For my post, I decided to turn to the Boris Karloff film Frankenstein that is considered the classical depiction of the monster in film history.  I chose this film because it was the original image of what I thought the monster was, until I read Shelley’s novel.  It’s amazing how much of a difference there is between both versions of the monster, and how the film version has become the prominent view of the monster.  In this adaptation, the monster is a large giant that is somewhat slow and also unintelligent, which is a stark difference to the literary and original version where it is a monstrosity that wants to be accepted.  I think that the film adaptation delivers a faithful account of the story in every other respect, but I am curious as to why the monster was changed into a simple-minded slow monster.  I think the most important and defining difference between the two rests in the fact that the monster is largely unable to communicate using language.  In the novel, the monster is never confused for being Frankenstein, which has become a popular mistake that people make when they refer to the monster.  There is no scene where the monster watches a family and their customs and learns how to speak because of those observations.  There is no dialogue between Frankenstein and his creation about the philosophical nature of the monster’s existence.  Is the difference largely based on a desire to represent, literally, a simpler monster, one that would elicit fear instead of sympathy?  The monster has a keen intellect in the novel and is able to distinguish between right and wrong, along with being able to reflect on his actions, something that the film adaption clearly lacks.  I understand that the monster is also somewhat inspired by the golem myth of Jewish origin; I would have understood if the filmmakers would have tried to make the monster look like it was made of rocks and clay, but they settled on a pale and corpse-like figure that retains the monster’s towering height.  I’m also interested in the fact that people refer to the monster by its creator’s name.  There is a certain unease about there being something without a name, especially if that same thing is actually living; part of what makes the monster so intriguing to me is that it escapes language by not having a name.  I feel like people miss the point about the monster were they to refer to it as Frankenstein.  This is a viewpoint advanced by this film and it is interesting in the sense that it seems like people can only truly understand something if it has a name attached to it.  In general, I think that adaptations of Frankenstein need to address how the monster is a dangerous creature and uniquely different to us, whether it is manifested in physical appearance, in its creation, or in other ways.  In this regard, Boris Karloff’s film certainly meets the standard of a successful adaptation.

Young Frankenstein is a film released in 1974 as a parody to Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein.  This film was directed by Mel Brooks and stared Gene Wilder as the main character, Dr. Fredrick Frankenstein.  Dr. Fredrick Frankenstein is the grandson to famous mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, but tries to distance himself from being related to him.  Fredrick Frankenstein then gets word that he has inherited his family’s estate in Transylvania.  When he arrives there, Fredrick discovers his grandfather’s laboratory and private journals.  After reading his grandfather’s journals, Fredrick decides to resume these experiments and bring the dead back to life.

Much like Victor in Mary Shelly’s novel, Fredrick is successful in bringing a creature to life.  Fredrick does this through electrical charges during a lightning storm.  One key difference between this parody and novel is the reactions to bringing the creature to life.  In Mary Shelly’s novel, Victor says “unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.”  Once Victor bring the creature to life he is immediately overcome with emotions and cannot comprehend that his experiment has actually worked.  Whereas in Young Frankenstein, Fredrick does not think his experiment has worked and leaves the creature strapped to the table.  It is during dinner when Fredrick and the other characters hear moaning (that is not coming from them) that they discover the experiment was a success.

The creature in Mary Shelly’s novel is immediately abandoned and left to face the world alone.  This abandonment by his father, Victor, causes the creature to resent him and want to take everything he loves away from him.  However, in this film Fredrick attempts to teach his creation and is proud of what he has accomplished.  Both creatures experience human feelings and come to realize that they are different from humans.  They believe society will always reject them and therefore are unloved.  But, in the case of the creature in Young Frankenstein Fredrick explains to the creature that he loves him and thinks he is beautiful.  Instead of keeping him a secret, like in the novel, Fredrick wants to show him off to society and puts on a show with the creature.  This does not go as planned, because society does not accept the creature.  Since Fredrick loves his creature so much that his is willing to risk his own life for the creature.

At the end of the film, Fredrick transfers some of his own brain to the creature.  This allows the creature to be accepted into society and live in peace.  One major similarity both the novel and the film have is the key character Elizabeth.  But, Elizabeth does not have the same brutal murder as she does in the novel.  In Young Frankenstein, the now scholarly creature and Elizabeth fall in love and end up getting married.

