Film Comparison

Out of the 80 different film interpretations for Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Jade and I first came across a 2004 version directed by Marcus Nispel. We had been hoping to find a version that was more similar to the book but between the school library, public library, and Family Video, this is what we got. Entitled Frankenstein (of course) and starring Parker Posey, Vincent Perez, and Michael Madson, this movie was nothing like the novel. The film takes place in 21^st century New Orleans and in a way it is like the future of Frankenstein 200 years after the end of the novel (if Victor wouldn’t have died that is). Dr. Victor Helios is well-known for his research but no one really knows what kind of work he is doing. Dr. Helios is actually Dr. Frankenstein who has kept himself alive and youthful for the past 200 years through biotechnological advancements and experimentation. The original Frankenstein monster has also survived these 200 years and is known as Deucalion. He is not the only one however. Frankenstein has created dozens of other creatures who basically cannot die unless they get vital organs removed or destroyed, or are turned into a bloody pulp. Deucalion was created from body parts dug up in a prison graveyard but these newer creatures require the death of innocent people. Frankenstein actually has one of his creatures, known to the public as Detective Harker, helping him to kill people and collect the parts. The murders and bodies begin to pile up which of course leads to in depth police investigation.  Detective Carson O’Conner and Michael Sloane are partners investigating the case. Their clues along with the help from Deucalion lead them to Detective Harker and ultimately to Victor. It is difficult to fully compare and contrast the novel and film based on scenes and experiences due to the fact that the film is more of a continuation (which is the angle at which I am going to discuss the film because that is how it was intended). I can however point out major differences in the overall plot and set up. 

The majority of the similarities stem from the base story of Frankenstein. Dr. Helios (Frankenstein) is still interested in doing something different and extraordinary that no one has ever done. He wants to create life and be a “God-like” figure being able to give and take away life. In his mind he is taking away the useless pieces of others’ lives and using them to create better, more advanced, and evolutionary beings. He dedicates himself to his work and strives for absolute perfection. Also like the novel, Victor does not take responsibility where he needs to. He has one of his creations doing his dirty work and committing murders. Others are once again suffering because of his selfish actions and he does nothing about it. The last major similarity I can express between the novel and film is the creatures’ utter hate of their lives. They live day-by-day miserably and feeling incomplete and like something is missing.

Unlike the novel, the film depicts Dr. Frankenstein as the villain and Deucalion is the hero helping the detectives find the answers and find the person responsible for these murders. Also, while it is conceivable that in the 200 year time period that has passed, Frankenstein and his creatures moved overseas, the movie takes place far from Geneva and is instead in 21^st century New Orleans. So obviously, the time period and technologies available are very different as well which is clearly seen by Frankenstein’s ability to maintain his health and youth over such a long span of time. The major difference I want to point out though is that in this film the creatures, including Deucalion, don’t look like monsters at all. They actually look quite human and are of normal human proportions. The only creature that even has any scars is Deucalion, the rest of them are flawless with no scars or deformities. In one scene we see Deucalion remove his hood and his cloak partially and we can see the three major scars on his face and then sutured scars on his shoulder and chest but overall, he is actually quite attractive; far from being a monster. The flawlessness of the creatures caused me to be confused watching the film. For example, when Victor expresses that his wife is his creation I literally looked at Jade and said, “Wait, what? How is that even possible? She has flawless skin!” I had a similar reaction every time we learned that yet another average looking human being was a creature of Victor’s. He was striving for perfection and was seeking an evolutionary advancement in human beings. His creatures were built with advancements such as multiple hearts, more arteries and veins, more lymphatic system attributes and other organs that cannot even be identified by the coroner. They were, in a sense, super-human. He designed them to look like everyday humans so they could live among the world and thrive with the possibility of eventually taking over once he perfected his work. He was constantly making more advancements and improvements with every creature. He even sacrifices his wife and then edits her and brings her back to life.

