A FRANKENSTEINIA EXCLUSIVE Being Scared: Jason Zinoman on his book Shock Value

Carrie White’s hand explodes out of the grave, an appropriately iconic image for the cover of Shock Value, a new book chronicling how a handful of young filmmakers revolutionized the horror film genre in the Seventies.

Investigating a generational shift in the understanding of what scares us, author Jason Zinoman tracks the lives and early careers of, among others, George Romero, John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, Brian De Palma, Dan O’Bannon and Wes Craven, and examines the genesis and impact of such films as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween, The Exorcist and Night of the Living Dead.

Frankenstein films are hardly mentioned in the book, if only to note the failing fortunes of Hammer Films, whose polite gothic chills were being superseded by a new breed of brutal, modern horror films.

I asked author Jason Zinoman if he might reflect on his inspiration and motive for writing Shock Value and the work involved. I asked him what he had learned from his research and if he would revisit or expand on the horror genre in the future. His answers are fascinating.

I am delighted to have Jason Zinoman as a Guest Blogger…

When I asked George Romero what part of making his debut hit Night of the Living Dead was he most proud of, he responded instantly: Finishing. Considering the impact the movie had on the world, that answer seemed strange when I first heard it, but no longer. Doing anything for the first time is hard, and while I had tried writing books several times over the past decade, I always hit a dead end. I recall being particularly disappointed after abandoning a biography of Shel Silverstein, which I think would make for a wonderful book. I am convinced that Shock Value was the first book I completed because of the reason I wrote it in the first place. It was a book that I desperately wanted to read.

To be more specific, I wanted to read a book about the great scary movies of this fertile period rooted first and foremost in reporting. I am a critic who has a strong perspective on these films, but in talking to those who made them, I tried to keep an open mind and follow my curiosity. So I did not set out to redress the fact that Dan O’Bannon’s contributions have been overlooked or to explain that the influence of Hitchcock is more complicated than has been presented or argue that Brian De Palma’s movies are more personal than critics have given him credit for. That’s just where my reporting led me. As I talked to more and more actors, writers, directors, producers, publicity people, etc, certain narratives started to emerge and I developed stronger opinions about what made these movies great or scary. But they began with on the ground interviews plus a deep immersion in the journalism about horror movies from the 60s and 70s. I read as many books and articles about the genre as I could, but the material that I really focused on first was what was written at the time. My goal was to tell a story that recreated the business, cultural and intellectual climate that gave rise to Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween.

The biggest challenge and frustration is that some of the key players had died (William Castle) and others were very difficult to get a hold of. Getting in the same room with a few of the main characters was very tough. And then figuring out a way to get them to recall events from long ago that had in some cases hardened into lore could be even harder. There were many road-blocks. Some of the directors I needed to interview three or four times and others I really worked hard to talk to those who knew them when they were young: Family members, girlfriends, classmates, etc.

I probably ended up interviewing half of the USC Film School class that included John Carpenter and Dan O’Bannon to get a sense of what they were like. What kept me going throughout the process of working on the book, which took four years of off and on again work, was that I was never at one moment bored of the subject or anything less than excited to work on it. Horror is endlessly fascinating to me, but also personal, since some of my most vivid and pleasing memories are of being scared. This is a book that aims to tell other people’s stories, but it’s rooted in an interest in my own, which is to say: Why do I like these movies so much? What scares are the most potent? And why?

What I learned is that the truth can often be elusive, but you can get closer to it the more perspectives that you have. And while these artists were working in very different circumstances, they shared many of the same pool of ideas and influences. Generally speaking, I think these movies are far more personal than many critics think they are, and while the auteur theory is a helpful prism to analyze horror, it has limitations. In many cases, I found the tensions between two artists or traditions more revealing the intentions of just one. Over the course of writing this book, many of its sources passed away (Forrest Ackerman, Dan O’Bannon, William Fraker), so I was glad to have worked on the book when I did. That said, it’s not the final word on this period of horror at all. The subject is far too complex and rich for that. And I am not done with horror. I love getting scared as much as I ever did and horror is growing larger every day. I can’t wait to see what comes next.

Brooklyn-based, Jason Zinoman is a theatre critic for The New York Times and he has written on various topics for Vanity Fair and The Guardian. Recently, Mr. Zinoman wrote an insightful and highly recommended series called How To Fix Horror for the web magazine Slate.

Shock Value: How a few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood and Invented Modern Horror, published by The Penguin Press, is in bookstores now, and available from Amazon through The Frankenstore.

With Thanks to Trish Collins of TLC Book Tours.

Frankenstein: The Legend Retold A Guest Post by Martin Powell

Above, the striking original cover art — sans overprinting — by artist Patrick Olliffe for Martin Powell’s adaptation of Frankenstein, first published in 1989.

I asked Martin to tell us how he came to Frankenstein, and how he came to write his celebrated graphic novel. Here’s what he had to say…

When I was a boy, visiting relatives in the country, I often sat in the dewy night grass and stared at the blackened woods, wondering what nameless monsters lurked and haunted behind the tangles of ivy and oak. My older brothers (and several imaginative cousins) were quick to impress such fanciful phantoms upon my youthful gullibility, and I was always eager to hear more, collecting each spooky story like other boys accumulated gum cards.