Death is the inevitable fate that all human beings must meet at some point in their life. I’ve always been fascinated by the notion of immortality and how science can expand the human lifespan. I remember a few years ago, when I was looking up immortality on the internet that I found a very interesting species of jellyfish that was immortal. There were scientists who were trying to replicate the immortality process and see if it could be applied to humans. Now, a few years later the direction of immortality seems to have shifted.

The media source that I am using for this assignment is a webpage discussing the next steps toward immortality. The URL is http://www.thatsreallypossible.com/immortality/

The article discusses what the outlook for immortality looks like from the perspectives of the artificial intelligence industry and the bioengineering field. The most popular approach to immortality currently is known as the 2045 approach and is quite unique because it is different from the traditional view of immortality where the body never ages. In simple terms, the 2045 approach is trying to transfer the brain into an artificial “avatar” that will eventually replace the original body.

I think that this article is in a way a modern example of the events of Frankenstein in a scientific way. Just like Victor was attracted to the “unnatural” sciences and alchemy in the novel, modern scientists today are trying to defy the laws of nature. Death has never been defied before by any human, and it is only natural that human beings eventually die someday. We also must keep in mind that what these scientists are trying to do with expanding life is not a work of fiction, and there are many research companies and researchers working in this field currently. The consequence of Victor’s hunger for science led to the creation of the monster and ultimately his downfall as the monster destroyed everything and everyone he loved. This makes me wonder what type of consequences there will be if immortality does indeed become possible in the future? These modern-day scientists are very similar to Victor because they are passionate and hungry to find the answer to immortality, but aren’t really putting much emphasis into the aftereffects of what can potentially happen.

Science has been an extremely powerful tool from the start of civilization to the modern era, but it is very much a double-edged sword. Victor’s experiments and ultimate downfall in Frankenstein draws comparisons to a lot of scientific creations that brought suffering into the world. If we do someday get to the point where immortality is a possibility, I think it will be more of a bad thing than a good thing. Immortality is unnatural just like Victor’s creation and it will lead to more tension between the social classes and possibly dry up the Earth’s resources much quicker than predicted. One can interpret Frankenstein as a novel that warns us to be careful with science. It can be a useful tool, but can even be deadlier if not used properly.

Toying with Wrathful forces: How Frankenstein’s Monster Has Been Adopted in Film

Since its publication in 1818, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, has attracted a plethora of adaptations ranging from cartoons, plays, novels, movies and television programs. One such adaptation is the movie, “Victor Frankenstein”, starring James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliff as Victor Frankenstein and his aide respectively. The movie was released in November 11 2015, as a film adaptation of the novel with contemporary elements added to the 200-year old science-fiction horror story. A link to the movie is https://fmovies.se/film/victor-frankenstein.09m3/4qv65k.

The film was directed by Paul McGuigan, and produced by Davis Entertainment and TSG Entertainment companies, with 20^th Century Fox being its distributor. The film first premiered in Los Angeles. It tells the story of Victor Frankenstein through the eyes of his aide, Igor. Although the story of the movie follows the general idea of the novel about an artificial creature created by a scientist, which turns out to be a huge monster, it side tracks from the original story in various aspects, and attempts to offer various explanations which the author left out of the novel.

The first interesting thing I noticed about this film is that it attempts to respond to Shelley’s novel by explaining how the monster was created. The movie begins by stating that a lot is remembered about the monster, but not the man, and it adds that sometimes the monster is the man. This implies that what Victor Frankenstein created, although accidentally, might have been a version of himself. Additionally, it is also interesting to see that the original story didn’t explain how exactly Frankenstein created the monster, except for the information that Dr. Frankenstein discovers an important principle of life which was not known to basic scientists. In the film, however, the scientist is shown to use body parts stolen from corpses and shocked by electricity. The film also shows how the monster is killed by its creators, which departs from the original story in which the monster decided to kill itself out of guilt.

Notably, at some points, the film adaptation departs from the story line in the original novel, but at certain points, the two stories seem synchronized. For example, while the entire first chapter of the novel is dedicated to offering a background of the main character as a child, and his family (including mother, father, siblings and future wife), the film adaptation only focuses on Frankenstein’s life as an adult. Chapter two of the novel shows that Frankenstein attends the lecture by Mr. Waldman, which was when he begins to love physical sciences, especially chemistry. The earlier segments of the film capture Frankenstein’s enthusiasm with physical sciences, and how this leads him to make the monster.

