Frankenstein
Carmen Burton (AA)
Can anyone tell me if there was an image of the big stairway in
Frankenstein's house in the new Frankenstein movie. Was the image an
later movie? I can't remember but I thought I saw it before???
Carmen Burton (AA)
I don't think we should have to read to book to understand the film. If
so the movie is wrong. Though I would love to see a movie that was
really "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I think it curious only. This new
Frankenstein film was not so close. But it could have replaced the
original if it was great. But I kept remembering the original story, why
did Branagh change this, and this, and this.
After seeing "Interview of the Vampire" I had the thought that perhaps
books written before the movies began so not be as same as books written
after the movies. Probably most writers write for the movies even if
they don't expect the book to become a movie. Rice did say this in a
interview with Larry King.
Any thoughts about this?
On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, dk62 wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> If you're wondering why Victor Frankenstein is not more overjoyed with his
> monster's accomplishments (his ability to talk, read, etc., as mentioned),
> try reading the book.
>
> Donna Harrington
> NOVA/LOUDOUN
>
RANMA
>I don't think we should have to read to book to understand the film. If
>so the movie is wrong. Though I would love to see a movie that was
>really "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I think it curious only. This new
>Frankenstein film was not so close. But it could have replaced the
It's my understanding that the original book is less horror and more
exploratory of the questions of science and ethics - questions that
are quite pertinent today as we delve further into genetics, in-vitro
fertilization, and surrogate motherhood. I think that a lot of people are
used to thinking of Frankenstein as horror, and if the movie focuses on
the high-brow themes rather than fright. . . .it's no wonder some are
disappointed with it.
Of course, I haven't seen the new movie, or too many of the old Frank movies,
and I haven't read the book. Take it as you will.
J Roberson
dk62
I think that J. Roberson has a good point re: the new Frankenstein movie.
That is, it *was* written as an exploration of other issues (science, etc.),
as the subtitle (of the Shelley's book) tells us: _Frankenstein, Or the
Modern Prometheus_. For all those who don't know the Prometheus myth, he
was the guy who gave fire to humans (when, according to the gods, he wasn't
supposed to). He did this because he felt sorry for them, supposedly, but
he was then chained to a rock/mountain (the myth varies) and had his liver
pecked out by large and horrible birds. Connect this to Victor and the
issues that science brings to us, such as surrogacy, in vitro, etc., and J.
Roberson mentioned. This was precisely my point when I said to read the
book -- *these* are the issues, not whether Kenneth Brannaugh re-made the
movie better than James Whale back in 1931.
Pretty good call, J. Roberson, for someone who hasn't a) read the book or
b) seen the new movie or c) seen the old movies.
As a result of Victor's "taking on" of the role of God/the gods, whether or
not he is interested in/delighted by the monster's ability (in the book or
the movie) to read, to talk, and so forth, is *not* the main point, or
possibly even a main "sub" point.
Other opinions? The book (in my opinion) has many interesting themes, and
open to much analysis. The new movie? I still liked it, despite the large
groups of audiences who are still panning it. O well!
Donna Harrington
NOVA/LOUDOUN- UNIV. of MD
esm...@saturn.rowan.edu
I agree with Donna's comment of Frankenstein. The movie itself tho, u must
admit, did lack. THe message of the book (which i read) did come out in the
movie, but not as realistically as i expected. The movie was good, i must
admit. Incredible direction by Kenneth Branaugh, but it lacked realism.. the
book was trying to make a realistic point, it was not trying to make a horror
story to read around a campfire. That is what i thought the movie lacked, it
was not a message movie.. it was the old frankenstien that yelled "I will have
my revenge!" as a lightning strikes in the background.
sam (my real name is wesam, but everyone please call me sam, it's kind of more
like my real naem now)
Mikel Koven
OK. Time for me to de-lurk (apropos for this topic).
