(no subject)
I have come to own a lot of movies lately... Some I have gotten as presents, other I just bought on a whim. I now own Kinsey, A Clockwork Orange, The Graduate, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, and the special edition of Jaws. All enjoyable movies in their own rights. But the one I want to talk about here is Frankenstein.
This is one of those movies that I would like better if I had not read the book. My theory on the reason why a book can never be 100% successfully translated onto screen is this: books, having many more details and generally being more comples than movies, are open to more interpretation. Many people could read the same book, and all of them could answer differently to what they thought was the most important theme of the book. This is because everyone has different experiences to reflect on, and therefore will probably choose the parts of the book they can relate to best and find those to be the most important parts of the story.
But when it comes to making movies, in order to make one that has a strong message and plotline, only a few themes must be focus on in the film. It is likely that the screenwriter and/or director will choose what they related to best in the book and make that the central theme. And when viewing the movie, those who also related to that theme will be happy with the movie, whereas those that related to something completely different in the book will be unhappy with the movie and claim that it "missed the point".
This is the case with Frankenstein... You see, my favourite part of the book was Frankenstein's character. I loved how he managed to explain away all his fault with the creature he created. He acknowledges that he created it... and he acknowledges that the creature does a lot of damage to his world. HOWEVER, he mentally draws a line between these two facts. Most people would connect them and conclude that they are responsible for the damage the creature does, but not Frankenstein. Yes, he tries to stop the creature, but to him it is as if he is just a concerned citizen who happens to know the truth and is just doing the right thing. Basically, he is in major denial. But the way he justifies this to himself, that no one would believe him if he told them about the creature... he uses this to excuse himself from guilt at a woman being hanged for a murder the creature committed! And the thing is, when I read it, I completely saw his point of view, was convinced by his excuses, and did not consider his cowardice until my professor pointed it at. After that, I relished in searching for little details, phrases and excuses, that hinted at his denial. I was fascinated by it for two reasons: 1) Because at first his excuses had worked on me, and 2)Who hasn't explained away inaction to themselves? Who hasn't seen someone in need of help and rationalized the hell out of the situation until they could ignore it without guilt? And who hasn't caused some trouble, and made up excuse after excuse in their own mind til the trouble was no longer even related to them? It was such a human flaw and I was drawn to it.
And it was completely left out of the movie. Events were changed around so that Frankenstein didn't have time to act to stop the mayhem caused by his creature. It is portrayed that things just got out of control and happened too fast for him to do anything about it. It is as Frankenstein-in-book probably tried to convince himself that it was.
My second favourite part of the book was the references to Genesis and Paradise Lost, though once again it probably would've taken me longer to notice those if my professor did not point them out. But those references were largely left out of the movie too.
The thing is, I completely understand why they were left out; they were not the chosen themes. The basic points of the movie were about playing god, and whether the total is the sum of its parts (ie was the creature given his own soul/personality when he was created, or is he merely bits and pieces of the people he is made out of?). And this is why, when I initially watched it, I wondered why so much of my favourite parts were left out, and why stuff was added that, to me, seemed unnecessary. But upon closer inspection, all the cuts and additions worked to the advantage of the chose themes. Putting my experience with the book aside, it was a good movie with some interesting points to make.
That being said, the movie did have its flaws. It moved at such a break neck speed, there was no time to rest. This was its greatest weakness: there was no a moment of peace the whole movie, even before the creature was created. And just in general, I think there were things that could've been better if left the same as the book. I won't go into them all, cause I have written a freakin; lot already. Maybe later.
This is one of those movies that I would like better if I had not read the book. My theory on the reason why a book can never be 100% successfully translated onto screen is this: books, having many more details and generally being more comples than movies, are open to more interpretation. Many people could read the same book, and all of them could answer differently to what they thought was the most important theme of the book. This is because everyone has different experiences to reflect on, and therefore will probably choose the parts of the book they can relate to best and find those to be the most important parts of the story.
But when it comes to making movies, in order to make one that has a strong message and plotline, only a few themes must be focus on in the film. It is likely that the screenwriter and/or director will choose what they related to best in the book and make that the central theme. And when viewing the movie, those who also related to that theme will be happy with the movie, whereas those that related to something completely different in the book will be unhappy with the movie and claim that it "missed the point".
This is the case with Frankenstein... You see, my favourite part of the book was Frankenstein's character. I loved how he managed to explain away all his fault with the creature he created. He acknowledges that he created it... and he acknowledges that the creature does a lot of damage to his world. HOWEVER, he mentally draws a line between these two facts. Most people would connect them and conclude that they are responsible for the damage the creature does, but not Frankenstein. Yes, he tries to stop the creature, but to him it is as if he is just a concerned citizen who happens to know the truth and is just doing the right thing. Basically, he is in major denial. But the way he justifies this to himself, that no one would believe him if he told them about the creature... he uses this to excuse himself from guilt at a woman being hanged for a murder the creature committed! And the thing is, when I read it, I completely saw his point of view, was convinced by his excuses, and did not consider his cowardice until my professor pointed it at. After that, I relished in searching for little details, phrases and excuses, that hinted at his denial. I was fascinated by it for two reasons: 1) Because at first his excuses had worked on me, and 2)Who hasn't explained away inaction to themselves? Who hasn't seen someone in need of help and rationalized the hell out of the situation until they could ignore it without guilt? And who hasn't caused some trouble, and made up excuse after excuse in their own mind til the trouble was no longer even related to them? It was such a human flaw and I was drawn to it.
And it was completely left out of the movie. Events were changed around so that Frankenstein didn't have time to act to stop the mayhem caused by his creature. It is portrayed that things just got out of control and happened too fast for him to do anything about it. It is as Frankenstein-in-book probably tried to convince himself that it was.
My second favourite part of the book was the references to Genesis and Paradise Lost, though once again it probably would've taken me longer to notice those if my professor did not point them out. But those references were largely left out of the movie too.
The thing is, I completely understand why they were left out; they were not the chosen themes. The basic points of the movie were about playing god, and whether the total is the sum of its parts (ie was the creature given his own soul/personality when he was created, or is he merely bits and pieces of the people he is made out of?). And this is why, when I initially watched it, I wondered why so much of my favourite parts were left out, and why stuff was added that, to me, seemed unnecessary. But upon closer inspection, all the cuts and additions worked to the advantage of the chose themes. Putting my experience with the book aside, it was a good movie with some interesting points to make.
That being said, the movie did have its flaws. It moved at such a break neck speed, there was no time to rest. This was its greatest weakness: there was no a moment of peace the whole movie, even before the creature was created. And just in general, I think there were things that could've been better if left the same as the book. I won't go into them all, cause I have written a freakin; lot already. Maybe later.