Why would Hollywood change Mary Shelley’s classic so much? I guess we really cannot classify the film as completely changing the story because of it being a continuation of the novel, but the simple answer it comes down to just making a ‘good’ horror movie. They used the base plan of Frankenstein and took a new 21^st century twist on it. Watching the bonus features on the DVD also helped to answer why they made some of the decisions they made. The producer wanted to make something that had not been done before, hence why this film barely related to the original novel. The novel has been recreated in film so many times that it would have just been repetitive to follow the same plot line. He wanted to put a twist on things which he definitely did. It is not stated why they did not make the creations hideous but I think it was for the idea that creatures like this could live among us without us even knowing it. There was no way to tell that these ‘people’ were not natural unless you cut them open and examined their organs and body physiology which would not happen since they are basically invincible. The film creators took the original Frankenstein’s ideas on creating something completely new and turned it into a science fiction popular topic of creating the ultimate human race. There are many movies out there that look at bio-technologies and the possibilities of genetically engineering humans to be better than we are now. The film makers used these ideas and basic horror movie tactics to create a movie that would get people to think and maybe even question the world around them. What’s real? Who’s a monster? Are they walking among us? What can science really create? The film makers play off the imaginations and fears of their viewers.

I personally found the movie to be kind of strange but good apart from the very abrupt ending. There is not a closure or ending to the conflict and would be an ending that would set up for a sequel (which there won't be). The changes they made to the original Frankenstein story line for the continuation made sense for the plot line that the film makers set up and would have made a successful film if it would have been finalized. After doing some research I found out that the ending is so abrupt because this particular version was originally meant to be used as the beginning of a television series that never launched and they chose to make it into a film. Even so, I don’t see why they didn’t give it a better ending once they knew it was going to be a movie instead of a television show. All-in-all however, the changes they made worked for me as a viewer because of how they pulled it off as a continuation 200 years later while Victor and his creatures still survived. Like I have already stated, I think this film interpretation would have been more exciting if they had not killed it with the ending. As a reader, while the novel itself could have used a little more action, is a timeless classic that I could see myself reading again in the future. The movie however, I do not see myself watching again.

Critical Context

In Peter Brooks’ critical essay, What Is a Monster? (According to Frankenstein,) Brooks focuses on answering that very question – what is a monster? He uses a number of textual references to support his main ideas which heavily focus upon the verbal and the visual and the contradiction between the two. He points out that Shelley has made the creature - though disgusting, horrifying, and hideously deformed - the most eloquent creature in the novel. He does not express himself in grunts and gestures but instead is able to speak and reason with a high degree of logic and persuasiveness. His verbal skills and poise completely contradict his visual appearance which is horrid and feared by everyone he encounters. Using language, the creature hopes to find companionship and relation with another being. Brooks brings forth the idea of the “chain of existence and events” which the creature feels excluded from because he is not a part of anything or anyone’s life. “Language is what he must use to experience human love” (page 374). The creature will not be able to experience such emotions through any visual context and it is thus only left with the verbal.

Brooks also ties the creature’s solitude and uniqueness to the story of Adam and Eve. He is linked to no other being in existence and is left alone and helpless. The creature reflects Adam in the sense that he is the creation of a “mighty” creator. In his quest for language, he gained knowledge and the more knowledge he gained the more he understood how much of a wretch he was and how hopeless his situation seemed. This led him to the request of a female creature – his Eve. In the story of Adam, Adam is created in God’s image and then Eve is created in the image of Adam. Controversially, the creature is not made in the divinity and beauty of his creator like Adam was but instead as a horrifying and wretched version. Similarly to the story however, the creature’s Eve would still be created in his like-image. When Victor suddenly decides to destroy the female creature, it takes away any and all hope that the male creature had to access the “chain of existence and events” that would have given him relation in the world and the possibility to provide satisfaction for his desires of belonging. In turn the creature goes to disrupt Victor’s “chain of existence and events” by murdering William which leads to the death of Justine and then down the road the murders of Clerval and Elizabeth and the death of his father.