I suppose everyone has thrilled, at one time or another, to a ghost story, relishing a sense of ghoulish wonder at what really may be awaiting us in those darkened forests.

Mary Shelley certainly did.

Of all the classic authors, she’s certainly been the most influential to me, especially through Frankenstein, Or the Modern Prometheus. It has always seemed remarkable that Mary composed the greatest of horror stories while still in her teens. A very tough act, indeed, for any writer to follow.

The very first time I read the novel was a life-defining moment, changing me forever. I must have been about nine years old when I excitedly saw Frankenstein, as a paperback, on the top of my cousin Charlotte’s dresser. I’m sure I must have audibly gasped with astonishment. Charlotte kindly gave me that book, which I stared at during the entire long drive home, mesmerized by its enigmatic Karloffian cover. Already, I was hooked. I would read the book many times during the years to come, each time finding rich new layers that I had never dreamed of before, falling under its phantasmagoric spell again and again.

Ultimately, I was inspired to write my own graphic novel interpretation of Frankenstein. The powerful story had long haunted me, accumulating as a dream-project that was actually conceived when I was still in high school. My project proposal almost seemed to compose itself, and it’s more to Mary Shelley’s credit that my submission immediately found a publisher.

Next to Mary’s initial inspiration, it was the art of Patrick Olliffe, whom I was most fortunate in recruiting, which made the endeavor a success. It was perfect casting. Pat’s wonderfully moody and enigmatic black and white illustrations established a tangible atmosphere within a single panel. I remember having many lengthy, enjoyable phone conversations with him, in those days before the instant accessibility of the internet, as we planned our translation of Mary’s classic tale of terror. Early on I’d decided against stressing the popular “technology out of control” theme in favor of focusing on what I felt was the true soul of the story, that of an unwanted child.

In particular, I recall an in-depth discussion concerning what our Monster should look like. Pat and I obviously needed to avoid the famous design created by Jack Pierce, and owned by Universal Studios, and we relished the awesome possibilities that lay before us. This was a being, we reasoned, fashioned from the available raw materials of the late 18th century. Neck electrodes, square head, and over-sized boots suddenly seemed strangely out of place, even if they had been allowed.

Instead, Pat rendered a gnarled, towering, patch-work horror. His creature is wholly original, bringing Mary Shelley’s tantalizingly vague descriptions into the stark and terrible light. It is wondrous, pitiful, ghastly, and weirdly charismatic. For me, Patrick Olliffe’s visual depiction of the Frankenstein Monster is absolutely definitive.

Since its first publication in 1989, our Frankenstein graphic novel has never been out of print. Recently it was published again in a Spanish language version, and a brand new special edition looms in the near future.

That’s amazing and very gratifying.

Special thanks to Frankensteinia for inviting this warm remembrance, and to the gentle ghosts of Boris Karloff, Forrest J Ackerman, and Mary Shelley. I’d be nowhere without them.

— Martin Powell
October 24, 2010

Minnesota-based writer Martin Powell has hundreds of published credits for comic books and prose fiction. His Sherlock Holmes/Dracula graphic novel, Scarlet in Gaslight, was nominated for an Eisner Award. Earlier this month, his book, The Tall Tale of Paul Bunyan, illustrated by Aaron Blecha, won the Gold Medal in the graphic novel category of the Moonbeam Children’s Book Awards. Martin is currently scripting new adventures for such classic characters as The Phantom and the pulps’ The Spider for Moonstone Books.

Martin Powell's blog, and his Facebook page.

Patrick Olliffe is an accomplished illustrator and comic book artist who has contributed to a who’s who of superhero characters, the likes of Spider-Man, Spider-Girl, The Atom, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, for Marvel and DC. He is now taking on The Mighty Samson for Dark Horse comics. Of his collaboration with Martin Powell on Frankenstein, he says, “Although early in my career, it remains one of the projects I love the most.”

Patrick Olliffe's blog.

Young Romantics A Guest Review by the Vicar of VHS

Keys to understanding Frankenstein are found in understanding its author, Mary Shelley: Her influences, her life, her entourage, and the era she lived in. Many answers can be found in the new and highly touted group biography, Young Romantics, by British scholar Daisy Hay.

I’m delighted to welcome a fellow blogger, the virtual Vicar of VHS, one-half of the dastardly duo perpetrating the maddening Mad Mad Mad Mad Movies blog, as an unlikely but strangely fitting Guest Reviewer. You may be surprised, as I was, to learn that The Vicar — he stubbornly refuses to answer to any other name — is a published author and poet! Lord Byron, The Vicar informs me, is his favorite Romantic poet, and Lord Fauntleroy his role model. “One day” he says, “I hope to pose for an oil portrait in Arabesque costume.”

Here is The Vicar of VHS’ review of Young Romantics: The Tangled Lives of English Poetry's Greatest Generation, by Daisy Hay.

