Frankenstein …. book or film?

[Zebra]

what have you seen or read

and did you like it?

 

[Votto]

 

[DGS49]

Mary Shelley was a mediocre writer who happened on an interesting "science fiction" idea that offered greater potential than she was able to bring to it in her novel. I would rate the Boris Karloff film as the best telling of the story, followed by Young Frankenstein, which was the most edifying.

 

[JGalt]

Neither. It's a story about how a man tried to play God, and the disastrous results.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

View attachment 891614

It's Franken-Steen....

 

[Zebra]

Mary Shelley was a mediocre writer who happened on an interesting "science fiction" idea that offered greater potential than she was able to bring to it in her novel. I would rate the Boris Karloff film as the best telling of the story, followed by Young Frankenstein, which was the most edifying.

in any case ….

book and film are very different

 

[Votto]

It's Franken-Steen....

Wrong again. The name is

How can one poster be wrong on virtually everythin?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Wrong again. The name is

View attachment 891621

How can one poster be wrong on virtually everythin?

Get me...the smart brain.


"Whose brain did I put in?"

 

[Zincwarrior]

View attachment 891614

Thats a remarkably awesome musical as well.

The novel is very different form the books, and deals more with Man's attempts to become God. Plus its quite old so the writing itself may be a little offputting.

 

[Votto]

Get me...the smart brain.


"Whose brain did I put in?"

 

[Zebra]

Thats a remarkably awesome musical as well.

The novel is very different form the books, and deals more with Man's attempts to become God. Plus its quite old so the writing itself may be a little offputting.

so it is …..

 

[rampart]

what have you seen or read

and did you like it?

the book is incredibly good.

we are speaking of the classic universal studios version starring boris karloff? one of the best.

in the sub genre of "mad scientist" i just prefer the warm comfort of bubbling glassware and giant sparks of tesla coil lightninjg to these modern "computer screen" dramas.

Neither. It's a story about how a man tried to play God, and the disastrous results.

a creation story with a tragic warning

 

[lg325]

The Book. I also like most of the films. But the book by Mary Shelly to me is a trip into mental illness. The monster was a creation only in Baron Frakenstein's mind if any killings did happen he did it himself. One of the reasons I say this is the Baron spotted him at a party with upscale well-dressed people and no one in the room spotted this guy with scars and a bolt sticking out of his neck. There are other reasons while reading the story that also drew me to that conclusion the Baron chased a hallucination only he could see.

 

[Zebra]

the book does not speak of a monster, but of a being

 

[jbrownson0831]

The Book. I also like most of the films. But the book by Mary Shelly to me is a trip into mental illness. The monster was a creation only in Baron Frakenstein's mind if any killings did happen he did it himself. One of the reasons I say this is the Baron spotted him at a party with upscale well-dressed people and no one in the room spotted this guy with scars and a bolt sticking out of his neck. There are other reasons while reading the story that also drew me to that conclusion the Baron chased a hallucination only he could see.

That interpretation might make a really good movie....but not if Dr. Frankenstein is a black woman....,

 

[Zebra]

Mary Shelley was a mediocre writer who happened on an interesting "science fiction" idea that offered greater potential than she was able to bring to it in her novel. I would rate the Boris Karloff film as the best telling of the story, followed by Young Frankenstein, which was the most edifying.

i would not call shelley mediocre

 

[Flopper]

the book is incredibly good.

we are speaking of the classic universal studios version starring boris karloff? one of the best.

in the sub genre of "mad scientist" i just prefer the warm comfort of bubbling glassware and giant sparks of tesla coil lightninjg to these modern "computer screen" dramas.

a creation story with a tragic warning

I met Boris Karloff when I was about 8 years old visiting my uncle who lived in LA. Karloff was only about 5 foot 10, rather thin and very soft spoken. It was hard to imagine him as Frankenstein. He certainly was no monster in his personal life. He was very well liked, always well dressed, and a ladies man. He was married 7 times.

Unlike other actors who played monsters, Karloff often had scenes where he showed kindness, and humanity in the monster and occasionally humor. In many of his monster movies he comes across more as the victim than the villain.

 

[rampart]

I met Boris Karloff when I was about 8 years old visiting my uncle who lived in LA. Karloff was only about 5 foot 10, rather thin and very soft spoken. It was hard to imagine him as Frankenstein. He certainly was no monster in his personal life. He was very well liked, always well dressed, and a ladies man. He was married 7 times.

Unlike other actors who played monsters, Karloff often had scenes where he showed kindness, and humanity in the monster and occasionally humor. In many of his monster movies he comes across more as the victim than the villain.

most of the universal "monsters," svengoolie ran "creature from the black lagoon" last week end, had a large dose of humanity . most would be content to be left alone .

if you do nuclear tests in the remote islands, do not be surprised if "godzilla" shows up in tokyo.

 

[Flopper]

most of the universal "monsters," svengoolie ran "creature from the black lagoon" last week end, had a large dose of humanity . most would be content to be left alone .

if you do nuclear tests in the remote islands, do not be surprised if "godzilla" shows up in tokyo.

That seems reasonable. However, before Frankenstein, movie monsters were almost universally villains. The 1931 version of Frankenstein certainly had an effected on other monster movies such as the 1933 King Kong. When Kong fell from the Empire State building, audiences were not cheering. Viewer described Kong as being captured, brutalizer and force to serve the interest of those who sought only to make money out his captivity and were responsible for his death.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Book. I also like most of the films. But the book by Mary Shelly to me is a trip into mental illness. The monster was a creation only in Baron Frakenstein's mind if any killings did happen he did it himself. One of the reasons I say this is the Baron spotted him at a party with upscale well-dressed people and no one in the room spotted this guy with scars and a bolt sticking out of his neck. There are other reasons while reading the story that also drew me to that conclusion the Baron chased a hallucination only he could see.

Yes!

I thought I was the only one who cought onto that. It indeed a novel of a man relating an extended delusion with hallucinations.

It was the movie, in which the monster was very real that throws modern audiences off.

I do have one twist at the end with which you may disagree.

As you know, the story is told by a ship's captain in a letter to a female, his wife or his sister, I can't recall. But the tale is told in Doctor Frankenstein's narration with the Captain's tale a wraparound.

My take is that the reader is supposed to understand, almost from the start, that the tale is of a mentally ill man's hallucinations, and murders while in the personality of his own creation. There are clues in almost every chapter that this is the case.

But at the end, Dr. Frankenstein dies, and then the ship's captain sees the monster, the only one besides Doctor F. who has seen him and lived to tell the tale. So it is supposed to be a surprise ending: Surprise! It was not a delusion, after all.

But, then again, maybe that is supposed to mean that the Captain has become caught up in Frankenstein's delusions.

I'm open to your ideas on that.