For me, Mary Shelly's novel cannot be divorced from either Ms. Shelly's
upbringing as "proto-feminist" (i.e. Mary Godwin's daughter) nor from the
novel's Romantic roots. The images which stand out in my mind from the
book, which are actually combinations of images and fanciful imaginings -
however exemplify the novel's ethos, are of the monster, on top of the
mountain, cursing God and his creator. Compare then, Frankenstein with
Lord Byron's Manfred, which also has that same Romantic primal scream. I
thought that Branagh brought to life (pardon the pun, unintentional I
assure you) this Romantic passion quite well.
Frankenly (intentional pun, which I probably shouldn't have made),
Branagh is one of my favorite directors working today. Yes, I think his
Frank is his weakest film, probably due to too much Hollywood interference.
Just my half asleep and very hung-over thoughts this AM,
Mikel Koven
DHEN...@ucs.indiana.edu
re: Donna Harrington's post that if victor is taking on the role of
the gods/God whether or not he is delighted with his creation's
abilities is not even possibly a main sub-point...
It has been my experience that many a philosopher/artist/backdoor scholar
has written/talked/wondered about the gods feelings towards human
accomplishment. Pride and disgust in your creation is an unavoidable
issue. Regardless of victor's position as a "god", he is nevertheless
a human being (a primary issue of the story as I see it, whether or
not a human can usurp the role of creation traditionally reserved
for a divine being) and must grapple with his actions and their result
on a physical, emotional, and philosophical level, which I feel would
elicit at least a brief, and probably guiltily realized, sense of
pride that what he had so desparetly hoped and dreamed after was
becoming closer to his original vision than he expected. He claims
to be mad, to have a madness, when he meets the ship captain... a madness
for discovery. I didn't see that in Branagh's performance.
denis
dk62
RE: the reply from Denis (in response to my posting on Frankenstein a few
days ago), it certainly *is* possible that Victor could not respond at all
to his creation, as some of the madness you describe fits the bill for
nearly total self-absorption and for possible depression. As most folks
know, when you're depressed it's hard to respond, period. And once again, I
reiterate that the Branaugh film closely follows the book in this respect;
that is, Victor does not revel in his creature's abilities at all.
Donna Harrington
dk62
A P.S. to my earlier Frankenstein-related message re: Denis Hennell's
message:
Let's remember, too, that the word "madness" applied to anything the least
bit off the nineteenth-century beaten path, and it could include a high IQ,
depression, obsession, ego-mania (whether mild or OTT). Perhaps there is no
evidence of what we refer to today as "madness," as Denis asserts, in the new
Branaugh film because, once again, the version of Frank parallels the book
more than the 1931 James Whale film.
I realize, too, that the 1931 film created a nearly world-wide persona and
(American) cultural image that many folks today want to see re-affirmed, and
that's why they d8xvRbl[{disliked_ugh film. Shelley's masterpiece, for
all the literary criticism it's had to bear (re: her famous parents and their
influence, the possible meanings of the text regarding Shelley's
motherlessness, comparative mythology and the mother as womb and tomb), does
demand more -- as does Branaugh's film -- than simply comparison to Whale's
film.
That's all I'm trying to say. And again, I would encourage a close reading
of Shelley's text.
Donna Harrington
Univ. of MD/NOVA- Loudoun
DHEN...@ucs.indiana.edu
when I speak of madness, I am not referring to a raving maniac, or
any other culturally influenced definition of madness, and I am
certainly not looking to see the 1931 James Whale film reaffirmed,
primarily because I have not seen it and also because I have no
desire to see repetition without reason. The madness I refer to is the
madness that Victor himself refers to several times... e.g. in the
ship captain's cabin when he asks if the captain shares his madness,
what I think could surely be viewed as a "mad" need for discovery
and innovation.
The question of following the book is an interesting one, but I
don't think it is of primary importance in this issue. I suppose
this opinion will be poorly received, but there it is. My reasoning -
the film and the novel are distinctly different mediums. What can
slip by in a novel may not in a film, and vice versa. Likewise
what may work in a novel may not in a film. The character Branagh
attempted to construct (however melodramatically) was an individual
obsessed... this obsession led to the demise of everything he had
previously held dear, and perhaps even the demise of what created
his obsession, i.e. his family. In a novel, I believe the writer
can create the tension necessary for art with her ideas and with
the inner devotion of a character's mind (among many other methods).