Basically, Brooks is trying to give light to the idea that throughout this frame within a frame within a frame, there is constantly an unanswered question and unfulfilled sense of completeness. What is a monster? How can a creature with such eloquence and understanding be so controversially hideous and repelling? What makes a monster? As we read we keep seeking and hoping for the answer. We at first think it will appear as we go deeper into the frame work, but then once the answer is not resolved, we hope we will stumble upon it on our way back up the frames. We struggle with ideas as we go; the creature “is a product of nature – his ingredients are 100 percent natural – yet by the process and the very fact of his creation, he is unnatural, the product of philosophical overreaching. Since he is a unique creation, without precedence or replication, he lacks cultural as well as natural context” (page 386). We toss ideas back and forth within ourselves as to what a monster is and what that means for Frankenstein’s creation. He’s created in nature and is thus a part of nature, but yet he falls short of what we accept. In the end of his essay, Brooks gives light as to what he believes is a monster. “A monster is that outcome or product of curiosity or epistempophilia pushed to an extreme that results in confusion, blindness, and exile. A monster is that which cannot be placed in any of the taxonomic schemes devised by the human mind to understand and to order nature. It exceeds the very basis of classification, language itself: it is an excess of signification, a strange byproduct or leftover of the process of making meaning. It is an imaginary being who comes to life in language and, once having done so, cannot be eliminated from language” (pages 387-388). This is what a monster is; it is something we create due to curiosity and once it is created and introduced into language it is an idea that we cannot get rid of. So how does this tie into the novel and Brooks ideas of the verbal vs. the visual? “The novel insistently thematizes issues of language and rhetoric because the symbolic order of language appears to offer the Monster his only escape from the order of visual, specular, and imaginary relations, in which he is demonstrably the monster. The symbolic order compensates for a deficient nature: it promises escape from a condition of “to-be-looked-at-ness”” (page 388). The monster is caught in a controversial situation which will not allow him to achieve relation and happiness. He is horrifying and repelling and his only escape from the judgments and fear is the use of verbal language which he has become very knowledgeable and gifted in. Unfortunately his language skills cannot help him much because the world runs on visual cues. The language does, however, offer the creature a permanent place in our minds as readers. He cannot be eliminated from language, and nowhere in the text does it confirm his own destruction. Shelley’s monster is still out there and will live on in language in our imaginations.

When I first saw the title of this essay I thought it would be talking more about what we classify as a monster and what we perceive as one in the sense of society and what we see as the norms, abnormalities, and stereotypical monsters. After reading it however I found that it approached the topic of “what is a monster?” from a different but still very intriguing perspective. I found it interesting how Brooks looked at the creature as a “toss-up”, in a way, in whether or not it classified as a monster. I think he made many great points on both sides of the argument but that he ultimately classified Victor’s creation as a monster. While we typically think of a monster as something scary and unusual, which the creature is, we do not think of a monster as something that can be talked to and reasoned with. This idea was not something I thought much about while reading the story and I liked that Brooks brought it to my attention. He provided a new way of thinking about the creature and its situation and gave great controversy to the concept of monstrosity. As readers most of us would not question that Victor’s creature is a monster because of its horrifying appearance and terrible acts. Looking deeper however, and looking into Brooks ideas, we can see the other side of the story. The creature was brought into the world seeking what any human being would seek: relation and companionship. In this sense the creature is not a monster; he cannot help how he looks because it was the work of his creator and he only commits his terrible acts out of frustration in his quest for acceptance. He does not want to commit the murders but he feels he has no choice and that he needs to take charge to get what he seeks. He is actually very intelligent and extremely eloquent in his language and reasoning skills. If he were given the chance to prove himself as a peaceful creature in the world he would have no problem doing so. But because he is not given the opportunity to prove himself and use his verbal attributes he is only left with what people see – his visual appearance. His appearance is assumed monster because he is not something anyone has seen before and so this is the image he is forced to live with. His visual attributes and body cannot be touched by another being, it is like he is indestructible, and his verbal attributes come through in bodily form. This is where Brooks’ concept of the creature being impossible to eliminate from language comes in and I liked how he tied that together. The creature cannot be destroyed except by his own doing which is never actually recorded in the book which means the creature lives on as a monster in the mind of every reader.

