One thing I noticed about both Frankenstein and The Unknown was their use of the “happy ending” in a way that seemed forced. In The Unknown, Alonzo is the main character; we gain his backstory and he tells the viewers what he’s thinking in his conversations with Cojo. Although we don’t exactly sympathize with Alonzo, we definitely get more insight into his character than any of the others. That’s why it’s a bit of a shock when he dies at the end of the movie: it seems like the type of thing that would happen in a tragedy, and it would have been a great, jolting ending.
Instead of stopping the film there, another scene is added, depicting Nanon and Malabar in their peaceful romantic bliss after Alonzo has been killed. This seemed like an odd ending, because throughout the whole movie, I had been somewhat rooting for Alonzo. He was the character I knew the most about, and even though his ideas were twisted, I still thought it was a bit tragic when he died and Malabar didn’t get his arms ripped off. Malabar almost seemed like an antagonist in this film, since he was engaged to Nanon, the object of Alonzo’s affection. The “happy ending” felt really bizarre because I was never rooting for Nanon and Malabar. The film didn’t give them much of a story; all she did was fall down some steps one day, and then she magically fell in love with him.
Meanwhile, in Frankenstein, the “happy ending” didn’t seem happy at all; I actually felt very sympathetic towards the Monster, especially when he was burned to death (supposedly. There is a sequel that, for the sake of this argument, I’ll pretend doesn’t exist) by the classic angry mob. I didn’t feel like the Monster deserved everyone’s hatred; I thought people should have been angrier at Henry for creating the Monster in the first place. As Worland mentioned, however, the “abnormal brain,” that Henry installs in his creation is used as an excuse for the Monster’s bad behavior. This film seems very pro-Henry; they give him an excuse for the Monster’s behavior and they give him a happy ending. However, blaming Henry for the Monster’s mistakes does kind of create an argument that “parents ought to be blamed for their kids’ wrongdoings,” which doesn’t seem right to me. Henry’s case seemed different, though, because he was messing with nature and death, which are two things that would probably be better left alone.
Henry was initially thrilled when the Monster proved to be alive, but when Fritz confronts the Monster with a torch that scares him, Henry makes no attempt to aid the Monster, nor does he correct Waldman when he proclaims, “It’s a monster!” and “Shoot it!” Henry ends up leaving his “offspring” alone for days on end; he doesn’t teach him the ways of the world as a parent usually does. Worland asserts that this is where Henry made his biggest mistake: he treated the Monster coldly and abandoned him right from the beginning. Later, the Monster lashes out by killing Fritz. This is justified, though, because Fritz was tormenting him. The first time I learned of the Frankenstein story, I thought the Monster’s biggest problem was that he never learned to love. He never had a parent who loved him unconditionally; he only knew people who shrank from him in fear. He kills Waldman in a similar manner, and when he is finally freed, he throws a little girl in a river. I didn’t see this as an act of malice, however; I saw it as an accident. The Monster didn’t know his own size or strength, nor did he understand that flowers and little girls--though both pretty--are two different things. The scene in which the Monster allegedly attacks Elizabeth could be read two ways, both in favor of the Monster: 1), the Monster is upset with his “father” and vows revenge by attacking Elizabeth, or 2), he doesn’t attack Elizabeth, she just faints at his terrifying appearance and sudden entry to her room. In either of these cases, the viewer could learn to sympathize with the Monster. He was kind of dumbly innocent at the beginning of the movie, and towards the end he just got frustrated at his dad; what kid wouldn’t? All Henry did was neglect him. I thought Henry and Elizabeth’s “happy ending” --where she was tenderly helping him as an invalid, since he just fell, ragdoll-style, onto a windmill tine-- was unsatisfactory. Henry was an overly-ambitious, almost “mad scientist” in his attempts to electrocute dead parts to life, and he created a being and then refused to take care of it. Maybe he’ll learn from his mistakes, and we are supposed to believe that he will live out the rest of his days in peace, but I don’t feel like justice was rightfully served in this movie. Yes, the Monster was wreaking havoc upon the town, but Henry shouldn’t be considered a “victim” in this situation, and his “happy ending” seems a little too abrupt, a little too forced, and a little undeserved.
-Cierra Larson
No comments:
Post a Comment