Final Writing Project – Victor as a Bad Creator

Both Mary Shelley and Kenneth Branagh acknowledge Victor as a bad creator in their interpretations of Frankenstein. Branagh, however, dissimilarly to Shelley uses his visual medium in order to expand upon the opposing creator styles of God and Victor, throughout his version of the creation scene, in a way left unsaid by Shelley. He successfully accomplishes this by focusing on extending Shelley’s original ideas, as well as by using his medium to speed up and slow down his scenes, allowing his audience to give their full attention at his intended places. In contrast, with only the ability to invite readers in with words, Shelley excels at impacting her audience by drawing contrasting visual pictures of Prometheus and Victor in their roles as creators. Branagh lacks this strong comparison in his interpretation, thus he instills a sense of sympathy in his audience for the monster that was not created by Shelley.

In the Branagh version of the monster’s creation, Victor is not only seen as a bad creator, but his bad creator persona is intensified through the contrastingly unnatural images of the monster and Jesus Christ’s births. Both individuals were created devoid of natural human law; however God created Christ as a good creator in order to save human kind from its sin. In contrast, Victor Frankenstein created the monster to fulfill his own personal scientific goals. Branagh presents Victor and his monster covered in amniotic fluid as Victor attempts to show the monster how to stand. The sight is one which undoubtedly makes an audience cringe due to the stark contrast between Victor’s normal body and that of the monster’s naked clumsy one. The camera shows the two bodies side-by-side in an awkward, slow, and unnatural way. This is an intentional transition, further emphasized by the dramatic change in the pace of the scene, which just moments before was loud, fast, and filled with music.  In addition, the elimination of a female figure in the birthing scene, again seems unnatural.

In failing to connect with the monster Victor gives up on him by allowing him to be caught and elevated in chains. This act is not simply a connection to Christ’s crucifixion but also a solidification of Victor as a bad creator. Still covered in amniotic fluid, the monster falls into the chains, and springs several feet off the ground as the chains cacophonously clank together. The monster appears to be hung from the chains, his arms and feet spread slightly, in a symbolic form of crucifixion. In this case, Branagh’s version shows the scenes jumping quickly from the birth to the suspected death of the monster, as he lies limply suspended in the air. Victor abusing his power as a creator neither places inquiry into the monster’s well being, nor mourns his assumption of the monster’s death.

Visually, this scene allows the audience to develop a sense of sympathy for the monster, because Branagh slowly transitions through Victor’s attempts to teach the monster to stand, until its supposed death. By allowing this scene to play out slowly the viewer has the ability to focus on the struggles of the monster and they lack of patience exhibited by Victor.  Shelley, however, shows Prometheus as a good creator in order to instill in her readers the type of creator Victor could have been, but failed to be.

Shelley effectively shows the fact that Prometheus displays qualities of a good creator, while Frankenstein exhibits characteristics to the contrary. According to the images of the gods, Prometheus, a Grecian mythological Titan, created the first human beings from clay and water, greatly displeasing Zeus, the patriarch of the gods. Prometheus, however, wanted to take care of his creations, teaching them to see, showing them how to hear, and stealing a piece of sun from Zeus, which he gave to humans, granting them fire. As punishment for this, Prometheus was tied to a rock for eternity having his liver eaten out everyday by an eagle, only to grow back each night. Victor Frankenstein, similarly to Prometheus took the act of creating life into his own hands. He created life under the inclination that “a new species would bless [him] as its creator and source (page 58).”  Once Frankenstein gives life to his monster, however, he is horrified by what he has created and chooses to isolate himself from the creature. Because of Victor’s rejection, he inspires feelings of loneliness in his creation.  In turn, this brings more disappointment to the creator, and causes the monster to acquire an increasing resentment towards Victor for his neglect and refusal to provide the monster with a mate. Despite their punishments, Prometheus exhibited excellent qualities of being a good creator, while Frankenstein’s actions proved that he was a bad creator. In the face of adversity, Prometheus fought to protect the human beings he had given life to. Contrary to Prometheus, Frankenstein fathered his monster with his own two hands; he labored for years in order to successfully breathe life into the creature, and then abandoned him. He did not teach the monster, nor did he provide him with love.  He also refused to give the monster a mate. In his rejection of the monster, his own creation, Frankenstein has committed a poor act of creation.

