The Lamb (Yao Lin)
In my opinion, I think the creature is more like lamb after I have read both two poems. “Dost thou know who made thee? Gave thee life, and bid thee feed” (3). The creature is just like a lamb and like a naive baby. He had no idea about who brought him to this world and why he existed in this world. He did not understand that why all humans disliked him and why they called him a monster. “For he calls himself a lamb. He is meek & he is mild” (15). Frankenstein was a smart man with a good soul. He just wanted to prove his theory and to save more lives in this world. The experiment was successful, but Frankenstein did not teach creature how to be a virtuous and useful man. Frankenstein was abandoned him and left him alone. As people says, by nature, all human being are kind. No one was born with evil. Our creature was a good example, I can feel that he was so virtuous and innocent when he was hiding in De Lacey’s neighborhood. He helped and protected the family for no reason and the only thing he wanted are friends as well as family. He desired to have cares and loves. “For so I loved, in an innocent, half painful self-deceit, to call them” (Shelly, 84). I believe love can change him. When he had love, his hatreds would all be gone. Therefore, I think he would be like a meek and mild lamb which would carry with people’s correct directions and loves. As a consequence, he would not be a crime and would not be an inhuman killer.

The Tiger (Kendra Doshi)
I believe that the tiger best exemplifies the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In the poem, the tiger was described as an animal with “dread hands” and “dread feet.” The poet also goes on to describe this tiger by saying, “what immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry.” The tiger is automatically associated with danger and fear and I believe Frankenstein was also viewed in this manner. When Frankenstein was created, Victor, the scientist, felt automatic anxiety from his creation: “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” Victor displays his disappointment due to the appearance of the creature regardless of the large amount of time spent on his creation. Frankenstein’s appearance was also described in a ferocious way like the tiger when portrayed by Victor: “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…” Victor choose the word “horrid” in order express his opinions on the appearance of his creation and for these reasons I believe the tiger best represents Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s novel.

One word that comes to mind at the mention of a tiger is danger. This association is based on our prior knowledge, which could then influence our behavior around this animal. If one were to be confronted by a hideous creature, our first reaction would be to run in the opposite direction because of our previous associations with such a sight. The Creature, who was abandoned the moment he came to life, sought out to find acceptance and love from the mankind. With each attempt, he was rejected because of “ the deformity of [his] figure” (78). The humankind’s inability to look past his deformity drove him to a very miserable state and in consequence getting revenge became his top priority. Since Frankenstein is the only individual who knew of the Creature’s existence, he couldn’t correct his behavior when it came to the false imprisonment of Justine. The purpose of the Creature’s animation was not destruction yet his immediate environment drove him to that state. In this manner, the Creature can be compared to tiger described in Blake’s poem. Blake poses the question, “What immortal hand or eye, / Could frame thy fearful symmetry?” When applied to Frankenstein, this question suggests that he is partially responsible for the destruction that the Creature has inflicted upon the humankind. Since the Creature’s existence spans beyond the natural world, every part of his being is questionable. Just like Blake makes the assumption that the tiger is dangerous based on his physical appearance, many of the humans that the Creature interacts with make a similar claim. By making this assumption, the tiger as well as the Creature are alienated by the rest of the society and this in turn causes them resort to violent acts. If both of these creatures were perceived in a different manner, the likelihood of them being a danger to society is rather slim. Perception and prior knowledge will not only influence the behavior of the eye of the beholder but also the individual on the other side of the spectrum.

