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
It also mirrors Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is mostly set on a ship lost in the fog near the south pole and shares many themes with Frankenstein.
Back in high school, I was assigned an essay with the topic "who was the villain in Frankenstein (book)?" I cited Spider-Man's motto "with great power comes great responsibility" to argue that they both were. Both the doctor and the monster had power over life and death, and they both used it irresponsibly, causing suffering and blaming others all the way. So I agree with your take.
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.
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.
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.
That's the real terror. When the creature seeks its vengeance it's extremely, devious, Articulate and calculating about it. That added to its immense physical attributes. Make it an unstoppable engine of vengeance.
As someone who has studied and writes literature, Frankenstein is a fascinating case where the general public make assumptions based on memes the internet tells then rather than reading it for themselves. As you point out, both are monsters in their own right. When people argue that the creature isn't a monster, its clear they never actually read the book. It willingly kills, understands the horror of its actions, but willingly continues to do so. No matter how sympathetic, that's still the act of a malicious being. Also, huge props for using Junji Ito's spectacular artwork adaptation of the novel.
Yeah like I can understand how the Creature is sympathetic, because it is; it gets treated horribly and is directly a product of its environment. But the fact that it's so intelligent means that, as you expressed, it knows what it's doing and still acts. The framing of Justine is the most damning example of this. I can see an argument that the film Creature is less "malicious" only because it's more like a child and legitimately might not know better, but the book version? Nah man, it definitely knows better, which makes it worse imo.
Fr! People love to pretend that characters have to be just one thing, like everything runs on the expectations of the first High School Musical movie or something. The creature being both an indisputable victim _as well as a perpetrator_ is part of why the character is interesting! Also hate it when people rag on Victor "CEO of Poor Planning" Frankenstein and go "oh the creature didn't actually look horrifying, his eyes were just weird and Victor's a weenie" because the creature's description is legitimately that of an eight foot walking corpse, and idc if someone thinks that a walking and talking dead body wouldn't look viscerally horrifying, because one that is _taller than Shaquille O'Neal_ would DEFINITELY BE AN ORDEAL! He was wrong to abandon his science son, but also staring at something stationary that you made to be beautiful with no reference of how it'll look moving cannot properly prepare you for an eight foot tall corpse moving around and looming at the foot of your bed.
I always found it a little funny how Victor is terrified of the Creature's appearance when he's been working on it for God knows how long. Like my brother in Christ, you made the sandwich lol I've always interpreted it as he knew it was horrifying, but he didn't realize how scary it was until he brought it to life.
I do agree with this. The most intense adaptation of the horror of the creature's awakening its in Penny Dreadful's version. Caliban (the creature's name) is not that horrible but the way it awakes its painful and horrible and that is what shocks Victor @@ViviVariety
@@ViviVariety I think it is kind of like Alfred Nobel and the invention of dynamite. He envisioned it as a wonderful gift to mankind. Then, when he realized people could blow each other up with it, he was driven to establish the Nobel Peace Prize.
Much of the casting sounds brilliant (though Garfield being replaced by Elordi is awful, the latter has really not proven he can show complexity/depth on this scale so far) and the arctic setting being confirmed seems to indicate he'll definitely lean on the Shelley version, but he's also expressed many times its not a completely faithful adaptation. Honestly nothing Elordi has done so far makes me convinced he can do this part justice unless he was the playing the dumb gentle giant version of 1931 with A LOT of makeup to make him hideous, but idk if Guillermo del Toro has faith in the guy then I trust him
@@GuineaPigEveryday I hope something similar happens to him like with Heath Ledger’s joker, Elordi has a decent acting that’s encapsulated in a boy next door persona, this role is his opportunity to change that
Much the same can be said about Dracula in terms of the iconic pop culture image and the original source material and it is also interesting that both Frankenstein and Dracula as literary and pop culture icons originated at the same time and place. I've always felt that each represent the opposite sides of the same coin of fear, one the materialistic science based and the other the religious/spiritual dimensions that confront mankind.
Oh yeah I can't wait to talk about Dracula soon. I was planning on it this year but came up with a different idea, but I agree with everything you said.
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.
@@ViviVarietyYou may have gotten a lot of these comments, but isn’t that due to the influence of Paul Wegener’s popular “Der Golem” films? They were silent films, but so was the Golem traditionally, and while incredibly strong, it was not especially agile and not at all clever or eloquent. So the Universal films monster is using names from Mary Shelley’s novel but it’s like Doctor Frankenstein made a golem out of human flesh instead of earth.
That's an awesome observation actually! I never thought of that, and it makes a ton of sense. I do remember coming across "Der Golem" once or twice in my initial research, but I never thought to follow up on that thread for any particular reason. But it makes a ton of sense for sure, so much that you could definitely call the 1931 Creature a "flesh golem" in a sense as you said. If you examine the Creature from that perspective, the decision to make it silent and powerful makes a lot more sense since it would very much be an intentional homage of sorts.
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*
I'm not crazy about the design, all respect to Junji Ito's genius. It's classic Ito, perfect for his sensibility. But it's just too gross for gross's sake. I feel like the monster's hideousness wouldn't be that surface-level. I love Wrightson as well, and his gorgeous illustrations live in my heart. But as striking as his monster's design is, I keep thinking, wouldn't Victor have thought to give his perfect Adam a nose? What a weird oversight. Again, a surface-level bit of macabre effect. I feel like I've yet to see a proper depiction of the monster. The impression of the book is that he looks too much like what he is, a corpse animated through artificial means. Shelley talked about exhibitions where "scientists" ran electric current through human cadavers, and the grotesque effect left her deeply disturbed. That was her inspiration, a clearly dead person twitching with artificial impulses. Of course, twitchiness can't be depicted in comics. But I feel like the basic "walking corpse" approach is a bit too simple, not to mention played out. I'd like to see something with a little more nuance. In fact, I think this is a rare occasion a purely CG monster would be interesting. The trick would be to try and make it seem as real as possible, and the uncanny valley would actually work for it.
@@rottensquid A mix of practical and VFX could create something really cool; they could hire a very broad, gaunt, long-limbed actor and use similar techniques to Lord of the Rings to make him seem a good 7.5/8 feet tall, and they could use a CGI effect on the eyes so that they have no movement and appear glassy. Imagine the monster emoting with its mouth and body language, but whatever reason, the muscles around its eyes are completely dead and never move or blink, the eyes milky and pale like roadkill...
