Question:
How true to the vision of Mary Shelley do you feel Kenneth Branagh's movie is?
Answer:
Kenneth Branagh did take some obvious artistic liberties with the story, but in my opinion this did not alter the actual message Shelley gave in her book. For the most part, I think the only thing Branagh did was change Shelley's words into pictures and shorten, eliminate, or slightly alter scenes that would have made the movie too long. By having Waldman introduce Victor to the concept of creating a living being, Branagh got rid of the long drawn out explanation of how Victor got interested in the subject. Portraying Walton and Victor as having similar physical features he helps the audience come to the conclusion that they have similar personalities. Another small change worth mentioning is Frankenstein's creature is not showed slowly gaining the courage to speak with the elder cottager.
However, there were a couple of changes the did have a large effect on the story. For one, in Shelley's book Victor adamantly opposed the creation of a second creature. In Branagh's movie though, after the creature killed Elizabeth, Victor tried to bring her back the same way he brought the first creature to life. This change gives the impression of Victor being far more fanatical than in the book. Another large change was at the end, when Walton pleaded with the creature to come back from the frozen north with them. This overrides Shelly's theme that physical appearance can completely determine how society views you. By having Walton show some sort of sympathy with the creature, he's saying that society can and may eventually change how it decides an individual is regarded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I offer you the counterpoint in argument to your statement. It is a visual change-up from Shelley's own thoughts and feelings and more in keeping with a few different issues that were glossed over in the novel rather than expounded upon.
Very interesting. Being sure the reasoning of the movie being different is a mixture of views on how the story really interprets to the different types of people in our world. One person views the same movies you do but believes there is a different motive or message to the movie. Why did Shelly's book inspire this altered vision of the story?
I agree with you that Kenneth Branagh merely had to make a shorter version of the book, hence the shortening og the long drawn out expainations. I also noticed the big differences, especially where Walton pleads to the monster to return with them. It shows that the monster can be accepted by certain groups in society.
I agree with you. Although the movie lacks some of the things in the book, if they were included, the movie would be a lot longer. The things that they chose to leave out weren't so important that it altered the storyline too much. By leaving out some of the creature's scenes in the movie, it took away some of the compassion we were able to develope as readers.
I agree that there were several different parts of the movie that did not correspond withe book.
Post a Comment