop should look like.

As Franks tells his story juxtaposed with the cinematic depiction of his tale, it becomes clear that he’s not an entirely trustworthy narrator. Granted, the broad factaul outlines of his tale are entirely unbelievable to Dr. Walton, but in the smaller details, he takes care to gloss over or recast details which affect his self-image. He and Elizabeth were lovers as well as colleagues; to Dr. Walton he describes her as a simple midwestern girl, while the reality we see is an S&M-tinged relationship, one in which Elizabeth is as likely to instigate as not. (And that doesn’t even touch on the threesome she puts together with Franks and new lab assistant Rebekkah (Christina Rosenberg).)

Gee, her hair doesn’t look nearly so red when compared to the blood.

The tale as it’s told is not precisely non-linear; we’re not watching Memento here. But as Walton goes over Franks’ story, looking for the inconsistencies and hallmarks of a deranged fantasy, the same scenes are sometimes repeated with further details as they come up in Franks’ justification for his actions. Or his claims of innocence; although charged with the murders of at least three people, Frank’s maintains he killed nobody; it was all his Creature.

It’s a perfectly supportable interpretation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein that the Creature is more than the accusator and evidence of Frankenstein’s hubris; he is also in some sense’s Frankenstein’s dark side, his repressed id. Some movie adaptations have brought that idea to the forefront, notably the 1992 TV-movie starring Patrick Bergin and Randy Quaid. Here, that same theme is expressed in a different fashion: Unknown to the others, Franks had experimented with the nanites on his own, testing whether they would retain information from his nervous system and relay them back to the main computer when removed from his body. But those same nanites, when used in Bryce’s treatment, implant in him Franks’ own deviant psychoses and violent fantasies which he mostly keeps under control, and it is that imagery of cruelty and murder, that “side effect,” which eventually drives Bryce to demand to be released from the program.

Know what would have been cool? Duct tape!

And that’s why Franks shoots him. The corpse that he and Hank use for their ultimate experiment? It’s Bryce’s, reconstructed around his gunshot-damaged internal organs and rendered monstrous by the necessity of implanting the nanites directly into his cerebrum through his face — nanites that are booted up simultaneously by a tremendous shock of electricity. The resulting Creature is confused, angry, and driven by the sociopathic psychoses implanted in him. (And yes, Franks does get to say, “It’s alive… it’s alive!” in such a way that it’s a gentle homage rather than an overt wink to Colin Clive.)

The last third of the movie tends to lose focus, as Franks recounts how the monster first kills Elizabeth, then helps the doctor find a new body for parts to bring her back; too much time is spent in chasing down bit players for surgery fodder. And the interrogation by Dr. Walton becomes similarly unfocused; is Franks confessing? Stonewalling? Attempting to cement an insanity plea? Seeking asylum? Trying to assuage his stunted conscience? Any or all of the above? I wouldn’t say we’ve entirely run off the rails by this point, but we’re certainly shuddering on the turns.

“Orthodonture!!!!”

Because of that, I can’t give Frankenstein Reborn an unalloyed recommendation, but there’s still much to it that’s praiseworthy. The acting among the principals is uniformly good (with Eliza Swenson as Elizabeth being the weak spot), and the production values make good use of an economical budget. The gore is frankly more plentiful than I’ve come to expect of an R-rated release these days, but in the context of the story it remains effective and integral instead of gratuitous. This is an attempt at a serious and thoughtful reworking of a classic, disguised as a B-movie.