@@MasonMcLeodFilms Right, that would be amazing. But what I want to see is the spasming, twitching flesh all over the body, to indicate the random, unnatural electricity running through it. Something an actor couldn't fake, and practical effects wouldn't be suited for. CGI is a tool, and it's just a matter of whether it's the right tool for the job.
My favorite least favorite thing about Dr. Frankenstien was that he did feel remorse, as he should, but he always sought to alleviate himself of his remorse, like he didn't deserve to feel it. It was constant! He felt guilty, all the time, but felt like a victim because of it and never did anything to own up or fix his mistakes save near the end where he aims to destroy the creature, even that he gave it no apologies.
Victor really is a mega drama queen lol I feel like it was intentional on Mary Shelley's part to make Victor so whiney, but whiney in a way that didn't make him really change until things escalated. He always talked about how bad he felt, but he basically sat around until the situation got worse and worse. Then again, if Victor had some semblance of humility and a desire to actually accept his guilt, we probably wouldn't have much of story because most of the story stems directly from Victor's faults.
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.
Not neglect outright abandonment. The monster didn't even have grandparents to raise him in a lazy parents place... Furthermore being a grown infant. It's a wonder he didn't evolve into something completely alien mentally. Imagine if it gas gone into the forest and just developed its psyche watching animals.
It's crazy how The Bride of Frankenstein is a better Frankenstein adaptation that the original film. It's basically the second half of the story where everyone acts more in line with the book.
Right? I'm curious what happened in the production process, like was someone a massive fan of the book, or did they get the rights to use the book as opposed to the play? Regardless, I'm glad whatever happened happened, because Bride is amazing.
excellent essay video, well it does seem like DEL TORO is finally doing his Frankenstein movie, a dream project of his for decades and the original book is his personal favorite book so we might be finally getting a truly faithful adaptation next year. Let's hope for the best.
Thank you for this. The novel is my favourite book of all time. I read it a few years ago and I was not expecting much. I was literally blown away by the story and I think a lot about it.
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 listened to the novel first when I was 9 or 10. Read by the late Christopher Lee. It really captured the quality of a nightmare for me. Still does. To think it was written by a teenager....incredible
Mary Shelley in general is just a really interesting and talented person. I'm also always surprised when I remember how young she was when she wrote the story, like can you imagine a teenager casually writing a masterpiece nowdays? That's crazy.
Some months ago, my wife and I entered a cycle of gothic reading. I bought her Frankenstein while I was reading Carmilla and other vampire tales and we were narrating what we were reading and Frankenstein was so different from what I tought!
@@ViviVariety I really liked Carmilla. I think its an unique way of telling a vampire story. The way of explaining how some vampires prey on their victims, how it appears to be some sort of obsession.
I quite liked Carmilla a lot too, more than I thought actually. I think I'd say Dracula is the better overall book, but Carmilla is better imo compared to first half of Dracula if that makes sense.
My brother and I watched the 1931 Frankenstein together for the first time not two weeks ago, and I had no idea how different it was from the original! Fascinating essay - it really captured me!
Thanks, I appreciate it! I'd definitely recommend checking out the original book too! The audiobook in particular was an excellent way of experiencing the story.
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.
I first learned of the story of Frankenstein through Richard Orpheus Campbell's Frankenstein Metal Opera, pretty darn faithful to the 1818 Novel. plus the songs in it are pretty darn good!
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 :)
Excellent vid. Monstrous actions begets monsters and monsters beget monstrous actions... Ah, the Hollywood 'Mad' scientist and his creation trope really begins with Rotwang and his female robot in the 1927 Metropolis movie.
If time-machines existed, I would use it to plan and make films that needed to happen. Such as a Frankenstein horror-thriller blockbuster adaptation that would've done justice to the book and released in 2001 (on the 1931 film's 70th anniversary). And the cast would be choices like Leonardo DiCaprio as Victor Frankenstein and Matthew McGrory as The Monster.
I feel there are some similarities between the scientist in the German film Metropolis from 1927 and Frankenstein. There is definitely some kind of 1920-1930:s mad scientist archetype somewhere in the background.
I noticed that scientist trend as well, especially with older horror movies like The Invisible Man, Werewolf of London, and Jekyll and Hyde among others. People really loved their crazy inventors at the time 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.
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.
I’ve just stumbled upon this treasure now and boy how well it shed a new light on these classics. With that being said, can you do the same concept on Bram Stoker’s Dracula next?
My goal is to cover Dracula next year! I've been putting it off because it's such a big topic, plus delay ended up being a blessing in disguise since the upcoming Nosferatu remake should be a good addition to the discussion.
@ Oh my god that’s so great to hear! You know what? With the kind of content you pulled off, you can really take all the time you need. Anyway kudos to you sir, and may your channel grow as massive as your dedication. Good luck! 👍
I feel so sorry for the creature. It goes to show that monsters aren’t truly born. You can only become one if you choose to act like one, be it intentional or not.
But the creature was only born into the world. They tried to live and understand the world as best they could Victor’s ambitions to own creation through resurrection of the dead lead to his demise His Creature walked of into the tundra, no longer obsessed with revenge
It's worth to note that the version of the book that mostly everyone knows is from 1831. The first version, from 1818 was later revised by Shelley with her saying that it was "too childish", "not deep enough" and "poorly written". It is very difficult to find that original text from 1818 today, so we should always assume people have read the 1831 version.
Extremely fair point, I think if I were to redo the script, I'd probably add another blurb to that point, and maybe explore some of the differences that could affect the story. I was lucky in that the two copies I own (a physical copy and a digital one) do seem to be the 1818 version of the text, but I think I'd have liked to check out the 1831 version and see what specifically the differences are. Maybe I'll do a side by side reading whenever I reread the book in the future.
The first time I read Frankenstein (I was in my 40s), I finished and said, "there's never been a movie made of this novel!" I greatly enjoyed the novel, it's a roller-coaster of emotions.
Lol I can understand that, especially since the 1931 film feels so different. I imagine if I read the books before watching the film, I'd probably feel similarly.
I loved Penny Dreadful’s incarnation of Frankenstein’s monster as I always felt that, despite the changes, it carried the soul of the original book. That along with the Kenneth Branagh film created my mental image of how Frankenstein should be adapted into Live Action. Really looking forward to seeing how Guillermo Del Toro’s iteration will turn out.
