Landscape and Geography in Frankenstein and Its Adaptations

In reading Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, one of the first things brought to the attention of readers is the vivid scenery. The novel opens on the frozen expanse of the Atlantic Ocean, shrouded in mystery and unexplored wonder. As Dr. Frankenstein begins telling his story, we’re brought to the beautiful lakeside city of Geneva, and the dark and foggy streets of Ingolstadt. Further along, we’re taken to the incredible Swiss Alps, and even inside an ice cave.

As the environment and nature itself begins to play an increasingly important role in the story, Shelley does a fantastic job of providing readers with a surreal and gorgeous backdrop. While the novel allows readers to paint these pictures in their head, a film version would certainly excite any ambitious cinematographer. The story is ripe for a breathtaking cinematic adaptation, and I feel no Frankenstein movie has seized the opportunity yet.

The 1931 adaptation is incredibly bleak. Admittedly, it was created in the infancy of cinema itself, but the settings in that first movie are very underwhelming. Not only are many of the crucial settings completely abandoned, but the ones that are retained aren’t done justice.

The 1994 adaptation goes much further in its attempts to paint the full picture. It features Frankenstein’s lab in a surreal and eccentric way, just like readers imagined it. It includes the Alps and the ice cave. It showcases the streets of Ingolstadt, and the city of Geneva. However, I still feel that it was done in a very underwhelming way. Shelley’s novel gives potential filmmakers an enormous canvas, and yet the closest we’ve gotten to a masterpiece was a 1994 finger painting (at least from a cinematography standpoint).

Given the novel’s reliance on scenery and nature, especially in regards to the soul of the Monster, no adaptation of Frankenstein will be complete until directors stop overlooking what an important part scenery plays in the story. It’s 2014. I think it’s time someone gave us a beautiful and accurate adaptation of Shelley’s Frankenstein.

The Concept of the Monster in "I, Frankenstein"

           I was inspired to see the new I, Frankenstein movie yesterday because of all my newly gained knowledge of the Mary Shelley’s story, the (1931) film, and the (1994) Robert De Niro version. The new movie takes place in modern day after 200 something years after the monster was created. This movie acts as if the monster went on living after Victor’s death as a mortal that doesn’t age. I thought it was bad ass and a fun film to watch. It was interesting to see how the new movie tried to remove the stigma of Frankenstein’s creation as being viewed as a monster. The monster had a very similar background story as the monster in Mary Shelly's story minus a few details, and I believe a lot of details were left out or altered to make the monster/creation more likable and heroic as we mentioned in class. The part about Robert Walton was left out, and it was completely from the monster's point of view. The monster told how he was created by Victor and how he regretted creating him afterwards, but in this version, Victor immediately tried to kill his creation, which makes us see Victor as cruel. The monster explained that since Victor tried to take his life it was only fair for him to take the life of Victor’s wife in exchange. Victor enraged by his wife’s death chased the monster until he died. There was no mention of how the monster also killed Victor’s younger brother like in the book. I'm sure it was left out because that would make him too unlikable/monstrous to be the hero. The new movie also threw in a war between demons and gargoyles, which Adam (the name given to the monster) becomes a part of. The gargoyle queen (who has a direct link to the arch angels) excused the violet action of Adam killing Elizabeth because he was alone and emotional, and was not given any direction on how to handle his powerful emotions, which makes Adam seem more human. She also gave him his name and told the other gargoyles in the order to re-frame from referring to Adam as “it” saying that Adam is a man, and that all life no matter how it was created was special. All these aspects and alterations make this new version of the monster more sympathetic and likable so that an audience can view him as a hero. *Spoiler Alert* Adam doesn't have a soul at the beginning of the movie, but at the end he obtains one after acting heroically and saving mankind. This version completely changes the outlook of the creation, and I believe is successful in making the monstrous creation into a hero.

Post creation parenting.. or lack there of..

