https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcJwt8XB4M
13 thoughts on “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, 1994. Dir. Kenneth Branagh”
Comments are closed.
Great Works II: JTA
Fall 2015 ENG 2850 Hybrid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcJwt8XB4M
Comments are closed.
I must start off by saying the movie and the text have 2 very different ways of describing the creation of frankenstein. Growing up as a child and watching frankenstein i always had this perception that he was monstrous and evil based on how/what he was created from . According to the text Mary described him as a catastrophe and yet beautiful at the same time “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.” [ch.5 paragraph 2] She described if as if he were human , as for the movie they referred to frankenstein as “it” its alive , its alive he said . The film definitely portrayed him as an ugly creature the frankenstein we all grew up knowing.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the film adaption by Director Kenneth Branagh in 1994 have many differences. In general, movies have the habit of overly dramatizing scenes to make them more appealing to viewers. They add music, set the perfect lighting and establish the mood. Yet, movies do not add the same feeling as imagining the scene inside your head when reading a book. I personally felt there was way too much going in in the creature’s birth in the movie. Victor Frankenstein is shown running around, pulling chains, sticking needles into the creature and just overall rushing; Whereas in the book, the creatures birth is more simplified. In it, Victor Frankenstein says, “I collected the instruments of life around me, that I may infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet” (Frankenstein, 35). He sees the creature open his yellow eyes and this is how we know it is alive. However, Victor Frankenstein looks at his invention and is not thrilled. This is the moment we get to learn that Victor regrets his decision in producing the creature. Conversely, in the movie Victor is shown as being vigorous and intense. He is demanding the creature to live and once his eyes open, he shouts in excitement.
Having watched the clip from the film adaption of Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, by Kenneth Branagh, I came to notice some differences between the novel and the film. The difference in the energy level of the character in the novel and the film is substantial. Victor Frankenstein, as described in the book, is physically and mentally exhausted while conducting his experiment due to lengthy laborious work required in realizing his desire to give life to a lifeless matter. Whereas, in the film, he appears to have the energy capacity to perform tasks that require physical strength. In contrast to the novel, the scene where Victor Frankenstein “bestow” life upon the object through the scientific process in the film is highly dramatized, to elevate the emotions of its audience for entertainment purpose, by adding music, and complex activities to the process. Moreover, in the film, Frankenstein seems to convey excitement after his object become alive; however, he is horrified by the appearance of that creature. I would say both forms provide pleasure for its audience. However, the novel conveys more of the thoughts and emotional aspects of the characters and leaving the room for our imagination, but the film adaption focuses on providing visual entertainment for its audience.
Energy, excitement and even a sort of zeal are present in Director Kenneth Branagh’s depiction of the creature being “born”. The scene is visually and audibly intense and really hypes up the actions of Dr. Frankenstein and the actions taking place that lead up to the creature opening his eyes for the first time. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein we don’t’ get anything near as exciting as we do in Branagh’s version. That may be due the direct visual aspect of seeing the process, as well as the addition of a musical score that we just don’t get while reading a book. As for the emotions of Dr. Frankenstein himself, he seems much prouder of his creation in the film than in Shelley’s work. With the monster opening his eyes he screams in joy at his creation. In the book Victor Frankenstein exclaims, “but now that I have finished, the beauty of the dream vanished. And breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Frankenstein, 36).
Victor is shocked at what he has created and runs to his room and hides under his bedsheets. The project that has plagued his life for 2 years has come to fruition with only negative consequences for our dear doctor.
The way Mary Shelley portrays the creature and its birth scene is very different compared to how Director Kenneth Branagh portrays it. For one, because it is Hollywood, the film obviously makes the creation of the creature much more dramatized, with Victor screaming “It’s alive! It’s alive!”, whereas in the novel he is much more calm with what he is saying, merely describing the creature and saying how he was horrified and disgusted by it. The film also shows the creature as more monster-like. In contrast, the novel portrays the creature as more of an ugly version of a human. Overall, the novel tends to portray the creation of the creature in more of a calm demeanor.