I am desperate for the day that we get a book-accurate movie adaptation. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the 1931 version, but it chucked pretty much all of the contemplative and philosophical themes and scenarios.
Fingers crossed that Del Toro will deliver next year! I also enjoy the 1931 film, but it does make it hard to discuss because it's just so...prominent.
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.
@@ViviVariety Also Prometheus gets punished by gods in a horribly painful way - being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten by an eagle every day, and nothing good exactly comes out of Frankenstein's god-roleplaying either.
Sounds about right, I felt the same. That said, I do think my stance on the 1931 film has changed for the better after watching more Classic horror films. Don't get me wrong, I thought and still think the 1931 film is great, but after checking out a lot of older films from that era, Frankenstein stands out even more. I think Dracula is a litttllle better, but both Dracula and Frankenstein are stronger than most later films imo.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I'd have personally preferred if he were a little more grotesque, but I understand that budget was likely a huge limiting factor. But the interpretation nailed the spirit of the character, and for that I couldn't me more happy.
Excellent video. It’s interesting how the 1931 movie and its sequels have changed the public perception of Frankenstein. The Bride never was animated in the book, the look of the creature in the public consciousness is that of Boris Karloff, The arms out walking comes from Bela Lugosi’s take on the creature in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman, the Idea of Victor having a Hunchback assistant comes from the 1931 film and the assistant’s name isn’t Igor in that film either, the name ygor was used in Son of Frankenstein as the name of Bela Lugosi’s Hunchback assistant of Frankenstein’s son, and the spelling changed to Igor in parodies. On another note, I don’t think Karloff’s creature is so much unintelligent as inexperienced. When we meet the creature again in the novel, he has been alive for quite some time as speaks as such. He taught himself to speak in months, while the 1931 creature has only been alive for a week or so. I agree with literally everything else you said. Love the video.
I think of Frankenstein as the original AI cautionary tale. Back in the 1800's, the concept of a robot did not yet exist, and so this takes its place in a way. The monster was created by a man who knew the ramifications of making a superior being to humanity and yet did it anyway just cause he could (just like Big Tech is doing with AI). These irresponsible actions led to (or can lead to) terrible consequences, as while the monster/robot is not inherently evil, it will make decisions it sees as logical and yet are atrocious to humanity (like throwing the girl in the lake). Additionally, this robot/monster is smart enough to be aware of its sucky position (either being humanity's slave or being treated as a horrific beast) and so it will commit acts we might find intolerable to get out of it.
This is how the book always came across to me as well. It might not feel as scifi as later stories but the heart of the novel is VERY scifi. If you swap the Creature out for an android or cyborg (kind of like Ex Machina), the story remains mostly the same.
The question today isn’t so much if a more accurate adaptation of Frankenstein is possible, but rather is there enough of an audience to make it worth anybody’s time as anything other than a labor of love?
That's an extremely valid point I didn't think of. You're 100% right though, like Frankenstein doesn't exactly strike me as a 4 quadrant movie if that makes sense.
So the illustrations I used were two kinds; some were from Bernie Wrightson's Frankenstein illustrations, and the rest were from Junji Ito's adaptation of the story.
Another thing could also be the fact their were limits, even at the time, to what could be shown to an audience back then. There was a limit to the violence and Gore, thus it likely played a part in forcing the direction of this film to change. I think one way to look at the Universal film vs Shelly's Novel is: One about a creator who allowed his ambition to create the perfect being, only for it to lack purpose and direction, leading to it becoming the monster it appeared on the outside. The other, two characters: Again a Doctor who sought to learn the mysterious of life, the greatest being of how to create it and the poor soul born from such ambition that lacked that natural touch and direction it so desperately sought after through its whole life. A lost, wayward, soul with no other purpose but to prove a point that it could never do by the force of a single man who made him that way. The film looks more towards the creator, the novel the creator and creation.
That's a excellent point, I think the fact that many horror films were less "violent" lends credence to what you're saying. It's very likely that studios felt that the general public wasn't ready for something like the original Frankenstein story at the time, which is correct to a degree. Even Dracula and the 1931 Frankenstein film were likely considered extremely shocking at the time.
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.
The two main illustrations I used were these illustrations done by Bernie Wrightson, who illustrated select scenes from the novel, and Junji Ito's manga interpretation of the story. That one I highly recommend, it's really solid.
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...
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.
Another interesting (and almost entirely overlooked) difference is in the appearance of the creature. Jack Pierce's iconic makeup set a standard which has not been significantly challenged since its debut, with innumerable variations of the man-sewn-out-of-pieces-of-other-men motif being portrayed across all media over the course of 90-plus years. The novel, in stark contrast, describes-albeit vaguely-something more organic, like a wholesale replication of anatomical structures using a variety of materials not necessarily limited to the human. Never once, to my recollection, does Shelley mention the stitching together of intact structures. I would imagine a novel-accurate creature looking something like a gigantic, amateurish model of a human figure using large animal bones, skeins of random muscle fibre, and lab-cultivated tissue. When people scream and run away, it's not because The Wretch is a biggish guy with bad scars. He's a complete bodily abomination, like a hamburger sculpture brought to life. Not imperfectly-joined real human cheeks and chin and eyes and nose, but an unimaginably grotesque living effigy. Nobody's even tried to bring that to the screen. It should be an integral part of any truly faithful adaptation of the original story.
Yeah I agree 1000%, the Creature’s appearance is something I thought about covering more, but at the time I wanted to focus on other aspects. Still, hindsight is always 20/20 lol. But yeah I'm in the same boat. It's wild how the 1931 Frankenstein is so visually iconic when it's almost entirely made-up, and I think you lose something by making the Creature more...digestible, for lack of a better term. I always felt that the Creature needs to be horrifying AND sympathetic, as the contrast between the two elements is more interesting and creates a more interesting conflict with readers/viewers. Sadly I'm not sure if we'd ever get a "new" interpretation Creature because the 1931 film is so iconic, big I guess we'll see next year.
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.
