Frankenstein's Adaptation Anomaly: The 1931 Film vs. The Original 1818 Novel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- Chances are Frankenstein needs little introduction. It’s without a doubt one of the most iconic movies ever made, and it’s so pervasive in pop culture, I’m sure you already have a mental picture of Frankenstein in your mind.
But the story of Frankenstein goes beyond green monsters and mad scientists. Mary Shelley’s original story is this romantic, sci-fi, gothic horror piece of literature, and as awesome as that sounds on paper, it’s a story that’s largely forgotten by the general public. Sure, the original novel is very well regarded, but it’s also a novel that hasn’t gotten a “proper” adaptation. There’s been attempts, but in reality, the original Hollywood movie is just too famous.
Having said that, one medium isn’t better than the other. The original 1931 movie and 1818 novel are both classics in their own ways, and both of them show that Frankenstein as a story is simply so timeless, it can succeed no matter what form it comes in.
Music:
Welcome to VA-11-HA (VA-11-HA)
• Welcome to Valhalla (V...
Stranger, Fate Hollow/Ataraxia
• Fate/Hollow Ataraxia O...
Into the Doldrums, 13 Sentinels Aegis Rim
• 1-04 In the Doldrums -...
Arcueid’s Theme, Tsukihime: A Piece of Blue Grass Moon
• アルクェイドのテーマ(月光) - Arcue...
Imbalance Alice, ,Witch on the Holy Night
• Mahou Tsukai no Yoru C...
Consideration, Tsukihime: A Piece of Blue Grass Moon
• 考察 - Consideration - T...
Cool Morning, Danganronpa v3
• New Danganronpa V3 O.S...
Beautiful Lie, Danganronpa v3
• New Danganronpa V3 O.S...
Imbalance Blue, Witch on the Holy Night
• Mahou Tsukai no Yoru C...
Walk by Night Reprise, Tsukihime: A Piece of Blue Grass Moon
• 夜に歩く(リプライズ) - Walk at ...
A Place in the Sun, Tsukihime: A Piece of Blue Grass Moon
• Tsukihime Remake OST -...
Chapters
Intro 00:00
The 1931 Movie 02:47
The 1818 Novel 06:46
The Basic Differences 15:20
The Men 16:28
The Monsters 21:25
Outro 25:25
#Frankenstein #maryshelley - Розваги
I love the fact that the original story starts in a polar expedition. Back then those were the lasts places on earth yet to be explored, using the lastest on tech,It was the equivalent to astronauts and I love how much that fits on the science fiction theme of the time
Really interesting to see how the to me "classic" tale of frankenstein and his monster has so much differnces with the novel. I think the high intellegience of the monster would make it so much more terrifying in a movie adaptation compared to this slow and instinct driven creature most people think about. Thank you for the wonderful video and bringing this to my attention
I agree completely, the Creature being so intelligent was by far the most striking difference between the book and 1931 film. If (or rather, when) Frankenstein gets another film adaptation, I think it'll live and die by how they interpret the Creature. If executed properly, it'll make the film more scary, and also make the Creature an incredibly sympathetic character.
@@ViviVariety Hello, what is th ename of that comic bok adaptartion and who made it?
So the one comic adaptation was written by Junji Ito, and it's one of the visuals I featured throughout the video. Be warned that it also makes some changes, but remains very true to the spirit of the book.
However, many of the visuals I used were from the Bernie Wrightson illustrations of Frankenstein, and in that version, it's just the original text with a few illustrations.
And in addition there's also a manga version of Frankenstein available, but I haven't read it yet.
Such a good analysis of two different classics. Frankenstein and the Creature are a great example of disturbed family relations, you cannot convince me otherwise.
I agree completely, it's such a good example on the phrase "hurt people hurt people" and the cycle of violence.
I always viewed the story of Frankenstein as a tale of child abuse/neglect and an exploration of the cycle of violence.
This is one of my interpretations as well. It's very easy to draw parallels between Victor, an absentee/neglectful father, and the Creature, who isn't born good or bad, but is shaped by the world around them. There's a very good chance that had Victor simply been there for his creation, the entire story wouldn't have even happened.