There is certainly no shortage of biographies devoted to the key figures in the Romantic movement of English poetry. The short, tragic life of John Keats, the proto-rock star adventures of Lord Byron, and the tumultuous relationship of Percy Bysshe and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley have been the subject of countless published histories since their deaths, and continue to fascinate aspiring scholars and casual readers alike. In fact, so much has been written about each of the group's members that it might seem there's nothing new to be said. To take on any one of these monumental figures in print is to risk merely treading a well-worn trail and repeating all the anecdotes that have long since passed into common knowledge and literary legend.

However, author Daisy Hay manages a fresh approach in her first book, Young Romantics. Her book is the story not of any one Romantic figure, but of all of them--or rather, of the by-turns cohesive and shifting social circle of which they were a part. In doing so, Hay paints a fascinating picture of these often larger-than-life personalities, and also the way those personalities and events interacted to shape what she calls "English Poetry's Greatest Generation."

Hay takes as her focus publisher and author Leigh Hunt, a figure little-remembered outside scholarly circles, but who was instrumental in the publication and rise to fame of many of the Romantic era's greatest poets. Often imprisoned for debt and libel, Hunt was nonetheless able to maintain a salon where he received frequent visits from the literary giants of the age (thanks to influential friends and the nature of life for an aristocrat in debtors' prison at the time). As Keats, Byron, the Shelleys, and others pass in and out of Hunt's circle, Hay sketches the events that occasioned their meetings, friendships, and sometimes tumultuous fallings-out. In doing so she succeeds in giving the reader not only the essential information about each poet and writer's career, but in creating an immersive portrait of the time and place in which they worked, and the important relationships that shaped their lives and in some cases nearly destroyed their reputations.

Of particular interest to readers of Frankensteinia is Hays' detailed treatment of the relationship between Percy Bysshe and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. The author traces the couple's relationship from its very beginnings, hitting such touchstones as Shelley's expulsion from Oxford University for atheism, his legendary (and perhaps apocryphal) courtship of the teenaged Mary on the site of her famous mother's tomb, and of course the fabled summer at the Villa Diodati with Byron, Polidori, and Mary's half-sister Claire Clairmont. The composition of Frankenstein, its publication and popularity, and its importance to Mary's financial well-being in later life (after Percy Shelley's tragic death by drowning left her and her children destitute) are all compellingly detailed, as are the tragedies of Mary's lost children and Claire's protracted struggles with Byron over their illegitimate daughter. Hay explains the scandals caused by themes of free love and incest that pervaded not only Shelley and Byron's work but also that of Hunt and others, and how public perception of the group was shaped (sometimes justly) by them.

The book contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in Romantic poetry generally and the Shelleys in partcular. Included in photo plates are many famous portraits of Mary Shelley, the famous painting "The Funeral of Shelley" by Louis Fournier (with entertaining commentary on the painting's accuracy, or lack thereof), and manuscript pages from Frankenstein in Mary's own hand, with marginalia by Percy Shelley showing a deft editorial hand. I was surprised to find one of the more memorable-to-me lines from the book, wherein Frankenstein laments that at university "I was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth," was apparently suggested by Percy, as can be seen on the page.

Hays' treatment of the triumphs and tribulations of the other figures of the Romantic movement are just as entertaining and informative. Part biography, part history, and part soap opera, The Young Romantics might not have the focus and depth of some scholarly works, but is definitely more fun. If you're interested in Frankenstein, Romantic poetry, or just literature generally, I can highly recommend it.

Young Romantics: The Tangled Lives of English Poetry's Greatest Generation by Daisy Hay (2010, Farrar, Straus and Giroux)

Daisy Hay’s website
A video interview with Daisy Hay
A 3-part podcast from Blackwell Online

The Vicar of VHS’ Mad Mad Mad Mad Movies blog.

Related:
The Funeral of Shelley

Frankenstein: Through the Eyes of The Monster, By Elise Bottle

A friend of Frankensteinia, Elise Bottle of Sydney, Australia, found a copy of the 1995 PC game Frankenstein: Through the Eyes of the Monster. She gave it a spin for us and reports on her experience.

Being in the public domain, the Frankenstein story is good fodder for any creative team in the cutthroat world of the entertainment industry. It’s no different in video games — a quick search on any major gaming website reveals over a dozen titles using the name. While Castlevania and Darkstalkers, which only feature The Monster and his creator as incidental characters, have enjoyed success, most of the games that actually cast the gruesome twosome in the limelight seem to fall into obscurity. But do they really deserve to be ignored? Surely a quick rummage through the bargain bin can occasionally turn up a rare gem or two?

When I saw Interplay’s Frankenstein: through the Eyes of a Monster on sale for a mere ten bucks, I quickly snapped it up. Firstly, I’m a Frankenstein nut, which should be fairly obvious since I’m writing for a Frankie-themed blog. Second, I prefer the slow, steady pace of adventure games as opposed to trying to frantically blow the guts out of some giant enemy crab and end up falling of a cliff in the process. Third, this game has Tim Curry, aka Dr Frank N. Furter of Rocky Horror fame, as the eponymous mad scientist – need I say more?