In Shelley’s version of Frankenstein the parallels between Christ and the monster are not etched as clearly in her penmanship as in Branagh’s visual interpretation. Instead, she highlights the comparison of a good creator and a bad creator, in a way not shown in the on screen version. Branagh’s use of additional scenes and visual effects allows his interpretation to exceed the limited allowances of the written word. By withholding Prometheus, however, Branagh’s interpretation does not provide the audience with a set of standards with which to hold Victor accountable, and therefore allows pity to be bestowed upon the monster. It could easily be justified and assumed that this is not what Shelley had intended. Shelley highlights Prometheus in her title page, which is almost the first thing seen by a reader when beginning the story of Victor Frankenstein.  Mary Shelley uses this as a way to show the importance of drawing conclusions of the two individuals side by side. In addition, without the ability to contrast the onscreen version of Victor’s cruel deeds to another creator, the audience lacks the ability to truly comprehend the scope of Victor as a bad creator.

Mary Shelley’s use of intertextuality, as seen in her reference to Prometheus, displays her desire to provide depth and insight into the minds and existence of her characters.  In examining Victor’s monster and Prometheus in conjunction with each other, their similarities and differences as creators of life become quite apparent, which allows her readers to fully understand Victor as a bad creator. In Branagh’s version, however, his use of the camera allows him to highlight Victor as a bad creator in an intensely visual way. Although this is visually appealing, by instilling feelings of sympathy for the monster in the viewer, he has changed Shelley’s original intentions. Her intent, it would seem, in adding Prometheus, was to provide another dimension of distaste for Victor, as it highlights how he fell short as a creator.

Original Works

Writing Project # 3

Both Mary Shelley and Kenneth Branagh acknowledge Victor as a bad creator in their interpretations of Frankenstein. Branagh, however, dissimilarly to Shelley uses his visual medium in order to expand upon the opposing creator styles of God and Victor, both in the sense of Victor’s loss of Elizabeth, and creation of the monster, in a way left unsaid by Shelley. He successfully accomplishes this by focusing on extending Shelley’s original ideas as well as by using his medium to speed up and slow down his scenes in order to allow his audience to give their full attention at his intended places.

In the Branagh version of the monster’s creation, Victor is not only seen as a bad creator, but his bad creator persona is intensified through the contrastingly unnatural images of the monster and Jesus Christ’s births. Both individuals were created devoid of natural human law; however God created Christ as a good creator in order to save human kind from its sin. In contrast, Victor Frankenstein created the monster to fulfill his own personal scientific goals. Branagh presents Victor and his monster covered in amniotic fluid as Victor attempts to show the monster how to stand. The sight is one which undoubtedly makes an audience cringe due to the stark contrast between Victor’s normal body and that of the monster’s naked clumsy one. The camera shows the two bodies side-by-side in an awkward, slow, and unnatural way. This is an intentional transition, further emphasized by the dramatic change in the pace of the scene, which just moments before was loud, fast, and filled with music.  In addition, the elimination of a female figure in the birthing scene, again seems unnatural.

In failing to connect with the monster Victor gives up on him by allowing him to be caught and elevated in chains. This act is not simply a connection to Christ’s crucifixion but also a solidification of Victor as a bad creator. Still covered in amniotic fluid, the monster falls into the chains, and springs several feet off the ground as the chains cacophonously clank together. The monster appears to be hung from the chains, his arms and feet spread slightly, in a symbolic form of crucifixion. In this case, Branagh’s version shows the scenes jumping quickly from the birth to the suspected death of the monster, as he lays limply suspended in the air. Victor abusing his power as a creator neither places inquiry into the monster’s well being, nor mourns his assumption of the monster’s death.

Despite the horror and resulting consequences that incurred from Victor’s creation of the monster, elements of bad creation again show forth in his revival of Elizabeth. Victor’s act is contrary to the creation of Christ, as God created Christ for the good of man kind and with the knowledge the his son would have to be sacrificed to save humanity. God’s intentions in his bringing Christ back from the dead were therefore good, and for the good of mankind. Victor, however, recreates Elizabeth after the monster has killed her. He performs her revival in the same fashion in which he originally brought his monster to life. This is proof that Victor is not only a bad creator, but one that unfortunately refuses to repent and learn from his mistakes.

Branagh’s version of Frankenstein injects the scene in which Elizabeth is recreated in order to provide the audience with a more dramatic ending than originally provided by Shelley. Branagh strays from Shelley’s intended closing by adding the scene, which in reality is more of a reference to the Bride of Frankenstein as opposed to Frankenstein itself. Additionally, Branagh’s emphasis on gender and lack of femininity in the birthing scene is again revived in Elizabeth’s recreation. The mother figure is again removed and replaced by Victor. Yet, even more unsettling is the fact that Elizabeth scarifies herself when both the monster and Victor begin fighting over her. Branagh’s creation of Elizabeth, in contrast to the awkward birthing scene of the monster, moves exceedingly fast. This leaves the audience wondering whether Elizabeth gives her life because of her new and unfortunate appearance, or due to the fact that both men are arguing over possession of her. Regardless, Victor’s plan to live with this new construction of Elizabeth obviously backfires, as his pursuit of his own selfish desires leads him to refuse to comprehend and abide by natural human laws.

