A good Frankenstein movie.

[Kibbin]

I agree that the whole lightning thing was an invention of the movies and in regards to the OP I wouldn't want to see a movie based on the original novel while it was and is groundbreaking I could never finish the novel as I couldnt stomach Victor and there seems a few things that annoyed me beside his suppoused genius intellect, my main being that Victor loves the inanimate beast but as soon as it wakes up it seems to have turned into some grotesque monster, then theres the fact that it breaks out and not only does he not do anythjng about that fact but he also doesn't see fit to do anything later on in the novel even when he is certain that it has started striking innocent people. It was around this time that I just gave up.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't think Victor's turnaround in regards to his feelings toward the creature are that far-fetched. Look at some of the more lifelike robots made in Japan. When they're still, they just look like a piece of artwork or sculpture. But once they start to move, you get into uncanny valley territory.

For someone living in the early 19th century it would be even more alarming.

[Kibbin]

I guess I'd never really thought of it like that. I'm still not a fan of the character but I may attempt another reading with that in mind.

[Christopher]

Kibbin wrote:

---

I agree that the whole lightning thing was an invention of the movies and in regards to the OP I wouldn't want to see a movie based on the original novel while it was and is groundbreaking I could never finish the novel as I couldnt stomach Victor and there seems a few things that annoyed me beside his suppoused genius intellect, my main being that Victor loves the inanimate beast but as soon as it wakes up it seems to have turned into some grotesque monster, then theres the fact that it breaks out and not only does he not do anythjng about that fact but he also doesn't see fit to do anything later on in the novel even when he is certain that it has started striking innocent people. It was around this time that I just gave up.

Oh, there's no question in my mind that Victor is the villain of the piece. The book is often interpreted as having the message "It's evil to play God," but I think its message is "It's evil to reject responsibility for our children." Victor creates an offspring who only wants to be loved and understood, but he rejects and despises his creation, along with everyone else, and the creature, growing up without love or guidance and met only with hatred and abuse, learns to respond in kind.

[Gep Malakai]

Christopher wrote:

---

It's improper to back-project modern concepts onto a discussion of works that predate the existence of those concepts. ...whereas there's virtually no discussion of science or technology in Shelley's novel, since after all the narrator considered the science of reanimation to be evil and thus deliberately avoided giving any specifics about his techniques.

I'm curious what you'd make of Larry Niven's claim in Playgrounds of the Mind that The Divine Comedy was the first hard science fiction novel.

[Kibbin]

Wow you've been made me feel a bit bad for writting the book off last time I read it. Perhaps I shall look past Victors whinning angst and try and see the story next time I pick the book up. Too many Hollywood movies seems to have ruined my ability to actually read a book that isn't as deep as kiddies paddling pool and little more than an excuse for explosions and tities.

BTW loved burried Age Christopher


Only joking, I did actually like it though

[Kegg]

The novel was the only Frankenstein I'm a fan of, though it's a trifle dry in places and nowhere near one of my favourite Gothic novels. The stuff with the monster is the strongest portion of the work, also.

It's just not as cinematic as some other works, though - Frankenstein is a very, very talky book, with a lot of internal monologues and a comparative lack of incident (while, say, The Italian and most Radcliffe novels would be jam-packed with intrigue and action).

Christopher wrote:

---

Besides, didn't Tim Burton already do his own version of a Frankenstein story, namely Edward Scissorhands?

Quite, but Burton's not above making the same film twice.

Anyway, Edward indicates he'd likely create a rather sympathetic and touching, tragic view of the Frankenstein monster, which I'd think would be fairly interesting to see. His acts of horror would likely become defanged or comical - even at full bloodletting tilt as in Sweeney Todd Burton is far too self-aware to ever really be creepy.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Guillermo del Toro has stated his intention to make one with Doug Jones as the creature. I don't know how faithful he plans for it to be, but I'll be first in line to see it.

[Kegg]

It's del Toro. With Doug Jones in a costume.

It's bound to be at worst watchable and at best... labyrinthine.

Did I make a terrible joke? Why yes, I did.

[Captain Pike]

I'll put in my vote for Young Frankenstein & Abbot & Costello meet Frankenstein..

But if you must have a serious one, any of the Peter Cushing versions are pretty good (for e.g Curse of Frankenstein).

The 74/75 miniseries The True Story gave me nightmares as a child (the electrocution of Polidori on the mast of the ship) but I think if I rewatched it with modern eyes it would likely bore the pants off me..

[Harvey]

Perhaps its blasphemy, but I thought the fairly recent Frankenstein miniseries that starred Alec Newman (as the good doctor), William Hurt, and Donald Sutherland (among others) was a pretty faithful adaptation of the original book, even retaining the framing sequence often abandoned by most film versions.

Doesn't make it as fun as Brooks' Young Frankenstein, though.

[Allyn Gibson]

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

---

Guillermo del Toro has stated his intention to make one with Doug Jones as the creature. I don't know how faithful he plans for it to be, but I'll be first in line to see it.

I completely forgot that was on del Toro's post-Hobbit slate. I think he's also got a Jekyll and Hyde movie on tap.

The man has something like five movies lined up. Which means that we'll never get Hellboy III. Or my dream del Toro project, a Lankhmar movie.

[stj]

The best faithful adaptation I know of is the 2004 Hallmark Channel Frankenstein, with Alec Newman as Victor, William Hurt, Donald Sutherland (as Walton, which shows how faithful the miniseries was,) and, I think, Julie Delpy as Justine (again, striking evidence of how faithful the book is.)

Not only is Victor the villain, Victor is the villain because he does to his creation what the Christian God did to his, abandoned him to loneliness and ignorance and misery. Victor's renunciation (to Walton) of the value of knowledge has to be read in that context. Also, since Victor is basically committing suicide is it wise to take the "There Are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know" message at face value? I don't think the 1931 Frankenstein got the point, much less communicated it, as entertaining a movie it is.

There is a movie, Prototype, by the great writing team of Levinson and Link. It is a modernization of some of the novel's themes, rewriting Victor as a roboticist (Christopher Plummer) and the creature as a robot (David Morse.) Being a modern work, naturally it openly references Frankenstein. The robot correctly notes the movies are not serious, while the novel is. Prototype, incidentally, ironically has the creature redeeming the creator.

PS Didn't see Harvey's post above till double checking the typos.

Also, I forgot to add that Burton started his film career by doing Frankenstein, so to speak. I think it is his very first film, a short called Frankenweenie. It is about a dog being brought to life. It is highly referential to the 1931 movie, with the Frankendog (yes, it's a dachshund) meeting a fiery end at at minature golf course's windmll.

[Harvey]

No worries, stj. I'm not that knowledgable on Frankenstein in either the film or original novel form, so you have much more insight than I do.

[Kegg]

stj wrote:

---

Also, I forgot to add that Burton started his film career by doing Frankenstein, so to speak. I think it is his very first film, a short called Frankenweenie. It is about a dog being brought to life. It is highly referential to the 1931 movie, with the Frankendog (yes, it's a dachshund) meeting a fiery end at at minature golf course's windmll.

Unsurprisingly, the film is thematically very similar to Edward Scissorhands. I did like that picture, actually, it's a quirky little romp.