Nearly 40 years ago when CGI was non-existent, and 3-D technology was at its most primitive, Paul Morrissey made a preemptive strike against a turn that Hollywood took that he didn't particularly care for.
You see, Paul Morrissey is one of those "credible" directors who actually cares about art, and would never
bastardize art just for the sake of entertaining the increasingly dumber audience... In Flesh For Frankenstein, Morrissey chose to call out Hollywood by making a film that is not only exploitive in nature, but one that is exploitive of Hollywood gimmicks. In order to accomplish this, Morrissey assembled a team of a few competent actors and actresses... and then told them not to give a fuck! In Hollywood action flicks, the only thing the actors care about are their paychecks. (The cast knew what they were getting into in this case.) Next, Morrissey got a shit-ton of gore. All that was left was to create set pieces that would exploit the hell out of the cheap 3-D technology.
What about the story? Fuck it. Hammer in some sex and violence to overpower the audience's desire for any sort of substance. (That's assuming that the audience gives two shits about substance.) As it turns out, audiences get confused if there's a lack of a straightforward narrative. Oh, well.
Entertained audience? No, is it because the movie had the audacity to insult your intelligence? This movie is definitely a challenging sit-thru, and I might be alone on this one; but I believe it to be much more effective than its follow-up. (The actors cared too much in that one!) I think the demographic of people who watch this movie nowadays is made of of film students, or people in that profession that appreciate film as a thematic vehicle. The film's a scathing commentary of the times, and is even more relevant today.
I know I'm being a bit critical of audiences, but if I'm trying to reflect the intent of the filmmaker, I have to be in this case. This movie is intentionally way over-the-top, and audiences today won't understand this. (Unless they research the movie ahead of time, in which case they probably understand art as a medium to communicate ideas rather than "enjoyment." In that case, they'd be in on the joke!)
I don't do this frequently, but I give this take on Frankenstein a 100%. Yes, I think Andy Warhol's Frankenstein is pitch-perfect. Maybe it's a piece that is more to be appreciated than enjoyed, but I've revisited the movie many times. Every one of those times, I've managed to laugh... then cry because Morrissey failed in intriguing a wider audience. That's evident today.
August 13, 2011
