Shelley's Frankenstein: Similarities Between Literature And Film

Quote: He stated “I was seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, which hurried me away to a hell of intense tortures such as no language can describe…..I shunned the face of man; all sound of joy or complacency was torture to me; solitude was my only consolation–deep, dark, deathlike solitude.”(Page 88).

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

"A Hermit is simply a person to whom society has failed to adjust itself." (Will Cuppy). In the gothic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley we follow the life of Victor Frankenstein in 18th century Germany. Shelley displays a recurring theme of isolation and how it drives once good people to do terrible things. If civilization does not adjust itself to a creature of any kind they will be forced into isolation and ultimately self destruction.

Every work is a product of its time. Indeed, we see that in Frankenstein, like in the world which produced its author, race, or the outward appearances on which that construct is based, determines much of the treatment received by those at all levels of its hierarchy. Within the work, Mary Shelley, its author, not only presents a racialized view of its characters, but further establishes and enforces the racial hierarchy present and known to her in her own world. For the few non-European characters, their appearance, and thus their standing in its related hierarchy, defines their entrances into the narrative. For the Creature, this occurs on the ices of the Artic, when, “atop a low carriage, fixed on a sledge and drawn by dogs, pass on towards the north, at the distance of half a mile;” Walton and his men perceived, “a being which had the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature.” (Shelley 13) Shelley clarifies, even this early in her novel, the race of its principal Other as soon after the intrepid adventurers rescue its namesake, Victor Frankenstein, who, Shelley clarifies, “was not, as the other traveller seemed to be, a savage inhabitant of some undiscovered island, but an European.” (Shelley 14) Later, closer examination of the Creature reveals a visage and figure of near unimaginable disfigurement, with a “shrivelled complexion,” and yellow skin which “scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath.” (Shelley 35) This could be contrasted directly

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has a very complex narrative structure: “the narratives seem to grow organically from one another”. Within the novel, Shelley weaves characters and their different narrative perspectives together, creating a cyclical, triplicate layout to the story. Her use of multiple narratives provides a range of perspectives on the story, allowing us insights to the

The critique of Victor’s carelessness mirrors the new technologies that humanity tries to innovate upon society. Shelley reflects on the demise in the progression of humanity because this will only further remove us from our compassion and identity [p. 266- Mary Shelley bio]. Thus, science in Shelley’s novel offers no hope, only death for both mankind

In Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, the creation, made from scraps of corpses, was built by Victor Frankenstein, a man fascinated and obsessed with the knowledge of life. Following the creation’s rouse, Victor immediately abandons him with no desire on keeping or teaching his new being. Because of his lack of nourishment and direction “growing up”, the creation goes through a process of self-deception. He endures a period of deceit by believing that he is a normal human being like everyone around him. But as time progresses, he learns to accept how he is alone in this world and disconnected with everyone. Because of the creation’s lack of guidance and isolation, he grows up feeling unwanted.

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.

A multitude of signs illustrates similarities between the Frankenstein’s creature and Mary Shelley. These indications show that the novel may be an autobiography. However, the novel shows a lot of the characteristics of science fiction. The novel can be a real description or fiction narrative, but not both. An informed opinion about this controversy requires the evaluation of relevant critics. Sherry Ginn uses “Mary Shelley 's Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography?” to adequately argue that the novel Frankenstein is based on Shelley’s experiences and fears, that it is not an autobiography, and that it has all the characteristics of a science fiction narrative.

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.

Remembered for its classic scene of ‘ITS ALIVE’ and a monstrous figure rising from a gurney, Frankenstein (or the Modern Prometheus) by Mary Shelley can be considered as the world’s first terrible book-to-movie adaptation. And in this translation, it seems that we have lost what Frankenstein’s true core message was; a cautionary message to modern science.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Different Film Techniques Compare and contrast the way in which the directors of 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' (1994) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) use different film techniques to build up atmosphere in their opening sequences: The two films I will be addressing in this essay are Kenneth Branagh's and James Whale's versions of 'Frankenstein', a horror novel written by Mary Shelley in 1816, when the author was 19. The incentive for it was provided by the famous poet, Byron, who was a friend of Mary Shelley and suggested they write horror stories as a pastime. His was never published. Many adaptations have been made for cinema in the 20th century, those addressed in

This weeks assigned Frankenstein adaptations have truly broaden my personal opinion on the definition of adaptation. While we have discussed that adaptations come in many forms viewing these three websites catered towards Mary Shelley’s works was interesting to say the least. The aspects of the websites that I truly enjoyed ranged from the collection of information to the ease of just being able to access Shelley’s work electronically. The websites allowed for a modernized rendition of the somewhat dated material and then some.