In Shelley’s version of Frankenstein the parallels between Christ and the monster are not etched as clearly in her penmanship as in Branagh’s visual interpretation. In conjunction with this, Branagh’s use of additional scenes and visual effects allows his interpretation to exceed the limited allowances of the written word. He further highlights the issues of both Victor as a bad creator and gender in order to provide his audience with a greater, more intense effect. Because of the visual aspect of Branagh’s film, the viewer is able to get a clearer picture of gender interaction, specifically that of Victor, Elizabeth, and the monster. Through changing certain aspects of Shelley’s original Frankenstein, Branagh is able to make a more exciting, thrilling film than could not have been achieved if his interpretation had stayed strictly true to Shelley’s text.

Writing Project # 2

Mary Shelley uses Victor Frankenstein’s creation of the monster to display a connection to Prometheus’ creation of human life. While there are similarities between the two, Shelley effectively shows the fact that Prometheus displays qualities of a good creator, while Frankenstein exhibits characteristics to the contrary.

According to the images of the gods, Prometheus, a Grecian mythological Titan, created the first human beings from clay and water. When the other gods became aware of the existence of humans, they agreed to protect them under the condition that they worship the gods and obey their every word. Prometheus went to the gods in order to ask for the conditions to be slackened; however he tricked Zeus, head of the gods, along with all the other gods into eating bare bones instead of real meat. This caused Zeus to punish humanity by making them suffer sicknesses and forced them to live without fire. Prometheus, however, wanted to take care of his creations, teaching them to see, showing them how to hear, and stealing a piece of sun from Zeus, which he gave to humans allowing them fire. As punishment for this, Prometheus was tied to a rock for eternity having his liver eaten out everyday by an eagle, only to grow back each night.

Victor Frankenstein, similarly to Prometheus took the act of creating life into his own hands. He created life under the inclination that “a new species would bless [him] as its creator and source”. (pg 58)  Once Frankenstein gives life to his monster, however, he is horrified by what he has created and chooses to isolate himself from the creature. Because of Victor’s rejection, he inspires feelings of loneliness in his creation.  In turn, this brings more disappointment to the creator, and causes the monster to acquire an increasing resentment towards Victor for his neglect and refusal to provide the monster with a mate.

As creators, a few connections can be drawn between Victor Frankenstein and Prometheus. Both characters rebelled against natural creation by giving life with their own hands. Prometheus used his hands to mold the first human beings out of clay and water, while Frankenstein “found so astonishing a power placed within [his] hands” and began “successfully collecting and arranging [the] materials” he would need to created his creature. (pg 58) In having the ability to give life, and acting upon this ability, both Prometheus and Frankenstein gave a piece of themselves to their creations. Prometheus gave a piece of himself to human beings in creating them in the image of the gods, and Frankenstein unintentionally and unknowingly transfer his disposition to the monster. Frankenstein becomes horrified by seeing the monster he has created.  Due to his horror he further isolates himself from people, leaving him feeling alone and hopeless. Similarly, because he rejects the monster, the monster also becomes “wretched, helpless, and alone.” (pg 116)

In conjunction with this, Frankenstein and Prometheus are punished for their lack of respect for natural human order. Due to Frankenstein’s reaction of horror at the sight of his monster, and resulting isolation from society, he ends up alone, forced to watch those close to him die. In creating the monster to avoid his loneliness he actually worsens it, even losing the love of his life at the hands of his own creation. In a similar fashion, Prometheus is punished by Zeus to suffer an eternity of having his liver eaten out by day and grown back by night.

Despite their punishments, Prometheus exhibited excellent qualities of being a good creator, while Frankenstein’s actions proved that he was a bad creator. In the face of adversity, Prometheus fought to protect the human beings he had give life too. He went to Zeus in order to request a lessening of demands on the humans by the gods. He taught his humans how to hear, to see, to speak, provided them with companions, and gave up his eternal life in order to deliver them fire. In standing by and teaching his creations, Prometheus was depicted as a good creator. Contrary to Prometheus, Frankenstein fathered his monster with his own two hands; he labored for years in order to successfully breathe life into the creature, and then abandoned him. He did not teach the monster, nor did he provide him with love.  He also refused to give the monster a mate. In his rejection of the monster, his own creation, Frankenstein has committed a poor act of creation.

