Frankenstein
by Mary Shelley has been reproduced many times
in the form of both book and film. The 1931 black and white film of
Frankenstein has very few similarities to the original story written by Mary
Shelley. From the very beginning of the film the differences are numerous—
Victor Frankenstein’s name isn’t Victor in the movie— it’s Henry; Frankenstein
has a hunchbacked assistance named Fritz; the brain of the monster is that of
an “abnormal brain” which reasons for his destructive habits, rather than
resulting due to the maltreatment of his creator, Frankenstein. Although these
are all clear differences between the movie and book, one of the most prominent
differences is the movie’s lack of layers and perspectives. The absence of
narration by all three characters, Walton, Frankenstein and the monster,
changes the movie entirely from the book making it less complex and less
interesting. We lose the monster’s perspective, which entirely changes the
viewer or reader’s perception of the monster.
The
novel by Mary Shelley begins with letters written by Robert Walton to his
sister, Margaret Saville, recounting his voyage to the North Pole. During his
voyage, Walton saves a nearly dead man, bringing him on ship and quickly
forming a fairly intimate relationship with him. The narration of the story
then switches to the perspective of Victor Frankenstein; the man who we find
out was the man that Walton saved on his journey. The majority of the story is
narrated by him, but later on also from the perspective of the monster. “But I
consented to listen;” Frankenstein narrated, “and, seating myself by the fire
which my odious companion had lighted he thus began his tale” (Shelley, 86).
Thus begins the story through the monster’s point of view, which is entirely
voided in the movie. Neglecting the monster’s perspective and attributing the
monster’s destruction to his abnormal brain makes the monster seem less of a
human and more of a scientific flaw.
One
of the main arguments in Frankenstein is whether the monster should be
considered human, or if he is simply a man-made creation lacking human
emotional qualities. By omitting the perspective of the monster, the movie
leaves out the accounts that support the claim that the monster is indeed
human, or obtains human qualities.
In the very first account told by the monster in the book, he reveals
that he is human-like— telling that that he feels thirst, feels hunger, has
human emotions in that he feels “half-frightened, as it were instinctively… so
desolate” (Shelley, 87). The monster continues, telling Frankenstein that he
“was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch….” and even that he felt, “pain invade
me on all sides, I sat down and wept” (Shelley, 87). These are feelings and
emotions that only humans are able to feel. In this first chapter of the
monster’s account he truly becomes human to the reader by exhibiting human
senses— “I felt light and hunger and thirst and darkness; innumerable songs
rung in my ears: the only object that I could distinguish was the bright moon,
and I fixed my eyes on that with pleasure” (Shelley, 88). While the book
clearly has examples that support the argument that the monster is a human, the
movie completely contradicts this. Rather than showing any human-like
qualities, the movie makes the monster seem completely emotionless and
dehumanized. The movie portrays the monster as destructive and cruel without
any feelings, and all of this is attributed to the “abnormal” brain that
Frankenstein used to create him.
In
the book, the monster finds shelter next to a cottage in which he acquaints
himself with the cottagers through observation. He becomes fascinated by the
way the cottagers communicate with one another by using strange sounds and a
familiar language with one another. “I perceived that the words they spoke
produced either pleasure or pain, smiles or sadness, in the minds and
countenances of the hearers” (Shelley, 96). The monster grows an understanding of their language and
interactions. His desire and ability to learn and yearning to be loved prove to
the reader that he could be and should be considered a human. The monster
spends quite some time learning and loving the cottagers, but this entire
scenario is forgotten in the movie. Nowhere in the 1931 film does the monster
come in contact with a family of cottagers and because of this we don’t see his
aptitude to learn, love or even speak. The monster doesn’t speak in the movie—
he groans and stares, never showing any human linguistic ability. This
difference in the movie and book is the difference between deciding whether or
not the monster should be considered human.
The
exclusion of several perspectives in the 1931 film, Frankenstein, changes
the story entirely. Inclusion of the monster’s perspective in the novel
provided readers with a very different opinion and stance on his character. The
monster’s perspective makes readers believe that maybe he should indeed be
considered a human; while in the movie he seems hardly human at all.
2 comments:
I like your thesis, and I completely agree with the point you are trying to make. One thing that confuses me, though, is your first body paragraph. It seems to recap the start of the book, and then the last sentence is just a continuation of your thesis, which is not backed up by the information in the paragraph. If you decide to revise this essay, I would suggest that you at least shorten this paragraph, and maybe add it to your intro, since they seem to be closely related.
Other than the first paragraph, you used quotes and evidence from the book very well. Just one proofreading thing in the last sentence of the last body paragraph -- you used difference twice. Maybe think about changing one of those.
Your focus is excellent, although your introduction get to it a little slowly.
Your initial argument is generally well made, although I do think there are problematic moments in the film which you could focus more upon. For instance, think of when the monster (shortly after his creation) makes a whimpering sound while reaching for the light. Or think of his fear of fire. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you are ignoring some possible problems or exceptions.
"The movie portrays the monster as destructive and cruel without any feelings, and all of this is attributed to the “abnormal” brain that Frankenstein used to create him." -- this is a good observation. If you revise, one interesting question is whether this dehumanizing of the monster is also a dehumanization of the person from whom the abnormal brain was extracted. In other words - does this dehumanization of the monster have wider consequences?
Your discussion of language is effective. A revision would need to broaden its focus to consider at least one of the sequels - Bride of Frankenstein (1935) - which was directed by the same guy.
Your conclusion could said more to connect your ideas. You choose very good examples from the film and text, but I think you ought to be able to say more about the monster's perspective as a whole, and what its absence means, after having discussed the issues of language and dehumanization.
I think I agree with Jessica's critiques, incidentally.
Post a Comment