My favorite adaptation of Frankenstein has got to be junji itos version. First because I can barely read so I like the pictures lol but also because he followed shelley's text faithfully except 1 detail that that in my opinion elevated the story, Victor Frankenstein succesfully makes his monster a bride but instead of the monsters getting along the bride is as if not more horrified by the monster than any human and attacks the monster with scissors forcing the monster to kill her. This small change was just 😙🤌 chefs kiss
You can tell Junji Ito had immense respect for the original text, and it goes without saying that his art plus the original story is just *chef's kiss*
It's cool how nuanced the characters are, despite how archetypal they typically are depicted.
THANK YOU for showing images from the Junji Ito Frankenstein. Might be my favorite Ito
It's so good, I'd recommend to just about everyone...horror fans, Junji Ito and Frankenstein fans, hell, even people looking to get into either.
@@ViviVariety it’s easily my favorite design of the monster
Honestly I would recommend watching the hallmark miniseries since it’s the most accurate adaptation of Frankenstein we’ve every had.
Seconded! It's a little annoying to track down, and it does have some budget issues and design choices I'm not crazy about (it's a made for TV series, what do you expect), but it's really good. Making it a miniseries gives the story enough time to explore the characters and themes in detail that the movies usually don't have the runtime for.
I actually wanted to use the Hallmark series as visual guide for the book explanation section, but I couldn't find a solid copy in time and had to improvise with the Junji Ito manga lol.
Bride of Frankenstein is such a great sequel, I like how the creature spared Victor Frankenstein and chose death “We belong dead” with tears streaming down his face as he destroyed the lab. Knowing the creature would never know peace, love, acceptance or companionship. And when they made the bride, it showed how much worse their experiment was, they brought a woman back to life but with barely any human level function, even less than the creature when he was first brought to life. And by a doctor even more mad than victor himself.
The more I think about it, the more I think Bride could be one of the best sequels of all time. It's just that good, like I loved how much more thoughtful and emotional it was compared to the first one. I kinda wish I talked about it more too because it's easily one of the best Frankenstein movies period. SUCH a good film...
I’ve never fully understood the books subtitle of “the modern day Prometheus”. Yes Frankenstein discovers the secret to create life, but in the book he leaves out the details about how he did it so no one else tries. Whereas if it was really a Prometheus story he would have spilled the beans on how to do it
The interpretation I've always thought of was that Frankenstein, like Prometheus, discovers the "spark of life", and how that discovery leads to the next stage of "humanity", which is the Creation.
There's also the fact that by giving humanity fire, Prometheus "frees" us from the hierarchy of the gods, and Frankenstein accomplished something similar by doing something only a god can do. The novel has a lot of religious undertones throughout, and because Victor accomplished something so close to a divine action, he's in a way liberated humanity from the shackles of the Christian God. Similar to how humanity did the same in Greek myth.
I think it also depends on how you perceive Prometheus and his gift of fire as well, because while many see it as a good thing, I've definitely seen a few interpretations that view it as a negative. By giving us fire, Prometheus gave us the capacity to grow and destroy, so I can see the parallel of how one action spirals out control much like in Frankenstein.
Anyways I hope that made sense, basically there's a lot to take away from Frankenstein lol.
I always got ticked off at how pop-culture made the monster incommunicado, just grunting and groaning or speaking in simple sentences, instead of showing him as eloquent like he was in the book.
And I wish there was more emphasis put on his weird biology.
Like- being made of different parts of people- would that have made him stronger? Would parts of him have succumbed to rot? Maybe he could re-sew his parts back on if they fell off, heheh.
I also once read a comic- Monster and Madman- which inferred that each part of the monster caused him to possess different, fragmented memories from different dead people...
