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.