When reading Frankenstein in comparison to when I viewed the films there was one major theme that stuck out in my head. That being childbirth/maternity which we did speak in depth about during class which is why I believe they resonated with me so well. On the topic of childbirth and maternity, it was extremely interesting to me in the 2004 film where he did legitimately simulate childbirth in a way, and it was gruesome, intense, stressful, and slightly disgusting as I would imagine real childbirth would be. In the book I felt almost scared and oddly a sense of empowerment. The two were different but although I gathered the same idea from them both. What really spoke to me during this was the crazed reaction of Frankenstein, and how much different things may have turned out had Frankenstein indeed treated the monster like a baby post creation. For since it would seem he did in fact reenact child birth, and then let this creature go basically and do his own thing. Mind boggling really, a good example was from the oldest version of Frankenstein that we watched where after the monster was created he said, “I want to keep him in the dark.”  There is even a scene where the monster is just roaming around and Frankenstein is sitting upstairs relaxing, smoking if I am not mistaken. Anyhow, that spirals into a slew of questions and assumptions as to why and how could things have been different given that he would have treated the monster as a child. It almost felt like since he had accomplished what his end goal was he sort of was trying to take it easy and a lot of the crazed driven attitude that was so present in the first place had faded away. Understandably so I suppose, but even still it was mind blowing to thing, OK I have legitimately created another living breathing being, eh I think I will call it a day and have a smoke. Although, it did anger me, or at least make me more passionate on the fact that I felt his actions prior to creation were ignorant I loved it because it did exactly what maybe Mary Shelley was trying to do. It certainly brought about additional questions, and drama to the situation which to me was nothing short of amazing.

Society and the Monster

    In Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, I was particularly interested in the idea of the monster and monstrosity. In my opinion, the monster’s future was in the hands of his creator, Victor, and in the environment and people of society. It was when Victor abandoned the man that the decline toward evil was initiated. It mutated and presented itself when the monster was scorned society. When the monster was created, his mind hadn’t learned any knowledge. Meaning he could grow to be good or evil. The monster was almost like a small child living inside a grown mans body. Anyone who saw him or encountered him observed the monster as a grown man rather than a vulnerable child. The people he encountered had control over the situation but almost all of them showed fear to him, which they received in return. The monster observes the nice family in the forest, so the monster believes he’ll receive love from them, like a small child would think. The monster watches his effects as the family shows him they’re horrified (137). Also, the boy who runs to the monster, shields his eyes after witnessing the sight of the monster (144).

   The monster cries out that he indeed loves or once loved, “If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear (148).” This is an example of the monsters childish tendencies as well an expression of how sad he’s become. This sadness due to the life he’s living, “I am malicious because I am miserable (147).” Since there’s no one around him that looks or thinks the same, he’s left miserable and alone.

   In the films, the monster is portrayed as monstrous. The films frame the monster as the outcast. For instance, assigning menacing music, giving the monster grotesque features, and withholding the creature’s inner struggles. He’s presented as the thing to fear rather than highlighting his own unique voice of struggle.

Childbirth and Maternity as it relates to Victor Frankenstein and the Monster

I didn’t think much about the childbirth and maternity aspect of the book until I watched the 1994 version of Frankenstein. The book isn’t very descriptive when it comes to the creation scene, so the movies all take their own approach to it. The 1994 version specifically took me by surprise and really made me think of the creation scene in an entirely different way. I had never seen the 1994 version of the movie before reading the book, and had no preconception going into the book. So, when I read the creation scene for the first time maternity was the last thing on my mind. Victor Frankenstein isn’t exactly a feminine name, and his studies aren’t exactly feminine, and though he was creating life (as a woman does), I still could not view his actions as feminine at all. In my mind he was “playing God”, and he was displaying a very masculine action. Class discussion made me think about what exactly it means to “play God”. This lead me to wonder, after seeing the 1994 version, if playing God means that Frankenstein has to be portraying a manly action. I’ve determined that the book portrays it as a masculine creation and does not relate well to the childbirth and maternity aspect unless you have seen the movie. At first I was disgusted with the creation scene. Knowing what the fluid was made me want to vomit. Though, it is decidedly artistic with its interpretation of the creation scene. Watching Victor and the monster rolling around in the fluid is like when the mother has her child (if it is not cleanly like it would be in a hospital). The fact that Victor has created this being and how he did it in the movie makes it out like Victor is the mother and the creation process shows his maternity. I think another important aspect of the creation is Victor’s rebirth. When they are rolling around in the fluid they are both covered and trying to stand up together (Victor trying to help the monster). It is very poetic that Victor should also be covered, and come out of this experience a new person. Granted, he is a fearful, wretched person after what he has done, he is still a new person than the one who left Geneva for school. You could say that the creation of the monster was the incubation of a new Victor, which I find to be fascinating.