While, I understand where you are coming from in connecting the fear in us all associated with both being approached by the tiger and the Creature, to me the lamb more wholly resembles the Creature. The lamb, in its constant questioning of who created it, and provides for it, is very connected to the Creature and his struggles. Throughout the novel the creature struggles with his creation and everything associated with it, and in that regard the lamb is the same. Blake writes “Little Lamb who made thee / Dost thou know who made thee / Gave thee life & bid thee feed. / By the stream & o’er the mead; / Gave thee clothing of delight,/  Softest clothing wooly bright; / Gave thee such a tender voice, /Making all the vales rejoice!” I understand this to be the lambs questioning of who created it and how it ended up where it is. It’s the lamb questioning who provided it with clothing, and who designed it. These are the same struggles as the Creature. Upon being created and left alone, the Creature was confused as to how he ended up in this situation. This is the essence of the novel, the fact that the creature never fully understood why he was created, and his purpose in this world, was arguably the central struggle throughout the novel. In addition, the poem calls the lamb’s creator “meek” and “mild” which are very similar personality traits to the creator (Frankenstein) in the novel, who was also both a meek and mild man.

Tiger (Michael Woyevodsky)

I believe that deciding whether or not the creature is better portrayed as The Lamb by William Blake or The Tiger by William Blake can be swayed by which portrayal of the story you are basing it on. However that being said, I do believe that there are enough hints in the movie and the book that could make choosing the tiger an accurate decision rather than the lamb. I believe this for a couple of reasons: 1) The simple fact that a tiger is a ferocious animal of the wild and the creature, also known as the monster, is also a dangerous and unpredictable being that kills people. 2) The line from the poem “Dare its deadly terrors clasp!” makes me think of multiple things in Frankenstein that are related to the creature. These are when Victor is deathly afraid of his creation and regrets his making and, rather than praise his achievement, he wishes he never did it in the first place as well as the line makes me think of a large overpowering being, which is exactly what the creature is. I think that the poem The Lamb does not resemble the creature in Frankenstein as well as The Tiger does because when I think of a lamb, I picture a quiet, gracious, and gentle being, all that the creature is not at all. The fact that the monster is a murdering being instantly invalidates a claim for The Lamb which is anything but capable of that action.

Lamb (Krystal Au)

Many people have mixed feelings about the creature from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The creature created by Victor Frankenstein is known for being murderous, cold hearted, and monstrous, however I believe the creature has a side of innocence. I do not believe you can completely categorized the creature as a tiger or as a lamb, but if i had to choose between the two animals, I would pick the lamb. You cannot read Frankenstein without sympathizing a little with the creature. He came into this world without knowing anything and the first person he meets is his creator who is disgusted and horrified by him. He ran off into a world he knows nothing about and he slowly starts to learn about very trivial things like what a fire is. He discovers that a fire is hot and can burn you if touched, but it is also a resource for warmth and for cooking. This reminds me of a line from William Blake’s poem “The Lamb” where he said, “He became a little child: I a child & thou a lamb.” The creature is like a child on the inside, he is still learning and he is easily influenced by anything or anyone around him. From observing the family in the cottage, he learns how to read and speak the language of the humans. He also realizes that he does not look like any of them. When the creature finally becomes confident enough to reveal himself to the family, they drives him away and that is when he starts to believe that he is a monster so he starts to act like one. If people continuously label you, you are going to believe them.

In the pages leading up to the monster’s animation, Frankenstein describe an extreme occupation with the task of creation. Everything else falls to the wayside for the near entire 2 years he worked towards his monster. It almost consumes him. Yet after the monster comes to life, Frankenstein exhibits both elation and intense anxiety, describing that, “the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room…” (35). I always imagine the moments leading up to the monster’s life with a somber and discouraged tone, however afterwords it is almost bittersweet in success and regret. It is easy to see how the two clips dramatize this scene. They both focus on the feeling of power over creation, rather than the fear of it. Especially the clip from the 1994 movie, which really played on heightened sense of power. Even the actor in that clip looks ripped and in amazing health, even though the novel clearly described how Frankenstein let his health degrade due to his obsession. Yet the director, Branagh, wanted to emphasize godly power not only through the act of creating, but be having the actor look powerful as well. The other clip from 1931 almost seems like it wanted to play on the “madness” of Frankenstein. The lab coat, henchman, and strange language all exhibit qualities of a “mad scientist” rather than a man with godly power. However, neither clip showed the anxiety or fear which Mary Shelley describes in the novel.