Additionally, the film and the book also share some thematic similarities, including fiction, horror and ethical issues that arise from experiments involving corpses and human life. In both versions, the scientist is portrayed as a man struggling to kill his creation after realizing that it is vicious and may cause more harm than good.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as part of a competition, and was able to successfully create a story that has continued to recreate and update itself in various forms. A 2009 Hollywood film named Splice does just that. Interestingly, Splice provides its viewers with an update on what the story would look like in our own society. The movie is based of off two scientists, Clive and Elsa who work to combine the DNA of various beings (including humans) to create their own hybrid being. Much to their surprise, they create a living creature that they name Dren. Overtime Dren becomes family to Clive and Elsa. Viewers are provided with a unique view into what Dren’s life is like as she grows up. Dren seems to go through many of the same phases as adolescents in our society, and is fortunate enough to mature under the maternal guidance of Elsa.

All seems to be going well until Dren becomes viscous and violent and develops a poisonous stinger that is powerful enough to kill (the movie clip above is of that scene). Dren goes so far as to poison her cat, assaulting Elsa, and having sex with Clive (after sedating him). Dren continues to be a source of issues for the two scientists and goes so far as to kill three people. 

While Dren and Shelley’s monster seem to have similar characteristics, I think that looking at their differences is especially interesting.  I do not think the writers of Splice were trying to move away from the original version of Frankenstein, but rather worked on updating it.

For instance, learning more about Dren led me to think of Frankenstein’s monster as a teenager much like Dren is for most of the movie. In looking at it from this perspective, we can learn a lot about how the world was for adolescents in 1818 by comparing them to those of  2009 because they are the same ‘type’ of person, just at a different time.  

In the 1818 version of the story, we don’t see Victor having to deal with an obnoxious, self centered being. While the monster does kill Victor’s family and friends, he does so out of desire of having a companion. We see this desire, and the willingness of the monster to have a face to face conversation on page 102 of the book. The monster seems so sincere, that Victors sympathizes with him, and agrees (at least initially) to make the monster a wife.  On the other hand, when committing her ‘crimes’, Dren is not doing so in effort to advance her desires, but rather in effort to rebel and deceive her scientific parents. Dren does not seem to have an apparent reason for committing the acts she is doing.
The change in roles is very revealing of how our society is compared to how society was at Mary Shelley’s time. At 1818, people seemed to not be as cared for as during the time of 2009, and may even be a bit more respectful. The monster kills out of desire for love, Dren strikes out of spite which is strongly correlated to the loving atmosphere in which she lives. The differences between Dren and Victor’s monster serve as a distinction between how people acted in 1818 and how they act in 2009.

David Lynch’s The Elephant Man (1980), portrays a heavily disfigured man named John Merrick who is on display as a side show freak attraction dubbed “The Elephant Man.” A local doctor named Treves hears of Merrick and pays his owner, Mr. Bytes to allow him to bring Merrick to the hospital for examinations. Treves presents Merrick to his fellow doctors and highlights his deformities which forces him to sleep almost sitting upright or else he might asphyxiate. Afterwards, Merrick is returned to Mr. Bytes who beats him so badly he needs medical attention. Treves convinces the hospital board to admit Merrick into the hospital for long term, however the hospital’s governor needs more convincing.

The scene where Merrick recites the 23rd Psalm is significant because not only because does it grant him long-term stay at the hospital, but it reveals his “human” aspect. Throughout the film, Merrick is belittled and treated as a social pariah because of his outward appearance. However, once everyone in the hospital finds out that he can speak, he is seen as a person. Similarly, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor was so terrified by his creation–especially after his own creation killed his younger brother. However, once the creature coerced Victor into a conversation; Victor, for a brief moment, saw his creation in a different light. As the conversation continued, Victor abhorred his creation more and more, which prompts the Creature to beg him.

“‘Begone! I will not hear you. There can be no community between you and me; we are enemies. Begone, or let us try our strength in a fight, in which one must fall.’