I'll have to read the original book again, but just going off the way you describe it I get two very distinct modern interpretations that may not have been intended by the original story but has very much in my mind a good chance of being the way it could be told. The first one is that the monster is not a real being and that Victor only imagines the monster while he actually does the various crimes and murders when Victor doesn't succeed in creating life. Now obviously that doesn't fit with the fact that others have seen the monster, and it does kind of pull a little bit from a doctor Jeckyl and Mr Hyde kind of story, but it does sound a lot like the monster was Victor going mad and not conceiving of the fact that he did the actual crimes. The other interpretation that could be from this is that instead of actually bringing the dead back to life, Victor finds a person who is dying and nurses them to life learning about necrosis and other things that slowly kill people including and giving the person organ transplants. The eloquence of the person would have already been there and the monsters acts of the person once he had been healed and was nursing back to heath could be attributed to the brain not surviving oxygen deprivation and slowly dying causing brain damage. Creating a possible idea of the monster not being necessarily created from whole cloth by Victor, but still being created in the sense that while Victor was saving him it took so long that it degraded the person who originally was there. Obviously these are still way outside of what the original story was, but these are possible reinterpretations of the original that just lept to my mind as soon as you described it. And I'm wondering if this is a similar kind of story that Mary Shelley may have been telling without realizing that she was telling it because she didn't necessarily have the idea of either a person who was going mad and why they're going mad or a person who was recovering from severe near-death experience and a lot of decaying body parts and science that had not even been invented yet. I say it is a credit to Mary Shelley's own intelligence, if not what knowledge she did have of what at the time would have been modern science,f for her to have come up with a story that interprets these two concepts in a way that makes it both easier for average people to understand them and still be a brilliant and e during tale that is open to many interpretations.
I like the idea of taking the "spirit" of the book, and tweaking it in a radically different way like you suggested. I definitely could see a version of Frankenstein that was more in line with a psychological thriller, which sounds extremely interesting. And it really just goes to show how versatile the original story is. I feel as if there's so much in there that you could adjust any which way depending on what you the reader take away from the story. Heck, even films like Poor Things or Spirit of the Beehive are great examples of how far it's possible to adjust core elements of Frankenstein into something really interesting.
The only Frankenstein movie I've ever seen is The Curse Of Frankenstein made by Hammer Horror & starring Christopher Lee in the title role. Their version of the monster differs from the original movie apart from still being green in colour.
I've always wanted to do a depiction of the monster from her description. The Karlof monster is its own thing. Victor built it with beautiful attributes.It was supposed to be a perfect man. I took it that when it moved and lived it, had a kind of uncanny valley look. I remember right. She describes large white teeth and flowing black hair. But it definitely would not have Looks like a stitch together zombie.
Me too, that's why I always liked the Bernie Wrightson illustrations of the Creature. Not only are they really creepy, but they're also drawn in a way to where you can see the growing humanity as the story progresses. I don't mind the 1931 Creature design, but I do wish that other variations leaned more to the book version. I think nailing the grotesque nature AND the humanity is critical.
The first Hammer film is my favorite adaptation of the book as I felt it was the closes to capturing Viktor's dark side and was more about him than the Monster. That doesn't mean I don't love the 31 film, I just don't think it is the be all, end all version like many others do. Although, I do think the 31 film is better than Bride because Bride just gets too silly at times. I would really love to a see a proper adaptation of the book made into movie form. Branaugh advertised his as such, but he made way too many changes that went against the book (not to mention it was boring) and Deniro was completely miscast as the monster. It wanted to do to the story what Coppolla did for Dracula, but missed on what make Coppolla's adaptation so good despite having a few changes from the book. There is a comic adaptation of the book coming out that uses Karloff's likeness for the monster that I recommend. They did a version of Dracula of few years ago with Legosi's likeness and it made me love Legosi as the count. Not to mention it made me think about what could have been had they do a proper version of Dracula. I'm hoping the same happens with this upcoming Frankenstein version.
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.
Fun fact (not so fun): even though in the book, the creature kills almost all of Victor’s loved ones, there literally is a brother (middle child) that’s forgotten by even Victor himself when he goes haunting the creature. I re-read the book last year and I was surprised by his existence (I also forgot it), and after I finished the book, I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe Mary Shelley herself forgot 😅. But yeah, I wonder what happened to that little boy after so much tragedy and his whole family was decimated as a consequence of the crazy acts of his twink older brother
Wait really?!? That's crazy, I never noticed either! Maybe I'll try to look out for the elusive middle brother to see for myself, but that's honestly insane. It makes you think about the kind of story that could be told about the lone Frankenstein who lived through all that.
@ yes!! It gives me a bit of hope thinking that in the world, at least one Frankestein (maybe) survived and lived a peaceful life. I like to imagine it that way at least. His names was Ernest ! Great video btw!!
Frankenstein’s full title was “Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus.” And like how Prometheus is punished for stealing the fire from Zeus, Frankenstein is punished for creating life as the Monster destroys everything about Frankenstein’s life. Until Frankenstein finds himself in the Arctic with nothing but his memories as he dies. It is a cautionary tale of how one should not try to be too powerful, or else it will destroy you. The Monster is sympathetic in the fact that people judge him upon sight. But he is still an intelligent being who murders multiple innocent people including a small child and even frames an innocent woman for the death the child he murdered.
I actually first got introduced to the modern prometheus by the novel and not the movie. So I've always thought first of the novel version when someone says the name Frankenstein or Frankenstein's monster
@@ViviVariety Hahahaha that's one way to put it, I only recently got around to watching the movie and I could find a lot of little references to the book, bun essentially, yes, they're two very different stories. I still like both tho
You might want to check out the 2004 TV adaptation of Frankenstein. It feels very faithful to the book, without all the pretentiousness and overacting of Kenneth Branaugh's version. I also think it has the most faithful version of the creature ever put to film.
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.
Arnold Schwartzenegger or Sylvester Stallone would be THE PERFECT Monsters. Seriously. Both are tall, strong, reasonably handsome, and Schwartzenegger's accent or Syl's watery eyes would make them perfect for the role.
Physically I like your suggestions (maybe more like back in their prime lol), but my main concern would be their acting ability. Both Arnie and Stallone can bring it when the time calls for it, so I suppose we'd need a director who can really draw out the emotion from them for a great Creature portrayal.
Good video but you should mention where the visuals came from. You use images from (among others) Bernie Wrightson's classic interpretation and frankly, you couldn't have made a better choice. I think his interpretation of Frankenstein is definitive and really captures (imo) the feel and epic romanticism of Mary Shelley's novel.