Mary Shelley’s use of intertextuality, as seen in her reference to Prometheus, displays her desire to provide depth and insight into the minds and existence of her characters.  In examining Victor’s monster and Prometheus in conjunction with each other, their similarities and differences as creators of life become quite apparent.

Self-Reflection

For my final portfolio, I wanted to combine and expand upon my works from projects two and three. I really enjoy looking at the idea of Victor Frankenstein as a bad creator and thought it would be an interesting challenge to show the role he plays in Shelley’s original version as well as Branagh’s interpretation. Therefore, I took pieces from both the second and third essays. This involved altering my thesis and morphing it in order to add elements from both, while also adding new ideas. For this essay, Victor as a bad creator is the central theme, while in the other two its role was more secondary or shown in a different light.

In Branagh’s Frankenstein he does not use the comparison of Victor to Prometheus, but instead uses the visual effects of slowing and speeding up scenes in order to highlight Victor as a poor creator. He leaves out Prometheus and in doing this allows his audience to form sympathy for the monster and Victor in a way that is not intended by Shelley.

Throughout the semester, I attempted to become at drafting. In previous papers I would have to write a first draft numerous time before becoming satisfied with a work. I believe throughout the semester I was able to accomplish this goal. I began writing ideas down and taking notes before beginning a draft which I had not normally done before. I think that this help organize my thoughts and thus allowed me to draft a work more easily. I also, wanted to tuned up my ability to revise works. Two things helped m to improve this. The first was having other students peer edit my paper in class. They helped to give me an outside prospective on a paper that I could not always see myself as the writer. The second was reading my paper out loud before turning it in which helped me to check grammatical errors that I might have breezed over if I had read it in my head.

Overall, I believe that this paper is the culmination of the works I have completed thus far in the semester. I do not believe it is easier to cohesively mesh two separate papers into one, but ultimately I think it shows my progression as a writer. It is also my thinking that a writer can always improve and I would like to continue to become a better writer in the future. I think that I am currently taking the right steps, but by taking more intensive writing courses, I know I will develop into an even better writer.

Birkerts loses fight against technology

For centuries, people have looked to newspapers in order to learn about current events. Over the last few years, this classic print medium has been moving into an online forum. Sven Birkerts, writer of The Gutenberg Elegies strongly disagrees with the migration of newspapers from print to the internet. Contrary to Birkert’s belief that electronic mediums are a distraction from the wired world, The New York Times online edition presents a compilation of resources that brings its readers closer to the world at large in a way that expands upon the limitations of the print version. Numerous arguments could be made to refute this assertion, but ultimately, however, the online version of The New York Times positively expands the knowledge of every person in the pursuit of acquiring and developing a better comprehension of current events.

The online edition presents countless benefits not offered by the print publication.  Authors herald articles electronically and at an exceedingly fast rate in order to keep readers within inches of events taking place throughout the world. Although The New York  Times website is adjunct to the print application, its convenance far outweighs any subservient assets of the other version. For example, there is no waiting if one has access to a computer. There is no need to wait for the newspaper to come in the morning. Articles can be seen and read whenever it is best for the reader. In addition, the online edition includes far more articles because it is not limited to a few pages of print. Instead, articles are constantly being updated on the website and readers have the ability to read numerous articles about the same topic in order to gain a more extensive knowledge about every subject. By logging on to the website, the archived articles can provide a reader with background information on a conflict or event which would allow them to learn, not only what is happening currently, but also the reasons for why it started. This is not possible with the daily print edition, because only the articles for that day are published leaving readers questioning  and yearning for more information about certain events.

Birkert’s, however, with his natural proclivity to reject all that is technological, would exploit the assertion that perhaps this type of reading is not truly close reading. This is because he believes in “deep reading : the slow and meditative possession of a book” and in this case an online news database consists of short and countless articles. (Birkerts,  146)When the reader has the ability to access limitless articles, he would be inclined to think that it would lead a reader to jump from one article to the next without reading the article closely or perhaps not even finishing it at all before moving onto the next. Birkerts argues that “[e]verything about modern life carries us away from the state that is propitious for deep reading.” (Birkerts, 148) Therefore, this type of reading discourages close reading because there are so many links and options of articles to click on that it is hard to focus long enough to read an article in its entirety with the appropriate attention. Nicholas Carr would undoubtedly align with Birkerts on this point. In his own experience which he chronicles in the article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, he claims “my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do…The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” (Carr) With so much information flooding the internet it seems to overwhelm some, but these limitless tools can actually be used for close reading.