‘How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favourable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion? Believe me, Frankenstein: I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity: but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me; what hop can I gather from your fellow-creatures, who owe me nothing? they spurn and hate me. The desert mountains and dreary glaciers are my refuge. I have wandered here many days; the caves of ice, which I only do not fear, are a dwelling to me, and the only one which man does not grudge. These bleak skies I hail, for they are kinder to me than your fellow-beings. If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share my wretchedness. Yet it is in your power to recompense me, and deliver them from an evil which it only remains for you to make so great, that not only you and your family, but thousands of others, shall be swallowed up in the whirlwinds of its rage. Let your compassion be moved, and do not disdain me. Listen to my tale: when you have heard that, abandon or commiserate me, as you shall judge that I deserve. But hear me. The guilty are allowed, by human laws, bloody as they are, to speak in their own defence before they are condemned” (100-101).

In this passage, the Creature convinces Victor to hear his tale where he justifies his own actions. He tells Victor that he is miserably lonely and wants Victor to create a woman, same as him to keep him company. Unlike the elatedness Merrick received when Treves discovered his eloquence, Victor only further abhors his creation after hearing his tale. Although Victor agreed to create a second monster, it is under threatening terms. In the end, Victor decides to cross the Creature and destroy the work.

John Merrick and Frankenstein’s Monster are similar in that they are both social outcasts. Both were pushed out of society for their grotesque appearance. Merrick was met with politeness, it has a lot to do with Treves. Treves helped him “reintegrate” into society by being his friend, while on the other hand the Creature was pushed out. Victor viewed the Creature with abhorrence, why would the public see him any differently? It is not helpful to only be able to communicate, it is also necessary to have a helpful friend.

The Elephant Man Trailer

The Astro Boy(鉄腕アトム) is a Japanese manga& anime created by manga artist Osamu Tezuka. The original manga was published from 1952 to 1968. The character was so classic and popular that has a far – reaching influence just like Frankenstein though it’s inspired by it. Basically, anyone in my age with some Asian background would be familiar with Astro Boy. (I don’t know how it is in America). Like all the other classic symbol, Frankenstein for example, my generation has barely read the original book. But it doesn’t mean it’s outdated. It never gets old because it becomes an icon, a pattern of contemporary life.

Cover for Mighty Atom volume 8 from the Osamu Tezuka Manga Complete Works edition. (Wikipedia)

According to the original comic book set, Astro Boy was born on April 7, 2003. The maker, Dr. Tenma, was the professor of japan science and technology department, his son dead in the traffic accident. He can not bear the pain of childbirth so he created the Astro Boy. However, since Astro Boy’s body can not grow up like a human, Dr. Tenma can not be satisfied, and finally, give up the Astro Boy and sell it to the robot circus. After being abandoned by Dr. Tenma, Astro Boy had been through a hard time. But thanks to the efforts of Dr. Ochanomizu, Japan science and technology professor as well, Dr. Astro Boy finally reborn, and recognized the Dr. Ochanomizu as a father. Dr. Tea also created Astro’s sister as Astro boy’s partner. The story is actually about how a boy with superpower grown up in human society though the time fighting with evils.

Both monster of Frankenstein and Astro boy were created and abandoned by a human. But Astro Boy got luckier than the monster, Dr. Ochanomizu had always supported and guided him to a right path. They were creatures of human’s desire. They both were innocent from the first place. But how come they ended up in different ways? Frankenstein set in 1818 and Astro Boy set in 2003, but they both discussed some issue concurrently. What is a qualified human? Unlike the monster, Astro boy was designed as a pretty cute boy. People or the public would have less trouble to accept Astro boy than the monster. The monster was so ugly that Frankenstein run away at the first meet. (Of course,there are some other reasons) The monster lost his first chance from the first place. And what if the XXX family can adopt him, see him as a pretty ugly man, would the story be different. Without Dr. Ochanomizu’s took care, what would Astro boy become? Actually, there weren’t many different these two characters. But we human being gave Astro boy a hand and endorsed him. He became one of us as a strong ally. The monster was a tragedy because no one would give him a hug. Everyone got hurt. Thus, keeping an open mind and accepting people who are different is important. And a good guide would help a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBfcGLBJ2Uc

Frankenweenie tells the story of Frankenstein in the medium of a movie. The monster in this delineation is a dog, rather than a human monstrosity. The movie came out in 2012, and was a big hit with younger audiences. It is interesting how one of the most famous horror stories became a staple of many childhood costumes and bedtime stories. Numerous children even dress up as the monster from Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein on Holliween. Frankenweenie is just one of the many movies created that resembles or retells the story of Frankenstein.