There are several differences between the movie depictions of Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s novel. First off, turns out Frankenstein is not the monster but the doctor, Dr. Victor Frankenstein. Furthermore the creature in the films is portrayed as far more of a monster than he was in the novel, or more accurately perhaps less human. Other than that the movie clips are far more energetic and dramatized than the more tired and ragged feel from the book.
The movies Frankenstein (1931) and Frankenstein (1994) both show the moment of creating the creature very intensely. James Whale’s enriches the technological terms regarding the period and Kenneth Branagh makes the scene really exciting audibly and visually. But in the Mary Shelly’s book she describes the situation and the creature in a certain way that holds our excitement for long time rather than the movies. Shelly’s description about the looks of the creature is so clear that it gives a chance to visualize the situation. The movies shows how passionate he is toward his creation but the writing talks about his delegation, astonishment and satisfaction for the creature he makes. In the book Frankenstein says, ” How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains ad care I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!-Great God!” Though the movies make the situation more adventurous but the book makes the things more realistic.
The movie (1994) and the book are similar and at the same time different. For example, looking at the movie we see a thin framed young man, but he doesn’t appear to “look deprived of rest and health” as described in the book. We see the character in the movie running to and fro, yet in the book Frankenstein seems as driven, dedicated and intense, but without the physicality. The book states that “he collected the instruments of life around [him]”. Indeed the Hollywood character is bare chested, perhaps to give sex appeal to the character. This is a novel dynamic introduced in the film because I didn’t notice any such attribute imbued by the author.
From the book we know that the creature was put together with bones from corpses. Not much else is given as far as what went into the creative process. However, in the movie we see that it took electricity, chemicals, turbines, magnets, copious amounts of liquids, etc. In fact, electricity running in wires throughout the city was not a reality (in 1818 when book was published), till many years later.
Both men are driven by the desire to create life. In both the movie and the book this is shown by the climatic build up to the creation of the creature. However, Frankenstein should have looked more monstrous than he was portrayed in the movie. In the book we are told that “his eyeballs [were] starting from their sockets”.
I feel like the Frankenstein movie (1994) is different and at the same time it is also quite similar than the book. Kenneth Branagh elaborate what was told in the book, as any director would do he tried to make it more dramatic on how the creature was created. Movies and books are meant for different audiences. The movies were made intensely and have a lot more detail while in the book I do not get the feeling when I watch the movie. The movie has a lot of going on in it, it puts in such details how it were made, from him running around, plug in the cord to the corpse, the clip in general was so intense that I felt like it was the climax of the movie. Kenneth Branagh succeeds to make me feel Frankenstein look crazier and more dreadful than how he appears on the book.
The book and the movie are both interesting in different ways, overall on how the story is told I like how Mary Shelley brings out Frankenstein character in the book. She portrayed him as someone who is doing things that other people (scientist) would normally do. When I watched the movie clip, I see Victor Frankenstein as a character who is intense, crazy, and very ambitious because of the way he screams at the corpse asking for it to be alive.
Hollywood has played a huge part in shaping most of our lives. During my life time and of years past we the audience have seen a number of films adapted from Mary Shelley’s novel of the titular creature known as Frankenstein, which was written by the author back in 1818. Many films since then, have attempted to show their version of creature, some versions scared us out of shaking boots, others that moved us emotionally, and we can’t forget Mel Brooks’ version that had us all in tears from all the laughter. Those versions have been imbedded within our minds for all of our lives and we’ll never forget them. So what happens when Hollywood takes a classic piece of literature such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and turns into a monster movie. It has transformed the story so much that nearly 200 years later, people think of Frankenstein as the monster instead of the monster’s creator. It became a classic monster movie and most of the human elements from the novel have been erased in some of the films.