I truly pity the monster. Made of the dead, shunned by his maker, not finding a place in the world to belong. Victor is the monster.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure why they made the Creature the way they did. It changes too much with the original book, and what's weirder is it feels like they knew that because the sequel tries to backpedal and make the Creature more like the novel version. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
You also bring a really good point about the Creature's biology, and I wonder if that could be interesting to explore. Like, how long can the Creature live? It's supposed to be the next level of humanity, but does it's biology mean that it has a shorter life span? Can it even be killed? Etc. Kind of a cool thought experiment that a writer could definitely explore later.
This was a fantastic breakdown of the differences between the movie and the book. I rarely see discussion around Frankenstein that involves both, instead resolving to only speak about one over the other. I do, however, believe there is a book that has had an even worse time being faithfully adapted and acknowledged for the beautiful and tragic tale that it is. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde. Maybe in the future, you might give that one a look too. X3
Thanks, I appreciate that! Oh and don't even get me started on Jekyll and Hyde, like for example, when I was scripting out the Fire Emblem Engage video, I was SUPER close to diving into a whole Strange Case tangent because for some damn reason, Fire Emblem loves to have split personalities as a source of conflict and it's always written terribly. I ultimately cut it out because it was too harsh a pivot, but it might come back with the right project in mind.
I definitely see a future project on the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as well, I feel like it's a really interesting case in how it's so well known, but the original story is written as a way to keep the twist hidden until the very end. And I think it's a great example of how multiple personalities can be used to illustrate certain themes and ideas, and how the novel itself is a fascinating insight into the time it was written. I won't make an future promises, but trust me, this book is definitely living rent free in the back of my mind lol
I'm just going to say it, penny dreadful did something different and beautiful with Frankenstein, it turned the characters more 3 dimensional, compared to earlier straight forward adaptations, it feels like every time you see the characters on screen whether it's the creature or victor, you are transported into that time with them, and made to feel the same way they feel. I haven't seen many movies or shows that have done that; And that's probably why I love penny dreadful.
Mate I have my gripes with Penny Dreadful (sucks that it ended so abruptly...),but the Creature and Victor was NOT one of them. Besides Eva Green's character, the Frankenstein storyline was one of the best parts of the show, and it's easily the best interpretation of the Frankenstein story so far.
Used this to get a good understanding of frankenstein for my exams, i really thought this video would have atleast 100k views i was shoked after seing it, you have really good video kvality and delevery keep it up
I have a lot of faith that Guillermo del Toro can do Frankenstein justice
Great video
honestly william had it coming with the whole "my father will hear about this" attitude
"Fuck them kids"
-The Creature, probably
Great video, good production quality, good topic. I like videos about adaptations, and what makes a good adaptation. Not being 100% faithful to the source material is not always a bad sign, keeping the spirit of the source material is. And I never thought Edmond Dantès had similarities with Viktor Frankestein to be honest.
I still don't know if the creator is more inclined towards movies or videogames. I think it's cinema, but videogames seems to attract more attention. Either way, good luck, always glad to find good channels (yeah, I also came for the Dark Souls video). These videos are streets ahead.
Thanks for the compliments! I try to keep a decent balance between topics, and you're right in that the game focused ones seem to hit the algorithm more. Still, I like talking about movies and TV in addition to games, so while there may be ebbs and flows, videos like this aren't going anywhere :)
Bride of Frankenstein gets closer to the novel, and I feel like it should be in more discussions when talking about how the Creature is portrayed in comparison to the novel. He’s not as intelligent as the novel, but you can tell he’s trying to get there until things go bad
I had a very rough draft talking about Bride specifically, but I also didn't wanna get too distracted. I'd definitely have included Penny Dreadful in the conversation as well, both Bride and Penny Dreadful are phenomenal interpretations of the Creature.
Bride is also a film I come back to every now and then, I honestly can't recommend it enough to most people. It's SO good.
@@ViviVariety I like watching both the first and Bride back to back. It’s probably my favorite horror movie sequel. Which isn’t saying much, the competition is maybe Scream 2 and Aliens. But I’m still glad we have a few good ones.
27:00 Looks at Guillmero Del Toro and his Frankenstein Room in his funky house
I'm really excited for Del Toro's take! And there's a recent Frankenstein inspired film called Poor Things that seems really interesting...
