Frankestein: Who is the Real Monster?

Hi, and welcome back to another post. Today I want to share with you some thoughts on Danny Boyle's Frankenstein. This is my attempt in writing an analysis of sorts (I am not a professional reviewer/analyst/critic). However I would love if this would be a place of discussion. 

The two hour long play was written by Nick Dear and directed by the Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle. The play, which had its lead actors alternating in the lead roles of Victor Frankenstein and the Creature; starred Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller (both of whom I am a fan of). It was an interesting way to not only allow us to see two different interpretations on each character, but also to slap us in the face with the question of who the monster really was; a question which was highlighted through the marketing of the play. Both the trailer and poster distinctively highlight this transaction/transition from Frankenstein to the Creature. I am not going to delve into the story of Frankenstein as it was widely known and popular. 

This 'monstrous' play first hit the theatre almost a decade ago, in 2011, and was available for a week between 30th April 2020 and 7th May 2020 on NT Live YouTube Channel, as explained in my previous post - Change is Coming! The Curtain Cannot Fall. 

Frankenstein was one of the plays/performances on my course list when I was still reading my Bachelors in Communication with Theatre Studies as subsidiary. ( St James Cavalier in Malta was one of the cinemas showing the NT Encore). 

Why Frankenstein? - You may ask. Why now? - Because this play remains one of my favourites and best performances I have ever seen. I wish I had the chance to watch it live. 

Creature VS Creature

The play gives us, as the audience, the chance to see the story from the Creatures' point of view. Needless to say it was poignant to watch this child-like creature trapped in a 'hideous' body of a man being neglected of love, a sense of care, a family, and compassion. Both Cumberbatch and Miller were outstanding in their performances; their efforts were rewarded with joint Olivier Award in 2012.  

The play opens with the birth of the Creature as he started to discover his abilities. It was simply poetic watching the interpretation from both actors as they navigated through their own abilities to portray this raw moment, this growth. It was like a dance between the Creature discovering himself and the surroundings, dancing to the tunes of bewilderment and curiosity. The Creature observed and absorbed everything; and like a child he imitated those around, often humorously. Both interpretations of this scene, which was one of my favourites, were a treat to watch. While the performances were similar in many aspects, each actor brought their own take on the interpretation of the Creature. 

Cumberbatch's Creature was agile, characterised by unique physiognomy and full control of his limbs; a concoction intricately developed which made his portrayal powerful and controlled.I would not be surprised if the actor practices some sort of yoga because he ran and climbed around the stage so effortlessly. I felt my knuckles crack watching him carry the entire weight of his body on knuckles and toes as the Creature was exploring his abilities and limbs. Cumberbatch's portrayal was not only poweful physically, but vocally too. Cumberbatch's vocal work was clearly manifested in the ability to create sounds and speaking in slurred speech throughout the entirety of the play. His cries after De Lacey's unintentional betrayal pierced my heart, it ached for him to a point I understood, without justifying the events which followed, the reason why he sought revenge.

Miller's Creature behaved more like a child trapped in a muscular body of a man, or an undeveloped adult. In fact, Miller's Creature's speech and mannerisims were childlike. Miller's portrayal was closer to the green monster we are used to see, as Miller's muscle map allowed his Creature to be more broad and heavy. This contrast (his built and childlike approach), this rawness, was spine chilling as we all know how the events unfolded.

Frankenstein VS Frankenstein

Frankenstein as a character was eccentric, often vulnerable, naive, arrogant, and brutally honest. Both Miller and Cumberbatch have a flair for such characters; their interpretation is often poised. I dare say, it looks like they both have fun interpreting such characters. In fact Frankenstein was not the first eccentric character they interpreted and was not their last.

Miller's Frankenstein was more rough in his approach, makes you feel uncomfortable talking to him. Between uncomfortable pauses in his speech or rushing through his speech depending on the interaction, Miller created a balanced Frankenstein. Frankenstein was highly intelligent. And thus Miller's approach highlighted his impatience with people; highlighted the fact that he could not afford human interaction when his mind was needed elsewhere. However, Miller took his time when addressing the Creature, suggesting Frankenstein's arrogance, vanity and pride over his creation. Ultimately, Miller's approach to the character, the mannerisms and physiognomy, I feel, were carefully elaborated to portray Frankenstein as a villain, a man who ran away from responsibility; like a parent running out on their children.

Cumberbatch on the other hand portrayed his Frankenstein with regal elegance. His manners and conduct were soft, calm and poised. Dear's play favours the Creature, and thus irrelevant of how the actors portray Frankenstein, he would still look the lesser one, the monster. The subtleness in Cumberbatch's approach made the portrayal of his Frankenstein more psychological - how can someone as poised as Frankenstein be this brute?