This is because close reading can be defined by depth as opposed to simple context, in which case these critics would be wrong. The depth of The New York Times online publication is capacious with its gateway to limitless articles. It allows readers to gain knowledge about a subject quickly and easily as well as having the ability to read archived articles with more information. On this point, even Carr cannot disagree because he acknowledges that “[r]esearch that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes.” (Carr) In other words, transferring research from stacks at the library to a database online can allow someone such as Carr to save countless hours on research and potentially focus more on the close reading of the research found.

This gain is a point Birkerts misses because of his fear that “once the world goes fully on-line, there will be no more history of the old kind”, seems faulty as well. (Birkerts,  214) He has the notion that,  “[h]istory as we all studied it in school depended not just on the idea of chronological sequence, but also on a fixed coordinates of space and time.”   (Birkerts, 214) Allowing students to learn from an online database, instead of a text book, would take away the “fixed coordinates” in which they had originally learned. But to deny the inevitable evolutionary process of learning would mean that Birkerts would be assessing historical learning synchronically in a way that would not allow him to understand the importance of improving learning through technological advancements. Quick and easy access to infinite historical information,however, in reality adds to ones ability to learn instead of flattening history, as Birkerts would lead one to believe. Even Birkerts had to admit that technology “will make it not only possible but irresistible to consume data at what must strike people of the book as very high rates.” (Birkerts, 139) But this “might be an expansion of the short-term memory banks”. (Birkerts, 139) Therefore, it seems even Birkerts cannot argue with the fact that technology allows people to learn at a faster rate then that of normal books. Moving historical education into an electronic arena will change learning, but in a positive manner. With scrupulous analysis, one would realize that this website is a legitimate teaching tool because it allows students to learn about current events in a way not possible in text books, due to the extensive amount of time dedicated to writing and publishing. Students now have the electronic capabilities to learn a great amount of information in a short period of time. The argument could thus be made that with the ability to learn faster students are, in general, more inclined to learn and yearn for more information then ever.

Undoubtedly, The New York Times online edition is inchoate in comparison to the print medium, because evolutionarily the online version is centuries behind its print likeness. Despite this fact, the electronic Times has already obtained aspects of greatness that far exceed that of its predecessor. For example, just today The New York Times wrote an article about the implications of their recent killing of militant chiefs in Iraq. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html?hp) Although some might believe that viewing the article in this fashion makes me lazy, I would disagree. Instead, I believe that this article has expanded my knowledge about the ongoing conflict in Iraq in a way that I would not have had the ability to do without access to the online version.

Citations -

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid.” Atlantic April 25, 2010: n. pag. Web. 25 Apr 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Fsber and Faber INC, 1994. Print.

History Online

- Contrary to Birkert’s belief that electronic mediums are a distraction from the wired world, The New York Times online edition presents a compilation of resources that brings its readers closer to the world at large in a way that expands upon the limitations of the print version.

- “For once the world goes fully on-line, there will be no more history of the old kind. History as we all studied it in school depended not just on the idea of chronological sequence, but also on a fixed coordinates of space and time.” -(Birkerts, 214)

Birkerts believes that once history goes fully online the experience of learning will not only be changed, but ruined in a sense. Students would no longer be learning from a text book, but instead from an online database that would take away the “fixed coordinates” in which they had always learned history. The New York Times online edition does not support this assertion, however, because the Times follows a chronological sequence and also has a fixed coordinates. One can access the website anytime to find the daily paper, or any paper before that. Having such an extensive resource, allows students to expand their knowledge of current events in a way not possible for the normal print edition. The online version gives you access to the daily paper as well as articles that are written and updated throughout the day. Plus, the achieved articles to be seen are truly endless. This allows readers to stay up to date with current events on an hourly basis instead of a daily one. The New York Times online edition actually extends the boundaries in which students and normal people can learn due to the accelerated  rate at which they can access the news. Teachers in subject areas, such as Political Science could assign the website to students in order to learn about a new event that is currently in the news. With something so new it would be impossible to learn about it in a textbook because textbooks can take years to write where as the new is post frequently.

- An objection to the Times would perhaps be that some people enjoy the feel of a newspaper within their own hands, and this will never be possible with an online edition. This problem can never truly be solved, but in reading the Times in print as opposed to online the reader gives up their ability to fully expand their knowledge because they do not have access to as many articles.

