Analyzing Frankenstein Quotes

One of my assignments in the near future is to write a paper about who was the person really at fault in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein, or the creature he created. So below are some quotes analyzed, if I were to take the stance that Victor Frankenstein was indeed the person at fault.

Though Victor Frankenstein shook off the responsibility of his own creation, the monster he created, in chapter one, he expressed his strong opinion that how child turned out was a parent’s responsibility. This can be seen when he says “their child, the innocent and helpless creature … whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot in their hands to direct to happiness or misery … they fulfilled their duties toward me.” (Shelly 35). His views of a child new into the world are expressed as he characterizes it as “innocent” and “helpless”, which shows that his creature being new into the world was the same as well. Furthermore the responsibilities of a father are clearly stated through the denotation of “future”, “direct” and “duties”, yet he does not fulfill his duty as a father, making him a hypocrite.

More evidence of Victor Frankenstein’s selfish desires is brought to light when he says “Wealth was an inferior object; but what glory would attend discovery, if I could banish disease from human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!” (Shelly 42) Here, Victor is portrayed as a selfish man, whose sole purpose of hunting down the secret of life is “glory”, emphasizing his greed to live on and have power over life and death.  His excitement by the very idea is shown through the punctuation, the exclamation mark. The glorified idea of power is also highlighted through the strong diction of “banished” and “invulnerable”, showing that he is unable to contain his excitement by the very idea.

A Frankenstein Advertisment

After looking at many advertisements which in cooperated ideas with Frankenstein  today, one advertisement in particular stood out. The Osteo-Bi Flex advertisement showed Frankenstein’s monster as a patient with frequent joint pains and aches, which caused him to be extremely stiff. It also brings in an element of humor, as it starts with a clip from the 1931 Frankenstein movie, showing the monster walking and staggering at the same time .Then the audience is brought back to present time, where the monster talks about how stiff he used to be. But after taking Osteo-Bi Flex, he is no longer in constant pain, and has become a better and relaxed person. He is shown taking yoga classes, growing flowers in a garden and playing music to children (activities which regular people do), while talking about the benefits of the medicine. This advertisement is targeted towards elderly people with joint pain and people with body aches. The advertisement shows how Frankenstein’s monster used to be grouchy because of the pain in his joints, but can now lead a normal life like humans do. So it tells the elderly audience and people with joint pain and ache, that they can also lead a normal and happy life if they take the medicine and get rid off the pain. The advertisement ends with the monster telling them to “Put some life back in your joints”, also tying into the Frankenstein humor.  The idea of using Frankenstein’s monster here is also very clever, as Frankenstein is a universally well known public figure, so tied in with the humor, the advertisement will continue to stay imprinted in the audience’s mind, even after it is long over. In addition, the Frankenstein’s monster advertisement strategy has been a successful tested and tried advertisement type, given the number of advertisements made with this character.

Frankenstein Reviews

Both AV Club and Horror Reviews are one of the few of the many reviews written about the legendary 1931 film of Frankenstein. Both Keith Phillips of the A.V. Club review and Brett G. of the Horror reviews have both remarked that this is one of the landmarks in horror movie history. Some of the main reasons for its success, they both commented was, the powerful impact of the movie’s atmosphere, and Boris Karloff’s fantastic portrayal of the misunderstood monster.  As Brett G. so appropriately puts it “there are villains, and their icons, and Frankenstein’s monster was definitely the later”.  Frankenstein’s monster is definitely a lot more than a green huge scary looking creature. Both Keith Phillips and Brett G. remark on the enormous impact this movie had on shaping them into horror buffs. In addition, there are several scenes in the movie, which help us realize that the monster is just like a child, except he is misunderstood because of his appearance. Brett G. verifies this when he talks about when the monster is playing with the little girl Maria. The monster throwing the flowers into the lake and being excited by the fact that they were floating, characterizes him as an innocent, and simple child. This idea is further highlighted when the monster assumes that because the flowers floated, the girl in the water would too. He did not intend any harm, he just did not know. Brett G. correctly identifies the true villains in the movie: Dr. Frankenstein and the village people. It’s quite obvious from the villagers’ monstrous cries and Dr. Frankenstein’s attempt to play God, who the real monsters are.  Thus, as Phillips stated, enabling anyone “who has ever felt as misfit” in the audience to connect to the monster. 

An interesting point that I did not notice until it was brought up by both reviewers was the impact of the atmosphere in the movie.  As Brett G. pointed out, there was no eerie music except in the opening and closing credits. The silence in this movie, in fact adds to its “unsettling quality”, which can also be interpreted as the injustice in the “fairytale gone horribly wrong”. In the entire movie, not one person stands up for the monster, not even his own father.  The monster being unable to speak to convey his own thoughts also contributes the dark, gloomy and frustrating feel in the movie.

Overall, I agree with both the reviewers. Frankenstein is one of the most fantastic and timeless horror classics, but it is also one of the most painful and sad, which makes it an even better film.

The Cemetery Skeleton in Frankenstein

The Cemetery Skeleton, an article in the Frankenstenia blog talks about the significance of the skeleton in the graveyard scenes in the Frankenstein movies. It starts by discussing Walton’s introduction to the 1931 Frankenstein, through the graveyard scene.  The camera initially comes into focus on a group of mourners and then “slides past them to a hooded skeleton figure”. The article then goes into analyzing the significance of the skeleton in the movie, and how its position in the scene was not by mere chance.  By using a prop symbolic of death, Walton manages to successful arise a pang of fear within the audience, through the foreshadowing of all the unfortunate events to come. As the author puts it, “the image of a dancing skeleton mocked life’s brevity.”  Yet another representation of Walton’s “darkly humorous” moment is when Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant Fritz are digging up the grave of a person who had just been buried. The dark hooded figure standing all the while and overlooking this scene also establishes Dr. Frankenstein, as someone who is disrespecting death. The author also mentions seeing the skeleton in the movie’s sequel, the Bride of Frankenstein, when Frankenstein encounters another grave robber. The author then comments whether this skeleton was also in other remakes of Frankenstein and what became of it.