I found that I agree strongly with Brooks’ critical essay What Is a Monster?. While it was at first strange to me in the angle that he went from to present the issue, I found that it was a powerful way of explaining what a monster is and how Frankenstein’s creation embodied these concepts. While the creature has many attributes that would save him from the classification of monster, his lack of ability to prove himself and use these attributes causes him to do terrible things and fit in more with the qualities of being a monster. This is the label he fits and is thus what he is and will be known as for his entire existence, which, as stated above, is infinite. 

Sources:
Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.

"What Is a Monster? (According to Frankenstein)." Rev. of Frankenstein, by Peter Brooks. n.d.: 368-90. Print.

Reader Response

I was actually excited to go online and read reviews and responses from a number of people who have read the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. I was curious to see what other people thought and how it compared to my own ideas and also the ideas that we have discussed in class. I read a number of reviews from all three of the suggested websites: Barnes and Noble, Goodreads, and Amazon. The very first review I read was on Goodreads and I actually laughed while reading it. The lady absolutely hated the book and when describing the type of fun she had reading it she said, “Kinda like sticking bamboo shoots between my fingernails type of fun. Watching paint dry fun. Going to an Air Supply concert fun" (Hannah). She obviously did not like the book at all and while there was not an overwhelming amount of negative reviews, there was still a handful and to be honest, those were the most fun to read. The majority of reviews and opinions on the book were good. On Goodreads 58% of people gave the book a 4 or 5 star rating and overall it received an average rating of 3.65 stars. On Barnes and Noble 76% of people gave the book a 4 or 5 star rating, with over 50% of that being 5 stars. Amazon's rating were similar as well with the majority of reviews being good or great.

The majority of the negative reviews focused on the ideas that the book was boring and lacked action, was built up only to be a let down, was just a sob story about a failed parent figure, and contained way too much whining while lacking an overall meaning. One review summarized it simply as this: "Pgs 1-30: Background and random stuff, 1 page of action, 30 pages of him being in "utter agony with the bitterest remorse" and being a pansy and getting sick, 1 page of action, 10 pages of conclusion" (Sarah). This summarizes most of the complaints I read. There was too much talking and deciding what to do next and then whining about the situation anyways and there was never a point of closure or happiness. People expected an acclaimed literary success that has survived for 200 years to deliver more than it does. Victor dedicates years of his life to his work just to run from it once he finally succeeds. This is where the complaints about Victor being a terrible complaint come in. I came across comments that talked about what Victor should have done - showed the creature some love, maybe given it a name, taught it something - and he would not have been in the terrible situation his life turned into. It is ultimately his poor parenting that results in the misfortunes of his life and the lives of those close to him. It is these reviewers that also see no real meaning behind the novel. In my opinion, they are reading it too much of a literal level and are missing the deeper meaning.

The majority of reviews I read - aka the positive opinions - were from people that obviously read into the deeper meaning of the story. The main ideas that were recurring included the story sharing messages about life that can relate to everyone, ethical and moral questions relating to today's society, the book being a must read that cannot be put down once started, Shelley's amazing writing ability, and that to fully appreciate the novel readers should know at least a brief history into Shelley's life. "It relates to various sides of our lives, it is philosophical and exciting to read. It should be a must read for humanity because it teaches important lessons for life” (Anonymous). To some readers this idea might be a stretch but to many it couldn’t be truer. We can relate the events of Frankenstein to events in our lives and society such as our own morals and ethics, the consequences of our actions, and on a more society level we can compare it to reproductive technologies and parenting. These are all things that we discussed more in depth in class and over Twitter but basically it’s the question of Victor’s morals in deciding to make the creature and then his decision to leave it, the ethics behind stealing body parts in order to create this monster and the responsibility that was his to take when his creation began killing and causing harm. These ideas cause readers to think about things in their everyday lives differently and shine a new light on some of these topics. Those of them that also know Mary Shelley’s history feel even more strongly about the events in the book because they understand why she wrote it the way that she did. They understood her past as a mother who lost many of her children and who lived in fear of her next pregnancy resulting in deformities, death for her or the child, and the ultimate worry that she would not come to love her child. This aspect probably hits readers that are parents the most. They saw their children and their family lives in a new way once reading this novel. New perspectives were gained by a number of readers on many things in life after reading this book and many have read the book more than once and continue to read it from time to time. A complete 180 degree difference from many of the very negative reviewers who stated they would never read the book again and many who even said they would rather inflict pain on themselves instead of reading Frankenstein, these positive reviewers cannot get enough of the story.

