Frankenstein Response Paper
This is a response paper I had to wrote for my Terror of the Gothic class.
A Screenplay’s Castration of the Creature and a Director and Stars’ Redemption of the Monster
Boris Karloff’s performance in the 1931 film Frankenstein and the way director James Whale visually represents the character throughout is easily the strongest aspect of the very problematic film adaptation. The story is changed to such a degree that it becomes barely recognizable and it adds elements that distract and confuse rather than support the source material. There is however, an ultimately successful effort by James Whale and Boris Karloff to infuse humanity and depth to a character whose complexities and intelligence are castrated by the screenplay.
The numerous screenwriters and producers of Frankenstein take away the challenging aspects of Mary Shelley’s story especially those involving the Creature. The first and most jarring change is the absence of speech and intelligence of The Monster depicted in the film. In the novel, Shelley gives her Creature a voice and allows him a distinct perspective. Readers are forced to read about the Creature and to grapple with the sympathy for him that emerges as a result. In the film, the Monster (the neutral term Creature from Shelley has been changed to the negative term Monster) cannot speak and thus loses his voice within the narrative of the film.
The second important change made regarding the Monster is that he now has the abnormal brain of a criminal. Along with the name change, this makes the Monster an immediately negative and dangerous figure. His voice is taken away and now his placement within the narrative is decided for viewers before the Monster can even do anything to prove or disprove it.
Despite all of this, Karloff and Whale retain the essence and essential humanity of the Shelley’s character which is the reason that his representation saves the film from a faltering screenplay. James Whale’s directorial effort on this piece is innovative and ahead of its time, especially for being an early sound picture in Hollywood. His constantly movie camera, lack of score, use of sounds effects and creation of a distinct atmosphere is what makes the film so visually pleasurable. The way the Monster is shot encompasses these innovations and represents his greatest achievement within the film.
The most famous scene is of course the incident with the Monster and the child Maria. Whale uses a dissolve to transition from the happiness and communal festivities of the wedding celebration to the lonely and desperate march of the Monster through the woods. A tracking shot from behind as we follow the Monster places the viewer in the role as fellow traveler, linking the viewer to the character by the placement of the camera. After Maria talks to her father and the Monster emerges from the bushes, Maria walks up to him in a long shot. Karloff’s body language indicates an immediate need for human connection as he subtly and hesitantly puts his hand out before Maria even finishes approaching him. Maria introduces herself, which further humanizes her and sets the audience up for the difficult scene ahead. A close up of the Monster shows us his reaction to Maria introducing herself; he is confused and amazed, completely transfixed on her because she is speaking to him normally. Karloff’s eyes are hypnotic and full of longing here in this incredible and all too short shot. She asks him to play with her and takes his hand in a long shot as he looks down at his hand and goes with her to the water. She hands him a flower and the camera pans up from his hand to his face allowing us to see his reaction which is to smile. Whale uses this scene to make the Monster as sympathetic as possible while creating a sense of foreboding within, to place the viewer at odds just like Shelley does in her novel.
The scene reaches its conclusion but what is important is why this is the most successful scene in the film. It is the only scene that actually expands upon what Shelley’s intentions were with Frankenstein rather than most of the other scenes which detract or delete what Shelley intended. It also addresses many of the issues within the novel. The scene combines William’s murder with the Monster’s encounter with the blind man. William’s murder in the novel is represented here because he murders a child. The encounter with the blind man is represented because the Monster has a successful interaction with another human (at least for a little while). What makes this more important is that Maria can actually see him and she does not become scared unlike the blind man who does. This is a more meaningful interaction than anyone he speaks to in the novel. William’s murder was committed by the Creature out of rage and the motivation of revenge. Maria’s murder is the result of a complete misunderstanding on the Monster’s part because of his lack of common sense. By the end of the scene the viewer is challenged in the way that Shelley challenges with her novel; can we have sympathy for someone who has killed a child? The answer is yes and it forces the viewer to come to terms with that. As much as the film fails as an adaptation of Shelley’s novel, the film manages to retain the Creature’s essence and humanity in the Monster through James Whale’s direction, Boris Karloff’s performance and most importantly with this scene which is the only instance that deepens and expands upon the original text.
A Screenplay’s Castration of the Creature and a Director and Stars’ Redemption of the Monster
Boris Karloff’s performance in the 1931 film Frankenstein and the way director James Whale visually represents the character throughout is easily the strongest aspect of the very problematic film adaptation. The story is changed to such a degree that it becomes barely recognizable and it adds elements that distract and confuse rather than support the source material. There is however, an ultimately successful effort by James Whale and Boris Karloff to infuse humanity and depth to a character whose complexities and intelligence are castrated by the screenplay.
