Has anyone done a comprehensive comparison of Frankenstein as represented in film versus the source material?
Thank you.
Printable View
Has anyone done a comprehensive comparison of Frankenstein as represented in film versus the source material?
Thank you.
I think in the source material the freak was very different than the image that appeared and stuck to Hollywood with Boris Karloff. For one thing Shelley thinks of him uglyest, but with veins protruding all over. But also she depicts him very flexible and more athletic than a man. In Karloff's version those features are lacking and he is very handicapped and can hardly walk straight; a brute. For Shelley he was more like a tragic hero and had a relatively developed intellect, capable of narrating his autobiography in a redeeming manner to the captain of the ship where he finally disappears, I think, if I remember correctly. It's been many years since I read it.
Kind of like how Tarzan changed from the books' articulate-English-noble-in-the-jungle to the movies' "Me Tarzan."Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
If you want to hear a more faithful adaptation, try using Google to find the 13-part radio serial from the early 1930s.
Yes, very analogical to Tarzan's fate in the radio. Those series and more were still going on in the 50's when I grew up. Lots of things like that in the radio. Very good point you make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Whoops, poor wording on my part. The 13-part serial was Frankenstein, and it's a fun listen. Also interesting is the long-lost 1910 film starring Charles Ogle. It's only about 15 minutes long and gives us Shelley's intelligent monster. The creation scene is also very cool, though very different.
I haven't heard any of the original Tarzan radio shows from 1932, but I have heard both of the mid-1930s serials (Diamond of Asher and Fires of Tohr, 39 parts each). One was terrific and one just okay, and damned if I can remember which was which, sorry.
The movies are meant to be bigger than life, you take any novel adaptations and i am sure there will be so much difference. I was personally disappointed with Sherlock Holmes, the lead actor in no way comes out to be Sherlock Holmes.
Lee, are you referring to the most recent depictions of Sherlock Holmes? If so, I will say I was repulsed by them.
As for the portrayal of Frankenstein, the old version with Boris Karloff is deplorable. Now, don't take this as criticism of Boris. He was a super actor, so I have to fault the person who adapted the novel. The Kenneth Branagh production was closer, but still not close. Where did this idiotic Mrs. Frankenstein come from?
Sigh! Read the novel and content yourself that nothing could approach one's personal conception.
I watched a DVD of the first Boris Karloff Frankenstein last night. The film was updated to the 1930s, when it was made. It was a pretty loose adaption, but scientifically a little stronger. The film was only an hour and seven minutes long. The acting was not very good. It looked like a film had been churned out to a tight schedule and budget.
It is odd how the Boris Karloff image of Frankenstein's monster has stuck. While I was reading the book, the monster was described as misshapen and deformed, but very, very athletic. I started to imagine a lankier monster with a rounder, darker face, pointier teeth and longer hair. I imagined maybe his arms were different lengths or too long or short compared to his legs or body.
Edit: also this is the film referred to in The Spirit of the Beehive, about the little girl who identifies with the little girl murdered in the Frankenstein film. I never watched that film all the way through. I found it a bit boring tbh, but I may give it another go.
I agree with you in the differences in what the character is portrayed to look like within the text of the book, and how the character appears on the screen. It is not as expected to see such a drastic change in the same character. Typical Hollywood
makes the "ugly" character more appealing in the movie, but in this case he is weak and crippled in appearance.
I feel that the book has more vivid detail than the movie. if you watch ABC's Once Upon A Time, in the first season, one of the characters is supposedly Dr. Frankenstein and they show his backstory as his brother being the creature after he accidentally killed him (spoiler for those who don't watch, but are planning to). The writers of the show added a different twist to the story, then what actually really happened