Above I have mostly described the two extremes in opinion about the story but of course there is an intermediate stand-point that has opinions from both points of view. This is where I would fit in. I found the book to be overall great and meaningful but also boring to read at times with little action. It was my second time reading the novel and I found that I had much better understanding of it this time around. The first time I read it I probably fit in more with the negative opinions because I really did not understand what was happening and what the point of the story was. It did seem like a disappointment the first time because I went in expecting what many others probably do – a horror, monster story with excitement and action. So I can see where the negative reviewers are coming from in their opinions when I think back to my first time reading this novel. Some of them are a little extreme though in their bashing on the novel. Reading a few of the reviews made me wonder if the person really read the book for any meaning at all or if they just flew through it hoping it would ‘get better’. While everyone is entitled to their opinion there were a few that I think took it too far in completely bashing Shelley’s work and stating how they do not know how this novel could have possibly survived for 200 years.


Sources:

Anonymous. "Frankenstein (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)." BARNES & NOBLE. N.p., 8 Mar. 2000. Web. 09 Dec. 2012

Hannah. "Frankenstein." Goodreads. N.p., 26 Oct. 2009. Web. 09 Dec. 2012

Sarah. "Frankenstein." Goodreads. N.p., 8 Jan. 2010. Web. 09 Dec. 2012

Personal Synthesis + Feminist Analysis

Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a timeless classic that can teach life lessons and give light to new perspectives every time it is picked up. This was my second time reading the novel and I found that I enjoyed it much more this time than the first and that I also got much more out of it. Shelley shares deeper meaning than the story’s literal surface story can break through and it takes time and thought to see through to these meanings. Coming at the book from a feminist standpoint was a challenge to me at first. Throughout my reading I kept trying to find feminist qualities but I was finding it difficult and struggled with the task. In our class discussions along with our Twitter posts, these topics seemed to be the most asked about. Many of us had problems connecting the story to feminism and connecting Victor to motherhood.  It was not until our class discussion on Shelley’s background that I was able to see some of the feminist qualities about this famous story. Once I learned of her history, many of the feminist ties in Frankenstein became clear and this goes to show how an author’s background can carry through with great importance in the work they do. Many of the negative reviews I came across for the book were from people that simply did not understand the deeper meanings Shelley intended to be seen, meanings that related to her life and situation, while the positive reviews were clearly from readers who understood the underlying messages. As readers we are still supposed to use our imaginative twist on the topic, we must still keep the intended moral of the story clear in our minds.

I think Shelley does an excellent job in using her novel to bring about strong feminist qualities and topics such as motherhood and childbirth. The story is thought to have come out of Shelley’s own anxieties about giving birth and creating life. Her first pregnancy resulted in a daughter who died after only two weeks of life. For some time after this Shelley had dreams of brining her child back to life. This idea flows into Victor’s character as he wishes to take dead pieces and assemble a whole and bring it back to life as a new, living and thriving creature. “I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption” (page 33). Both Victor and Shelley wished to turn around and defeat life’s greatest enemy – death.

Feminism is also noted through Victor’s actions in creating and then choosing to abandon the child. As a parent this is not something we would expect to see but sadly the world is filled with people who have children and cannot bring themselves to love them. This was a fear of Shelley’s and was something carried out by Victor who abandoned his ‘child’ and left it to survive in the world on its own. Even when the creature reached out to Victor he ran from it in fear.

Overall I really enjoyed reading this novel and I would do so again in the future. I think that I would pick up something new and gain new perspective each and every time I read the story. There are so many ways in which readers can connect it into their lives so depending where I am in life, I could easily pick up an entirely new meaning from the same story. As I said above, it’s timeless and I would recommend the book to anyone seeking a book with a deeper message or looking for a quick, but meaningful, read.

Sources:

Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.