What happened with the visuals was sort of impromptu; I originally planned to use the Hallmark TV film because it was the most "accurate" to the book, but I couldn't find a quality source, and while I'd have liked to use the Bernie Wrightson illustrations or Junji Ito's adaptation exclusively, obviously they can only do so much by themselves. I even found a manga adaptation that covered the whole book, but basically couldn't get my digital copy into a usable format lol. But that's basically a longer way of saying that I agree, I definitely could have at least credited the illustrations earlier, but at the time my priority was just making it work after the original plan didn't work out. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20. On the other hand, luckily a lot of fans either are already aware of the illustrations like you, and I'm happy to point them out to the people who are curious. I also think that the Bernie Wrightson illustrations are some of my absolute favorite interpretations of the story, and they're essentially what I imagine when I read the story now.
Victor basically tells himself for the whole novel "Ugh, it's my fault for setting him loose!" And I'm like: "No, shithead, it's your fault for creating him and giving up on him in the first place!"
I actually thought about including it, but with Frankenstein adaptations in particular I wanted to be careful about how deep I wanted to go in the rabbit hole, if that makes sense. There's a LOT of Frankenstein films, so I needed to focus on the most important one, namely the 1931. Otherwise things like Bride of Frankenstein, the Kenneth Branugh one, Spirit of the Beehive, etc, are all worth talking about. Honestly though there also isn't too much I could say about the 1910 film, but it's still a neat part of film history. Maybe someday if I cover all the Frankenstein films I'll get a chance to talk about it!
Frankenstein’s monster loved fire and wanted inclusion but he was othered and excluded so he USED fire to attack the human world. Making the opening lines of the book about solidarity have a dark undertone. It’s a rumination of the abject and perhaps feminist.
Definitely, and I'd say that's one of the reasons why it's held in very high regard. I'd have loved to talk about Bride more because it's SO good, but I drew the line in the sand very early in scripting to focus only on the 1931 film and the novel...with the Kenneth Braungh version as B roll. Truth be told there's so many Frankenstein films, so maybe someday it'd be a good idea to make a video on all of them lol.
The Brannagh movie started off well, but went off the rails toward the end. The 2004 Hallmark miniseries was about 90% book accurate. BTW, nowhere in Shelley's book does it say that the creature was assembled from body parts. In fact, she stayed away from any indication of how the creature was made. The fact that it stands eight feet tall indicates that it was not "assembled," or else Frankenstein would have needed to find several eight-foot tall corpses to work from. Any movie adaptation that features scenes of Frankenstein sewing body parts together is not getting that from the book.
I think another commentator pointed that out too about how it's actually vague what the Creature is made from and whether or not it's "assembled" or more likely, "constructed" . I think a lot of the body part interpretation comes from the 1931 film, and for most other interpretations, a reconstruction of different body parts tends to make the most logical sense. Do you think a combination of human and animal body parts could make sense? Or like, synthetic flesh and organs? I also admit to having trouble imagining how Victor would have created his being beyond the reconstruction and assembly interpretation.
@@ViviVariety Quite honestly, given that it was written by a nineteen-year-old in 1818, I think she stayed away from it on purpose. For instance, when we read comic books and see Superman flying, we just accept it. But every time someone tries to "explain" how Superman flies, it violates the laws of physics. Better left a mystery! I believe there is a quick blurb in Shelley where she says something like "gathering parts from charnel houses and graves," or something like that. From that I take it that in some way, the creature was created from existing organic materials; but the "what" and the "how" remain a mystery. When Robert Louis Stevenson wrote "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," he penned it as a murder mystery. Only at the very end do we discover that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. But film versions, being a visual medium, need string visuals to make the film compelling. Thus, even as far back as 1931, the "transformation scene" has been the highlight of every Jekyll and Hyde film. Likewise, with Frankenstein, the films make much use of the scenes of him digging up bodies, stitching parts together, etc. It's good visual storytelling, and often exciting. But it was not paramount to Shelley, who almost ignores the process entirely so that she can focus on the themes and characters. Another advantage that Hollywood had: the creature is never eight feet tall, so they never had to explain where the eight-foot tall corpses came from. Even the Hallmark version, that wisely avoided the green-skinned, flat-topped, bolted neck character, only had the creature being around 6'2".
It absolutely does, and it especially stands out when you watch other classic horror movies. For me, this Frankenstein and Dracula stand head and shoulders over the others.
@@ViviVariety Totally with you on that - include the Wolf-Man, The Mummy, The Invisible Man. The Creature, Phantom of the Opera, and Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde. I know what I'm doing for Halloween!!!
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
Oh! good point! Never thought of that
It also mirrors Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is mostly set on a ship lost in the fog near the south pole and shares many themes with Frankenstein.
Excellent observation, I never thought of that!
yess exactly
Back in high school, I was assigned an essay with the topic "who was the villain in Frankenstein (book)?" I cited Spider-Man's motto "with great power comes great responsibility" to argue that they both were. Both the doctor and the monster had power over life and death, and they both used it irresponsibly, causing suffering and blaming others all the way. So I agree with your take.
ooh I like your interpretation
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.
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.
That's the real terror. When the creature seeks its vengeance it's extremely, devious, Articulate and calculating about it. That added to its immense physical attributes. Make it an unstoppable engine of vengeance.
@@Shastavalleyoutdoorsman100%
As someone who has studied and writes literature, Frankenstein is a fascinating case where the general public make assumptions based on memes the internet tells then rather than reading it for themselves. As you point out, both are monsters in their own right. When people argue that the creature isn't a monster, its clear they never actually read the book. It willingly kills, understands the horror of its actions, but willingly continues to do so. No matter how sympathetic, that's still the act of a malicious being.
Also, huge props for using Junji Ito's spectacular artwork adaptation of the novel.
Yeah like I can understand how the Creature is sympathetic, because it is; it gets treated horribly and is directly a product of its environment. But the fact that it's so intelligent means that, as you expressed, it knows what it's doing and still acts. The framing of Justine is the most damning example of this.
I can see an argument that the film Creature is less "malicious" only because it's more like a child and legitimately might not know better, but the book version? Nah man, it definitely knows better, which makes it worse imo.
