The Actions by Frankenstein In the Modern Field of Literature and the Film Industry - Essay Example

The Role of the Reader in a Film: Frankenstein Introduction In the modern field of literature and the film industry, films speak to the eyes. This is despite the fact that they started communicating to the audience in words more than half a century ago. However, what the movies say to the ears cannot match and rarely overpowers the influence they have on the eyes. Nonetheless, it does not mean that the movie is a visual-only medium because it includes all that entails the theatre. Compassionate voices hold that comedy remains unwelcome in this framework bearing in mind the tone of the film. However, part of the problem in the film appears a direct inheritance form the original novel where Shelly never considered the scientific reality of the actions by Frankenstein. Shelly does not take the liability of describing the experiments and the practical elements of reasoning. She takes onto theoretical aspects as opposed to the realistic components that would actually serve the purpose better. It is possible that even Branagh could not provide a remedy to the inherent problem although he does not offer any effort to rectify the situation. The following discourse is a reader’s perspective on the book as well as the film adaptation. Analysis In the narration by Shelley, the reader is progressively taken through the creation of a monster. However, the story does not revolve around the monster only. In fact, the novel is a classical rendition of what humans seeks. The monster is just a climax to the narration that the reader is subjected to. The reader perceives the narration, a science fiction, as a classical approach to the decisive issues affecting humanity. This is even evident in the film rendition of the same. The monster, for instance, is part of the conflict that is espoused throughout the story. Scary notes that, “most of the films that combine both visual and verbal communication started in nineteen twenty-seven after the introduction of the talkie crackle with dialogue necessary on stage during performance” (1). The author, living in those times, had to have a literary rendition of what was going on. This is seen from the sentiments of Shelley. In fact, she notes that, “None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science” (47). This is a reference to the fictional science that the work is about. This gives the reader the perception that Shelley only tries to espouses what might have been a norm or most relevant at the time of writing the novel. The reader of Shelley’s narration is taken to through the creation of Frankenstein. Despite this being fictional, the way in which the writer discourses the narration builds some tension. In fact, when the conflict in the narration starts, the reader’s imaginative thought processes are provoked. Despite the book lacking in depth in terms of relevance to reality, the interest it draws from the reader is incomparable to many other works of creativity. This is reminiscent even in the film adaptation. In fact, Esrock stated, “The film does not provide the viewer with adequate reflective or quiet moment courtesy of the work of Patrick Doyle who applies bombastic scores” (183). The score are essential only in boosting the presence of melodramatic constituents. Likewise, the reader is exposed to a near similar experience. Shelley exposes the reader to the monstrous nature of the creation in the book. The reader is exposed to what human desires can lead to. As nature dictates, humans are creations with insatiable desires. This might have led to the experiment through which the monster comes into existence. In a clever way, what Shelley intends is to offer a pedagogical reprimand to man’s quests which in most cases lead to vanity. She notable writes, “God in pity made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours” (154). This is a description of the creature. It turned out to be what the experiment was not meant for. Therefore, the perception of the reader is that Shelley is trying to caution man against seeking his own desires. This rendition makes the story captivating as it provokes the mind of the anticipated audience. Shelley adds her own twists to narration as much as she gets a lot of information from the original novel. This gives the reader a thrilling experience. Nestrick notes that in the nineteen ninety-four production by Kenneth Branagh, “…the monster tears the heart of Elizabeth through which the viewers comprehend the re-enactment of actions by many film-producers do the text by Mary Shelley” (295). In verbatim, the creature says, “You, my creator, would tear me to pieces, and triumph… why should I pity man more than he pities me?” (173). The perception of the reader is that the creation shows no mercy on humans. This gives the reading by Shelley a different attribute when compared to the other renditions of the book by other authors. In the current post-Feud generation, the decisive piece covers the details of what takes place in the families who consist of a large portion of the viewers. Revealed about the viewers are incest, family life, son-and-father relationships, as well as wife and husband connections within marriages. The audience listens to the loud voice of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein one of the factors being its elusive form. Therefore, the biggest role of the viewer in the film is listening. Apart from being the monster story, Kenneth Branagh the director of the film says that there no any other definition of it and its in the movie. For more than thirty years, viewers regard Frankenstein as the most popular movie that entails monsters. Boris Karloff typified the creature giving it outstretched arms with ever-present neck bolts, as well as a flat-topped head. Among others, the creature has met the Wolfman, Dracula, and Costello besides Abbott. For his audience, Kenneth Branagh takes path that travels less compared to what the readers get in the novel. However, it is the latest cinematic presentation of the Frankenstein movie. The director of the Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein chooses to analyze the movie as a tragedy of Greek parts following its background that has a lot of information from Shakespeare. Mulvey insinuates that, “most viewers hold that Branagh ought to comprehend the whole process of effectiveness a tragedy that should start boiling slowly as it develops its juice” (19). Analytically, the version by Kenneth Branagh moves away from the efficient way of creating a tragedy to the degree that he loses various subtitles in his production. In the end, the viewers get a piece that is occasionally disorganized and a rousing as much as it is entertaining. The most chaotic parts of the film appear at the point where the director edits the choppily parts in the first thirty minutes of presentation. Although it does not have the depth that most viewers expected, it remains undeniably entertaining. The film does not provide the viewer with adequate reflective or quiet moment courtesy of the work of Patrick Doyle who applies bombastic scores as in the novel the author says, “When falsehood can look so like the truth, who can assure themselves of certain happiness?” The score are essential only in boosting