I saw this film yesterday and enjoyed it very much. If you see it, I think you'll know why I liked it so much. I'm not going to review it here, but suffice it to say that the film was actually original in its concept. For a comedy, that's high praise.
Mr. Bennett after millions of attempts to remember/figure out by log-in info for my blog I found it! The site surely has changed greatly. I was very happy i did get back in so expect a several blog posts over the weekend. I am very surprised you liked this film because after seeing commercials for it I wasn't very impressed. I do like Rickey Gervais though for his sitcom The Office. After seeing this I might actually watch this film now. I might be in NY this weekend which is joyous news.
ReplyDeleteThat's great! Finally, something original and not formulated for the majority. I shall add it to my "must see" list.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I am unable to add new posts so I am going to paste my post here for now! Comments welcome.
Director James Whale creates a helpless and misunderstood lonely monster in his version of Frankenstein in order to develop audience sympathy for the monster and to parallel to society’s similarity in segregating and dehumanizing the homosexual community.
Whale establishes a sense of helplessness in Frankenstein’s monster through scenes that demonstrate the monster’s mistreatment by the humans, powerlessness over his own life and fate, and lack of freedom. The monster’s lack of power over his own creation is portrayed in the scene when Fritz breaks the jar with the normal brain and steals the abnormal brain instead. As the doctor states, the abnormal brain was the brain of a criminal and would only lead to violence and death. Thus, before the monster is even conscious he is already programmed biologically to be vehement and aggressive. This foreshadows not only the monster’s short-lived brutal life, but also his extremely agonizing and treacherous death.
Whale also demonstrates his monster’s helplessness in the scene when the monster is contained in a dark cage-like dungeon against his own will and is forced to endure Fritz’s torment with the fire. The unfair treatment of the monster as a common lab specimen and experiment versus a living and breathing person causes the audience to feel sympathy towards the helpless human-made man. Even after he escapes his lockdown, he is cornered by the much physically smaller doctor and Henry Frankenstein and once again loses his newly gained freedom to a medical injection. It seems that the monster is a helpless victim of science and human brutality.
Whale creates this aspect of the monster’s character in order to parallel to the helpless nature of the homosexual community. In the scene when Fritz retrieves the abnormal brain instead of the normal brain, Whale demonstrates society’s opinion of the gay community. He attempts to portray and convince his viewers that similar to how the monster was genetically programmed to be violent, the homosexual sector of society was also biologically programmed to be interested in men versus women. He was not at fault for being incapable of feeling emotions towards women and for being attracted to men instead; it was simply a biological aspect of his being. Whale wanted the audience to feel sympathy for the helpless monster so that they could at one point in the future gain sympathy for the gay community.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to installing a helpless nature, Whale also creates a sense of misunderstanding in his monster. In the scene when the monster hangs Fritz, he is unaware of his own brutality and simply wants to be accepted. After Fritz tortures the monster with the threat of fire, a concept that the monster has not been properly introduced to since he has been kept in a dark dormitory, the monster rebels in self-defense and murders Fritz. When the doctor and Henry Frankenstein hear the monster’s screaming and realize of what has happened, their first and final instinct is to destroy the monster. They are not aware that the monster was shielding himself from pain and do not pause to consider his youth and ignorance as an excuse for his behavior. They are incapable of comprehending that the monster does not understand why he is locked up like an animal and that all he seeks is independence and freedom. Thus, the monster is misinterpreted and set up for a crime that he inadvertently committed.
In addition, the scene with the young village girl, Maria, and the flowers, Whale demonstrates an even more powerful view of the monster’s misunderstood character. The scene portrays a very scenic and peaceful communication between the monster and the little girl. For the first time in the movie, a human being does not prematurely stereotype the monster into a dangerous being. Maria offers to show him the delights of life and in her own way, demonstrates her willingness to build a friendship. The monster, who has been isolated from society by absolutely everyone else, was incapable of demonstrating his own eagerness to understand the world he was brought into until this scene. This portrayal of human qualities allows the audience to feel sympathy for this extremely isolated and misconstrued being.
Once again, Whale demonstrates the monster’s isolated and misunderstood qualities to parallel the homosexual community. The gay population has been and somewhat still is misunderstood by certain types of people who have very firm beliefs that being gay is unorthodox. What conservatives completely overlook, when they protest legal equality for the homosexual populace, is that everyone is human and deserves to be treated justly no matter who they fall in love with in their own private lives. And, furthermore, Whale wants to show that isolating the homosexual population from the heterosexual population is psychologically cruel and unjust. The director wanted to portray this discrimination to the public, but instead of openly creating a film that would do so he cleverly used his monster’s character as a double meaning.
Through various scenes from his 1931 version of Frankenstein, Whales develops audience sympathy for his monster. Not only does he create a misunderstood, isolated and helpless monster, but he also establishes a symbol of the struggle for equality, acceptance and understanding of the gay community.
PS: Mr. Bennett, I didn't mean to invade your post, but I thought you would find this post interesting. =)
ReplyDeleteYou can invade my space anytime, Julia.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in your post, but I'm confused about two things. First, are you referring to the original Frankenstein film from the 30's or to a remake? I think it's the former.