I agree with the author’s analysis of the skeleton. Walton is trying to stir up the audience’s fear through the use of the skeleton, and yet at the same time add his own touch of dark humor. Though throughout the grave digging scene, he seems like a mere prop, he in fact foreshadows that nothing good will ever come out of trying to win against death. Just as the skeleton haunts the audience, it shows that Dr. Frankenstein too will come to be haunted by his own actions in the future.

 

Classic-Horror.com’s Frankenstein(1931) review

In Classic-Horror.com’s review of the 1931 movie of Frankenstein,  Nate Yapp, its author reminds us the major influence Jame Whale’s “loose adaptation”  had on shaping society’s visual image of Frankenstein’s monster. He supports this by describing the movie’s haunting introduction of the funeral and, praising its well known, but twisted and clever plot.  Yapp also acknowledges that the 1931 Frankenstein’s success was also partially due to the hard work and contribution of some of Universal’s best during the mid 1930s, such as Edward Van Sloan, make-up artist Jack Pierce, John Fulton for special effects, Garret Fort and John L. Balderston as writers, and director James Whale. Yapp particularly highlights Boris Karloff’s fantastic acting as Frankenstein, as Karloff manages to attain depth to the monster’s character, by evoking a sense of pathos in the audience and characterizing the huge green repulsive figure, as more than just a monster. Karloff portrays the monster as an overgrown, unloved child. Yapp also comments humorously on the fact that the “abnormal brain” in the plot was not needed, but has nonetheless been exploited as a Frankenstein marketing idea.

In addition, Nate Yapp praises the acting of other actors such as Clive’s hysteric scream “It’s alive!”, and Sloan’s confident manner. Yapp, however does not view the addition of John Bole as a second romantic lead as annoying, and was extremely pleased that he did not stay for the sequel, Frankenstein’s bride.  Though Yapp feels that Elizabeth Mae Clark did a reasonably good job portraying the bride, he feels that Valerie Hobson would have done much better job. Yapp also praises and talks about how much of the sequels and other monster movies were very much based of the original Frankenstein.  Much of this is seen in the monster’s design, whose makeup was copyrighted by Universal.  Yapp then encourages his readers to go and see the film for themselves.

Reusing Ideas

Time after time, ideas have been reused again and again, while being added or modified to other ideas. The first one that popped into my head was Harry Potter. I have been a hardcore Harry Potter fan since the fourth grade, and I always thought J.K. Rowling must have been a genius to come up with all those ideas. It was my father who first pointed out some of the many ideas in Harry Potter may have evolved from Indian culture and myths. The most obvious correlation would be the pure blood- mudblood refernce to the caste system. Another one was the idea of the horcrux, and about soul splitting through the act of  killing, also originating from an Indian myth. There also many movies, books and plays which have been reused, such as Oceans Eleven, Sherlock Holmes and the many Lord of the Ring plays. Ideas being reused can be in reference to music as well. It’s really interesting how when one idea or tune becomes successfu in a certain culture, directors from a different country like to pick it up.  I have seen this in asian and middle eastern music. If you listen careafully to the many korean pop groups and other pop groups from other countries such as China and Japan, you will notice the similar styles they use. I have also seen the similar situation in bollywood music. Sometimes, a couple of notes here and there in the middle of the song are actually similar to those of other music groups in asia or the middle east.  Often, for the locals, it feels as if the idea is new, but in reality the idea has been tried and tested, but they just do not know of it yet.  So reusing ideas, and remixing in a way, is like upgrading the idea or tunes. It also can be seen that as time progresses, we are more aware  of the other cultures around us, and remixing music and ideas, is in a way is proof of the blending of rich cultures, and evidence of mankind’s increasing appreciation for each other’s culture.

My name is Shreya Bhattacharjee (It’s perfectly alright if you can’t pronounce it) and I’m a first year at university and I want to study engineering.  I’ve pretty much spent most of my life travelling due to my father’s job. So far we have lived in seven different countries and visited around sixteen – I think.  Some people think its tough to move and adjust every three years, but I have done it so many times it has become natural for me.  It’s actually quite fun. Every time, I get to discover and experience a new culture. I get to meet new people, make more friends, try exciting different foods, and visit great places. Each place always had something good to offer, and I have always taken a little bit of it with me, and tried to leave a piece of me behind as well. Sometimes its a skill and other times a lesson, but either way, I get to learn something more from it. It has also taught me to look a problems from different perspectives. The negative aspect of always moving is that sometimes I really miss my friends a lot . Luckily we all have the internet, so now it’s easier to stay in touch with each other.

Even though, I have been to so many places, like most teenagers my age, I’m still searching for a purpose. I am still not a hundred percent sure what I’m going to do because from what I have seen of life, it is completely unpredictable. It seems like everyone has got it all figured out, what they want to do with their lives. Everyone, that is, except me.  My mother says good things and realization take a really long time and that the sudden instantaneous ones only appear in movies and storybooks. Usually we don’t even realize until way later on. I really hope what she said was true.