Besides Hallmark, 1977's The Terror of Frankenstein (Per Oscarsson as the monster) is also quite close to the book.
That's pretty cool, how is it? Maybe I'll check it out sometime.
@@ViviVariety One of my favorite adaptations of Frankenstein.
Frankenstein just wanna friend. He lost everything, even his tormenter, poor thing, just needed a friend
I definitely agree up to a point, like in every version, it's not like the Creature starts out as a monster. If more people treated it like the blind man in the cabin, the entire story would've been very different.
@@ViviVariety yeah, it really went downhill when Victor didnt make the companion or when he killed william
Great video! This and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is what got me into reading and made me a fan of Gothic science fiction
I love both novels, and they're definitely some of the first books to make me think "wow, old books are kinda goated".
I also really liked the Portrait of Dorian Gray, but that one is a bit more of an acquired taste I think.
Took me a while to get into it. Very different type of horror from these imo. Still great though
Interestingly enough Mary Shelly’s story had attempted adaptations of it on stage long before the 1931 film, the first was an 1823 play at the Lyceum Theatre called ‘Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein’ with Thomas Potter Cooke a prominent actor noted for his athleticism and good looks portraying the Creature in a play that played fast and loose with the novel, Mary Shelly herself actually saw the play in 1823 and had noted that program of the play had a blank dash for it’s listing of the actor who played her creature (just as the 1931 Universal film would have no credit for Boris Karloff’s name at the time of it’s release,) Shelly noted in 1823…
“The play bill amused me extremely, for in the list of dramatis personae came - - - -
Mr T. Cooke: this nameless mode of naming the unnameable is rather good.”
Cooke supposedly mainly used colored garments and greasepaint in his makeup for the Creature as opposed to makeup and coloden and prosthetics created by Jack Pierce such as Karloff would use in the 1931 Frankenstein film.
Huh, that's really interesting! I feel like there's a really fascinating history with Frankenstein stage plays that could easily make up it's own discussion, especially since most of them are all really different.
there was also a silent film by Edison pictures. Although not much of that film survives.
So I recognize the 1994 Branagh film that you use during some of the book segments, but what's the other film you use? I don't recognize it.
The TV series Penny Dreadful. I had to get creative with the book section because my original plan was to use footage from the Hallmark Frankenstein miniseries, but I couldn't get ahold of a copy in time.
Yeah because everyone thinks the 1931 movie was the case especially that the hunchback assistant is not name Igor as everyone thinks like you know Blofeld from James Bond with the cat which wasn’t in the book and another with the Green goblin in the movies which I highly recommend you check out the Misconception of Norman Osborn.
I believe you know about John Carpenter’s the Thing was originally a book and the alien looks very different in book.
Yeah I think it's just a fact that the adaptations of a work will tend to override the original work, for better and worse. Hell, even as a kid I thought Spidey had organic web shooters when that definitely is NOT the case in the comics.
I don't think it's necessarily bad, but still, it always helps to look into the original story sometimes.
I've always felt sorry for the monsters... All of them!
It's really hard not to in almost every case. Like I know Victor and the creature eventually make mistakes, but there's a real possibility nothing would've happened if other people were just a little nicer and didn't immediately scream whenever they saw the creature.
@@ViviVariety True story, I think the one thing you can take away from the Frankenstein story is not if Dr. Frankenstein could create life, but should he create life.
Or in modern day terms, don't have a kid unless you're willing to put in the effort to raise them lol
@@ViviVarietyBravo, well said!
I liked this comparison. I've also read the book and noticed the differences. While I enjoyed the novel, I've never been in a rush to re-read it. However, there is a gothic classic I've read twice before and look forward to reading yet again: "The STRANGE CASE OF DR.JEKYLL AND MR.HYDE"! Why? It's shorter, a novella which is set up as a mystery that still entertains, even though we already know the answer! Give it a shot and if you like it, I hope you will make a similar comparison video.
