For reasons, the director of the film made some changes to the Frankenstein's Monster, making it differ from the original figure in Mary Shelley's novel. Perhaps these changes are made mainly because of the difference between the function of novel and movie. In other words, they use different representations for different purpose. This changes may help us to interpret why the same monster seems different.
First, and the most specific difference, which lead to a major mistake people keep making for decades, is the acceptance of the monster. In the novel, the creator abandoned his creature because of his repulsive appearance. And for same reason, other people refused to accept it. But in the movie, the creature was accepted more like a human rather than a monster by Frankenstein. This may explain that why people making mistake calling the monster "Frankenstein", which is his creator's name, rather than "Frankenstein's monster". A further reason for this nomenclative mistake may due to the lacking acknowledge of the original content in the book. A monster movie prefer to emphasize more on the monster itself, making the monster more impression. So those people who haven't read the book may erroneously think the name "Frankenstein" is the name of the main character--the monster.
Second, the distinct treatment that Frankenstein brought to his creature in the book and on the screen resulted in the different reason why the monster became savage. In the novel, the monster was abandoned for his ugly looking. That's why it started to killing people. It appears to me that this creature had consciousness. It was able to think. Now I understand why did the doctor flee from his creature. If I confronted a monster with scary appearance and intelligence, I will definitely run away without consideration. However, in the movie, instead of being discarded, the monster was locked into a dungeon. The monster went mad not because being neglected, but being tortured. I would hypothesize that the director made this change mainly because he wanted to enhance the conflict between monster and human beings.
Third, there's a distinction in the monster's speaking ability. In the novel, the monster spoke a lot. It acquired the ability of speaking and reading by itself, which gave another evidence to the viewpoint that it was quite intellectual. While in the movie, the monster hardly speak even a single word, producing a stupid image to the audiences, which became a stereotype of this monster in later movies.
As a conclusion, representation severs to target. The writer concerned more on uprising the public to be aware of the changing of the whole society like modernity and scientific progress. Nevertheless, the film pay more attention on attracting audiences rather than driving them to think. It converted the self-reflection of the monster into a collision of mankind and monster as almost all the Hollywood movies with monsters show up did. To some degree, the film succeeded. At least, audiences remember the name "Frankenstein" although it's a mistake.
First, and the most specific difference, which lead to a major mistake people keep making for decades, is the acceptance of the monster. In the novel, the creator abandoned his creature because of his repulsive appearance. And for same reason, other people refused to accept it. But in the movie, the creature was accepted more like a human rather than a monster by Frankenstein. This may explain that why people making mistake calling the monster "Frankenstein", which is his creator's name, rather than "Frankenstein's monster". A further reason for this nomenclative mistake may due to the lacking acknowledge of the original content in the book. A monster movie prefer to emphasize more on the monster itself, making the monster more impression. So those people who haven't read the book may erroneously think the name "Frankenstein" is the name of the main character--the monster.
Second, the distinct treatment that Frankenstein brought to his creature in the book and on the screen resulted in the different reason why the monster became savage. In the novel, the monster was abandoned for his ugly looking. That's why it started to killing people. It appears to me that this creature had consciousness. It was able to think. Now I understand why did the doctor flee from his creature. If I confronted a monster with scary appearance and intelligence, I will definitely run away without consideration. However, in the movie, instead of being discarded, the monster was locked into a dungeon. The monster went mad not because being neglected, but being tortured. I would hypothesize that the director made this change mainly because he wanted to enhance the conflict between monster and human beings.
Third, there's a distinction in the monster's speaking ability. In the novel, the monster spoke a lot. It acquired the ability of speaking and reading by itself, which gave another evidence to the viewpoint that it was quite intellectual. While in the movie, the monster hardly speak even a single word, producing a stupid image to the audiences, which became a stereotype of this monster in later movies.
As a conclusion, representation severs to target. The writer concerned more on uprising the public to be aware of the changing of the whole society like modernity and scientific progress. Nevertheless, the film pay more attention on attracting audiences rather than driving them to think. It converted the self-reflection of the monster into a collision of mankind and monster as almost all the Hollywood movies with monsters show up did. To some degree, the film succeeded. At least, audiences remember the name "Frankenstein" although it's a mistake.
I agree with your assertions on how exactly Frankenstein's monster was presented differently between the novel by Shelly and the 1931 movie monster. As I reflected on the differences myself, before reading your response, I found myself thinking of practically all the same arguments. In terms of why the monster is often given the name Frankenstein, I thought that it could be considered more of a guilt by association situation where one could consider the the monster evil or a "Frankenstein" merely because of the treatment he [the monster] received from his creator. In a way, monster begets monster or father like son. All in all, I think that your assertions about this monster specifically align with my own.
ReplyDelete