On film, however, this luxury is not so present, certainly not in a film
as straightforward as Branagh's style dictates... a tension in action
and reaction must exist, and that is why I feel to more convincingly
and compelling raise the issue of modernization and its attraction
and its repulsion Branagh would have done better to mix these emotions
in his reaction to his creation. There is an integrity to remaining
faithful to a source work, but not at the expense of depth.
I have not read the book as has been deftly assumed, however I would
hold that a reading of the book should not be necessary to an
appreciation of the film... if it is, then I feel the film is put
on the level of a teaching aide, something to function as a supplementary
text for individuals studying the book. In that case, it is not so much
a film as a visual version of cliff notes.
Denis
LAR...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Denis Hennelly wrote (some time ago)"
"And I also found the soundtrack very distracting. Loud, dramatic swellings
of music at every turn. Along with talking in films (which I would
list as one of the most greivous faults of the cinematic world, expel
these traitors forever from public theaters!) I have found soundtracks
of late to be more and more self-aggrandizing without reason... anyone
else notice this trend towards the grand and operatic throughout entire films?"
It's not necessarily *that* new a trend (remember the "Tara" theme?) but I
agree that it is annoying when the music is expected to signal the emotional
weight of a scene. In IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU, an otherwise enjoyable and
lowkey romantic comedy, the scene where Bridget Fonda agrees to share the
lottery winnings with Nick Cage is highlighted by a circling camera and
a *big* thumping score, both of which were totally unnecessary--it made
me think more of AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN than the kind of Capraesque
tone that the film seemed to be trying to evoke.
--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN
Susan Denker
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
> when I speak of madness, I am not referring to a raving maniac, or
> any other culturally influenced definition of madness...
> The madness I refer to is the
> madness that Victor himself refers to several times... e.g. in the
> ship captain's cabin when he asks if the captain shares his madness,
> what I think could surely be viewed as a "mad" need for discovery
> and innovation.
I feel we all too easily buy into the mad=creative sales pitch whether
it is expressed in its old form (Van Gogh's creativity attributed to his
*mad* condition) or in its new form (watered down Foucault -- madness and
creativity conflated as *transgression*.)
Susan Denker
sde...@tufts.edu
Ed Haupt
helps output in musicians, but not in physicists. So, within restricted
areas, "madness" helps.
On the other hand, Frankenstein seems to be talking about his own obsession,
a completely different entity to psychiatrists, and probably not a version
that then or now would put him over the top for psychiatrists.
Ed Haupt
Edward J. Haupt
snail: voice: 1(201) 655-4327
Department of Psychology internet: ha...@pilot.njin.net
Montclair State University bitnet: haupt@njin
1 Normal Ave. fax: 1(201) 655-5455
Upper Montclair, NJ 07043-1624
USA
Michael Wiese
of the characters has a psychotic incident. He's diagnosed as being
manic-depressive. Do you have any knowledge of where good information about
the causes of manic-depressive can be found? I am especially looking for
material that might have transcriptions of dialogue during an episode. Thank
you.
Denis Henry Hennelly
denies my mad=creative sales pitch
i did not say or imply that madness is equal to creativity. i referred
to the madness which victor claims to have, a mad desire for discovery
and innovation. this simply means a drive that is, or should be, unfettered
by concerns which hinder the progress of technology.
this is not to say i don
't see definite connections between madness and creativity... art is
many times a culturally sanctioned form of thought or actions
which would normally be considered mad.
denis
Denis Henry Hennelly
was directed to the group or to an individual, but here is my two cents.
When writing for a character who is "mad" or has a "psychotic incident"
I would suggest that rather than depend too heavily on source books
or psychological reports, explore your own potential for madness...
ask yourself the hard questions.... what separates your sanity from
some hypothetical other's insanity... what would push YOU over that line
which you have identified? Human potential.