The Idea of Monstrosity as Explored Through Frankenstein

     The Idea of monstrosity, and, in opposition, humanity is thoroughly explored by Mary Shelley in Frankenstein. The novel makes the reader question what it means to be a monster and which character is such. Shelley's work allows characters to fluctuate between monstrous and human while the original 1931 film adaptation clearly outlines Henry as the protagonist and his creation as the antagonist.
     It seems the pop culture view of Frankenstein is derived mostly from the original film version. The popular image of Frankenstein is a huge, muttering monster evoking horror in all who see him. The 1931 film sets up a clear contrast between the monster and Henry. The film makes it clear that the creation is the antagonist by sharing that his brain is that of a criminal. The viewer is supposed to feel sympathetic for Henry, as his creation's evil ways are not a fault of his, but of his assistant. The creation is immediately violent towards Frankenstein and terrorized both him and the town throughout the film. There is only one scene in which the audience questions the creation's humanity: the scene showing him play with a young girl. While the film only gives a fleeting glimpse of what the monster could have been, the novel greatly details his experiences and leaves it to the reader to decide who the real monster is.
     The novel by Mary Shelley gives a very different account of the creation and his life. In the text, you see that the creature is extremely compassionate, but still alone in the world. His rage is triggered by his creator. Frankenstein immediately abandons his creator and shuns him upon their next visit as well. Frankenstein calls his creature a devil and a demon. The novel paints good and bad in both characters, leaving the reader to decide who they sympathize with. The text also forces the reader to think about whether actions in themselves, intent or cause of action makes one "evil." Frankenstein's creation murdered multiple people, but only as a result of the cruelty he experiences from others. Is he the monster, or are the people who made him this way? Also, is his creator bad for abandoning him or did he simply not analyze the consequences of his actions? The novel forces you to wonder what it means to be human, and whether or not the creation falls into this category. Shelley does a wonderful job of walking the line between good and evil and leaving these definitions ambiguous in terms of her characters.

The Maternal and Parental Status of Victor Frankenstein

The story of Frankenstein has a lot to do with childbirth, maternity and parental status. We are given this man who desires to create life, does it, but then runs in fear of his new creation the instant he sees it. He is spurred on to do this when his mother sacrificed her life to save Elizabeth when she had fallen ill from Scarlet Fever. His mother is the ultimate maternal figure right off the bat. Everything Victor came to desire in doing this project happened. It was a complete success. Victor became both mother and father to this creature at the instant of its creation. In the 1994 film, the scene in which the creature is brought to life resembles so much to that of an actual birth. The amniotic fluid, the way he resuscitates the creature. This scene gives new light into what it meant to create the creature. This may sound odd but, Victor was the mother and his lab was his womb. Victor had done what he came to do, but had grown in fear of this creature. He shot down his parental roles in this creature’s life and decided to wallow in fear and pain and hope that the creature will just trickle away and die on its own.

            Victor’s story ultimately comes to a conclusion when he finally takes responsibility for this creature and confronts him. Victor, though goes back on his word, shelves himself in the responsibility of parenthood. He ends up going back on his word and puts his creature down even further. He doesn’t even give the creature enough of a chance to live. In the 1994 film, Victor, after losing Elizabeth to the monster, decides to bring her back to life the way in which the monster was created. When he decides to bring her back, he is doing it out of fear and sadness. He doesn’t think of what he has done, he just wants it and Elizabeth ultimately gives her life out of fear of her own existence. This scene opens up Victor’s compassionate side, which we have trouble seeing. I ultimately believe that Victor is to blame for all that has happened since the creature’s birth. Victor shunned his parental responsibilities and this is the cause of his tragic life. 

Landscape and Geography in adaptations of Frankenstein

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Shelley tells the story of Victor Frankenstein and the creation of his monster. She explains the story through different types of imagery with the explanation of landscape and geography as the story moves from one setting to another. The novel has a very thorough, specific description of each setting Frankenstein is placed in. When Frankenstein describes his childhood, he mentions a time when him and his family watched a tree being struck by lightning. The amount of imagery in the book describing just this specific moment is in great detail and I think Shelley has a reason for doing this. I think that Mary Shelley goes into specific detail regarding this memory of Frankenstein’s childhood because it is one of the many geographical descriptions that shows a reflection of Frankenstein’s life over a course of time. The geography and landscape has a direct correlation of his feelings throughout the novel.

            The 1994 version of Frankenstein is very similar in this aspect as well. This adaptation of the novel portrays Frankenstein’s feelings as reflecting of the landscape around him. For example, when Frankenstein is creating the monster, he is holed up in his laboratory and the camera pans out to the landscape of where his laboratory is located. It shows a secluded, grassy area on a cold, stormy night with emotions running high, especially for Frankenstein. Just like the novel, this specific film adaptation has Frankenstein’s feelings reflecting where he is located and what he is doing at that time. I believe that because the movie is obviously a visual representation of Frankenstein that the explanation of the landscape and the geography could be subtle; however, the director of the film took the right path by still making Frankenstein’s feelings parallel to the landscape and the geography. Both the novel and this version of the film defined the landscape and the geography in a way that showed a reflection of Frankenstein’s emotions during specific times.

Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein": The Idea of Monster and it's Different Adaptations

     In Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", there is a very prominent theme of a monster. The film adaptations that spawn off of the novel also carry this theme. However, a great difficulty in reading or viewing "Frankenstein" is deciphering who the monster of the story really is. What's very interesting is that several adaptations take contrasting routes in portraying the different characters and, therefore, have different portrayals of who the monster is. A prime example of this occurs between the novel itself and the film adaptation that was created in 1931. In the novel, the reader gains insight into the stories of both Victor Frankenstein and his creation. In the film, all the viewer sees is an outside view of the story that occurs between Henry, his family and friends, and his creation. It is in these contrasting settings where the story has the possibility to change shape. 

     Although Mary Shelley's frame narrative plot can be quite confusing, it allows the reader to gain more perspective and gives them the ability to see into the stories of more than one character. Because of this, the reader is able to use their own opinion in deciding the part of the monster. Victor claims that his creation is a monster, but there are many scenes that allow the reader to question this label. The greatest ones come from when the creation is telling his side of the story. The creation says, "Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone?You, my creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me nothing? They spurn and hate me" (page 189). In reality, who is the monster of this novel? The creation or the creator? The creation only became something bad after being abandoned by his creator and, after trying to do good, was rejected by mankind and not allowed to become the good person he was. However, the creator did an evil thing, abandoned and refused to acknowledge his paternity to the resulting consequences, and refused to make a plan to help it after it sought him out. In my opinion, the father abandoned the child, so who is really the one to blame? One definition of a monster is, "a powerful person who cannot be controlled who causes many problems". The creation had the capability of being controlled and reigned in if approached in the correct manner and, because his creator didn't help him, he became labelled as a "monster". However, I believe this is inaccurate. Victor is the monster of this novel. It was Victor who couldn't be controlled by his family, friends, or his teachers. And it was Victor who created the problems in which the novel revolves around. 

     Interestingly enough, the exact opposite may be said for the 1931 film version. Victor is renamed Henry in the film. This is said to be because, "Unlike the book, the film ultimately seeks to redeem Frankenstein's character, making him a more human and sympathetic character" (1). In the filmmakers eyes, Victor appears to be a harsh name whereas Henry is a softer, more relatable mark. The goal of the film seems to be to bring more understanding towards the creator, and more hate towards the creation. They paint Henry to be a man who became a victim of circumstances, who didn't understand what he was doing, and who tried to deal with the problem but failed. They paint the creation out to be this bloodthirty ignorant bozo with the urge to do nothing but kill. Perhaps, for the time period, it was what the audience. Perhaps, due to the stock market crash, an audience could not bear to see that something so horrific as this "monster" would be the humans fault, because they already had so much to deal with. It's harder to watch something that portrays your own species as the monster, especially when things are going on that prove that they are. All in all, it's interesting to see how different viewpoints can change an iconic story and make it their own, changing not only names but the personas of the characters. 

1. http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1886/questions

Topics for First Post

Choose any of the following ideas for your post. It should be between 300-350 words (equivalent to about a page and a half to two pages, double spaced). You may focus on just the novel, the novel and one of the adaptations, or the novel and more than one adaptation. You may also, if you wish, choose to write about one of the many adaptations of the story we did not go over in class. For example, The Bride of Frankenstein opens the door to many possible discussions. Or the new one, I, Frankenstein is also a viable option. Also, any and all of these topics are also relevant in today's world; you might consider looping that in. Here are some possible topics:

• childbirth and maternity
• social class status and structure
• the DeLacey family's story (the cottage family)  
• the portrayal of "the townspeople" in mob scenes in the films
• sex and sexuality
• gender
• landscape and geography
• the concept of 'monster' or 'monstrosity'
• any combination of two of the above
• other ideas? I'd love to hear them. Email me!  

Please post your response by the start of class on Tuesday. 

Remember: One of the many advantages of using a blogging platform, instead of just the discussion board on Bb, is the potential for multimodal posts. While not required, I encourage you to include images, video, links, etc to anything that you want to include. If you're new to blogging and aren't sure how to do some of these things, I would be happy to work with you. It's easy once you know how, but learning how can feel intimidating.