The numerous screenwriters and producers of Frankenstein take away the challenging aspects of Mary Shelley’s story especially those involving the Creature. The first and most jarring change is the absence of speech and intelligence of The Monster depicted in the film. In the novel, Shelley gives her Creature a voice and allows him a distinct perspective. Readers are forced to read about the Creature and to grapple with the sympathy for him that emerges as a result. In the film, the Monster (the neutral term Creature from Shelley has been changed to the negative term Monster) cannot speak and thus loses his voice within the narrative of the film.
The second important change made regarding the Monster is that he now has the abnormal brain of a criminal. Along with the name change, this makes the Monster an immediately negative and dangerous figure. His voice is taken away and now his placement within the narrative is decided for viewers before the Monster can even do anything to prove or disprove it.
Despite all of this, Karloff and Whale retain the essence and essential humanity of the Shelley’s character which is the reason that his representation saves the film from a faltering screenplay. James Whale’s directorial effort on this piece is innovative and ahead of its time, especially for being an early sound picture in Hollywood. His constantly movie camera, lack of score, use of sounds effects and creation of a distinct atmosphere is what makes the film so visually pleasurable. The way the Monster is shot encompasses these innovations and represents his greatest achievement within the film.
The most famous scene is of course the incident with the Monster and the child Maria. Whale uses a dissolve to transition from the happiness and communal festivities of the wedding celebration to the lonely and desperate march of the Monster through the woods. A tracking shot from behind as we follow the Monster places the viewer in the role as fellow traveler, linking the viewer to the character by the placement of the camera. After Maria talks to her father and the Monster emerges from the bushes, Maria walks up to him in a long shot. Karloff’s body language indicates an immediate need for human connection as he subtly and hesitantly puts his hand out before Maria even finishes approaching him. Maria introduces herself, which further humanizes her and sets the audience up for the difficult scene ahead. A close up of the Monster shows us his reaction to Maria introducing herself; he is confused and amazed, completely transfixed on her because she is speaking to him normally. Karloff’s eyes are hypnotic and full of longing here in this incredible and all too short shot. She asks him to play with her and takes his hand in a long shot as he looks down at his hand and goes with her to the water. She hands him a flower and the camera pans up from his hand to his face allowing us to see his reaction which is to smile. Whale uses this scene to make the Monster as sympathetic as possible while creating a sense of foreboding within, to place the viewer at odds just like Shelley does in her novel.
The scene reaches its conclusion but what is important is why this is the most successful scene in the film. It is the only scene that actually expands upon what Shelley’s intentions were with Frankenstein rather than most of the other scenes which detract or delete what Shelley intended. It also addresses many of the issues within the novel. The scene combines William’s murder with the Monster’s encounter with the blind man. William’s murder in the novel is represented here because he murders a child. The encounter with the blind man is represented because the Monster has a successful interaction with another human (at least for a little while). What makes this more important is that Maria can actually see him and she does not become scared unlike the blind man who does. This is a more meaningful interaction than anyone he speaks to in the novel. William’s murder was committed by the Creature out of rage and the motivation of revenge. Maria’s murder is the result of a complete misunderstanding on the Monster’s part because of his lack of common sense. By the end of the scene the viewer is challenged in the way that Shelley challenges with her novel; can we have sympathy for someone who has killed a child? The answer is yes and it forces the viewer to come to terms with that. As much as the film fails as an adaptation of Shelley’s novel, the film manages to retain the Creature’s essence and humanity in the Monster through James Whale’s direction, Boris Karloff’s performance and most importantly with this scene which is the only instance that deepens and expands upon the original text.
Cinema is Truth
Cinema is Truth
Horrorphile
It is indeed the most powerful scene in Whale's movie. I still think it's the best adaptation of the novel, even if it is so very removed from the source material. I haven't enjoyed any other adaptation. I loathe the Kenneth Branagh version, which ironically is the closest to the novel. I am going to review that this week (in quiet response to your post). I wish David Cronenberg had made his version like he was going to do in the 90s .... sigh.
Cinema Enthusiast
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
Kenneth Branagh's version, while I appreciate the attempt to make a more faithful adaptation of the novel, is a bit of a joke. His hammy way of depicting things is everywhere in the film. he just gets everything wrong; the character development, the pacing (a huge problem), the tone and missteps in what he chooses to focus on. I actually sort of liked the way he handled the Creature's side of the story (for me it was the most successful part because Branagh's presence as a director was much more muted here than in the rest of the film) but DeNiro's casting seemed very off and distracting to me despite his efforts. So yeah, a disaster. So dissapointing.
I had no idea that Cronenberg was going to do an adaptation in the 90's. Now I'm just depressed.
Horrorphile