The New York Time Electronic Edition – A Help or a Hinder?

It is my opinion that the advantages of the electronic version of the New York Times out weighs that of the hard copy of the paper. I would have to assume that this assertion would be strongly refuted by Birkerts due to his fear of the present age of technological advancements, but I would however have to disagree.

I am one who enjoys that which is tangible, the simple pleasure of holding a paper and flipping the pages by my own accord. I love waking up in the morning and coming downstairs in my house to the daily edition of the paper. But in today’s society, moving a newspaper over  to the electronic waves seems to be the most practical thing to do, despite Birkerts contrary opinion.

I say this for many reason. First, the New York Times electronically is free verses the fee that one must pay to have it delivered. Second, this version is more convenient because you do not have to worry about waiting for your paper to be delivered to your doorstep, and you can read it whenever and wherever your laptop can travel with you. Third, the online edition includes fair more articles then the normal times, it has links that can direct you to related articles.

It also encompasses news from around the world, from every region not just the most important stories of the day. This is beneficial if you need to look into articles from a certain region of the world, or want to look up archived articles from past issues. The options for the online editions of the New York Times are in seemingly limitless.

I do, however, understand the hesitation to transition to this newer version of the times. Firstly, people are hesitant to makes changes to their normal routine and when a person has been reading the times for years on paper they are not going to willing just switch to the internet version. In addition, some people do not have access to the internet and if they do there are people that do not have the proper “know how” to navigate through the site in order to accomplish the reading of the paper in a new form. Consequently, the change over to election newspaper means that a lot of people working for print newspapers would lose their jobs which is also why people may want to continue to read the paper in print.

It is, however, my contention that the electronic version is fair superior to that of the print one. I believe myself to be at least moderately skilled with computers and therefore support the electronic issues. I find them to be easier and faster to use and more accessible for me as a college student.

Extra Credit – Daniel Handler.

Daniel Handler, commonly known as Lemony Snicket was the Sophie Kerr Weekend Speaker on March 26, 2010. In entering Gibson threather that day, I had no idea what to expect from Mr. Handler, but I must admit I was leaning towards thinking he would be somewhat dull as I seem to imagine most authors, unfortunately in my mind. In retrospect, my thinking could not have been further from the truth because Mr. Handler cannot be described as anything but playfully hilarious. I felt as though the way he tells stories are intriguing in a somewhat indescribable way. Perhaps is was the way he tells them so seriously or maybe it was the pure ridiculousness of each narrative. To be honest, Im not really sure, but whatever it was he kept myself, as well as every other audience member on the edge of their seats with intermittent bouts of explosive laughter throughout his entire lecture.

I throughly enjoyed every word out of Mr. Handler’s mouth, and at the time I didnt realize that he was actually impacting my own prospective on writing. He helped me to realize that sometimes, I think I take my writing to seriously. I am always striving to do my best, to get an A, and to must myself to my greatest potential in penmanship. This is all fine and well but sometimes we need to step back and appreciate the fact that writing does not always have to be this serious thing.

Sometimes, writing needs to be about having fun, letting your imagination run wild, and to try to enjoy the ability to put pen to paper. Sometimes, writing is not about getting a perfect grade or writing seriously. Sometimes, you need to write what you believe without worrying about the judgement of others. I think thats what Mr. Handler gave to me that day, to not take myself to seriously sometimes and I appreciate that he did that for me. Because if he can write about a baby with razor sharp teeth and find humor in his own pitfalls as an author then I believe we all should be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes too.

Branagh’s Frankenstein: Roles of Gender and Creation

Both Mary Shelley and Kenneth Branagh acknowledge Victor as a bad creator in their interpretations of Frankenstein. Branagh, however, dissimilarly to Shelley uses his visual medium in order to expand upon the opposing creator styles of God and Victor, both in the sense of Victor’s loss of Elizabeth, and creation of the monster, in a way left unsaid by Shelley. He successfully accomplishes this by focusing on extending Shelley’s original ideas as well as by using his medium to speed up and slow down his scenes in order to allow his audience to give their full attention at his intended places.

In the Branagh version of the monster’s creation, Victor is not only seen as a bad creator, but his bad creator persona is intensified through the contrastingly unnatural images of the monster and Jesus Christ’s births. Both individuals were created devoid of natural human law; however God created Christ as a good creator in order to save human kind from its sin. In contrast, Victor Frankenstein created the monster to fulfill his own personal scientific goals. Branagh presents Victor and his monster covered in amniotic fluid as Victor attempts to show the monster how to stand. The sight is one which undoubtedly makes an audience cringe due to the stark contrast between Victor’s normal body and that of the monster’s naked clumsy one. The camera shows the two bodies side-by-side in an awkward, slow, and unnatural way. This is an intentional transition, further emphasized by the dramatic change in the pace of the scene, which just moments before was loud, fast, and filled with music.  In addition, the elimination of a female figure in the birthing scene, again seems unnatural.