Miller & Cumberbatch

The way Cumberbatch and Miller portrayed their characters worked both individually or as a pair. The amalgamation of the different elements worked. They did not stump on each other, but acknowledged each others' take and perspective of their characters. As a result, the actors had a better understanding of both characters. Their performances where composed of common elements and the rest was sculpted by what the actors wanted to narrate with their abilities. As Miller said in another interview 

"Being there, it’s nice to have it both ways around, and not get too exhausted or bogged down by one or the other parts. You get to see the play inside-out, really".

When working on a production like Frankenstein, it is important that the actors work well together. And they did work well. That is what makes this play interesting, intelligent and beautiful to watch. It must not have been easy to act under the heat emitted from the light bulbs hanging over the stage, coupled with the emotions and long hours of preparations each night. The effects were visible on both actors, especially Miller, yet their performances looked so effortless.

The adjective effortless is not being used lightly and I humbly believe it is a beautiful compliment towards the actors who managed to narrate a story through physical movement. Irrelevant of whether the play is narrated through text or through physical movement, the actor would still need to train - in many instances for hours. An effortless end result is the result of a journey where the tool (body) is manipulated and deconstructed, and, reconstructed and molded as needed. This essential journey allows the actor  to understand and learn what his possibilities and limits are, challenge them and create something beautiful with their bodies (this does not come pain free or without injuries - unfortunately).Two stellar actors, two stellar performances, two hours without intermission or break. Bless their hearts for having to wear heavy costumes, run around the stage, deal with the emotions of live theatre, all under the scorching power of 3,500 light bulbs hanging over their heads.

The standing-ovation was very much deserved, so much so, I found myself joining the audience, every-time I watched the play at home. 

The Cast

Accompanying the two leads were a group of 18 talented souls which blended harmoniously with the two, at times accentuating the traits and development of the Creature and/or Frankenstein. There was however, one character, which did not make it on the cast list, but was looming in the background - the stage and context.

The Stage, Music and Costumes

Watching two actors such as Cumberbatch and Miller would have been an honour (I would have totally fangirled in silence). But to be present in front of a massive stage and its brilliant mechanisms would have been a dream. 

The story of Frankenstein is set during the reformation period in Europe, an era characterised by steel, steam and science - all of which were incorporated in the play.

Steam & Steel: Ok, allow me to take you a little bit further up - back to the trailer. Yep! That's right - a train on railway on set! I remember we watched the trailer during the lecture just to watch that scene. We were all in awe that we had to watch it twice. While we are accustomed to technology, we were still taken aback by watching a train on stage. Similarly one can argue that the bewilderment of the Creature the moment he saw the train is a metaphor for what was happening in Europe that period, when railways and trains were first introduced.

The use of mechanics to lay and remove platforms, the use of steel to create a multilevel stage are all remnants of the birth of industrialisation, the era in which the play is set. The mechanics were magnificent to watch, becoming a character in themselves. The multilevel stage not only enhanced the industrial look, but added more discomfort to the actors who, together with the audience, had to endure set designer Mark Tildesley's interpretation of galvanisim, science and discovery, by hanging 3, 500 light bulbs, covering the stage and most of the auditorium, controlled by 1,000 dimmer controls, the effects of which were visibly seen on the actors, bless their heart. 

Costumes: You could see a clear distinction between the costumes for the company and the three De Lacey, the Creature and the Frankenstein household. The costumes for the common folk were shabby as one would expect, but looked post apocalyptic, screaming steampunk. On the other hand you have the Frankenstein household, whose costumes reflected their position and station in society. In contrast, the Creature's costumes were raggedy, highlighting how poorly he was treated. 

Steampunk: The use of steampunk elements (through choice of music, the set and its mechanics, and some of the costumes) in the play is romantic, almost, as by definition, this sub-genre romanticizes science in literature factoring elements from the Industrial Revolution in Europe during the 1800s. Steampunk sub-genre has in its foundation and inspiration 19th century authors, making the choice even more romantic.

The NT Live

As regrettably I was not able to watch the performance live, I watched the Encore, directed by  Tim Van Someren. The encore, unlike the live version, gives you the performance from the lens of someone else rather than your own, creating a new barrier, a new filter. The filming of the alternating plays was not to the latter, thus allowing the audience to view the play from different angles and the team to experiment. The shots did not favour one performance over the other. The differences were mainly the techniques used (birds eye view, close-ups, panning out, panning in, long shots). Ultimately, while not comparable to watching the performance in person, its filming was a beautiful extension of the play. I feel that the messages of the play came across. 

Themes - how portrayal of the themes substantiate the question "Who is the real monster?"

Man playing god: The most obvious theme is how man often tries to play god. Many atrocities occurred in the name of any god, with the follies of men at the heart of such acts.  Frankenstein recurred to science to defy natural order - "because he could". Which in theory and morally is not necessarily negative. On the contrary, it is progress. Progression and advancement in science has led to the improvement and increase in life expectancy and assisted couples who cannot conceive naturally (but luckily we cannot bring back the dead).  But for every choice there is a consequence. For every choice there is responsibility.

