Richard Brody reviews “The Bride!,” written and directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal and starring Christian Bale, Jessie Buckley, Zlatko Burić, Annette Bening, Peter Sarsgaard, John Magaro, and Jake Gyllenhaal.
That 1935 film, directed by James Whale, begins with a campy scene of Mary Shelley telling her husband—Percy Bysshe Shelley—and Lord Byron of her plans for a sequel, setting up the film as the fulfillment of that ostensible wish.
In the new film, Gyllenhaal, who wrote the script as well as directing, borrows this idea but transforms it: in a furious opening monologue, Mary Shelley says that her novel was only half a story, that she is now bursting with the need to tell the other half, and that, to do so, she must enter the mind of another woman at breaking point. Shelley is played by Jessie Buckley, who also portrays the woman whose mind she is going to inhabit—Ida, a party girl on the fringes of Chicago’s gangland scene in 1936. First seen at a night-club table of menacing lowlifes, Ida, whose mother tongue is Brooklynese, suddenly switches to a heavy British accent and dispenses a torrent of highly literary sarcasms. To the film’s audience, this of course signals the presence of Mary Shelley, but to the audience at the table it looks like attention-getting or even madness. When Ida leaps dramatically onto the table, the mobster boss, named Lupino , has seen enough: he gives an underling the high sign. In short order, Ida is done away with. Mary Shelley’s possession of Ida doomed her, but now Shelley’s original monster comes serendipitously to the rescue, emerging unexplained from the wilds of time to the turreted urban mansion of one Dr. Euphronious , a modern practitioner of Dr. Frankenstein’s art of reanimating the dead. Frankenstein’s creature beseeches her for “an intercourse”—a woman, brought back from the dead like himself, whom he can love. This detail comes directly from Shelley’s novel. There, Dr. Frankenstein says no, but Euphronious, though she initially resists, ultimately decides to oblige the monster, apparently in the spirit of scientific research, and the fresh corpse she uses turns out to be Ida’s. The operation is a success, and, though the doctor wants to keep the couple in her tower for observation, they steal off into the night and begin making their romantic way through a cruel world that considers them monsters. The path from death back to life has left the reinvigorated Ida with a permanent stain on her cheek, a side effect of the doctor’s treatment, and has erased all memory of her former life. She has no idea where she’s from or what her name is, and for much of the film she goes unnamed. Only much later, does she ask her companion—she calls him Frank—what her name is. At first, he teases her and says it’s Ginger Rogers; then he decides on the name Penelope, and Penelope she then becomes. Before her reincarnation, Frank has already scouted out the city and found his pleasure, in a louche nocturnal demimonde of sexual freedoms and extravagant costumes in which no one is treated like a monster. His scars and head staples are no object there, and he brings his newly created partner there. She fits right in with the women; one of them helps her with her makeup, after which the couple cut loose on the dance floor. But predators lurk; as they leave the joint, a pair of tough guys assault him and try to rape her. Displaying superhuman strength, Frank kills them both, in front of shocked witnesses. The killings make the headlines, and the couple go on the run, in an ever-more frenetic odyssey that leads them to New York City, to Niagara Falls, and eventually back to Chicago. They are pursued by a detective, Jake , and his secretary—the one who actually solves crimes while he takes credit—who is played by Penélope Cruz. Also on the trail is a gangster named Clyde , who’s been sent to redo the job of rubbing out the mysteriously undead Ida. Unfortunately, “The Bride!” falls victim to this hollowing out of character, and the result feels simultaneously like a reduction and an expansion—or call it an inflation, an accretion of curious traits that crop up conveniently but remain undiscussed and undeveloped. Like “Joker: Folie à Deux,” the film is something of a musical, filled with song and dance, but what inaugurates that theme goes far beyond the ordinary delight of night-club revels. Frank is a movie buff—in particular, an obsessive fan of the musicals star Ronnie Reed , whose routines he loves to emulate on the dance floor. To evoke Frank’s passionate fandom, Maggie Gyllenhaal films ostensible snippets of Ronnie’s work, black-and-white pastiches of nineteen-thirties musicals, and then grafts Frank himself into some of them, as he imagines himself in the place of the actual star. In genre terms, this makes a cute kind of sense: after all, the trope is familiar going as far back as the silent era . But in terms of character, there’s a problem: Frank’s Ronnie Reed obsession isn’t harmonized with anything else in his personality. What do movies even mean to Frank, given that he’s a character who came to life even before photography did? Frank, early on, astonishes the doctor by emphasizing that he was “born” in 1819 . But where has he been and what has he been doing all that time? What has he made of the changes that he has surely witnessed? It would be poignant to imagine Frank as an overflowing, overwhelmed stockpile of personal and historical memory, especially since his partner’s blanked-out memory renders her a kind of tabula rasa. But “The Bride!” completely ignores these implications. Similarly, though Frank must be more than a hundred by the nineteen-thirties, he doesn’t look a day over fifty; do the regenerated not age at all? If so, what does Frank know about his physical and mental capacities, and