Rowing with the Wind

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."

Badly acted, with a sense of a lack of direction, the only saving grace for this film are the wonderful settings and the score.

One would not recommend this movie to anyone other than fans of 'early Grant and Hurley', but one wonders how many of them there are!

The script is the biggest hurdle. While it contains wonderful references and allusions to the most interesting lines spoken by the historical personages, and does indeed contain some of the words of the poets, the script fills padded out with unnecessary archaisms at best and drivel at worst.

What is most strikingly dull about the work is the character of the monster. Whilst the monotony of the voice is supposed to give us certain Gothic impressions, we are left in fact with only a sense of horror at the poor delivery and rather senseless decision to characterize death and foreboding in this way.

Rowing With The Wind took an excellent idea from the life of Frankenstein's author, Mary Shelley. For anyone who is familiar with the life of Mary Shelley, this film will make more sense and be appreciated better. However, for the average movie-goer, this film will probably be of disinterest. Having said that (and for those of you still reading), I would have to applaud the youthful talents of today stars, Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley, who play Lord Byron and Claire Clairmont, respectively. This Spanish production keeps with European exposure in several nude scenes, most notably of Elizabeth Hurley.

The film in a nutshell describes a visit to Lord Byron by Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, half-sister Claire Clairmont, and Byron's physician Dr. Polidori. According to history, Lord Byron challenged each of them to develop the most horrific story they could come up with. This is when Mary Shelley came up with the idea for Frankenstein, published in 1818. Oddly, Mary Shelley's biography was rife with a large number of deaths of those around her. Her mother died when she was born. One of her sisters died. Her husband's ex-wife died drowning. Ironically, her husband dies drowning.

She loses a couple of children. And on and on. She seemed so unable to escape death soon after the publication of Frankenstein. This film takes on the idea that her abominable creation is the cause of such deaths.

Kudos definitely go to whomever wrote the script for Lord Byron. Hugh Grant plays him brilliantly and in a very intelligently decadent sort of way. He's hilarious! Elizabeth Hurley and the other actors are good, not outstanding. But the film fails, despite its great plot creativity, when it hands out a quick and un-compelling revival of the evening in which Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein. It gives far less attention than it should have, as I would have thought it a bigger turning point in the story.

With better direction and production (beginning of the film is a bit grainy), this would have truly made a compelling story. 5/10

I disagree with most of the critics, I think it's an excellent film. Camera, music, colors, everything is an harmonic combination. The only possible critic might be, the film can be a little be pretentious, but I would never describe it as tedious. You like it or hate it, I am fortunate ones.

I've always been fond of Rowing with the Wind. Admittedly, it's flawed: the characters are stiffly presented and excessively iconic, and the dialog is often just a series of aphorisms. It would have benefited from a more naturalistic 'mud on the hem' approach. I also believe the American backers insisted a lot of footage be cut out of the original version so that might account for some of the problems. But, on the plus side, the cinematography is gorgeous, the Fantasia on a Theme music is lovely, and the movie does have an elegant feel. I suspect the director was aiming for a somewhat arthouse, dreamlike approach. It might not quite work but it does have its moments.

The recurring presence of the Creature is, I'd suggest, meant to be a psychological projection of the characters growing instabilities and griefs. It's also, I think, a symbol of mortality. Initially the principal characters are shown as young, beautiful, and talented but their lives are haunted by premature death and sadness. Mary's life was even more challenging than the film indicates; three of her four children died in infancy or by miscarriage. I think the movie is suggesting that her real 'child' was the literary one of the Creature; Mary says in a couple of scenes that she feels the Creature has escaped from the book and become real and, in a sense, that did become true; in the two centuries since the novel was written Frankenstein and his monster have become immortal, especially when compared to the tragically short lives of many of the people associated with the original story.