Case in point, is the 1994 film Frankenstein directed by Kenneth Branagh. Both the novel and the film, have many differences. The clip is a great piece of evidence that demonstrates what Hollywood usually does, which in most cases I favor when using a book as the primary source material for a film. By using a novel such as Shelley’s as the blueprint and then distorting it in ways that it becomes more appealing to the audience. The clip itself is draped over with dramatic music, the lighting and special effects, and the fast paced nature of the scene demonstrated in Victor’s urgency to bring the creature to life. The novel does not do the film justice, as it fails connect the idea the audience had in their head of how the creature came to be after reading the book, compared to what you see in the clip.
Personally, I feel the the way the creature was brought to life in the film was way to dramatic, which is something Hollywood does extremely well, and I loved it.You can see Victor running around like a mad man, pulling chains, and guiding the creature’s body, which is sewed together from body parts that once belonged to different people, being guided around the factory, like a piece of meat on an assembly line. Victor is seen jabbing needles into the creature which I found this to be most disturbing of all. However, in the novel, the way the creature was brought to life in my opinion was far more dull. In the novel, Victor Frankenstein sees the creature open it’s eyes and looks at his creation, and I imagined show’s to little to no emotion and is far less thrilled then the Victor we see in the film. You can immediately come to the realization that Victor at that moment had to regret bringing the creature to life. In the movie however, Victor is shown as being optimistic and full of energy. He tells the creature emphatically to live and then his eyes open after being shocked repeatedly, he is the seen shouting out from what I believe is pure disbelief, and horror from accomplishing what some might consider in his world impossible.
Watching this clip from the 1994 Frankenstein movie shows how different a film directors interpretation of an author’s book can be. Since I had a preconceived idea or image of what I thought Frankenstein’s creation looked like based on other films, television, and Halloween costumes, reading Mary Shelley’s description of it was very eye opening. As soon as I read that Dr. Frankenstein “had selected his features as beautiful” I was in shock (Shelley, 31). Shelley described the creature as having flowing black hair, whereas the movie monster has little to no hair at all. The movie also failed to portray his white teeth, as they gave the actor dirty, yellow teeth instead. The only strange part of the novel creature was the fact that its pupils were the same color as the whites of its eyes. In the movie, however, its eyes are the same of a human. Of course these changes were all used to create a dramatic effect but it certainly strayed from the original story.
After watching this clip this is definitely the Frankenstein I remember from childhood. The whole process of him coming alive is nerve wrecking and once he wakes up he is a monster, much like he was portrayed when I was younger. But, unlike this clip, Mary Shelley in her book writes about Frankenstein coming a live very differently.
In the novel when Frankenstein came alive she refers to him as beautiful. Victor still immediately feels it was a mistake and that he created a monster, but even still, he knows that this creature he invented is beautiful. He says that the creature is proportional with yellow skin and resembles a beautiful human. This makes the novel very different from the movie, and although they both might have known they created a monster after, but Victor knew his monster was beautiful, whereas the creature from the clip is not.
In the movie clip of “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” in 1994, Frankenstein naked his upper body and he wear open and loose robe to run into his laboratory. He seems like a wild poet or rakehell to run into his fantastic world. Frankenstein takes off his robe to show bare upper body to us, and it express his passion. The creature is put into a water box, and he open the machine to put electric current and electric eel into water box, and then the creature open eyes in the water box. This Frankenstein seems like a magician to show us a magic show. The process seems like a magic show but without a beautiful assistant. The scene filled romantic and fantasy to people.
It is different with the movie “Frankenstein” in 1931 and the book. In the movie “Frankenstein” in 1931, Frankenstein is more professional for the science. He wear surgical gown and he put his creature on the operating table. Frankenstein looks more like a doctor to a surgery. In the book, Frankenstein just put creature on the ground on a dreary night of November. The book creates a horrible and depressive atmosphere to people, but the movie “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” is light and romantic atmosphere to people.