I actually read "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" earlier this year and really liked it! I'm not sure if there's enough to do a comparison like Frankenstein, but it's interesting in it's, as you said, a story with a twist that 99% of people know about and is still compelling. And that in turn makes for an interesting topic of discussion, not to mention the allegorical aspects.
Funnily enough I was really REALLY close to talking about Jekyll and Hyde in a Fire Emblem video, but ultimately cut it because it bloated the script to an insane degree...but that also means it could work as another project in the future lol
I consider it unfair that you compared the 1818 Frankenstein novel only to the 1931 film. You should have mixed this with the events of the sequel "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), which is where rudimentary elements of the novel are adapted, such as the release of the monster of a woman who went down into the lake. To then be attacked by shotguns, the story of Frankenstein's monster with the blind hermit who resides in a lonely cabin and is the only one to receive and understand the monster beyond his outward appearance, which also stems from the novel, the monster's own efforts for Frankenstein to raise his bride And so on... I thought it was very unfair of you to juxtapose it only with the original film, which works better together. But other than that, Your video is really good!
Trust me, an early draft of the script included the Bride discussion. But I also realized that when it comes to Frankenstein adaptations, I had to limit it to the original film because otherwise, the rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper.
I love Bride, which is why I acknowledge it at the very end. But it'd be weird to bring up Bride, and neglect adaptations like the 1994 one, the Cumberbatch/Miller plays, the Hallmark film, Ex Machina, Poor Things...see what I mean lol.
Honestly if I feel like revisiting Frankenstein, an entire video about Frankenstein adaptations would be really fun. That I feel would be the best way to do a film like Bride justice!
Yes, a video of you discussing all the Frankenstein films would be intriguing, especially since I plan to watch all the remaining Frankenstein films. I have witnessed Frankenstein's initial journey from 1931 to 1948, but I have yet to discover a website, video, or blog that covers every Frankenstein film released thus far. And as we are seeing progress with Del Toro's adaptation with Andrew Garfield playing the role of Doctor Victor Frankenstein, which will be released next year, this would be a good trigger for a retrospective video of all the feature films. It would be ideal. Also in relation to the bride, there is the issue that it is there that we first see the monster speak and express his emotions and the way he sees the world and himself, making him more three-dimensional and complex. Because he created a more childish personality, which is also something interesting to highlight in terms of differences with Shelley's novel, since the monster in a few days already develops intellectually into something more “Shakespearean”, so to speak. But anyway, I'll be waiting for your video.
@@ViviVarietyOh, in addition to these Universal films that are divided into the 30s and 40s, I also saw the Japanese version from the 1966 Toho studio, "Frankenstein vs Baragon", which is one of my favorite films about the character.
I think the reason people don't do a full retrospective is because there's just so much. I think Dracula is probably the most famous classic monster, but Frankenstein’s Creation is probably number 2 and there's almost a century's worth of material, all of which is very different.
Of course I can't promise anything, but doing a full retrospective is something I'd consider, emphasis on consider. In the interest of transparency, next year I'm likely going to cover Dracula so a potential Frankenstein retrospective wouldn't be for a very long time.
Still, it sounds fun, and there's a lot of films I'd love to talk about. For example, "The Spirit of the Beehive", the Hallmark Frankenstein limited series, even the 1994 version...the list goes on. There's just too much Frankenstein to go around lol.
If you want a movie based on the novel plotline the 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein film starring Robert De Niro as the monster was about as close to the book as we probably ever going to get.
I honestly wasn't a fan of that version, but I did really like the Hallmark limited series. There's also a chance that the upcoming Del Toro version will be closer to the book.
Have you seen the 1994 adaptation with robert deniro as the monster?
I have, but I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. I like how faithful it is (mostly) but there's a lot I personally didn't like about it.