the presence of melodramatic components. According to Lady & Darabont, “analysing Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein by Kenneth Branagh from the viewer’s point of view, it is definite that the director strays from the original novel quite a number of times” (81). The most affected area is on plot points. However, it is significant to recognize that the two thematically appear in synch for instance, “I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel...” The producer puts in minimal effort to ensure that characters in the film share resemblance with those in the novel besides sharing same names such as Dr. Waldeman who also comes out as the mentor to Frankenstein. The last act also displays major altercations from the novel. Kenneth Branagh ought to know better than anyone else that presenting a film version of a novel requires retention of the content in addition to adding few other features that create humour and those that make the movie entertaining. The audience sees an outstanding visual appearance from the movie. Humans are sentimental creatures. Consequently, emotions play a significant in people’s daily lives. This is an attribute that the monster in Frankenstein exploits. In fact, Shelley notes, “If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear” (173.) This adds to the thematic concern of the author. This is the general view that the reader gets. There is a sentimental aspect that Shelley puts into the narration. This adds to the tone and even the mood in the story. This gives the reader a perspective on the narration. The fundamentals of the efficient visual influences depend on the special effects the set design in addition to efficiency of cinematography courtesy of the work of the hands of Roger Pratt. The use of bursts of the revulsion and achievement try to limit tension breaks of light-heartedness that the audience does not need anyway. Supportive voices hold that humour remains unwelcome in this context bearing in mind the tone of the film. Kaja notes, “The last act completely strays from the content in the novel, but it is the section that helps the viewer to clearly understand the strengths and weaknesses of the creature as well as Victor Frankenstein” (114). Nonetheless, the act contains nothing written by Mary Shelly. The role of the audience in this section is to question whether actually a man can abandon what he created because of its appearance. If the answer is positive, then it becomes difficult to attributes actions of such a person to anything or anybody. Is it the person who created the creature or the creature itself? Percy states that, “identifying John Cleese is significant because he is always excellent and straight” (483). However, Branagh does not give him adequate time to play his role. The author ought to create comic reliefs intentionally for the audience such as, “if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear!” However, the film has a few elements of comic scattered in the play and those that the viewer obviously sees as overacted. Important to highlight as the role of the viewer is to mention how relentless the screenplay to ensure it is not downbeat. The use of bursts of the horror and action try to limit tension breaks of light-heartedness that the audience does not need anyway. Supportive voices hold that humour remains unwelcome in this context bearing in mind the tone of the film. Metz says that, “…part of the problem in the film appears a direct inheritance form the original novel where Shelly never considered the scientific reality of the actions by Frankenstein” (116). Shelly does not take the responsibility of describing the experiments and the practical elements of reasoning. She takes onto philosophical aspects as opposed to the practical components that would actually serve the purpose better. It is possible that even Branagh could not provide a remedy to the inherent problem although he does not offer any effort to rectify the situation. He however, tries to provide pseudo-scientific evidence that explains ways through which the process of creating life can have a successful ending. The viewer needs to suspend disbelief at this moment in the film. The cast by Kenneth Branagh in Marry Shelly’s Frankenstein meets all the expectations of the viewers. On the contrary, Branagh provides the weakest link in the movie not necessarily delivers a bad performance but it remains below par anyway. Victor appears more than enough times making his presence monotonous. Some of the best moment offered in the film appears when the producer reverses some of the things in the novel to make the movie entertaining. The book strikes a delicate balance when compared to the film adaptation. According to Bazin,“The audience sees a striking visual look from the movie” (28). The fundamentals of the efficient visual influences depend on the special effects the set design in addition to efficiency of cinematography courtesy of the work of the hands of Roger Pratt. Mitchell reports that, “Branagh avoids straight horror and instead applies the gothic element that is also an essential in put in atmosphere of various scenes coming out in a careful manner (87). Conclusion Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein remains a wonder to behold considering the stretch it covers among them the Swiss Alps, the streets of Ingolstadt filled with plague, as well as the Arctic Ocean. To the reader, the narration takes one through an imaginative experience which is quite interesting. It is also easy to compare its features with those in the Dracula by Bram Stoker published in nineteen ninety-two. The easiest of the similarities is that they are both products of Ford Coppola an American Zoetrope company specialising in the production of films. In view of the film adaptation, the audience gets an entertaining science fiction. Bibliography Andre, Bazin, "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema", in What Is Cinema? Trans. Hugh Gray, 2 vols. (Berkeley, 1971), 1:28. Christian, Metz, Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, trans. Michael Taylor (New York, 1974), pp. 108-46. Elaine, Scarry, "On Vivacity: The Difference between Daydreaming and Imagining-Under-Authorial-Instruction," Representations, no. 52 (Fall 1995): 1. Ellen, Esrock, The Readers Eye: Visual Imaging as Reader Response (Baltimore, 1994), p. 183. Kaja, Silverman, The Subject of Semiotics (New York, 1983), pp. 201-5. Laura, Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Visual and Other Pleasures (Bloomington, Ind., 1989), p. 19. Percy, Shelley, "A Defence of Poetry, or Remarks Suggested by an Essay Entitled The Four Ages of Poetry" (1821), Shelleys Poetry and Prose, ed. Donald H. Reiman and Sharon B. Powers (New York, 1977), p. 483. Shelley, M., 2004. Frankenstein. New York: Enriched Classics. Steph, Lady & Frank Darabont, "The Screenplay," in Mary Shelleys "Frankenstein," p. 81. W. J. T. Mitchell, "Going Too Far with the Sister Arts," in Space, Time, Image, Sign: Essays on Literature and the Visual Arts, ed. James A. W. Heffernan (New York, 1987), p. 9. William, Nestrick, "Coming to Life: Frankenstein and the Nature of Film Narrative," in The Endurance of "Frankenstein": Essays on Mary Shelleys Novel, ed. George Levine and U. C. Knoepflmacher (Berkeley, 1979), pp. 294-95. Read More