Fr! People love to pretend that characters have to be just one thing, like everything runs on the expectations of the first High School Musical movie or something. The creature being both an indisputable victim _as well as a perpetrator_ is part of why the character is interesting!
Also hate it when people rag on Victor "CEO of Poor Planning" Frankenstein and go "oh the creature didn't actually look horrifying, his eyes were just weird and Victor's a weenie" because the creature's description is legitimately that of an eight foot walking corpse, and idc if someone thinks that a walking and talking dead body wouldn't look viscerally horrifying, because one that is _taller than Shaquille O'Neal_ would DEFINITELY BE AN ORDEAL! He was wrong to abandon his science son, but also staring at something stationary that you made to be beautiful with no reference of how it'll look moving cannot properly prepare you for an eight foot tall corpse moving around and looming at the foot of your bed.
I always found it a little funny how Victor is terrified of the Creature's appearance when he's been working on it for God knows how long. Like my brother in Christ, you made the sandwich lol I've always interpreted it as he knew it was horrifying, but he didn't realize how scary it was until he brought it to life.
I do agree with this. The most intense adaptation of the horror of the creature's awakening its in Penny Dreadful's version. Caliban (the creature's name) is not that horrible but the way it awakes its painful and horrible and that is what shocks Victor @@ViviVariety
@@ViviVariety I think it is kind of like Alfred Nobel and the invention of dynamite. He envisioned it as a wonderful gift to mankind. Then, when he realized people could blow each other up with it, he was driven to establish the Nobel Peace Prize.
I have a lot of faith that Guillermo del Toro can do Frankenstein justice
Ooooh. I think I love this idea.
Much of the casting sounds brilliant (though Garfield being replaced by Elordi is awful, the latter has really not proven he can show complexity/depth on this scale so far) and the arctic setting being confirmed seems to indicate he'll definitely lean on the Shelley version, but he's also expressed many times its not a completely faithful adaptation. Honestly nothing Elordi has done so far makes me convinced he can do this part justice unless he was the playing the dumb gentle giant version of 1931 with A LOT of makeup to make him hideous, but idk if Guillermo del Toro has faith in the guy then I trust him
It sounds like it’s going to be based more on the Universal films
@@GuineaPigEveryday I hope something similar happens to him like with Heath Ledger’s joker, Elordi has a decent acting that’s encapsulated in a boy next door persona, this role is his opportunity to change that
Now that I think about it, mangaka Junji Itto made his own version of Frankenstein.
Much the same can be said about Dracula in terms of the iconic pop culture image and the original source material and it is also interesting that both Frankenstein and Dracula as literary and pop culture icons originated at the same time and place.
I've always felt that each represent the opposite sides of the same coin of fear, one the materialistic science based and the other the religious/spiritual dimensions that confront mankind.
Oh yeah I can't wait to talk about Dracula soon. I was planning on it this year but came up with a different idea, but I agree with everything you said.
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.
@@ViviVarietyYou may have gotten a lot of these comments, but isn’t that due to the influence of Paul Wegener’s popular “Der Golem” films?
They were silent films, but so was the Golem traditionally, and while incredibly strong, it was not especially agile and not at all clever or eloquent.
So the Universal films monster is using names from Mary Shelley’s novel but it’s like Doctor Frankenstein made a golem out of human flesh instead of earth.
That's an awesome observation actually! I never thought of that, and it makes a ton of sense. I do remember coming across "Der Golem" once or twice in my initial research, but I never thought to follow up on that thread for any particular reason. But it makes a ton of sense for sure, so much that you could definitely call the 1931 Creature a "flesh golem" in a sense as you said.
If you examine the Creature from that perspective, the decision to make it silent and powerful makes a lot more sense since it would very much be an intentional homage of sorts.
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*
I'm not crazy about the design, all respect to Junji Ito's genius. It's classic Ito, perfect for his sensibility. But it's just too gross for gross's sake. I feel like the monster's hideousness wouldn't be that surface-level. I love Wrightson as well, and his gorgeous illustrations live in my heart. But as striking as his monster's design is, I keep thinking, wouldn't Victor have thought to give his perfect Adam a nose? What a weird oversight. Again, a surface-level bit of macabre effect.
I feel like I've yet to see a proper depiction of the monster. The impression of the book is that he looks too much like what he is, a corpse animated through artificial means. Shelley talked about exhibitions where "scientists" ran electric current through human cadavers, and the grotesque effect left her deeply disturbed. That was her inspiration, a clearly dead person twitching with artificial impulses. Of course, twitchiness can't be depicted in comics. But I feel like the basic "walking corpse" approach is a bit too simple, not to mention played out. I'd like to see something with a little more nuance.
In fact, I think this is a rare occasion a purely CG monster would be interesting. The trick would be to try and make it seem as real as possible, and the uncanny valley would actually work for it.
@@rottensquid A mix of practical and VFX could create something really cool; they could hire a very broad, gaunt, long-limbed actor and use similar techniques to Lord of the Rings to make him seem a good 7.5/8 feet tall, and they could use a CGI effect on the eyes so that they have no movement and appear glassy. Imagine the monster emoting with its mouth and body language, but whatever reason, the muscles around its eyes are completely dead and never move or blink, the eyes milky and pale like roadkill...
@@MasonMcLeodFilms Right, that would be amazing. But what I want to see is the spasming, twitching flesh all over the body, to indicate the random, unnatural electricity running through it. Something an actor couldn't fake, and practical effects wouldn't be suited for. CGI is a tool, and it's just a matter of whether it's the right tool for the job.
To seem degree that's an escalation of the same sentiment expressed in 1945's Bride of Frankenstein. There the bride also rejects the Creature.
It helps to think of the 1930s films as “inspired” by Mary Shelley’s novel rather than a straight adaptation
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
My favorite least favorite thing about Dr. Frankenstien was that he did feel remorse, as he should, but he always sought to alleviate himself of his remorse, like he didn't deserve to feel it. It was constant! He felt guilty, all the time, but felt like a victim because of it and never did anything to own up or fix his mistakes save near the end where he aims to destroy the creature, even that he gave it no apologies.
Victor really is a mega drama queen lol I feel like it was intentional on Mary Shelley's part to make Victor so whiney, but whiney in a way that didn't make him really change until things escalated. He always talked about how bad he felt, but he basically sat around until the situation got worse and worse.
