Frankenbeans

[IWilKikU]

I don't actually have my own copy here in the UK, so I can't look back and try and comment on your comment about the languege, but I think another theme (the one that really jumped out and grabbed me) was the human need for companionship. All three authors are lonely and use very similar languege to express their loneliness. I wish I had a text so I could site that. grr

[Koa]

By the way... I'm surprised about a few things... I had the impression that in the general culture, people refer to the monster as Frankenstein, while it's actually the scientist's name...is it because of movies, or did I just get a wrong impression???
And then... I was expecting the monster to be just plain evil...Instead he is so clever and sweet and gets evil out of bitterness (which I can relate to so much!)...and why...why is he rejected? just because he looks so disgusting???!!! It's a bit crazy, sure it must have been horrible but... I don't know, this all disturbs me a bit.
And I haven't read the end yet, shoudl stop foruming and start reading!!!

[IWilKikU]

I think the reason people are confused about who Frank. is, is because not many people have actually read the book/seen the movie. If someone asks what Frank. is about, people who havn't read the book would say "its about a monster that is made of human corpses." So people who ask that, than associate "Frankenstein" with the monster rather than the Dr..

[subterranean]

Originally posted by Koa
By the way... I'm surprised about a few things... I had the impression that in the general culture, people refer to the monster as Frankenstein, while it's actually the scientist's name...is it because of movies, or did I just get a wrong impression???
And then... I was expecting the monster to be just plain evil...Instead he is so clever and sweet and gets evil out of bitterness (which I can relate to so much!)...and why...why is he rejected? just because he looks so disgusting???!!! It's a bit crazy, sure it must have been horrible but... I don't know, this all disturbs me a bit.
And I haven't read the end yet, shoudl stop foruming and start reading!!!

I also had the same impression as yours at the first place, when I was a kid I thought Frank was the monster's name. One thing that still making me confuse about the story is why Frank didn't give the same good plan about the physichal appearance. Frank wanted to create a perfect creature at the first place, right?!

[Koa]

Yeah, in general knowledge Fr. and the monster just got mixed up...

I'm still totally disturbed about the whole stuff...
I've been talking about it with everyone I see...well they already know I'm crazy...

I don't know if I said that already, but I thought it was a feature of nowadays' society to be obsessed about appearance... Why didn't anyone TRY to listen to the creature before judging him???

This poor creature's destiny is far too sad Was it so hard for Dr. F. to create a female monster for him??? They wouldn't have been evil!!! (well as my crush said, it just couldnt be so cos otherwise the point of the book would be lost , but still... I can't accept it )

I din't even notice too much of the scientist's huge godly ambition, lost as i was in caring for the poor monster's loneliness...

I want to die and reincarnate in Mary Shelley She wrote such a masterpiece when she was only 19 (and her lover was a poet...)

[kilted exile]

It is a while (8yrs or so) since I read frankenstein, however, the main things I got from it where:

1) The monster was a good,kind spirited creature who was destroyed by firstly his creator's desertion of him when he did not meet up to the doc's expectations, and subsequently by the treatment he recieved from a cruel world who could not see past his grusome exterior.

2) A warning against pomposity. When you attempt to achieve greatness above all else, you are destined to fail.

with regards to the mix-ups regarding frankenstein & his creation, I believe this was caused by Hollywood's (pathetic) early attempts to tell the story, e.g Igor running around shouting "It's alive master, Alive!" The latest adaptation (cant remember year) with De Niro playing the creature was IMHO a fairly good adaptation of the book.

[Koa]

I've never seen any frankenstein movie but I wish to see all I can find as soon as I can!

[simon]

I have just started reading Frankenstein for a class, it is alot different from the movies. In order to read it you have to disregard all previous knowledge about Frankenstein myth so you can really understand what Shelley was trying to convey. At least that's what I'm having to do, becuase I keep picturing the green guy from the Abbot and Costello movie.

[GapingStarling]

The Frankenstein movie mentioned above is called Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and was made in 1994, directed by Kenneth Branagh -- who also plays the doctor. It's one of the best I've seen, very dramatic without being cheap. I found this excerpt from a review of the film...

http://members.aon.at/frankenstein/f...mary%20shelley

Branagh's faithfulness to the literary original particularly shows in his presentation of the Monster. Like no film before, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein presents the Monster as the victim of its circumstances, as a pitiful creature, who is driven to evil by society and its maker. By casting Robert de Niro, an actor of average height, as the Monster and not making him an 8 foot tall giant, the Monster also physically appears more human. In addition, he is sophisticated and eloquent, "with the tone of a philosopher", as Branagh stated. "It should be clear that, for all the horror of his appearance, he is not in fact a monster, but a man." (Branagh 1994: 23) De Niro's Monster is allowed to show emotions when he weeps at his creator's death bed or after having been beaten by the family from the forest. In the beginning he is like a child, whom the audience sees growing up. He quickly learns the ways of man and in the end consequently announces, "I am done with man."

[crisaor]

Originally posted by GapingStarling
Branagh's faithfulness to the literary original particularly shows in his presentation of the Monster. Like no film before, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein presents the Monster as the victim of its circumstances, as a pitiful creature, who is driven to evil by society and its maker.

Yes, but he strides from the path of the book in his performance of Frankenstein. He makes him much more despisable than the book, where he still has some redeeming atributes. Take the transformatrion of his bride, for instance.

[GapingStarling]

More despisable? I'm not sure. Take the scene where they hang Justine, for instance. In the film, Frankenstein does not know the monster is still alive, or that it was he who killed the child. In the book he does, and does nothing to save Justine for fear of people discovering what he has created. I think Branagh did take pains to develop the character of Frankenstein, and to include more of a role for Elizabeth; this makes his portrayal of the doctor different from the novel, in some ways, but I'm not sure he is more despisable...

[crisaor]

Maybe 'despisable' is not the right word for it, but I do feel that Frankenstein is much more decent in the book than in the film. In the book he honestly cares about Elizabeth, and at some point he cares about his creation, about its welfare, they have a (very) short friendship (the monster states that he would return thricefold whatever is given to him, or something like that). Later on, he realizes than the creture's wishes may prove much more dangerously than he had anticipated, and then he spins off the conflict. In the movie, he cares nothing about her bride, only what he plans for them (she says this to him), or about what the monster may say or do (he ignores the warning about his wedding day, he doesn't in the book). When he chases the monster is not for preventing further damage (like I perceive in the book), but because of revenge, because he's lost everything.

Anyway, I liked very much both the book and the movie. The original story is great, and Branagh adds some interesting plot twists around it, along with an excellent set and cast.

[tommyb90]

[QUOTE=crisaor;18349]
Regarding the title, dr. Frankenstein would be the modern Prometheus because he "gave" lightning to humanity with his experiments. Lightning was a common element in literature in that times, apparently, specially in romanticism.
QUOTE]

personally i would have to say that the monster is similar to Prometheus, mostly because he realises what it is to be human, thus bestowing his understanding unto the reader. he is the one that is effectively stealing this knowledge on humanity from the gods and giving it to the people.