Frankenstein ~ Mary Shelley

 

One of my recently gained obsessions is the myth of Frankenstein. It started by me innocently reading the novel because why not? It is rightfully a classic and the book was great, both very accessible and complex. But in my head, there already was an image of Frankenstein - a myth - a visual iconography. The novel hints at aspects of it, but shockingly feels very different, focused mainly on a romantic cautionary tale of ambition rather than being the gothic bodyhorror of creating an evil fiend. In a way that was better than what I expected yet there was a sense of wonder left as in what shaped the myth of Frankenstein as I knew it.

For some reason I now decided to dig deeper and have by now watched the 1931 ‘Frankenstein’ movie and its sequel ‘Bride of Frankenstein’. I thought: why not turn this journey of mine into something more productive? And want to now give you my first status report on “Discovering the myth of Frankenstein”. 

Out of those three fundamental pieces I have to report that the novel by far is the most interesting. Most likely no adaptation will ever come close to it but maybe that is okay. To me the most interesting question of the novel was one that never was directly asked: “Is the creature even evil or just a victim of circumstances?” What the novel instead cleverly asks all the time is: “What makes the creature evil?” Both Victor Frankenstein and his creature ponder this question and come to different conclusions which begs the question of who would you want to believe if you even trust one of them to properly assess this incident. Victor - who holds most parts of the narration firmly in his grips - calls his creature manipulative and deceptive, inviting the audience to trust his accessions. I will call Victor unempathetic and terribly egocentric. (There is a portion, where a friend of his was getting sentenced to death over a murder the creature committed on Victor's younger brother and Victor kept whining about how he suffered the most in this situation.) Therefore I personally invite everyone to trust the creatures' accessions of the situation. However I do think there are parallels between both of them in terms of their characterization. Especially at a younger age they both develop that strong pursuit of knowledge, both of them think they are forced to be secretive of the creature and therefore develop a sense of alienation to their surroundings. Victor can’t talk about his creation and the guilt he feels from it and the creature can’t be seen by humankind, without setting them in terror. And both feel this guilt over their actions and somehow think that being eaten by guilt is also a kind of absolution for their responsibilities or something - that aspect is complicated and warrants its own essay to assess.

Anyways, I dive into all those questions and theories because I consider that to be the strength of the novel. Everyone is invited to ask those questions differently and then develop their own theories. These questions and theories are the appeal of that novel to me.

Very much unlike the first movie: The "Monster" here is definitely evil - even though it commits less crimes and is less cruel in general - because Henry (why is he not named Victor anymore?) Frankenstein’s assistant accidentally steals the “ABNORMAL” brain of a common criminal instead of the “normal” one. He is just made to be evil for what I consider to be eugenic reasons. Yeah, textual and structural I absolutely hate this movie, none of the ambition that the novel used to have is there. Aesthetically though it is quite sweet and has some solid acting performances. I love Henry’s Father in this film, he feels like they just dragged a random old guy on set and just told him vaguely what each scene would be about. No script, just the authentic ramblings of an eightysomething year old geezer. The last thing I want to credit this movie for is that it was forced to give light to underexplained aspects of the novel. Both the creation and design of the creature there were only described vaguely and this movie gave an image to that - still not quite ripe and also not the first to do it, but the oldest work that I now have seen answering those questions.

The bride of Frankenstein then again managed to find a unique  spin on the myth. Instead of just dumbing it down, they find suitable charms to replace the complexity with. They explore more deeply the gothic aesthetics suitable to the story. We got more machinery that “Henry” uses for his work and they are both designed and directed in a way that just felt more fleshed out. Additionally this might be the first time that the creature is portrayed in the way that we now expect him to look like: Cylinder shaped head, more scars, more screws than in the first movie and an enjoyer of cigars. Okay the last part might not be that essential, but hints at another thing the movie does better than its predecessor. It is pretty funny at times and in some moments even wholesome. I am so glad that they never mentioned the “abnormal” brain again and they incorporate some parts of the novel that the first movie left out and find unique spins on it giving the monster more characteristics in general. I still don’t think that this movie is as good as the novel, but it is a fine movie and maybe even an essential piece to completely understand the myth of Frankenstein as it is perceived today. The ending of the movie also was surprising, fun and made at least a more interesting point than the first movie.

 

Somehow I really find myself in awe with that whole myth. Even though I know that probably no movie will be as good as the novel was, I still have a fascination with this creator/creature dynamic and just want to see more angles that people take on this myth, no matter how trashy or bad they are.

 

Short: Novell great, movie mixed, second movie fun