One of the nifty things I noticed when I opened the box was the game’s manual. Of course, a manual is always essential, but what made me smile was the short, if watered-down history of Frankenstein and its adaptations, although some fans may disagree with the praise given to Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein of 1994. Either way, I thought it was a nice little addition to the package and I’m sure that somebody who worked on the game was a Frankie fan to have put the time into researching the info for the manual.

But what of the game itself? Well… that’s were things start to go downhill.

The game’s blurb claims that you play as The Monster, but actually, you’re a scientist, Philip, falsely accused for the murder of his daughter Gabrielle. Found guilty and executed, then brought back to life by mad Dr Frankenstein (Tim Curry), you are basically held prisoner by him in his castle and you have to somehow escape. Personally I feel a bit cheated by this storyline, since it’s not like Phil is even suffering amnesia, having to remember what happened or anything. The original story, and even the Universal and Hammer movie adaptations to an extent, were about The Monster not really understanding the finer details of the world around him and having to learn it all the hard way. Really, it’s a minor gripe, but it just bugs me.

It wouldn’t bug me so much if Phil weren’t so obnoxious. Seriously, the guy never stops whining, and will do so at the drop of a hat. Oh, and did I mention that his voice actor sucks? In fact, apart from Tim, it seems that Interplay recruited its cast at the local amateur theatre club. “Hey folks, wanna be in a video game and get famous?”

The characters, excluding Phil (you’ll only ever hear his voice), are played by live actors — a huge fad for video games of the era — with mixed results, and they are made to look small compared to the environments, not ridiculously so, mind you, but you can just tell that the scaling is off. What’s more, on the rare occasion characters ‘interact’ with each other, you can tell they were filmed separately. Bleh.

Then, the graphics. To be fair, this game is fairly old, being made back in 1995, so the graphics are dated, though they fare OK when compared to other games of the era — pretty, but stiff — but the design is drab and dull. Of course, this is a horror game so it isn’t meant to be cheery, but this castle hardly evokes a feeling of creeping dread or anything like that. Apart from the odd gruesome discovery in Vicky’s lab, Frankenstein Castle could be your run-of-mill tourist trap. And you’re going to need maps for this game — the lazy designers use the same set of images for the many winding corridors and secret passageways, making this game one big maze. Look, I don’t mind the one odd maze in my adventure games, but when you have to navigate them for the whole freaking game, it gets tedious very quick.

The game-play can be best described as MYST clone, at that time a popular and very influential game, in that you wander around a mostly unpopulated environment trying to solve puzzles. It worked great for MYST, not so much for Frankenstein, especially since the puzzles themselves are bland and lack the ingenuity of MYST or Shivers. I think for an adventure game to be based on something like Frankenstein, game-play should be based more on character interaction, much like the old Lucas Arts game (you can tell I’m a big nerd, can’t you?). Of course, for that to work, the game is actually going to need REAL ACTORS!

As to the story and script, while Mr Curry has a few chuckle-worthy lines, it’s hardly going to ‘leave you in stitches’ as the packaging so temptingly promises. There are too many loose ends. The worst that Dr Frankenstein ever does is throw the occasional hissy-fit, but what are his motives for resurrecting you? He, along with all the other characters, is nothing more than two-dimensional plot device. Is the odd flashback of your mysterious past too much too ask for? To top it all off, the ending is a just a set of boring captions – not at all worth the boring game-play and bad acting.

Way to waste my ten bucks. If I ever get the chance to meet Tim Curry in person, I’ll take the carton of this stupid game, wack it over his head and scream, “What the bloody hell were you thinking?!?!”

Mr. Curry. You’ve been warned! Thank you, Elise, for a fine review and all the neat screen caps.

Frankenstein: Through the Eyes of the Monster was originally developed by Amazing Media and published for Mac, Windows and Sega Saturn by Interplay Productions on December 31, 1995. It was re-released in 2001, this time for Windows only, in a twin-pack with Mummy: Tomb of the Pharaoh.

Here’s an elaborate Walkthrough, with maps of the rooms and labyrinths. Here’s another one, text only, on GameBoomers.

Here are game cheats, on Game Revolution.

Richie Rich Meets Frankenstein

Beginning in the Forties, Harvey Publications produced comics aimed at the younger end of the market, featuring bizarre child characters. There was Hotstuff, the Little Devil who was solid red, with cute horns, a pointy tail, and asbestos diapers. Wendy, the Good Little Witch flew around on a broom. There was Little Lotta, a little girl who was extremely fat, and Little Dot, a child obsessed with round objects. One rather obscure characters was Archie-type teen called Flat-Top who wore a buzz cut that made his head as flat as Frankenstein's. The best known Harvey character was Casper, the Friendly Ghost who was, it follows, a little dead boy. As for Richie Rich, the name says it all, here was a child who had all the money in the world. I don’t know how he’s doing in today’s recession. Is he getting bailout money?

I am delighted to have Rob Kelly returning as Guest Blogger. Previously, Rob walked us through a hilarious, boneheaded 1963 adaptation of Frankenstein from Dell Comics. This time out, Rob documents the momentous meeting between Richie Rich and Frankenstein!

