The most important difference was that Henry and Victor were switched. Meaning Henry was married to Elizabeth and he created the monster. In this film Victor was not Elizabeth’s husband, however they did seem to have an affair, and he did not create the monster. Another difference between the two films was Henry has an assistant to help him create the horrific monster. The monster also looks more scary and original in this film (bolts in his neck) then in the other version of Frankenstein.
“Science has … bestowed upon (man) powers which may be called almost creative.” Humphrey Davy (1802). In light of this quotation explore the ways in which science is represented in Frankenstein, with wider reference to one other Gothic text. Mary Shelley’s 19th century Gothic novel highlights society’s view of new and dangerous scientific experiments within that era, articulating society’s view “that God created man, in his image he created them”, insinuating that in a religious era no man should interfere with the “principle of life.” However, this view on life was opposed by many scientific thinkers such as Galvani and Aldini who conducted experiments which tampered with this principle. Shelley herself was highly influenced by these scientists; as such stories were heard in the holiday home, on Lake Geneva, weeks before Frankenstein was written, such scientific thinkers also influenced Robert Louis Stevenson when writing The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as popular scientific journals were of great interest to writers within the 19th century. Both multiple narrative texts express the creative views of scientific figures within the 19th century, Shelley herself was highly influenced by such scientists, one in particular being a 1790s Italian physician named Luigi Galvani whom conducted electricity through a corpse enabling the corpses jaw to clench, thus resulting in the creation of Galvanism.
“Joe Gould’s Secret” is a nonfiction story written by Joseph Mitchell, and a movie based on this book is also called “Joe Gould’s Secret” directed by Stanley Tucci. In today’s times a lot of movies are based on a written literature. Many students watch the movie instead of reading the book maybe because it’s more enjoyable but for some they take it as an easy way out. It’s obvious that it’s easier to watch the movie then reading the book but the movie lacks the details that are present in the book. I think if a director of a movie is basing a movie on the book they should add a lot of the little details that lead up to the climax of the story that were present in the book.
The meat of the book is still found in the movie. The plot is a vampire romance and centers around the love story of the mortal Bella and immortal Edward. It takes place in rainy Forks, Washington. Despite both the book and movie of Twilight remained true to the basic ideas of the creator, Stephenie Meyer, the screenwriter still invented the other characters and inserted additional scenes which made the storylines sometimes become incoherent. Firstly, the actors that portray the main characters are far from what
Both these stories ideally fits the character of Victor, as he himself was under the impression of considering him as The Creator of a different species which would give him the credit for creating them. ‘…a new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me…’ (pg 52; Ch.4). We could compare both the characters of Victor and his abhorred monster under the themes of exploiting the deepest feelings of humanity. The novel revolves on a redemptive power of Love and Hate, and this interrelation is evidently explained throughout the interconnection between the structures formed together with the character of Victor Frankenstein verses his created Monster. They all are exposed in the novel by sharing the love of nature, thirst for knowledge, along with the desire of vengeance.
Because Nosferatu is so expansive, scholars typically focus on only one or two aspects of the film, thus neglecting to discuss how discreet elements of style and narrative might work holistically. For example, Tony Magistrale in his book Abject Terrors, adheres to the psychological methodology first posited by Siegfried Kracauer.2 Magistrale does not subscribe entirely to Kracauer’s position that the vampire portends the rise of the Nazi party, yet his own conclusion, that Nosferatu reflects post-war anxiety, is based more on the film’s narrative content than style. On the other side of the spectrum is Lotte Eisner’s The Haunted Screen, which touts Nosferatu as a formal masterpiece of Expressionist cinema, yet continually foregrounds Murnau’s naturalism and places it in direct contrast to the more obvious films of his contemporaries (i.e. Robert Weine’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1926)). While Eisner is correct to point out the opposition between naturalism and Expressionism, her analysis fails to explain the nuances of this dichotomy.
There are a multitude of differences between the novel and movie of Frankenstein that have distorted much of the original work of Mary Shelley. Many of the original intentions and details of the novel have been altered for the 1994 Kenneth Branaugh version of Frankenstein. Although these alterations are not as severe as the common changes of earlier Frankenstein films, they do restrict Mary Shelley's imaginative descriptions and deeper messages of her novel. Throughout the movie there are many changes in the plot and vision of main characters. First of all, the movie never portrays Caroline Beaufort as being the daughter of the unfortunate merchant, Beaufort.
When Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest was made into a movie, the important element that was kept by the director, Milos Forman, was the cruelty of the ward. However, Forman chose to present the element with different techniques than Kesey. Kesey presents the cruelty through the usage of Chief Bromden’s inner thoughts and flashbacks while Forman presents it primarily through facial expressions and dialogue. Although the techniques used by Forman to show the cruelty of the ward are different from those of Kesey, he showed the element effectively, enabling the viewer to fully understand the position the patients are in. From the novel, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the most important element that is kept by Forman is the cruelty of the ward.
The film makers that created the movie version of Frankenstein not only added scenes, but also extended some inventive scenes written by Mary Shelley. The film did not sabotage the entire plot of the actual book, but made the storyline more exciting and compelling for viewers. In the novel, Victor is a simply an ambitious Scientist. The purpose of creating the monster is only to gain respect and reputation as a creator. However, those scenes which were added or modified in the film not only helped building a new model of Victor Frankenstein, but also add meaning to Victor Frankenstein’s motivation of creating the monster.
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.