After having seen Mel Brooks’ hysterical
1974 film Young Frankenstein
countless times (I was raised to watch it every year on Halloween) I was amazed
by how directly the remake resembles James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931). I suppose
this has to do with what Rick Worland describes as the “unmistakable signifiers
of Frankenstein”, but I would argue that it went even further than that
(158). I couldn’t believe how much Henry
Frankenstein’s voice (Colin Clive) sounded like Gene Wilder.
I very much appreciated the translation of not only the narrative, but also the preservation of the style of the scenery and the behaviors of the characters. Frankenstein’s monster, for example, has this aura about him that I was unaware could be recaptured! His movements, disgruntled noises, and other unique characteristics followed flawlessly in the 1974 version.
The usage of the word “horrify” was interesting in the beginning of the film when the announcer (similar to that of a carnival barker) warns the audience by stating, “I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even horrify you.” (Frankenstein). What constitutes a “horror” film seems very gray because the genre has changed so considerably over the past century. In terms of film, I think technology has influenced the horror film genre in vastly different ways than for, say, romance or comedy in terms of “tricks” or special effects.
The uncanny doubling between Frankenstein and his monster is the greatest phenomenon that has evolved with the vision of Frankenstein. It is well understood that there are complex connections between Frankenstein and his monster. We can see that although Frankenstein wishes to love his creation deeply, he recognizes his darkness and evil capabilities and resents him for the harm he causes. Only then does the moment of recognition take place when the viewer appreciates that Frankenstein is a monster in himself as the creator of evil.
Actually, I think the monster envelopes the
Uncanny in its own ways as well. The
fact that Frankenstein’s monster is so large in size and so grotesque in
physique with the brain of a newborn baby is an unsettling combination to begin
with. Subsequently, the monster does not
speak. Instead he communicates in
unfamiliar grunts that instill concern, distress and possibly even fear in the
audience. Furthermore, the monster is
technically human form but demonstrates qualities that can be perceived as more
nonhuman than human as well. Is he a
human or a monster?
I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why we find the monster somewhat unsettling, lying in the realm of uncanny. It seems to be in the mental space of a child, but because of its massive size and strength this is made a dangerous proposition. Many aspects of the film can be seen from a similar sort of dualism, and I think this very much intentional. The creature is both human and monster; a result of nature and nurture; unsettling and comforting. Whale seems to be pushing the idea that somethings just can't be put in terms of absolutes.
ReplyDeleteI like that you draw comparisons between Whale's film and Brooks'. While I haven't seen the latter, your comments regarding the similarities between them are really interesting to note. Clearly, particular aspects of the story are consistent and carry over well between generations of filmmaking, so to speak. Technology has definitely helped to further nuance retellings, but I also think that developments in science--psychology, certainly, as well as medicine in general--create a space for new layers of understanding, as the filmmakers learn more about how to play on their audience's fears and expectations. Whatever the social and historical context, however, I agree that the notion of the uncanny carries exceptionally well across all tellings of the story, especially, as you note, the doubling between Frankenstein and the creature. I wonder if maybe we could look at this phenomenon between them as doppelgängers? In a way, the creature comes to embody the very worst qualities of humanity (the ones that Henry imparts to him, both in terms of the creature's mistreatment as well as the criminal brain it receives), and thus is a sort of personification of Henry's own darkness and evil. I'm sure this can be expanded on more, but it might be interesting to take the doppelgänger angle and see if that goes anywhere. Nice work, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts!
ReplyDelete