Amidst the common misperception that Frankenstein is actually the monster, Disney too tells the story as if Frankenweenie is the creation, whereby his creator should be Victor Frankenstein. But this is not the only place where Frankenweenie departs from our novel. In Disney’s movie, the dog dies and is brought back to life. It is stated in Frankenstein that Victor cannot bring anyone back from the dead, rather only create the living. These two reshaping of our story are amongst the most common deviations because it helps create a form of brand recognition around the original Frankenstein. Frankenstein has become synonymous with the monster itself.

Since this is a movie geared towards children, there is no sense of despair in creating the monster as Victor had. I feel as though this adaptation is somewhat true to the novel in some aspects. This modern retelling of the story helps capture an important idea of the novel in regards to the alchemists. Alchemy is a science whereby someone transforms something through a seemingly magical process. Although not inherently obvious to the readers, electricity is most likely the source for life of the wretch as is with the dog. Mary Shelly eludes to electricity when Victor Frankenstein, “collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet” (57). Shelly is up to date with her knowledge of the sciences as electricity is the leading thought of the source of life. Frankenweenie is able to convey this message from the novel by creating a modern retelling of the most up to date knowledge that they have. Shelly used science as the bases of her story, but Disney uses a very different method to separate itself from 19^th century Geneva. Frankenweenie belongs to a modern family that has a house, a backyard, and a pet dog. The movie utilizes many motifs of love and sacrifice in order to grasp the attention of its viewers. It does so by sympathizing with the idea of man’s best friend. All the Monster in the novel wanted was to be loved, and Disney takes this idea and makes it the focal point of its movie. This in essence changes the feeling around Frankenstein to one of care and friendship. When we look at what drove the monster crazy, it was the idea of a lack of social affection, but if he only had that feeling, he would be happy.

Originally a manga series, Fullmetal Alchemist was written and illustrated by Hiromu Arakawa from August 2001 to 2010.  It was later adapted into two anime television series by animation studio Bones.  The first animated series Fullmetal Alchemist (2003) consists of 51 episodes, while the second series Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood(2009) runs for 64 episodes and is said to match the original manga more closely.

From the very first episode, viewers will be captivated as the brothers Edward and Alphonse Elric barely escape death in an attempt to bring their mother back to life.  Viewers then follow their wild adventures in finding the Philosopher’s Stone, which supposedly amplifies an alchemist’s powers.  Throughout their quest, the plot is enriched with action packed scenes, emotional rollercoasters, and phenomenal character development.

In this video clip, we witness Edward Elric explaining to Rose how “science is the answer to everything”.  This immediately reminded me of the quote in Frankenstein that reads:

“None but those who have experienced them[discoveries] can conceive of the enticements of science.  In other studies, you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder.” (50)

Out of context, both of these quotes are slightly arrogant and share a similar ideology.  Both embrace and place science on a pedestal as a path towards development and progress.  Ed even goes as far to say that alchemists are the “closest things to God.”  Nevertheless, both Victor and Ed view science as a branch of study with endless possibilities.

However, there are stark differences between the two stories.  For starters, alchemy is the modern science in Ed’s world, while alchemy is regarded as an outdated and even malicious science in Victor’s.  This is a critical difference when considering Ed’s backstory.  The fact that Ed was unable to revive his mother even with modern science, paints a rather bleak picture for their shared philosophy.

In fact, both characters suffer great losses in their attempt to meddle with creation.  Edward loses an arm and a leg, as well as the physical body of his brother Al.  Not to mention, the psychological damage he took upon seeing the revived “corpse” of what was supposed to be his mother.  On the other hand, not only do Victor’s physical and mental health take a toll but he also loses many of his loved ones.

[Speaking of creations: Ed’s creation died right after being created, while Victor’s survived to the very end before removing himself from society.]

Furthermore, Edward and Al cling to alchemy as the way to bring back their bodies to their original form throughout the series.  In fact, even after the horrible incident, they continued to believe alchemy would be the solution to obtaining their bodies back.  This is not true for Victor.  After seeing how wretched and evil his creation turned out, Victor threw all alchemy and science out the window.  He realized how dangerous this knowledge was, and in the end shifted gears to try and right his wrongs.