Richie Rich Meets Frankenstein, by Rob Kelly

Yes, the Poor Little Rich Boy's adventures did go beyond just looking for places to store his money. In 1975’s Richie Rich Vault of Mystery No.2, (one of approximately 10,000 different Richie Rich titles) Richie and his less solvent pals had all kinds of adventures, none as exciting for monster fans as this issue, when he encountered Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf Man!

This story opens with Richie and his pal Freckles visiting "The famous old Castle Theater!"

At first, Richie and Freckles think the spooky sound is just the wind, but then an old sandbag comes crashing down the rafters, almost killing Richie! Richie is still not put off, but even he starts to worry when a knife comes sailing from out of the darkness and lands just a few inches above his head!

The guys decide to split, but on the way out they encounter...The Wolf Man! Freckles calls it "The Ghost of the Wolf Man!" — why it couldn't just be The Wolf Man, I don't know. Maybe Freckles knows something we don't. The Wolf Man chases them, throwing stage pegs. He hits a lever on the wall, causing a trap door to open underneath Richie and Freckles.

They land in a room where props are kept and they run into Frankenstein's Ghost (again with the ghost stuff!). They run away from Frankenstein, only to run into the Wolf Man again. They head down another corridor, only to be met by...The Ghost of Dracula! End of Part One!

After a break consisting of two one-page Richie gag strips, we're back to our main story:

Hmm, these monsters seem pretty clumsy. I wonder...

Anyway, Richie's pants get stuck on a nail and, in his rush to escape, he tears off his pocket, leaving a trail of money in his wake. While Freckles runs away, Richie stops to notice that the monsters are happily scooping up the cash! What kind of monsters are these?

Richie and Freckles hide in a nearby sarcophagus (you'd think this would be a perfect time for the Mummy to make an appearance, but no). The monsters think they've scared the kids off, so they resume their "plan", which involves them heading down yet another trap door. Richie and Freckles follow, and we see that the monsters are in the middle of digging through a wall, into the bank next door!

Richie is now convinced these aren't real monsters, or ghost monsters, or whatever — they're just crooks in make-up! Freckles asks what he and Richie can do to stop them, but Richie says they don't need to do anything!

Freckles is confused at that, as the monsters drill through to the bank…

... the end!

While it's disappointing to this monster fan that Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf Man aren't real, merely crooks involved in a Scooby Doo-esque plot, I am intrigued at the notion that these (or any) monsters do, in fact, exist for real in the universe of Richie Rich. After all, Richie and Freckles don't immediately come to the conclusion that these are just guys in costumes--for a moment, they believe they are the real deal, which I find an intriguing footnote to the world of Richie Rich.

Like most Richie Rich stories, there are no writing or art credits on this story, although it’s safe to assume that this was penciled by the great Ernie Colon. He does a great job rendering the three monsters, especially on the cover, which is about as moody as Harvey was going to allow a Richie Rich comic to get.

One other interesting note: in this story, Dracula is clearly the ringleader, yet the group is called "The Frankenstein Gang." But we know who the real star is, don't we?

Rob Kelly is a professional illustrator, a comics expert and a prolific blogger.
See his art blog and follow the links to his comics blogs.

Harvey Comics is now Harvey Entertainment.

Related:
The Monster Lives!, The Dell Comics Frankenstein, by Rob Kelly

Mary Shelley and Her Frankenstein: The Actors Speakby Max Cheney

I am delighted to have my friend Max Cheney, aka The Drunken Severed Head, as a guest blogger. In November of 2008, Max attended a world premiere performance of Mary Shelley and Her Frankenstein at the New Hazlett Theater in Pittsburgh and subsequently interviewed three of the principals. Here is Max’s review and a condensed version — my editing — of his Q&A sessions.

Written by Shirley R. Barasch, Mary Shelley and Her Frankenstein is a new dramatic work intertwining the real lives of Mary and Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, and the rest of the party that gathered at Villa Diodati in 1816 (Where Mary began Frankenstein) with the characters of Mary Shelley’s book. As a first-time novelist, Mary wove many autobiographical details and personal concerns into her enduring story, and Barasch’s musical explores these parallels. The new play imaginatively fuses together the loneliness, personal tragedies and genius of the real people in Mary Shelley's circle with the characters she created.

The musical drama, produced by The Tuesday Musical Club, was thrilling and satisfying. The energetic young actors were well suited to their roles, and all displayed good-to-excellent singing voices. The set designs were first rate and impressive, creatively arranged and lighting large sections to make interiors from exteriors (such as a mansion from a ship) and suggesting settings as diverse as mountains, a court, and the workshop where Victor Frankenstein toils in secret to create life. The costumes were generally outstanding (so many were required that a few pieces were, unsurprisingly, only adequate), and the makeups were impressive (especially the Creature's.)

I was fortunate enough to meet some of the actors and interview them by e-mail. A planned interview with author and composer Shirley Barasch never came to be, due to illness striking Ms. Barasch; at the time of this writing she is still recuperating. She has my best wishes.