In failing to connect with the monster Victor gives up on him by allowing him to be caught and elevated in chains. This act is not simply a connection to Christ’s crucifixion but also a solidification of Victor as a bad creator. Still covered in amniotic fluid, the monster falls into the chains, and springs several feet off the ground as the chains cacophonously clank together. The monster appears to be hung from the chains, his arms and feet spread slightly, in a symbolic form of crucifixion. In this case, Branagh’s version shows the scenes jumping quickly from the birth to the suspected death of the monster, as he lays limply suspended in the air. Victor abusing his power as a creator neither places inquiry into the monster’s well being, nor mourns his assumption of the monster’s death.

Despite the horror and resulting consequences that incurred from Victor’s creation of the monster, elements of bad creation again show forth in his revival of Elizabeth. Victor’s act is contrary to the creation of Christ, as God created Christ for the good of man kind and with the knowledge the his son would have to be sacrificed to save humanity. God’s intentions in his bringing Christ back from the dead were therefore good, and for the good of mankind. Victor, however, recreates Elizabeth after the monster has killed her. He performs her revival in the same fashion in which he originally brought his monster to life. This is proof that Victor is not only a bad creator, but one that unfortunately refuses to repent and learn from his mistakes.

Branagh’s version of Frankenstein injects the scene in which Elizabeth is recreated in order to provide the audience with a more dramatic ending than originally provided by Shelley. Branagh strays from Shelley’s intended closing by adding the scene, which in reality is more of a reference to the Bride of Frankenstein as opposed to Frankenstein itself. Additionally, Branagh’s emphasis on gender and lack of femininity in the birthing scene is again revived in Elizabeth’s recreation. The mother figure is again removed and replaced by Victor. Yet, even more unsettling is the fact that Elizabeth scarifies herself when both the monster and Victor begin fighting over her. Branagh’s creation of Elizabeth, in contrast to the awkward birthing scene of the monster, moves exceedingly fast. This leaves the audience wondering whether Elizabeth gives her life because of her new and unfortunate appearance, or due to the fact that both men are arguing over possession of her. Regardless, Victor’s plan to live with this new construction of Elizabeth obviously backfires, as his pursuit of his own selfish desires leads him to refuse to comprehend and abide by natural human laws.

In Shelley’s version of Frankenstein the parallels between Christ and the monster are not etched as clearly in her penmanship as in Branagh’s visual interpretation. In conjunction with this, Branagh’s use of additional scenes and visual effects allows his interpretation to exceed the limited allowances of the written word. He further highlights the issues of both Victor as a bad creator and gender in order to provide his audience with a greater, more intense effect. Because of the visual aspect of Branagh’s film, the viewer is able to get a clearer picture of gender interaction, specifically that of Victor, Elizabeth, and the monster. Through changing certain aspects of Shelley’s original Frankenstein, Branagh is able to make a more exciting, thrilling film than could not have been achieved if his interpretation had stayed strictly true to Shelley’s text.

Kenneth Branagh’s Frankenstein (1994)

- Scene options to look at – The creation scene. The scene when Victor and the monster fight over Elizabeth.

The Creation Scene -

The amniotic fluid in the movie is a good parallel to natural birth, it is further simulated when the tan bursts and Victor gets covered in fluid as well. In essence they therefore share amniotic fluid symbolizing Victor birthing the monster. In addition to this, I believe that this could also be seen as both of them being born – the monster is obviously being brought to life while Victor is being born into a new person due to what he has created. He is transformed into an extremely unhappy, fearful man that isolates himself from society. The amniotic fluid is not used in the book and I think it is a very creative interpretation that Brandagh uses.

In addition, the use of chains hoisting the monster up after he is born is not used in the book, but it is a good christ like symbolism. For my paper, I would like to explore and look very closely at these similarities. Brandagh exploits the point that the monsters creation was extremely unnatural by drawing this parallel. Christ’s birth was unnatural because Mary was a virgin upon giving birth to Christ. Likewise, Victor went against the natural creation laws in forming the monster and giving life to him.

