Review of Gothic (1987) by Unca C — 24 May 2006

Unca back for another of the inane and the insane.

By the way, if you see any misspellings: please forgive. My carpal tunnel is acting up - my doc says its from too much typing...

...now where could have he come up with that crazy idea??

"Gothic"? Hmm. Directed by Ken Russell ("Tommy"). Should be interesting; if nothing else.

The movie essentially dwells on the origins of the Frankenstein tale. For those who flunked English Lit; the story was written by one Mary Shelley - at the rather tender age of 19 during one summer.

...And what did YOU plan on doing for the summer - getting drunk?? BWAH-HA-HA-HA! (Sorry, old age as made me bitter).

Mary (Natasha Richardson) goes with her fiance; the poet Percy Shelley (Julian Sands) along with her half-sister Claire who has become pregnant from (and obsessive over) the -uh- notorious Lord Byron (Gabriel Byrne) - their host.

Coming across a lake, Shelley runs for the mansion as ?groupies? tackle him and manage to take his coat. Once at the mansion, Mary is startled by some of Byron?s eccentricities while Claire pines for Byron?s attention. Byron and Shelley are more involved in the life as an artiste than is Mary (especially since Mary shows no apparent literary gifts). A game of chase ensues through the manor and one realizes just how odd Byron is. Not surprisingly, his house staff seems unfazed by the various goings on (as if they are every day occurrences).

Eventually, Shelley gets naked and on top of the roof (naked ass alert - Julian Sands) during a rainstorm. He?s brought down and comforted(?) by Byron. With the rainstorm going on the guests read from a book Byron bought - Fantasmagoriana. The guests become both excited and aroused by the stories. Fueled by the stories (and drugs) they engage in rather intense physical contact (not quite an orgy, but close).

The group, now obsessed with death and ghosts; begin a sceance only to have Claire go into convulsions. Byron, of course, has his own peccadilloes. Then there?s the doctor who is a strange man indeed. In the course of the evening, all the guests suffer from delusions, nightmares, terrors, paranoia, etc. This is great and all, but it seems too fanciful to make the audience scared.

Also Byron makes a run at everyone in the cast; from Claire to Percy Shelley. Byron also does som things that are - well - perverse (and coming from me that?s saying something). I want to write more, but it simply repeats itself with more illusions, nightmares, hallucinations, supposedly scary sounds, and mental illness.

Byrne is quite good as the artistic, lustful, and possibly mad Lord Byron. Natascha plays Mary with the right amount of demure and class; unfortunately that?s about as good is it gets. Julian Sands and the others essentially are theatre actors unleashed.

[size=2]Honestly, the movie plays a bit like a Shakespearan adaptation. Which is not a bad thing if you are into that sort of thing. Sadly, if you have a copy that doesn?t play subtitles (like mine) the more ?wordy? scenes of dialogue get lost in the sound.

This produces the ultimate problem for me - this movie is a wonder to look at and while it creates a decadent and - well - gothic atmosphere, the dialogue left me perplexed. I knew the basics of the origin of Frankenstein, but this fictionalized version of events is lacking. My guess is that there simply isn?t enough to make a movie out of the events - though Russell gives a worthy try by injecting a large amount of sexual imagery and fear.

In the end, nearly everyone here has mental problems and while that may have actually been the case; it becomes difficult to follow the story without simply wondering if one should watch something else. Honestly, I hate the phrase ?artsy-fartsy? but I have to use it here.

JBB scorecard: 2 pairs of breasts(neither Natascha?s - dammit), a pint of blood, rat-eating, rat attack, leech attack, naked mud woman, guy on guy action, a whopping 9 on the WTF/mindf*ck scale.

[b][i][u]Fun rating:[/u][/i][/b] 5 - almost watchable. I don?t mind ?intellectual? horror; but there is such a thing as too intellectual for your own good. This crosses that line. Visual enhancing but doesn?t move much beyond that. Comes across almost like a stream of consciousness.

[b][i][u]Interest rating:[/u][/i][/b] 7 - unusual but fascinating in its own right. Definitely a movie for the more intellectual amongst us. To me, subtitles are a requirement. If you?re looking for conventional horror or suspense - move on. Library material for Ken Russell fans. If you?re looking for a good mindf*ck then this is one to check out. If you see it on TV - don?t bother; you?re not going to understand it. If you have to see it - rent it or buy it.

[b][i][u]TOTAL RATING:[/u][/i][/b] 6.

[/size].