Playing Mary Shelley was the actress and soprano Brittany Graham; Justin Zeno played both Percy Shelley and Victor Frankenstein, and the Creature was played by actor J.D. Tully, in makeup by Chris Patrick of The Savini School.

What surprises came to you in playing your characters, or in learning about Mary and Percy Shelley?

Brittany Graham: I was surprised to learn how young Mary was when she began writing Frankenstein. I knew that she was a young women but I had no idea that she was barely 20 years old.

J.D. Tully: I think the biggest surprise came at how inhuman everyone was. Percy was never there for Mary, Claire leached off her, her father chastised her. Byron and the men just used her husband, and all the while she feels like she is so strange for being moral. It was that fact that really helped me see that the creature is not a monster, but a creature in a world where everyone around him had a darkened skewed perception at what people should be.

Justin Zeno: Upon reading the biographical information I was struck by quite a few items. The "free love" of the time which seems to be rampant throughout both the Shelley's lives and their peers. I'm also struck with how supportive Mary was of Percy's "sexual escapades." I recall reading a section that discussed Percy's "pimping" of Mary out to one of his friends. She seems to have loved him so much, she literally did whatever it took to keep his love. Discovering that Mary's half sister Fanny had written a suicide note stating that she was in love with Percy. And Harriet's suicide over Percy. What did this guy have? He reportedly had a high-pitched shrill voice and if you look at pictures he could easily be mistaken for a woman. Growing up with 5 sisters, I think he must have understood women on a greater level. I think they were drawn to his sense of romanticism.

I feel like the Percy portrayed in the show was definitely one that was romanticized by both Mary Shelley and Dr. B (author Shirley Barasch). I don't think I'd particularly like the actual Percy Shelley, however, Mary definitely provided this "angelic" version of Percy we have today when his father died and she was allowed to re-publish his poetry with her forwards about each piece. Obviously, an actual depiction of Percy wouldn't be very romantic or empathetic for an audience, so in this vein, I fell that Dr. B also had to romanticize our beloved poet.

Were there any funny or unusual moments during rehearsals?

Brittany Graham: The funniest moment was when Shirley realized why everyone was chuckling when I would say the line "Ecstasy, where is the ecstasy?" or when Justin would say, "I've tasted ecstasy!" It never occurred to Shirley that ecstasy is the name of a drug. It wasn't until Shirley asked why every one was laughing at that word then some one explained to her why that she realized. She laughed and laughed! We all got such a kick out of that.

J.D. Tully: Every mistake we made or crazy moment, we would blame on too much ecstasy.

Justin Zeno: The ecstasy thing was by far the funniest.

What was it that you most wanted to bring out in the characters that you played? Any emotions or experiences of your character that particularly "clicked" for you?

Brittany Graham: I wanted to bring out Mary's insecurities, not just in herself as a woman during this time period but also in her relationships with Percy, Claire, and her father. Shirley wrote these wonderful lines that would jab at certain characters who had a rocky relationship with Mary. It made it easy for me to create an almost schizophrenic attitude towards the people close to Mary. One minute the show would be so joyous and confident, the next she would be accusative and bitter.

Fortunately, I have a very strong support system with my family and friends so I could not relate to Mary's relational insecurities; however, seeing as we are about the same age, I was able to be myself amidst all of her unfortunate circumstances. I could relate to her occasional "feistiness" as I, myself, can occasionally be a "feisty" one.

J.D. Tully: I really wanted to bring out the compassion and loving nature of the creature, and also the loneliness. What people forget is that the creature has a human brain, and can feel and express human emotions, so I tried to show that he is very much human and longs for the same relationships that other humans have. Having these emotions in the show was not so much a matter of creating them, but rather taking the monster side of the creature really far and then putting him through situations to find the vulnerable human side. I think the one that really clicked the most is that misunderstood loneliness. So many times we just jump to conclusions about other people and forget that they are a person too.

Justin Zeno: In my research, I noted that Percy's obsession with the macabre was extremely strong, and so I really wanted to build on this idea from the first telling of the ghost stories to the point where he starts to see his doppelganger. On that note, Jane Williams (Percy's one-time lover) reportedly also saw Percy's double on the terrace and Percy himself at the same time. Years later, it was discovered that he indeed had a look alike. So who knows...

The sense of romanticism and impetuous love was so great with Percy. He fell in love with people at the drop of the hat. Something I've probably done myself way too many times. I really feel like he was sincere in the moment with people, but he did Mary in particular a great disservice because of it.

What clicked for me? Something that happened very late in the rehearsal process for me, and I give total credit to our choreographer Kiesha Lalama-White for this. The last scene between Percy and Mary… That feeling when someone you love is really angry at you - and all you want is for them to call you back and say it's ok before you say goodbye. That pull. It was an incredibly strong feeling to tap into once Kiesha suggested it. Also, the empathy and pain for Mary with her multiple miscarriages. The great emotional pain it caused for her. Victor to me is MUCH less empathetic — he is proud and wants to know what it feels like to become a "creator." It's the whole Garden of Eden all over again. I'd like to meet Adam so I could punch him in the face - so therefore, I have little empathy for Victor. Although, the moment of realization of what he had done was a great one to play on stage.