Abandonment: Frankenstein made the conscious choice to create a human being out of remains. The end result was creating something unpleasing to the eye, yet highly intelligent and capable. Because of this, he made the conscious choice, perhaps out of fear, to abandon the creature, who was a child trapped in a body of an adult. Every event following this spiraled because Frankenstein made the choice to abandon his creation, his child. So much so, he didn't even name his creature. In fact the Creature called the simple act of naming a luxury. All the Creature wanted was to feel included and loved, when instead he was abandoned. The Creature had no one to defend him against the ill intent and prejudice of humans. He was violently hit, spat on, shouted at, wished to be dead, betrayed. 

Love: Had Frankenstein loved the Creature would the story have turned out differently?This theme in particular brings out a monstrous truth about us. We fear the unknown. And this fear is often manifested in eliminating what threatens us. The De Lacey are a clear example. De Lacey loved the Creature, became his mentor, treated him as his equal. Because he was stripped off sight, De Lacey trusted in his heart. He called the Creature a good man, deserving of love. That all went away when Agatha and Felix, whom he both helped (but hey, let's thank the fairies), saw him for the first time. "Kill him. Kill the bastard", cried Agatha. The shriek that followed, was the sound of the Creature's heart breaking as the little love he felt was violently stripped away from him, portrayed brilliantly by Cumberbatch, whose cry pierces right through your heart.

And this is the sad truth. The Creature brought out the monstrous side in us; whether it is the way we treated him, or whether we wished any of the characters dead.

Love as Eros was also explored in this play. The most obvious pair were Felix and Agatha, and their little family, which never materialised. On the other hand, the other two instances are less conventional. On one hand, there is Elisabeth and Frankenstein. Naomie Harris portrays a beautiful Elisabeth Lavenza who seeks Frankenstein's attention. But Frankenstein was already married to science. So much so, their interactions, with both interpretations of Frankenstein, created a bit a of comic relief, especially this interaction (photo posted by National Theatre on their social media account). On the other there is the Creature longing for a companion whom he can love.

I personally find this theme very interesting, for Love as Eros was convoluted and deadly like a spiders web. In watching Agatha and Felix together, the Creature longed for a companion. Their love came to an abrupt end at the hands of a vengeful Creature. Events continued to spiral downwards when the Creature struck a deal with his creator. Only his creator did not hold the end of his bargain and killed the beautifully constructed female Creature, who unlike the Creature was hideous ("Because we can go only forward"). In return, the Creature killed Elisabeth to avenge the denial of a companion, a broken promise. At the end of this chain of unfortunate events, only Frankenstein and his Creature remained, with Frankenstein admitting that he does not know how to love.

Beauty & vanity, and betrayal: These three themes are intertwined, in what is an already tangled situation. In more than one occasion, Agatha and Elisabeth were described as beautiful and fair. And in more ways than one, we kept being reminded that the Creature is hideous, monstrous, a beast. Frankenstein's vanity derived from his superior mind and intelligence, often crossing the line to arrogance. While his work was beautiful, as he admits, he failed to make his Creature handsome. So the companion the Creature asked for had to be beautiful. And she was, as she was objectified for a moment, reminding us once again about the Creature's appearance and because of that, she may not want to stay with him. 

Beauty and vanity led to betrayal. Agatha, Felix, De Lacey, William, the female Creature, Elisabeth all paid the price with their lives. As already mentioned, Agatha and Felix drove the Creature away, because he looked like a monster, ergo betraying the trust De Lacey and the Creature had in one another. The Creature killed William in order to get his creators attention in order to ask for a companion. Frankenstein killed the Female Creature as to prevent another 'monster', thus betraying the Creature. The Creature betrayed Elisabeth, to take revenge on Frankenstein,  by raping her before ultimately claiming her life. 

Reason & Logic: It was satisfying watching the Creature (both interpretations) trying to reason with Frankenstein. The attitude was that of a child. Yet the choice of words were elaborate, that of an intelligent person. The Creature was able to reason more than most men do. He showed intelligence, the desire to solve the issue without recurring to violence. He tried to do what is right, rather than what is easy; unlike many of the characters he met during his unfortunate life.

Because the Creature trusted, his heart got broken, consequentially making the sound choice to becoming a murderer in revenge. Either-way, because the Creature was not trusted, his heart got broken. Which takes us back to the first question: who was the real monster?

Numbers

Here are some interesting numbers, taken from National Theatre's Instagram account, just in case the above isn't enough to convince you:

Frankenstein is an epic story which came together through acute direction, unbelievable set design and light coordination, magnificent script, dedicated makeup and costume professionals and delivered by the most talented cast. Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller deserve every standing ovation, every praise, every award for their efforts. It was an absolute pleasure and honour to have been given the opportunity to watch it, discuss it, and write about it. My conclusion seems biased. Perhaps it is a bit. But Frankenstein remains one of my favourite performances to date.

I hope the lock-down has not been hard on you. For me personally, this play, the NT Live at Home, has brought me so much comfort. And while the Creature is the mood for 2020 I hope you found your comfort through these weird times.

__