Then again, if Victor had some semblance of humility and a desire to actually accept his guilt, we probably wouldn't have much of story because most of the story stems directly from Victor's faults.
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.
Not neglect outright abandonment. The monster didn't even have grandparents to raise him in a lazy parents place... Furthermore being a grown infant. It's a wonder he didn't evolve into something completely alien mentally. Imagine if it gas gone into the forest and just developed its psyche watching animals.
It's crazy how The Bride of Frankenstein is a better Frankenstein adaptation that the original film. It's basically the second half of the story where everyone acts more in line with the book.
Right? I'm curious what happened in the production process, like was someone a massive fan of the book, or did they get the rights to use the book as opposed to the play? Regardless, I'm glad whatever happened happened, because Bride is amazing.
The Bride of Frankenstein is indeed sublime, and its score remains one of the first really expressive musical soundtracks.
excellent essay video, well it does seem like DEL TORO is finally doing his Frankenstein movie, a dream project of his for decades and the original book is his personal favorite book so we might be finally getting a truly faithful adaptation next year. Let's hope for the best.
Thank you for this. The novel is my favourite book of all time. I read it a few years ago and I was not expecting much. I was literally blown away by the story and I think a lot about it.
It's cool how nuanced the characters are, despite how archetypal they typically are depicted.
I´m just so on board with whatever Guillermo del Toro is cooking for his adaptation
I'm so glad you showed the Junji Ito adaptation of Frankenstein. It's one of my favorite manga made by him.
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 listened to the novel first when I was 9 or 10. Read by the late Christopher Lee. It really captured the quality of a nightmare for me. Still does. To think it was written by a teenager....incredible
Mary Shelley in general is just a really interesting and talented person. I'm also always surprised when I remember how young she was when she wrote the story, like can you imagine a teenager casually writing a masterpiece nowdays? That's crazy.
Some months ago, my wife and I entered a cycle of gothic reading. I bought her Frankenstein while I was reading Carmilla and other vampire tales and we were narrating what we were reading and Frankenstein was so different from what I tought!
That's a great set of reading, and I'm curious what you thought of Carmilla? I always thought it was interesting how Dracula overshadowed it.
@@ViviVariety I really liked Carmilla. I think its an unique way of telling a vampire story. The way of explaining how some vampires prey on their victims, how it appears to be some sort of obsession.
I quite liked Carmilla a lot too, more than I thought actually. I think I'd say Dracula is the better overall book, but Carmilla is better imo compared to first half of Dracula if that makes sense.
My brother and I watched the 1931 Frankenstein together for the first time not two weeks ago, and I had no idea how different it was from the original! Fascinating essay - it really captured me!
Thanks, I appreciate it! I'd definitely recommend checking out the original book too! The audiobook in particular was an excellent way of experiencing the story.
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.
I first learned of the story of Frankenstein through Richard Orpheus Campbell's Frankenstein Metal Opera, pretty darn faithful to the 1818 Novel. plus the songs in it are pretty darn good!
That sounds rad as hell, now I know what I'm looking up later!
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 :)
Excellent vid. Monstrous actions begets monsters and monsters beget monstrous actions...
Ah, the Hollywood 'Mad' scientist and his creation trope really begins with Rotwang and his female robot in the 1927 Metropolis movie.
If time-machines existed, I would use it to plan and make films that needed to happen.
Such as a Frankenstein horror-thriller blockbuster adaptation that would've done justice to the book and released in 2001 (on the 1931 film's 70th anniversary).
And the cast would be choices like Leonardo DiCaprio as Victor Frankenstein and Matthew McGrory as The Monster.
I feel there are some similarities between the scientist in the German film Metropolis from 1927 and Frankenstein. There is definitely some kind of 1920-1930:s mad scientist archetype somewhere in the background.
I noticed that scientist trend as well, especially with older horror movies like The Invisible Man, Werewolf of London, and Jekyll and Hyde among others. People really loved their crazy inventors at the time lol.
Many German expressionists went to Hollywood at this point to escape angry mustache man
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.
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
I’ve just stumbled upon this treasure now and boy how well it shed a new light on these classics. With that being said, can you do the same concept on Bram Stoker’s Dracula next?
My goal is to cover Dracula next year! I've been putting it off because it's such a big topic, plus delay ended up being a blessing in disguise since the upcoming Nosferatu remake should be a good addition to the discussion.
@ Oh my god that’s so great to hear! You know what? With the kind of content you pulled off, you can really take all the time you need. Anyway kudos to you sir, and may your channel grow as massive as your dedication. Good luck! 👍
I feel so sorry for the creature. It goes to show that monsters aren’t truly born. You can only become one if you choose to act like one, be it intentional or not.
But the creature was only born into the world. They tried to live and understand the world as best they could
Victor’s ambitions to own creation through resurrection of the dead lead to his demise
His Creature walked of into the tundra, no longer obsessed with revenge
What brain did you get?
"Abby something"
Abby, what?
"Abby... normal"
You put an _ABNORMAL_ brain into my monster!
That reminds me, I gotta rewatch Young Frankenstein lol
It's worth to note that the version of the book that mostly everyone knows is from 1831. The first version, from 1818 was later revised by Shelley with her saying that it was "too childish", "not deep enough" and "poorly written". It is very difficult to find that original text from 1818 today, so we should always assume people have read the 1831 version.
Extremely fair point, I think if I were to redo the script, I'd probably add another blurb to that point, and maybe explore some of the differences that could affect the story.
I was lucky in that the two copies I own (a physical copy and a digital one) do seem to be the 1818 version of the text, but I think I'd have liked to check out the 1831 version and see what specifically the differences are. Maybe I'll do a side by side reading whenever I reread the book in the future.
The first time I read Frankenstein (I was in my 40s), I finished and said, "there's never been a movie made of this novel!" I greatly enjoyed the novel, it's a roller-coaster of emotions.
Lol I can understand that, especially since the 1931 film feels so different. I imagine if I read the books before watching the film, I'd probably feel similarly.
The Frankenstein musical is one of the most accurate interpretations that I’ve seen. The ending is different but it makes sense within the story
Huh, interesting. That reminds me of the Cumberbatch/Miller play actually, so I'm curious how the musical is.
I loved Penny Dreadful’s incarnation of Frankenstein’s monster as I always felt that, despite the changes, it carried the soul of the original book. That along with the Kenneth Branagh film created my mental image of how Frankenstein should be adapted into Live Action. Really looking forward to seeing how Guillermo Del Toro’s iteration will turn out.