The Scene when Victor and the Monster fight over Elizabeth -

This is a very ironic scene in my mind. Victor was disgusted by the fact the he created such a creature when he gave life to the monster. But, without a single thought about the consequences, Victor recreated Elizabeth and brings her back to life. Without realizing it, he creates a mate for the monster in the sense that he has made someone that looks similar to the monster even though his intention was not that in which the monster would have the companionship of Elizabeth. This scene never takes place in the book, but to some extent this seems slightly fitting as a punishment for Victor’s original sin of creating the monster. Elizabeth’s appearance is ruined, but Victor loves her regardless and the monster becomes attracted to Elizabeth because her new appearance. It the monster would have had the ability to love Elizabeth, I think that would have be the ultimate punishment for Victor because he would be losing the thing he loved most in the world to the thing he hated most.

Frankenstein and Prometheus: Exposed as Creators

Mary Shelley uses Victor Frankenstein’s creation of the monster to display a connection to Prometheus’ creation of human life. While there are similarities between the two, Shelley effectively shows the fact that Prometheus displays qualities of a good creator, while Frankenstein exhibits characteristics to the contrary.

According to the images of the gods, Prometheus, a Grecian mythological Titan, created the first human beings from clay and water. When the other gods became aware of the existence of humans, they agreed to protect them under the condition that they worship the gods and obey their every word. Prometheus went to the gods in order to ask for the conditions to be slackened; however he tricked Zeus, head of the gods, along with all the other gods into eating bare bones instead of real meat. This caused Zeus to punish humanity by making them suffer sicknesses and forced them to live without fire. Prometheus, however, wanted to take care of his creations, teaching them to see, showing them how to hear, and stealing a piece of sun from Zeus, which he gave to humans allowing them fire. As punishment for this, Prometheus was tied to a rock for eternity having his liver eaten out everyday by an eagle, only to grow back each night.

Victor Frankenstein, similarly to Prometheus took the act of creating life into his own hands. He created life under the inclination that “a new species would bless [him] as its creator and source”. (pg 58)  Once Frankenstein gives life to his monster, however, he is horrified by what he has created and chooses to isolate himself from the creature. Because of Victor’s rejection, he inspires feelings of loneliness in his creation.  In turn, this brings more disappointment to the creator, and causes the monster to acquire an increasing resentment towards Victor for his neglect and refusal to provide the monster with a mate.

As creators, a few connections can be drawn between Victor Frankenstein and Prometheus. Both characters rebelled against natural creation by giving life with their own hands. Prometheus used his hands to mold the first human beings out of clay and water, while Frankenstein “found so astonishing a power placed within [his] hands” and began “successfully collecting and arranging [the] materials” he would need to created his creature. (pg 58) In having the ability to give life, and acting upon this ability, both Prometheus and Frankenstein gave a piece of themselves to their creations. Prometheus gave a piece of himself to human beings in creating them in the image of the gods, and Frankenstein unintentionally and unknowingly transfer his disposition to the monster. Frankenstein becomes horrified by seeing the monster he has created.  Due to his horror he further isolates himself from people, leaving him feeling alone and hopeless. Similarly, because he rejects the monster, the monster also becomes “wretched, helpless, and alone.” (pg 116)

In conjunction with this, Frankenstein and Prometheus are punished for their lack of respect for natural human order. Due to Frankenstein’s reaction of horror at the sight of his monster, and resulting isolation from society, he ends up alone, forced to watch those close to him die. In creating the monster to avoid his loneliness he actually worsens it, even losing the love of his life at the hands of his own creation. In a similar fashion, Prometheus is punished by Zeus to suffer an eternity of having his liver eaten out by day and grown back by night.

Despite their punishments, Prometheus exhibited excellent qualities of being a good creator, while Frankenstein’s actions proved that he was a bad creator. In the face of adversity, Prometheus fought to protect the human beings he had give life too. He went to Zeus in order to request a lessening of demands on the humans by the gods. He taught his humans how to hear, to see, to speak, provided them with companions, and gave up his eternal life in order to deliver them fire. In standing by and teaching his creations, Prometheus was depicted as a good creator. Contrary to Prometheus, Frankenstein fathered his monster with his own two hands; he labored for years in order to successfully breathe life into the creature, and then abandoned him. He did not teach the monster, nor did he provide him with love.  He also refused to give the monster a mate. In his rejection of the monster, his own creation, Frankenstein has committed a poor act of creation.

Mary Shelley’s use of intertextuality, as seen in her reference to Prometheus, displays her desire to provide depth and insight into the minds and existence of her characters.  In examining Victor’s monster and Prometheus in conjunction with each other, their similarities and differences as creators of life become quite apparent.