Your contention that the film is a metaphorical representation of society's attitudes toward homosexuality is, indeed, interesting. However, in order to understand the connection you might want to cite specific elements of the film that refer to homosexuality in some way. I have never heard this analysis before. IF it is original to you, more glory to you. But you have yet to prove your thesis. Indeed, you have yet to put forth a single shred of evidence to support it. Show me the proof!
Well, I am referring to the 1931 version directed by James Whale. I cited examples/scenes from the film that arose audience sympathy for the monster and connected that to the director's personal life (he was an open homosexual- and I also used the knowledge I gathered from the movie "Gods and Monsters") and his own fight against society's cruel inability to accept different types of people. But in the actual film, there was never a reference to the gay population.
ReplyDeleteMy thesis was: Director James Whale creates a helpless and misunderstood lonely monster in his version of Frankenstein in order to develop audience sympathy for the monster and to parallel to society’s similarity in segregating and dehumanizing the homosexual community.
Throughout my post, I applied scenes from the movie to prove that the monster was helpless, lonely, and misunderstood by society. Then I connected each scene and demonstration of isolation from society to the homosexual community and their similar feelings of helplessness, loneliness, and misunderstanding by the conservatives of society. He wanted his viewers to see that they were being hypocritical if they felt sympathetic to the monster, a complete outsider physically and mentally, and yet were treating the gay population exactly like the towns people treated the monster in the movie.
Is there a certain point you want to argue? Or did you mean generally speaking?
Very interesting and insight post Julia! And I will be interested in seeing that film, along with the Invention of Lying which I was also not impressed with but may have been overlooking something. Great to see a few people back on the blog!
ReplyDeleteThis is actually fertile ground for basic argument concerning the scope and boundaries of literary (and film) criticism. The question is this: Can one cite elements of the artist's personal life in order to support conclusions about a work that would not be evident from the work alone? I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but it is early and I haven't had my first Scotch yet.
ReplyDeleteMy answer to this is no. The work of art must stand alone, not tied to the artist. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the artist is no more an "expert" on what his art means than an intelligent viewer/reader. In class we would discuss some aspect of a film/book, and someone would ask if the author/director intended for some metaphor to be present. The concensus among most students is that were the author to be telephoned, he could give us a definitive answer as the symbolic meaning of the work. I would argue that the artist does not possess any authority to tell us what his work does or does not mean. If I see a connection of some kind in his work, and can defend it with evidence from the text, then my analysis is valid, even if the artist himself rushes in to declare me an idiot.
Similarly, I would argue that Frankenstein's monster can only be seen as a metaphor for society's view of homosexuality provided there is evidence within the film that such a connection exists. To merely state that the director was gay and wanted to portray this etc. is insufficient.
To go further, should the dirctor himself state that this was his intention, I would merely say that this was an interesting footnote to the work, but had very little significance in a larger sense, UNLESS the connection can be made within the work itself.
Now, where's that key to the liquor cabinet?
Oh, and allow me to thank you, Julia for providing me with an opportunity to discuss matters of this kind, namely something intellectual. In my new job, not only is intellectual discussion of any kind not required, it is positively prohibited. Should I make even the most elementary historical reference, everyone shouts me down, and God forbid I should pose some philosophical question. My interlocutor gazes at me with a look of utter stupefaction, and the subject is changed back to a. DoE/UFT minutiae, b. Food, c. The Yankees.
ReplyDeleteTo say I miss you guys would be an understatement worthy of the snootiest British butler who ever decanted a bottle of Claret.
Well, thank you, I truly see what you mean by the incoherence in connecting a director's personal life to his work. I think I used the movie "Gods and Monsters," which was about James Whale and his personal life, to connect to his work of Frankenstein. Have you ever seen the film? I believe if you didn't, once you do you will be able to see where I gathered the courage to connect the monster to the homosexual community. I think it will make more sense, but that's just an opinion. If you ever have time, it was a good film and won a lot of awards a few decades back (not that awards hail the best works, but nonetheless).
ReplyDeleteAnd in regard to your final comment, I miss this type of intellectually stimulated conversation as well. My literature and film class cannot compare to your film class or Dr. Aronson's literature class, thus I'm disappointed. Not that the class is not interesting, it just does not live up to the high level of expertise as Tech teachers have demonstrated.
Truthfully, most of my classes are all about discussing life and what it means, etc, yet all say the same thing and nothing simultaneously. Well, I guess that's a skill in itself.
Have you been back at Tech? I'm sure the second you walk in, there will be a mob of students wanting to talk to you about anything and everything. Teachers included.
Anything by Ricky Gervais is bound to be mediocre at least. I will take your advice and check this flick out. I take it also that you are enjoying your job according to your other posts. Are you going to watch Where the Wild Things are?
ReplyDeleteJulia and Mr. Bennett, I apologize for being a little late by this why quite an intellectual discussion you two had going and let me say I was more than impressed. Julia, you were really going at it against Mr. Bennett and had very strong points to make. I also have not touched a class that had the capacity of our film class (I won't touch my AP Lit class with Murphy which was more like kindergarten) but my writing seminar tries to come close.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that a mob of students (and former students) would greet you happily if you were ever found. It is too bad that you don't get stimulated too much at your new job.
However, I did go back to visit Tech last week and I refused to even walk by 313 once I heard a different voice emitting from it that the voice of Mr. Bennett. It was a sad thought as I realized that you really weren't there.
I'll try to make a post on what it was like to be back at Tech and I hope that your new job will become more fitting to your academic persona.