I think the changes made to the plotline for the classic Universal movie had to do with the public of the 1930s. The movie was almost not made because of the taboo nature of man playing God. Like after Henry Frankenstein says It's alive! He then says I know what it's like to be God. That was cut from future visions also the death of the kid wasn't shown but James Whale did film the entire scene it was still cut out by Universal studios feeling it was to harsh. The limitations of violence and religious themes in 1930s movies was because of Hollywood's strict rules back then
That's interesting, and it definitely makes a lot of sense. The public at the time likely wasn't ready for something like a straight up book adaptation, or the 1927 stage play the film was based on. Even the stage play had a lot of overt religious aspects, and a few plot points that the general public likely wasn't ready for at the time.
I think the biggest difference between Frankenstein the movie and the book is, the movie is recorded on celluloid; whereas, the book is printed on paper.
Was the bride of the monster a Universal thing and not from the book?
It's a bit of both, it's "original" like the 1931 film, but it also draws way more inspiration from the book. For example, there's a few scenes lifted straight from the novel, and the themes of Bride are more consistent with the original book as well.
Unless you're referring to actual bride of the monster, in which case, she is from the book. Thing is though, she's never brought to life, Victor makes her and then destroys her before he brings her to life, because he's afraid of what could happen if there's two creatures running around.
Is Frankenstein immortal like does the monster live forever and cannot be destroyed
Good question. It's implied the Creature can be killed, as the ending of the book has the the Creature vow to destroy itself. But as to whether or not the Creature can live indefinitely, I have no idea. Since the Creature is a bunch of reanimated body parts, you can assume it has a limited life span, but at the same time, the Creature is more or less a superior human; it's stronger and smarter than a normal human, so I wouldn't be surprised if it could live longer as well.
An excellent comparison. The original novel was a masterpiece, a reflection of its time; the themes of scientific progress and the fear of religion and its teachings; and perhaps the most depressing novel I have read. I used to do book discussions on this novel along with the original versions of Dracula and the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde around the time of Halloween each year.
Hallmark made an INCREDIBLE two part mini-series that was a VERY faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel.
The following are the links both of the episodes. They have my highest recommendation.
ua-cam.com/video/OaJftrcR8IM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ko8jBzUXsTE/v-deo.html
Thanks for posting the Hallmark version! Man, I wish I knew it was on UA-cam earlier. I actually wanted to use that version for the book discussion segments, but I couldn't find a copy in time. It's actually really, REALLY good, I'd absolutely recommend the Hallmark version to anyone whose interested in the story.
You are very welcome my friend! I think that it is criminal that this version is almost unknown. It is SO faithful to Mary Shelley's novel. @@ViviVariety
DeNiro is horribly miscast and the creature design is garbage.
Couldn't agree more. I really tried to enjoy that version, but there was just too much against it in my opinion.
The book is a mess. The character of Victor is a wealthy, self-absorbed bore and the monster is a chatterbox, delivering exposition a good writer would have let the reader glean through the character's circumstance. Instead of SHOWING what the monster went through... talk, talk, talk. Going to the North pole had nothing to do with the plot and was shoehorned in because polar expeditions were in the news at the time. The movie is much better.
This also happens with Stephen King, who is good at plot but writes EVERY boring thought of his characters, rending them without mystery and dragging his solid stories to a crawl. The Shining and The Dead Zone movies were better than the books.
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but you also have to consider just how books were written back in the 1800s. While some writers were more geared towards modern day showing over telling, it was definitely not the norm. Everyone from Jane Austen to Bram Stoker usually went towards telling over showing.
I also think Victor being self absorbed and the creature being very talkative strike me as intentional writing decisions. Victor very much IS a rich selfish brat, and the creature learning speech represents just how close to a human it actually is. To me, that's the biggest difference between the mediums: the book creature is, for all intents and purposes, a superior human being, whereas the movie version is closer to a child whose on the cusp of growth.
And I used to share a similar opinion about the artic expedition, but it actually does serve a purpose. Walton's expedition is direct parallel to Victor, and it ties back into the dangers of over ambition. Walton was on the verge of continuing the expedition, which would've killed himself and his crew. But unlike Victor, Walton realized how dangerous it would've been to continue, and he turns back. Walton is the opposite of Victor in that he learned from his mistake, whereas Victor never did.