Because I like Frankenstein’s story very much, and this epoch-making work does leave a lot of reference for later generations, I watched this movie happily, but it seemed to be destined in the future. The stories about Frankenstein’s monsters are "difficult to describe in one word", such as a certain part of Yimei and Dandan that everyone loves to see.
This film is a very mediocre biographical film, with exquisite pictures, exquisite costumes, and beautiful soundtrack. It tells the story of Mary Shelley, "Mother of Frankenstein", in a streamlined manner. It wants to present everything from Ellie's face to the soundtrack. The gothic inspiration is empty, but the ingenious plot suppresses the empty spirit. Seeing Cast, I was extremely dissatisfied with a certain Wufang face playing Shelley, and I was still satisfied with the other castings. However, Wufang did not disappoint me, and other parts of the film also followed in his footsteps. The film tries to convey feminist thoughts (this is a very good thing), and also wants to spread the gossip of poets, but the whole film basically has no bright spots of its own, and it is destined to not stimulate any splashes.
Regarding feminism, as a feminist, I think this movie does not convey well. This film, like many feminist films, has created a world of "male-female opposition". There are almost no male characters that stand out. Except for the father who shows the affection of father and daughter, it is difficult for other males to find their advantages, especially Compared with Mary, they are all eclipsed, becoming a tool for women's awakening, and even facial expressions (but everyone in this movie is very facial expression). The strength and beauty of women is achieved by showing the incompetence and ugliness of men. This seemingly "feminine" method of expression is actually still looking at women from the perspective of men. Without the foil of men, it is difficult for women to show their own characteristics and advantages. Women's strength is not because of herself, but because the men around them, and even some women, are too unworthy. This kind of reference under the dual opposition cannot Truly show the growth of women as an individual. At present, social media is very hostile when it comes to the issue of men and women, and the gender differences between men and women are over-magnified. They even think that the difference between the two can be greater than human nature. I am afraid that the idea of "male and female opposition" will also bear part of the responsibility.
Mary used to be an image of a girl who is addicted to love. There are very few shots about her talent and intelligence. I think she can write such important works, not just by being hurt by her lover, falling in love with the doctor, and seeing her sister being played with. Is it written out of experience? I really can't see Mary's talents (nor the talents of other people). In the final book meeting, Shelley admitted that Mary was the real author. Mary was the first to ignite the excitement of being recognized for her gender and talent. She actually went to talk to Shelley! It seems that all of Mary's struggles were just to make Shelley look at her with admiration, just because there was a problem with her relationship with Shelley. Although this reason is not ruled out, the screenwriter's handling of this will undoubtedly pave the way for just passing the call sign and the resistance. The clues of the female awakening were cut off, and it was really undoubtedly a blow. I wanted to see Mary walk among the people, but I didn't expect to walk towards Shelley's embrace, feeling that the previous declarations were really pale and weak.
Mary's mother is a feminist. The film keeps showing this through lens or the mouth of the character as if afraid that the audience will not understand it, and then tries its best to show the image of her stepmother as an oppressor, including Claire's almost stupid emotional failure. The secondary lines of experience are all looking for catalysts for Mary's awakening. However, as a film about Mary, a woman with a rich heart, there is very little portrayal of her heart, making her image lifeless, and we seem to be unaware of Mary's journey. Such an almost passive way of portraying makes Mary's various behaviors seem to have their own motives, but they seem incomprehensible and elusive, and they look very awkward. In addition, the inner expression of the characters still stays in the dreamland. It is difficult to feel the delicate feelings of women from the interaction between Mary's face and others. Allie Fanning is a fairy, but her acting skills are obvious here. Not enough, except for crying and shouting, there is basically no emotional ups and downs.
Mary’s writing process could have been presented in a more three-dimensional manner, but as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the film does not seem to be interested in showing the inner heart of the characters (for positive textbooks, please refer to "Every Time"), so the writing process has become a MV-style quick cut (Actually, it's more like a trailer?) Fanning poses in various poses and writes skewers, accompanied by chapter excerpts and subtitles. It can really be directly scored. This process is basically hastily.
So, what is most of this movie talking about? It is about Mary’s emotional experience. Most of the stories are about the sadomasochistic relationship between Mary and Shelley. It is recommended that the film be renamed Mary and Shelley.
What name did Mary Shelley go down in history? Is it the love with Shelley? Obviously her work "Frankstan or Modern Prometheus". However, this movie completely used almost all the pen and ink on love. It is still the same, afraid that the audience will not understand it, and added the emotional line between Claire and Byron to set off the relationship between Mary and Shelley. Mary’s extramarital affairs also joined in, and the emotional entanglement between several people was endless. Shelley and Byron became complete scum (although not much better in history), but in the movie, I was scumbag. I don't understand it, basically there is no pavement. Director, you don’t have the time to portray Mary well, let alone the male characters. All the characters in it are "flat" to facial makeup, none of them make me feel love and desire, even I have a kind of look. The feeling of "Pride and Prejudice", Mary is Elizabeth, Claire is Kitty, there is no character itself at all.
As a film set in the UK, a large number of beautiful scenery is naturally indispensable. The shots of the constantly flashing sky, the trees filled with water vapor, and the harsh editing, there are too many static shots, and the characters do not have large movements. The film has the feel of a PPT movie, and the editor seems not to transition.
The filming of Mary Shelley was originally a good subject. It could explore feminism, explore the mental journey of a female writer who was unable to sign at the beginning, and explore how Shelley, as a romantic and free poet, plays an oppressor intentionally or unintentionally. The role of; can explore the creation of novels, science fiction, gothic, about life creation, about discipline, there are many grand themes that can be explored. I am not a professional either. I just feel that this movie has been reduced to a celebrity gossip. It is a pity that this movie is a "routine" biography and a pale manifesto of feminism.
View more about Mary Shelley reviews
