After many failed attempts at posting my blogs, here is one of my two class blog posts! I had intended for this to go up before my oral presentation, but please feel free to comment on the blog itself or in conjunction with the oral presentation. Thanks! Rachel
After
having the opportunity to delve into the theatrical world of Frankenstein, I left feeling slightly
perplexed as the various portrayals of Mary Shelley’s monster within these
modern day adaptations. As I will present in class, there have been quite a few
different adaptations of Shelley’s text, the earliest most well known
adaptation surfacing in the early 1930s. Each of the adaptations have focused
on a similar story line of mad scientist creating Frankenstein, the name of the
monster, and the ways in which this creature terrorizes the town, only bringing
destructions in its wake. However, in almost every one of these cinematic
portrayals, the Frankenstein monster is a dumb, mindless creature that has no
coherent human thoughts, but rather the simplistic thoughts congruent with a
young child, speaking in monotones and single syllable communication.
This
most well-known early movie adaptation is James Whale’s Frankenstein, produced in 1931. Here, the monster is depicted in
this mindless way: Frankenstein is a garish looking monster, whose body looks
more robotic than human skewing the idea that this monster was supposedly made
from human parts. Rather, this version of Frankenstein elicits more of a sense
of fear for audiences instead of the complex nature of Shelley’s original
interpretation. Having this cinematic version as a jumping off point, the movie
versions that have followed have consistently stayed within these parameters of
an almost robot like monster, eliciting little to no communicative skills.
In
the majority of popularized cinematic adaptations, the representation of the
monster’s physical state tends to stay very constant. The garish, clay like skin, broad forehead with little to no
hair, small scars across the face, tale and lanky body frame, and some sort of
un-human characteristic, such as bolts on other side of the neck as seen in the
picture below. As cinematic quality and technology progressed, adding color to
the big screen productions, the monsters gained a green colored hue, often
times making the monsters look pretend, doll like, and clearly fake. This is
indeed an extremely skewed vision of Shelley’s original intentions. No longer
is the monster a product of human body parts, but a true “creation” seemingly
from scratch.
Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster in Bride of Frankenstein |
Throughout
the past few decades, the Frankenstein phenomenon and cult fascination has
grown exponentially. Cinematic portrayals are no longer the only ways in which
Shelley’s Frankenstein has come to
“life”. Various parodies and satires, such as Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein, television derivations, like The Munsters, and stage adaptations,
including Young Frankenstein – The
Musical, have all surfaced claiming to portray the story of Frankenstein, or at least an attempt at
this portrayal. As these new forms of popularization have surfaced, the ways in
which popular culture identifies Frankenstein
is in no way related to the character in Shelley’s novel. Rather, like the ways
in which early cinematic creations depict the monster (green looking skin, tall
and lanky frame, speaking incoherently or at a very reduced level) is how these
modern adaptations depict the monster.
Children,
many of whom utilize television as their first contact with popular culture, are
given this false image of Shelley’s monster, believing that “Frankenstein” is a
mindless, robot creation whose only objective is to scare people, potentially
even hurting them. Shows such as Arthur,
Scooby-Doo, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and even SpongeBob SquarePants have all utilized this imagery of “Frankenstein”
at some point of their television run. Their false presentation of the true imagery
of Shelley’s Frankenstein makes it extremely
difficult down the line for introduction to Frankenstein.
I myself was a product of these pop culture representations, and found it quite
difficult to transition from the mental picture of the giant, green, scary
monster to the more human depiction in Frankenstein.
What truly amazes me is the way in which one, seemingly innocent, director’s
vision of Shelley’s monster generated an entire sub-culture where there are no
longer any aspects of the original left in existence. I hope that, as the
cinematic world progresses further, more true to text adaptations of Frankenstein will surface, creating a
new culture for future generations where Shelley’s work truly comes to life.
Frankenstein.
Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Perf. Robert De Niro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham
Carter, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, Aiden Quinn, and John Cleese. Tristar Pictures,
1994. DVD.
Frankenstein.
Dir. James Whale. Perf. Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, and John Boles.
Universal Pictures, 1931. DVD
IMDB.com, Inc.
International Movie Database. Amazon.com Company, 1990. Website. www.imdb.com.
Wikipedia
contributors. "Frankenstein in popular culture." Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 28 May. 2012. Web
Young
Frankenstein. Dir. Mel Brooks. Perf. Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle,
Teri Garr, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, Kenneth Mars, Richard Haydn, and
Gene Hackman. 20th Century Fox, 1974. DVD.
This job does a very good job at portraying the unbelievable differences between Shelley's text and Hollywood's creation. What I find unbelievably sad is that Shelley's vision of the monster is not the first depiction that children are introduced to. Instead, children are introduced to Hollywood's Frankenstein--a green monster, meant to terrify and bent on destruction of humankind. Like you, this was the first picture that I received of Frankenstein and was shocked to discover that it was so far from what actually is the case. Hopefully, in the future, it will be the other way around and people will know Frankenstein's creation as an articulate, human-like being who only craves acceptance in the world.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you brought up this point, Rachel, because throughout my entire reading of Shelley's novel, I marveled at how off-base my perception of Frankenstein was. Most incorrect was the fact that I when I think the name "Frankenstein," I envision the creature (in whatever manner, be it the green monster or the body-part compilation) when in actuality, I should see the doctor in my head. The case of *Frankenstein* is an exemplary one of the effect that media has on human perceptions. No doubt, many people would have read Shelley's intended version before being exposed to the pop culture version, but I wonder if even those people conjure up visions of the ghoulish green monster when the think of Frankenstein because society has trained them to do so so thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteHey Rachel,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I have also been pretty fascinated with the general impression/appearance of the Creature as well lately. In our video, we chose to make the Creature faceless, inspired by Dr. T telling us about the Frankenstein play he saw where the Creature simply wore a white mask. The white mask was meant to erase any and all natural bias against the Creature for his physical appearance. Something that really interested me however was when I believe it was mentioned in class that there was some vanity to Dr. Frankenstein's creating the Creature. I found that rather interesting since, when the Creature is faceless, it is very reflective of the inner monster found in everyone. If Dr. Frankenstein was "playing God" and in his vanity created a Creature that was in his own image, but was terrified of what he saw, what does that say about Dr. Frankenstein? Just another interesting angle to look at it from.
Rachel, your pointing out Whale's version of Frankenstein as the ur-text for all future media representations is really great, showing us how texts create texts, much as Milton's Paradise Lost creates the Creature's autobiography and much else of the narrative in Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in checking out Gods and Monsters, the fictional biographical film about James Whale (played by Ian McKellen), which deeply probes Whale's own demons (including his hang-ups about being homosexual and his experience of WWI) that possibly led to his representation of Frankenstein's creature:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120684/