J. D., did the costume and makeup affect your acting choices, and if so, how? Did you enjoy the playing the part?

J. D. Tully: OOOOO YEAH!!! The rehearsal practice was spent in bare feet (originally we had the Creature in no shoes since he would have been too big for any pair back then), jeans, and t-shirts. The thing was that we weren't really sure of the dimensions and look of the mask so we had no idea what to rehearse in. It was difficult to work with originally, but then we just took the original blocking and motions and enlarged them to creature size. It was all very difficult, and EXTREMELY draining, but such a joy and enriching experience. If I could do it all again I would in a bolt of lightning.

What was your earliest exposure to the characters of Frankenstein and what was your impressions or reactions?

Brittany Graham: My earliest exposure to the characters in "Frankenstein" was when I saw the 1931 movie version, directed by James Whale. I was very young and easily frightened, so this movie served it's purpose as a horror film. I was indeed very frightened of the creature, who I continued to think was named Frankenstein.

Being so young, I did not understand what Victor Frankenstein had done. I couldn't comprehend the ramifications of taking the ability to create life into your own hands. At the age of 10, I'm sure I didn't give it much thought, but I can imagine I was very confused by the movie.

J.D. Tully: I was first introduced to the characters of Frankenstein through popular culture and then I read the novel in my freshman year of high school. I remember that I liked it a lot, but my chief reaction, being a vampire fanatic, was that it was not Dracula!

Justin Zeno: Well, I always loved Frankenberry cereal! That was probably my earliest exposure. As far as Mary Shelley's Frank, I read it for the first time for this production and adored it. I couldn't put it down really. Amazing how accessible her writing is, especially when you try to read Percy or Byron's writing. She was ahead of her time in so many ways.

Who is the more "sinned against," Victor or the Monster-- and why you feel that way?

Brittany Graham: The Monster. He was done a disservice being created by a man who was unable to provide him with the very things a human needs to survive: food, shelter, and companionship. Victor was able to relish in his accomplishments without thought towards what to do next. The Monster was doomed to walk the Earth without an understanding of who he is and what his purpose is.

J. D. Tully: Creature, hands down, not a question. Victor decides he wants to try and create life, and when he succeeds he realizes it is in appropriate. However, rather than dealing with his problem, he runs away, leaving the new "born" creature to learn the world for himself. Then when the Creature finally finds his father, he is rejected. All the Creature wants is to live, love, and be loved. So when his dream is shattered by his father, I find it understandable that he gets angry and goes a little nuts. Even so, the creature repents in the end and begs for forgiveness from his father, god, and the world. All Victor did was grieve for his own losses. Creature totally wins that one... score for the creature!

Justin Zeno: The monster, of course. Anyone with low self-esteem will tell you. He "didn't ask to be born." And society has always been partial to beauty. Granted, our perception of beauty changes with time - but deformity has never been a crowd pleaser. It's the old brains versus beauty controversy. Obviously beauty wins.

Why do you think Mary Shelly's story and characters have lasted so long?

Brittany Graham: It's a classic! As long as the movie is made available and the novel remains on the eight-grade reading list, the story will last forever. People will always be interested in the things that have yet to be. Perhaps if we do start creating people from the "bare bones and rotting flesh of others", people will lose interest in the Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein".

J. D. Tully: Well they're just so intricate. An upstanding doctor who brings flesh back to life, though completely unthinkable, allows the imagination to wonder what else can happen in the sciences of life. A creature who looks like a monster but is more human than anyone on this earth. You love and hate them all which is always a fun dichotomy.

Some would say that Frankenstein is about the harm science might create blindly, and some that it is humankind's inability to be fully human until it is fully humane. What do you think Shelley's primary theme is? What is she warning us of?

Brittany Graham: Shirley writes it in her script. Mary says, "I want others to know the horrors of science without feeling. The very inhumanity of such doings." Mary is warning us of the consequences of creating "life" without thought towards what is required to sustain that "life". You wouldn't create a plant without supplying water. You wouldn't create an animal without supplying food. Just as you cannot create a healthy, functional human being without supplying companionship, something Victor was unwilling to provide for the Creature; thus, we see the results clearly in Mary's novel.

J.D. Tully: I think it is a combination of both. Shelley is warning us of what happens when we lose our humanity. We become cold and hollow, which allows for all manner of poor choices to be made. Humans must remember that we are humane, or else we are nothing more than monsters.

Justin Zeno: I think she's warning us about ourselves. The potential we EACH have inside to "create" a monster that is greater than ourselves which has the potential to destroy everything we love. I think she's warning us to be satisfied when we find happiness, instead of always wanting more. And of course, she's warning against "playing god," but as I said before - that archetype goes back to Lucifer and Adam and Eve.

Thank you for your interesting answers, Brittany, J.D., and Justin!

And thank you, Max!

Update: Max has posted the complete, unabridged interviews, with additional photos, on his blog, The Drunken Severed Head.

Mary Shelley and Her Frankenstein website.

Reviews in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pop City Media.