I was a bit confused when I read Mary Shelley’s version of Frankenstein’s creation. It was very short and did not describe what I had always pictured it as. I always thought of it the way Hollywood portrayed it in a very dramatic way: crazy scientist, huge lab, very loud with a storm raging outside. In addition to the two clips on the blog, I also took into consideration the latest Hollywood version of Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein, directed by Paul McGuigan. In that scene, it is a very elaborate creation with dozens of men working on the project. I think the McGuigan version is an even more elaborate version of the creation reflecting the ever increasing budgets and need for thrill in movies. The way the creation of Frankenstein’s monster reflects the desires of the public being entertained by the story. I think in the 1800s when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, no public could imagine such horror of a man-made monster being created. Therefore, Shelley did not focus on the theatrics of his creation but rather the thought process Frankenstein experiences after. The Whale version in 1931 put the creation in front of an audience, giving it reason to be much more eventful than Shelley’s version. The Branagh version is much more theatrical than Whale, with cameras following the surge of power to create anticipation for when the monster comes to life. The McGuigan version is even more dramatic and elaborate as dozens of men are hired to help in the creation process. There was more anticipation for the McGuigan version than any other film. While I have limited knowledge of the Whale and Branagh versions of the film, I think the McGuigan version does a good job of sharing the inner struggle of Frankenstein with the audience without losing the viewer’s attention.

As Frankenstein makes progress with his creation, he becomes obsessed with the idea of giving life to the “inanimate body” that happened to “lay at his feet” (35). His obsession turns into a craze, which causes him to disregard those around him up until the completion of his project. Apart from disregarding his father, he takes no notice of the change in seasons, which once brought him great pleasure, and his determination to complete his work negatively affects his health. The clip titled Frankenstein – The Creation most accurately depicts Shelley’s description of Frankenstein’s mental state. Although there are a few noticeable differences between the text and film adaptation, the viewer gets a glimpse of Frankenstein’s frenzied manner. We witness Frankenstein run around his laboratory as he prepares to “infuse” his creation with life. Up until the moment the Creature opens his eyes, the film beings to divert away from Shelley’s description of Frankenstein’s behavior. Just a few seconds before the Creature awakens, Frankenstein screams “live” at the top of his lungs. As if upon request, the Creature opens his eyes and we hear Frankenstein shout out a satisfactory “yes.” In contrast to the reaction depicted in this film, Shelley’s portray of this significant moment is quite different. As his creation lay before his eyes, Frankenstein couldn’t help but admire his work, “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful” (35). As satisfied as he was in seeing the final outcome, he fled the scene as soon as the Creature came to life. These opposing reactions left me wondering about how the novel would end if Frankenstein had a positive reaction to the Creature’s awakening.

I feel as though watching something happen versus reading about something happening provokes two different kinds of feelings. This is especially true for the two video clips and Shelley’s novel. As I watched the two clips, both sets of actors, involved in the creation of the Creature, were very excited, passionate and animated towards the birth of the Creature. It was clear in the first clip that the one actor had worked endless hours to create this complex and intense means of creating the Creature. In a similar way, in the second clip, the actor frantically shouts, “It’s alive!” when he sees that the Creature’s hand is moving. The actor feels a sense of achievement and pride knowing that he produced a living creature, noted as he compares himself to God. Both actors in the clips praise and glorify the birth of their creation. On the other hand, the novel portrays the birth of the Creature as a horrific experience for the maker, Victor Frankenstein. Victor emphasizes, “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?” (P. 58) Victor is beyond frightened of his creation because of its atrocious appearance. He even hurries to the next room to sleep and he only manages to have terrible nightmares. He does not even want to look at the so- called “monster” and “catastrophe” he created. All he wants is for his creature to disappear, so he does not have to see its atrocity. All of Victor’s hard work and labor becomes meaningless once he realizes that this “horrid” creature is not at all what he had anticipated it to be.