what can or does he tell the woman in his life about what her revived state promises? What Gyllenhaal’s movie shares with far less substantial big-budget spectacles is the delivery of effects without causes. Thanks to Mary Shelley’s telekinetic puppeteering of Ida/Penelope, the feminist rage that sets the story in motion generates exciting and spectacular events. Gyllenhaal conveys the sensationalistic scope of the two creatures’ wild exploits with newspaper headlines, and it’s no spoiler to say that Penelope’s notoriety sparks a major social movement, a public expression of women’s long-stifled rage at the injustices they bear. But that movement is rendered onscreen in just a few brief flashes: a headline or two, a few shots of women running rampage in Penelope-style makeup. It gets about as much time and attention as the would-be bride’s eyebrows and proves even less consequential. Gyllenhaal makes the past a parody, with cartoonish types and overdone styles, and dialogue spoken as if through megaphones. The movie may be set in a particular place and time, but she makes little of its specifics. There’s a notable contrast here with another historically based fantasy set in the nineteen-thirties—“Sinners.” In that movie, the writer and director Ryan Coogler establishes social and cultural specifics with fanatical attention, even including a biting reference to Ida’s home turf, with one character calling Chicago “Mississippi with tall buildings.” But race relations play no part in “The Bride!” There’s no Depression, either. Nor are there Nazis or Fascists or Communists or any other contemporary details of importance. Yet Frank is well spoken and well read and would surely be up on what’s going on, as well as on what had been going on since the age of Beethoven and Goethe. And Ida, both before and after reincarnation, is as sharp and bold as he is, but Mary Shelley’s telekinetic control of her undercuts the character. Although it’s an extraordinary conceit to endow Ida, the wisecracking night-club denizen, with Shelley’s knowledge and literary flair, giving her the author’s accent as well is unfortunate, adding an element of social snobbery and exoticizing Ida’s intelligence. The quick-change switch in accent and vocabulary gives Buckley some moments of theatrical virtuosity, but it diminishes the character’s range. So, by the way, does the fact that Ida doesn’t seem aware that the novelist has possessed her at all. “The Bride!” consistently offers little sense of states of mind and levels of self-awareness—factors that are central to the enduring fascination of Frankenstein’s monster. The couple on the run, whooping it up at high speed on the open road in a stolen car, plays like the sci-fi counterparts to Bonnie and Clyde, but, without psychological construction or historical context, both characters are merely a collection of mannerisms. Buckley and Bale, though prodigious and fervent in their craft, don’t have much substance to work with. The direction reduces the lead performances to flash and flare, while actors in supporting roles are left inhabiting stereotypes. For “The Bride!,” the original “Bride of Frankenstein” is both an inspiration and a target. The 1935 movie is an enduring frustration. When I first saw it, as a child obsessed with monster movies, I had the same trouble with it as I have now: the eponymous bride, played by Elsa Lanchester , is onscreen for only a few minutes, near the end. The bride is utterly underrealized; it’s the male monster’s movie, and Boris Karloff, in that role, dominates it. Insofar as Gyllenhaal’s movie offers a corrective—emphasizing the social realities faced by women at the time “Bride of Frankenstein” came out, establishing the title character early on, and giving the couple a passionate and eventful relationship—it’s a conceptual delight. But, ultimately, the movie has the form of mismatched pieces stitched together and brought to life more willfully than coherently. ♦
Frankenstein Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley Maggie Gyllenhaal Christian Bale Jake Gyllenhaal
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Long before Maggie Gyllenhaal, The Bride was somehow all about Sting1985's The Bride is a take on My Fair Lady weirdly disinterested in its title character, but very interested in Sting's Dr. Frankenstein.
Read more »
Maggie Gyllenhaal unleashes a bloody, audacious 'The Bride!'Maggie Gyllenhaal turns “The Bride!” into a big, wild studio film that reimagines the Bride of Frankenstein as a voice of rebellion. On Friday, the movie opens in theaters with a major rollout including IMAX screens.
Read more »
The director and ‘The Bride!’ Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jessie Buckley dare you to meet your monsterMaggie Gyllenhaal turns “The Bride!”.
Read more »
‘The Bride!’ Is a Mad Monster PartyJessie Buckley and Christian Bale lead Maggie Gyllenhaal’s violent, wildly energetic horror romance.
Read more »
'The Bride!' review: Maggie Gyllenhaal's Frankenstein riff has a pulseMaggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!” is a big, brash swing at a new “The Bride of Frankenstein” that struggles to cohere its many parts. But it’s alive, writes AP Film Writer Jake Coyle in his review. Just months after Guillermo del Toro presented his lavish “Frankenstein,” Gyllenhaal has set her sights on reimagining 1935’s “The Bride of Frankenstein.
Read more »
Maggie Gyllenhaal's New Take on the Bride of FrankensteinFilmmaker Maggie Gyllenhaal presents a reimagining of the Bride of Frankenstein, starring Jessie Buckley, that blends gangster movie elements, old Hollywood style, and punk rock aesthetics. The film explores themes of powerlessness and self-discovery, with Christian Bale portraying Frankenstein's monster and Annette Bening as a key character.
Read more »