The Bride! It is Maggie Gyllenhaal’s second directorial work based on Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, and has been released worldwide. A familiar story is rewritten from a feminist perspective: for the first time, the spotlight is not on the monster man, but on the woman he claimed for himself. The idea isn’t a bad one, but Yorgos Lanthimos had already made a feminist version of Frankenstein – Poor Les Misérables – and that one was far more convincing. Anton Dolin explains why “The Bride!” Doesn’t live up to expectations at all.
Watch “The Bride!” It is not only boring or unpleasant, but somewhat insulting. With so many talented people involved in the project, and the studio seemingly relinquishing creative control, the result could be a highly original film. And what came out was a combination of everything in the world. It’s as if a brave chef decided to experiment with the ingredients of a new dish (more precisely, a new version of everyone’s favorite famous dish), and it turned out to be pretty looking, but inedible.
The main idea of \u200b\u200bMaggie Gyllenhaal – a film directed by the famous actress – was to finally bring the bride of Frankenstein to the fore, or rather the bride of the monster he created. In Mary Shelley’s novel, the character is only present at the level of idea, and never comes to life, but in James Whale’s classic film of the same name, the character only appears for a few moments. It seems that the time has finally come to pay tribute to her: Gyllenhaal was so carried away by this idea that the name “Frankenstein” disappeared from the title and was replaced by an exclamation mark. But already at the design level, something went wrong.
Jessie Buckley, as everyone knows this season, is an A-list actress, and a “bride!” He comes in handy with Hamnet, showing his great range (both heroines are witches). Furthermore, Gyllenhaal knew of her talent before many others, and used it skillfully in her feature film debut, Stranger Daughter. But as the title character of “The Bride!” I can’t remember who she was before her resurrection, so Buckley tries to no avail to hide under stunning makeup – disheveled wig, black lips, a scary birthmark on her cheek, eyebrows that have almost disappeared – confusion: they don’t explain to her who and why she needs to play. No wonder, after trying different names – Ida, Ginger, Penny – the heroine decides to remain just a familiar bride name.
The desired liberation did not happen. The full burden of dramatic and emotional responsibility is transferred, as in previous interpretations, to Frankenstein’s monster (here simply Frank), in which Christian Bale plays a truly charming role. The aims of this charming and not at all scary hype are quite clear. The monster becomes mad from loneliness, like his infinitely distant literary model; Spiritual company is much more important to him than sex. By the way, unlike the bride. This paradox results in several very awkward and inept episodes.
However, the central pair of anti-heroes is undoubtedly the best thing about “The Bride!” To say the least, both images are visually thoughtful and very expressive. The origin of these films is clear: “Bonnie and Clyde”, “Wasteland”, “The Sugarland Express”, “Wild at Heart”, “Natural Born Killers” – American cinema loves such criminal love alliances. Good artists move their characters in some way.
The problems start when Gyllenhaal starts inventing a story for them. Scenario “Bride!” As if written on the fly, it is equal parts inconsistent and formulaic. The dialogues are pretentiously literary, and the mise-en-scene is pretentiously theatrical. Jazz and crime in 1930s Chicago and New York are a cartoonish subframe. Gangsters led by the eternal villain Zlatko Boric pursue goals that are not clear to them, as well as a tandem of detectives copied from all noir films at once.
All that’s left to do is decide which detective seems out of place – the supposedly brilliant detective Penelope Cruz or her suspiciously romantic partner, played by director husband Peter Sarsgaard. She decided, apparently, not to stop favoring her, and came up with an even more artificial line for a certain fashionable movie star, whom Frank idolizes and tries to imitate, in order to invite her brother Jake Gyllenhaal to play this absolutely unnecessary role in the plot.
Separately in “The Bride!” There’s too much good stuff, and almost nothing that works together. Even three-time Academy Award winner Sandy Powell’s gorgeous costumes are disturbing with their defiant demeanor. It is impossible to believe the “viral” effect of the exploits of the suspicious bride, which all women in America began to imitate – the move itself looks like an imitation of the film “Joker” by Todd Phillips.
This is further underscored by the casting call of cinematographer Lawrence Sher (who shot “Jokers”) and composer Hildur Guðnadóttir (who wrote the original score for them), whose string scores, inspired by “Jokers,” seem like a lament for the film’s missed opportunities. Obviously, “Bride!” Warner Bros. dreamed it up. Compensating for the failure of “Joker 2” – there is even one good music and dance scene. Instead, it turned out to be self-replicating.
In the absence of other ideas, Gyllenhaal’s film was ultimately shaped into a consistent feminist statement, close in meaning and pathos to a one-dimensional poster. The focus does not just shift from the beast to his bride. A woman has also been assigned to the mad scientists: Annette Bening plays Dr. Euphronius, and Jenny Berlin plays her assistant Greta. The insightful detective Penelope Cruz will have to uncover the heroine’s secret; The operetta mafia villain was punished again for misogyny (he cut out the girls’ tongues and kept them in his office). Although “Bride!” Unrelated to the novel whose motives were inspired, for some reason Mary Shelley was drawn to the screen, commenting on the narrative as the subconscious of the title character. She is also played by Buckley, and even this movement is borrowed from the same 1935 film “Bride of Frankenstein.”
Gyllenhaal’s film has been re-edited and delayed several times, and now it’s clear why: the producers tried unsuccessfully to save the problematic material. Because of the delay, “The Bride!” It was several months behind Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, where the humanization of the monster and his love story was more believably executed, and even more so by a truly innovative and brave variation on the same theme – Yorgos Lanthimos’s The Poor Miserables. “wife!” It resembles Frankenstein’s monster, because it is sewn from different elements into one living organism, only the creators did not have enough electricity. The eccentric scientist in the film succeeded in reviving a dead body, but the director who created it did not.