Frankenstein - Comparing the Movie and the Novel

1471 Words6 Pages
Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, versus Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by Tom Wolfsehr Kenneth Branagh's film, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, includes a number of elements of the novel important to the many readers who regret that the arctic pursuit and setting in which Frankenstein tells his story and the Creature's ability to speak are absent in previous cinematic treatments. Many of the changes Branagh made preserve and even enhance the story, as is the case with his having Victor restore life to the murdered Elizabeth. However, while Branagh deserves credit for having brought to the screen a motion picture that is in some ways far more faithful to the original work, his film so distorts other elements of the novel that Mary Shelley's name does not belong in the title.This criticism is prompted by the unintended disservice the title does to Shelley's purpose in writing the novel, to her family, and to the reading world. As stated in the preface, an important purpose of Shelley's Frankenstein is the "exercise of any untried resources of mind". The dedication of the novel to her father, William Godwin, suggests the kind of exercise she designed. Godwin observed that, all too often, vital questions are not asked, with the result that opportunities to produce better results are ignored. In order to demonstrate the great value of her father's insight, Shelley left the story unfinished. Discrepancies, unexplained changes, gaps, and curious inclusions are parts of the machinery Shelley provided that allow the reader to discover some truth in the way Godwin said truth eventually appears with "double lustre" in the sequel. It is this machinery that Branagh discarded. Frankenstein is a novel designed to generate a sequel. Walton's narrative ends with a moment
Open Document