Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Movie Adaptations

The Opening Sequences of James Whale's 1931 Frankenstein and the Opening sequences of the 1994 film Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Mary Shelley, creator and author of Frankenstein. Mother to thousands of different versions of the original text, first put pen to paper in 1818. Thousands of directors have since embarked upon producing their versions of Frankenstein. James Whale. Kenneth Branagh.

In reading the book Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and watching the by the same title, I discovered several large differences. Primarily, the edited and modified parts were changed to make the movie more interesting.

In many movie adaptations of a novel, the film doesn’t do the book justice in its story telling. Movie versions generally do not focus on the characters’ emotions or thoughts like the books do. They also do not develop the characters as well as the original story, giving the viewer little to no knowledge of a certain person. This is the case in Frankenstein. While there are some similarities between the original written version and the one on screen, the movie doesn’t delve into the lives of the main characters: Victor and the creature. The loss of characterization and focus on their lives takes away the audience’s take on consequences.

Thesis Statement: In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the creature’s identity as a monster is due to societal rejection, isolation, and misinterpretation.

Frankenstein had the idea that creating these creatures was not just an advancement in his knowledge but an advancement to nature around us, because of this everyone should “owe [our] being[s] to [him]”(55). With Frankenstein’s technological point of view, he fails to see the horror he is about to animate. Before the monster had been brought to life Frankenstein had suppressed his repugnance for his monster. Frankenstein ignores his repugnance all the way til “the dull yellow eye of the creature open[s]” and “breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart”(58). Frankenstein finally regains his repugnance after months of ignoring it, but in order to see his repugnance, he had to create a monster of “breathless horror and disgust”(58). Frankenstein is the fictional example of his warnings of the repugnance of cloning come to life.

Textual form is an issue which divide many critiques and audiences. Some view texts as a form being superior and more expressive, whereas others may view film as to be losing its credibility of expression. Never the less it is adamant that through a comparative study of two differing forms exploring similar ideas it becomes clear that one form isn’t always superior over another. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) mirror this thesis. Whilst being

I can compare Frankenstein to the movie I saw by Tim Burton, Frankenweenie. They are similar but instead of a human body, it was a dog and the mad scientist was a young boy named Victor Frankenstein. The young Victor Frankenstein brings his dog back to life after being hit by a car for a science fair project while the real Victor Frankenstein wanted to create a real life human. Just like the real Frankenstein monster, the dog brings trouble. In the book, the mad scientist, denies the monster but in Frankenweenie, the young boy convinces his family and friends to like his creation. Some of his classmates had known the young Victor Frankenstein creation and was intrigued to do the same experiment like his but it went out of the standards of

The monster that Frankenstein created was only considered a monster because he did not look like a human. If he had not looked scary he would have been accepted as a member of society. Though had I myself seen him in real life I would most likely have been afraid of him, getting to know him from his point of view, by reading the book, helped me to understand how human-like he was. He was not evil, but kind and just wanted to be loved and accepted. The monster was kind, intelligent, he understood the value of love, and had his own thoughts and values, and for these reasons I believe the monster did not deserve to be destroyed.

Whereas in the 1931 film adaptation, it states that his condition is largely due to the mistake preformed by Fritz, who provided a defective brain to be placed into the creature’s head. The implication that the monster's brutal behavior was inevitable arguably weakens the novel's social criticism and depiction of developing consciousness. The film therefore emphasizes the idea that the creation exists as an inherently evil, manufactured being. The creature in the film lacks incentive, despite Shelley’s monster’s craving for love and his “ feelings of revenge and hatred” (Shelley 139). Essentially it was the creation of a new character, Fritz, which allowed the film’s plot to shift away from the novel’s original story of Frankenstein. The addition of Fritz reveals that Frankenstein’s creation had innate anger, and allows the audience to associate him to a monster.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is an incredible novel that is as popular as it has ever been, despite being written in the 1700´s. One of the main reason for its notoriety is how well Mary Shelley was able to develop the main characters in the story. The story focuses around Victor Frankenstein and the Creature, who are uniquely presented as to leave it up to the reader to decide who the good guy in the story is, and who is the villain. Each conducted many actions that were beyond reason and unjustifiable, but also had instances where they appeared to be the victim or were trying to better the lives of others. I do believe though, that the creature had more justifiable actions throughout the entirety of the story. The Creature was the result of Victorś insane desires, was left abandoned and forced to go through the world without any knowledge, and whose mind was poisoned by the humans he interacted with.

Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein and Tim Burton's film, Edward Scissorhands has an abounding amount of similarities. They both hold the same plot and alike characters. But they do have some differences.

Most Americans have some idea of who Frankenstein is, as a result of the many Frankenstein movies. Contrary to popular belief Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a scientist, not a monster. The "monster" is not the inarticulate, rage-driven criminal depicted in the 1994 film version of the novel. Shelley’s original Frankenstein was misrepresented by this Kenneth branagh film, most likely to send a different message to the movie audience than Shelley’s novel shows to its readers. The conflicting messages of technologies deserve being dependent on its creator (address by Shelley) and poetic justice, or triumph over evil (showed by the movie) is best represented by the

A Comparison of Film and Novel Versions of Frankenstein The nature of horror stories gives the reader/audience a feeling of intense fear, shock or disgust. It creates an atmosphere of tension for the reader/audience. Horror stories are designed to entertain people by causing enjoyable feelings of horror.

“Horror and science fiction tend to present radically opposite interpretations of what may look like comparable situations.” (Kawin, 1981.) Bruce Kawin helps the reader to understand how a story in the genre of science fiction could be adapted, or bastardized if you like, into a horror. This is similar to the film adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Both “Frankenstein” (1931) and “Bride of Frankenstein” (1935) portrayed characters and events differently than Shelley would have desired. Her novel had many deeper implications than the movie portrayed.

How can we think of Frankenstein and ignore the film classic of 1931? Yet the celebrated film does not follow the novel by Mary Shelley. Although the scene of a futuristic laboratory entrances movie audiences with the mad Dr. Frankenstein and his faithful assistant Igor, the scene is derived from twentieth century imaginations and interests, not the novel itself.