Hannah McQuaid

The birth of Frankenstein is probably one of the more influential moments in all of cinema and seeing the original one can see why. The lab filled with electronics, a small crowd of people shocked, and a scientist freaking out as he breaks the laws of nature and God all climaxing when the the monster first moves his hand and the doctor Screaming that he knows how God feels. this scene greatly differs from the book to the point to being the exact opposite. Victor Frankenstein never gave details of how he created the monster, in case Walton decides to not learn from his story, and was horrified of what he has done soon as the monster opened his eye. The movie scene seems to me more reflective of when Victor discovered the ability to animate the dead due to the excited details he used of when he found out but his excitement never spilled over to viewing himself like God. I believe this shows a great change in theme between the two works where Mary Shelley conveys that the further per suite of science without moral or ethical bounds will lead to horror and tragedy, the movie seems to go for an emphasis on the hubris of Victor being the cause. The movie puts more of a focus on being God because, due to the modern advances, improvements and social changes, man was much more willing to push the bounds of science without the laws of nature or god and in some cases in spite them. The Moment Victor saw the monster in the book he so clearly realize he screwed up bigger then any time ever showing that the monster was a completely unnatural creation, something that shouldn’t exist, and that because it was not created in the grand design it repulsed Victor and probably anyone that could see it. The second film scene shows a very different scene as well showing more of a focus on props. Victor Frankenstein is seen more of a handsome, strangely positive light and again shows him ecstatic when he finally brings the monster back to life. Add to that that the scene is in day and the lighting is similar to how a church might be lit and the scene seems to glorify Victor Frankenstein almost like the scene was a technological break through probably meaning that people and society will be the downfall of the monster and Victor. The differences in these scenes show how these writers and in some ways how society views science, fears, and our place in the big picture which is truly interesting to observe.

There is a large difference of the depiction of Frankenstein’s birth in Mary Shelley’s text versus the “It’s Alive” video version. The book portrays an anxious and fearful Victor. Afraid of the result, Victor is horrified by the being he created. Additionally the book depicts Victor as a one man operations. Where he isolates himself in order to create Frankenstein. This in itself sets a way different tone then the movie, providing a sense of scariness within the scene itself. The movie portrays a way different affect with a sense of excitement to the creation. Victor is thrilled to see that he has been able to create life inside of a dead being and even states “Now I know what it is like to be God”. The video creates a thriller effect, considering the purpose of entertaining its audience, I could understand why the director would set an entirely different tone to a classic story. As well the additional characters that participate in the role of creating Frankenstein, take that fear factor away from the story. It is no longer a story of a horrifying creation that should be undone, but rather an exciting experiment that is built up and captures the audiences’ attention. Although many differences, both pieces give a vivid way of understanding a classic work.

After watching the two separate Frankenstein clips, I was clear to me that they both took a very dramatic path on portraying the events of bringing the monster to life. If you were to compare the difference between Mary Shelley’s novel and the movie clips, one thing would be an obvious difference, the drama. This seems to be a very usual path that a director takes when making a movie based on the book. I believe this to be because they are tailoring to a way different audience than the original author was. In this case, Shelley wrote this novel in 1818 when there was not such thing as a movie or a movie theatre and people would read books and create their own images in their head based on what they are reading. Due to cultural changes and social preferences and perceptions, the movies must contain more action/drama to keep the interest of a viewer who is sitting at the movie for hours on end. To compare the movies as two separate works on the same media platform, the one from 1994 was a lot more intense and dramatic than the one from 1931. This also has to do with the difference in audience preferences in the way that people of a more modern time want their movies to be. If you notice in the more modern version, there is visible differences in technological and medical ideas that are used as well as when the monster became alive, Dr. Frankenstein was alone and the music was blasting and he was screaming at the top of his lungs, whereas in the older film it was more of a calmer atmosphere except for Dr. Frankenstein was screaming in excitement.