In Mary Shelly’s classic, Frankenstein, a man named Victor Frankenstein indulges in his passion for chemistry. Through his endless studies, Frankenstein finds it possible to bring life to that which is lifeless through science. Frankenstein’s discovery leads him to bring to life a creation known only as Frankenstein’s monster, who Frankenstein quickly abandons after he comes to life out of fear and disgust for the abomination he has created.
The monster, new to the world and confused with no guidance, wonders aimlessly. His rage towards his creator taken out through murder of those close to Frankenstein. The monster tortures Frankenstein with threats, as Frankenstein tortures the monster with neglect. Both lives fall apart through their thirst for revenge toward the other, ultimately ending in the demise of Frankenstein and his creation.
The classic, Frankenstein, inspired the production of a film based on the horror novel in 1931. However, upon viewing the film, the novel Frankenstein and the 1931 film version Frankenstein seem loosely connected. While key characters, such as the monster, Elizabeth, Victor, and Henry are present in this film, there are also a distinct number of characters cut from this version. Furthermore, the roles of Henry Clerval, Victor’s childhood friend in the novel, and Victor Frankenstein and reversed. The film also neglects a heavy amount of content regarding the monster, changes the plot and motivations, and even how characters are portrayed to us are drastically altered.
Referring to the novel, Victor Frankenstein is an intelligent, passionate man. As a child, he develops an interest in alchemy later branching to chemistry. Frankenstein works hard on his endeavor to create life, but realizes the horrible mistake he has made upon his creation’s awakening. Victor regrets creating the monster, thus abandoning his work.
The monster is lost in this new world. Just as a child learns of the world, the monster soon learns the cruelty of mankind toward an unfamiliar, hideous creature such as himself. He quickly becomes literate through watching the teaching of others from afar, exemplifying an intelligence of epic proportions along with becoming quite elegant in speech. The monster learns of friendship and his own exile from society. Exile causes feelings of loneliness in the monster, and hatred for the man who had brought him into such an unforgiving world.
Now, when looking at the 1931 film based on the novel, Victor is now Henry Frankenstein. Henry has lost his marbles and honestly may have not had any to begin with. He, just as Victor in the novel, wishes to create life, but his actions seem less “passionate” and more “deranged” and possibly “obsessive”. In contrast, when the monster first comes to life, Henry still proud, locks the monster away, showing no signs of regret or want to return to normal society. Henry, while not treating the monster well himself, is quite protective of his creation up until he is forced to abandon the monster due to illness.
The monster, having been locked away by Henry for some time, shows no intelligence at all. Upon his escape, the monster wanders and imitates, like when he threw the little girl into the lake hoping to create a “boat” as the flowers thrown in did, but he never learns speech or reading or common sense. He accidentally murdered the little girl, through no need for vengeance, but a lack of understanding that the little girl would not float like the flowers and probably couldn’t swim.
The film monster obviously differs a from its novel inspiration drastically. In the film, the monster was not an emotional, vengeful sociopath who had been turned away from society, but a gentle misunderstood fool who was punished for his incompetence. In regards to Frankenstein, Henry’s character would not have left the monster, did not regret bringing the monster to life, and craved no vengeance toward the monster. Henry Frankenstein, the loon that he was, stood by his monster, while Victor Frankenstein denied its very existence.
I can’t say the film exactly “lost” anything from the novel. As a matter of fact, having read the novel and watched the film, I would say that this film wasn’t meant to relate to the novel at all sans the creation of life by a man named Frankenstein. It also didn’t “gain” anything either in my opinion. As to gain, it would have to be a good movie and possibly relate to and exceed the content of the novel.
Relating to the novel, I did not enjoy this film. Not relating to the novel, I still did not enjoy this film. It has no substance to it. The characters had no substance to them, they had no back stories. They were just goofy people in a sort-of-civilized/sort-of-humorous setting with torches. So maybe, this film lost the substance to its characters and plot that made it such a fascinating novel when converted into somewhat of a comedy rather than staying true to its original content.