Mystery and Imagination: Frankenstein (1968)by Marc Berezin

Through the years, Frankenstein has proven to be a favorite subject for television anthology shows. Guest Blogger Marc Berezin reviews an intriguing and rarely-seen British adaptation from 1968.

It’s generally assumed that the first Frankenstein film attempting a fidelity to Mary Shelley’s original story was the 1973 Dan Curtis/ABC-TV version. However, that distinction ought to go to another small-screen version that preceded it by a few years.

Mystery and Imagination was a gothic horror anthology series broadcast on British ITV stations from 1966-68 and 1970 and produced (in black and white) first by the Associated British Corporation Television and then by Thames Television. The 71-minute November 11, 1968 episode was an adaptation of Frankenstein, written by Robert Muller and directed by “Voytek” (Voytek Roman).

For the first time, the doomed characters of Clerval (Neil Stacy), Justine (Meg Wynn Owen) and young William (Frank Barry, here called “Wilhelm”) were portrayed close to Shelley’s text, and Elizabeth (Sarah Badel) finally is really murdered by her husband’s creation. Nevertheless, as in the 1973 and 1984 telefilms, the low budget videotaped nature of the production precluded a trip to the North Pole.

This rendition is also noteworthy for its own distinctive take on the Frankenstein mythos. The close identification between Creator and Creation had already been touched on in previous adaptations, such as the 1910 Edison film where The Monster is a manifestation of Frankenstein’s baser nature; the mirror comparison scene in Son of Frankenstein (1939); Frankenstein 1970 (1958) in which the Monster is revealed at the end to resemble a younger version of the scientist, and Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) where the doctor becomes his creation. Further reflecting the popular confusion of the name "Frankenstein”, the 1927 Peggy Webling play had the creator intentionally share his name with his creation.

All this is now taken a step further: both Victor Frankenstein and “the Being” (so named in the credits) are portrayed throughout by one actor, Ian Holm. The Being’s facial makeup consists of a disfigured left side (resembling a bad skin condition) along with forehead stitches, but still he appears nearly identical to Victor.

The Being is assembled in a rather sparsely furnished lab with the aid of a hunchback named Fritz (Ron Pember, in a nod to the 1931 film). Victor is upfront in his challenge to God, whom he wishes to “meet on equal terms”. Indeed, he clearly usurps the role of Deity by fashioning his man in his own image.

When the bandaged being is hoisted upward with its arms spread apart, Victor stands opposite, mimicking this pose. The usual electric storm animates the Being, who is capable of halting speech from the first, asking (before Victor drives it away): “Who am I?”

Another distinction is the blind man sequence. Whereas all other versions depict encounters with a sightless person as idyllic until broken up by sighted intruders, here the Being itself sours the relationship when it asks, “Who is God?” Informed by the blind elder (Gerald Lawson) that “God gave each of us the gift of Life”, it recalls its own errant creator and declares: “God…bad!” This blasphemy so upsets the pious host that his returning son needs little provocation to drive the now unwelcome visitor away.

Following the murder of Wilhelm, the framing and execution of Justine, the aborted creation of the female companion, and the murders of Clerval and Elizabeth, Victor and his creation face each other one last time. The Being has disarmed Victor — “Fire your bullet – You will destroy yourself!” — and, with the pistol that Victor could not bring himself to use, kills its willing God/victim after prophesizing its own fate: “They will destroy me… Men born of women… And will themselves become murderers.”

The Being then walks into the shadows in an ambiguous fadeout.

On the whole, this version of Frankenstein is well-executed and enjoyable to watch. As noted earlier, it is hampered by the budget — there are few outdoor scenes — but makes successful use of split photography and body doubles to create an illusion of the two characters interacting with one another.

There is also an effective use of a heartbeat on the soundtrack, warning us of the Being’s approach. Holm, who would play the scientist’s father 26 years later in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), is a fine actor in both roles, but lacks the physically imposing stature that would make the Being more frightful. Since the light makeup is designed so that the creation be identical with the creator, it is difficult to imagine how the public at large would be terrified by what basically looks like a disfigured version of the diminutive Holm (the being is frequently filmed from the ground up to create an illusion of height). Furthermore, other than Frankenstein’s rejection and the disastrous encounter with the blind man, the audience is not shown how the Being becomes a vengeful killer — no irate villagers, not even having stones thrown.

Only about eight of the original 24 episodes of this well-crafted series survive. The few that do, including Frankenstein and the Denholm Elliot-starring Dracula, have circulated among collectors as grainy unauthorized videotapes and DVDs. It is well worth searching out reliable sources for these highly recommended items.

UPDATE: The surviving episodes of Mystery and Imagination, including the Ian Holm Frankenstein reviewed here, are to be officially released on DVD in the UK on March 23, 2009. Here’s the Amazon UK link.

Mystery and Imagination series IMDB page, episode guide, and an article on Television Heaven. Frankenstein episode IMDB page.

Marc Berezin is our first returning Guest Blogger. He previously contributed The Patchwork People of Oz, a fascinating survey of Frankensteinian characters in the stories of L. Frank Baum.