Tag Archive: film


The Creature’s Relationship

Zakharieva in her essay mentions the female creature and the “decision” she has to make between Victor and the Creature. She states, “The bride is not a completely new being, she is a re-creation of the two women to whom Frankenstein is bound through his sense of guilt. The Female Creature is torn between her lover and his evil counterpart – the Monster” (Zakharieva). What is the significance of the bride’s indecision? What does her self destruction mean in terms of the battle between Victor and the Creature?

Advertisements

Frankenstein 1994

Let’s talk a bit more about the creation’s birth scene. Bouriana Zakharieva, in “Frankenstein of the Nineties: The Composite Body,” writes that in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), “[c]reator and creation embrace in an ambivalent scene of struggle and affection; their hug is an expression of a desire to separate from each other and at the same time to help each other stand erect” (422). The claim is that this moment symbolically represents “human evolution” (422) and their eventual “love-hate relationship” (423).

But for me, I think this was downright one of the most comedic scenes of the film. Victor fails at least six times to get his creation to stand in that slimy mess, and the camera makes no effort to disguise the pitifulness of it all. I didn’t see much animosity so much as a little creator so desperately wanting his creation to stand.

I have way too many questions, but oh well:

Why did Branagh introduce this “standing-up scene,” which Mary Shelley never put in her novel? Does its comedy (if you agree that it’s funny) serve some purpose? How does it, as Zakharieva claims, represent “human evolution”? Finally, why is it only after the creation’s actually chained up that Victor questions, “What have I done?”

Born That Way?

“Study Finds Genetic Link to Homosexuality.” “Born Gay?” “Abortion Hope After ‘Gay Gene’s findings.” “Do you have the Gay Gene?” These are just a handful of the multitude of headlines that graced newspapers and magazines in the 1990’s following the release of a number of scientific studies regarding the nature of male homosexuality. This debate is complex and multifaceted, as it takes place in a wide range of arenas, from newspaper stands to scientific laboratories, school hallways to movie theaters. Furthermore, these arenas constantly intertwine themselves, affecting one another in a variety of ways. In the last couple of decades, diversified studies have suggested a biological component to homosexuality. The media attacked these scientific breakthroughs, using their results to claim the existence of an actual “gay gene”. However, this so-called “gay gene” is yet to be found, and the cause of homosexuality is likely much more conglomerate than a single gene. Film in particular explores this concept, bringing up social and ethical issues in correspondence with the biological studies of male homosexuality. Oftentimes, scientists and media outlets over-simplify the debate surrounding the cause of homosexuality by presenting only one side as true, when in reality science has shown the cause of homosexuality to be much more complex.

To read more, click on the link below.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s9x2TkvqccGRMPtAIiHNadgmhokeeUd1ZcOw3ye-dk0/edit?usp=sharing

Frankenstein: The novel vs the Myth

Frankenstein is not only a novel but also a cultural phenomenon. Since elementary school, years before I would ever get my hands on Mary Shelley’s novel, I have seen kids dressed up as Frankenstein’s monster for halloween, scaring me since since my very first glimpse. The biggest shock to me that came from actually reading the novel came from the fact that Frankenstein the novel is written from a perspective of truth. While it is obviously fiction, it is still embedded in truth and the novel still offers explanations for the narrative that could in fact be true. Before reading the novel I always thought of the concept of Frankenstein as being completely fictional. While I do not believe in reincarnation, Shelley still offers a scientific explanation of the creation process, making the events seem all the more real. This stood out to me because as a film major whose favorite films are horror films, I am extremely interested in story lines like this one. I enjoy horror movies that, even if they didn’t happen, could have happened. To me this makes the film ten times scarier than it would be without the element of truth, making the film exponentially more successful.  I like it when the film maker at least gives an explanation as to why and how what is happening is happening. I think this is what Shelley does, regardless of the myth that says otherwise. images