I am desperate for the day that we get a book-accurate movie adaptation. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the 1931 version, but it chucked pretty much all of the contemplative and philosophical themes and scenarios.
Fingers crossed that Del Toro will deliver next year! I also enjoy the 1931 film, but it does make it hard to discuss because it's just so...prominent.
I love how the most accurate look of the monster is by Junji Ito, who draws some horrific scenes with such disturbing detail!
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...
18:06 A nasu reference is more than enough to convince me to stick around on this channel
Always let em know who you're reppin'
honestly william had it coming with the whole "my father will hear about this" attitude
"Fuck them kids"
-The Creature, probably
Frankstein's Monster is such a classic. Love the artwork of Bernie Wrightson and Junji Ito too.
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.
@@ViviVariety Also Prometheus gets punished by gods in a horribly painful way - being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten by an eagle every day, and nothing good exactly comes out of Frankenstein's god-roleplaying either.
In some myths, Prometheus created humanity from clay in addition to stealing fire from the Gods.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
I am happy to announce that today marks the day I watched the 1931 Frankenstein movie for the first time today!
Nice! What'd you think?
@@ViviVariety
I think it's very dated, but still pretty entertaining.
Sounds about right, I felt the same. That said, I do think my stance on the 1931 film has changed for the better after watching more Classic horror films. Don't get me wrong, I thought and still think the 1931 film is great, but after checking out a lot of older films from that era, Frankenstein stands out even more. I think Dracula is a litttllle better, but both Dracula and Frankenstein are stronger than most later films imo.
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
My favorite parts of the book are the recalling of the texts read! And the explosion of the tree at the beginning
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.
8:31 Hideous? My guy is a baddie
That's the real reason Victor destroyed his second creation. Humanity couldn't handle two bad bitches at once.
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.
_Life everlasting, reanimation, a flawless new design._
*The finest human, in all creation, body bone and mind!*
Great video
William learned rule number one “snitches get stitches or end up in ditches”
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
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.
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.
My favorite is Rory Kinnear's portrayal in _Penny Dreadful_. From the uncanny look to him being actually very well spoken.
I'd have personally preferred if he were a little more grotesque, but I understand that budget was likely a huge limiting factor. But the interpretation nailed the spirit of the character, and for that I couldn't me more happy.
What was the more modern looking Frankenstein movie at 16:41 ?
It's from the TV series Penny Dreadful, which adapted parts of Frankenstein in Seasons 1 and 2.
@ thank you ❤️
Excellent video. It’s interesting how the 1931 movie and its sequels have changed the public perception of Frankenstein. The Bride never was animated in the book, the look of the creature in the public consciousness is that of Boris Karloff, The arms out walking comes from Bela Lugosi’s take on the creature in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman, the Idea of Victor having a Hunchback assistant comes from the 1931 film and the assistant’s name isn’t Igor in that film either, the name ygor was used in Son of Frankenstein as the name of Bela Lugosi’s Hunchback assistant of Frankenstein’s son, and the spelling changed to Igor in parodies. On another note, I don’t think Karloff’s creature is so much unintelligent as inexperienced. When we meet the creature again in the novel, he has been alive for quite some time as speaks as such. He taught himself to speak in months, while the 1931 creature has only been alive for a week or so. I agree with literally everything else you said. Love the video.
I think of Frankenstein as the original AI cautionary tale. Back in the 1800's, the concept of a robot did not yet exist, and so this takes its place in a way. The monster was created by a man who knew the ramifications of making a superior being to humanity and yet did it anyway just cause he could (just like Big Tech is doing with AI). These irresponsible actions led to (or can lead to) terrible consequences, as while the monster/robot is not inherently evil, it will make decisions it sees as logical and yet are atrocious to humanity (like throwing the girl in the lake). Additionally, this robot/monster is smart enough to be aware of its sucky position (either being humanity's slave or being treated as a horrific beast) and so it will commit acts we might find intolerable to get out of it.
This is how the book always came across to me as well. It might not feel as scifi as later stories but the heart of the novel is VERY scifi. If you swap the Creature out for an android or cyborg (kind of like Ex Machina), the story remains mostly the same.
Penny Dreadful nailed the Frankenstein story inspite of being a shared universe
The question today isn’t so much if a more accurate adaptation of Frankenstein is possible, but rather is there enough of an audience to make it worth anybody’s time as anything other than a labor of love?
That's an extremely valid point I didn't think of. You're 100% right though, like Frankenstein doesn't exactly strike me as a 4 quadrant movie if that makes sense.
Does anyone know what print versions the illustrations came from?
So the illustrations I used were two kinds; some were from Bernie Wrightson's Frankenstein illustrations, and the rest were from Junji Ito's adaptation of the story.
Great analysis! And kudos to Penny Dreadful for being a better adaptation than the 1931 film.
Another thing could also be the fact their were limits, even at the time, to what could be shown to an audience back then. There was a limit to the violence and Gore, thus it likely played a part in forcing the direction of this film to change. I think one way to look at the Universal film vs Shelly's Novel is:
One about a creator who allowed his ambition to create the perfect being, only for it to lack purpose and direction, leading to it becoming the monster it appeared on the outside.
The other, two characters: Again a Doctor who sought to learn the mysterious of life, the greatest being of how to create it and the poor soul born from such ambition that lacked that natural touch and direction it so desperately sought after through its whole life. A lost, wayward, soul with no other purpose but to prove a point that it could never do by the force of a single man who made him that way.
The film looks more towards the creator, the novel the creator and creation.
That's a excellent point, I think the fact that many horror films were less "violent" lends credence to what you're saying. It's very likely that studios felt that the general public wasn't ready for something like the original Frankenstein story at the time, which is correct to a degree. Even Dracula and the 1931 Frankenstein film were likely considered extremely shocking at the time.
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.
Where illustration such as the one at 9:57 come from ?
The two main illustrations I used were these illustrations done by Bernie Wrightson, who illustrated select scenes from the novel, and Junji Ito's manga interpretation of the story. That one I highly recommend, it's really solid.
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...
Bernie Wrightson did an outstanding job with his illustrations
I know right?? Too bad the illustrated Frankenstein tends to be really expensive, it looks amazing.
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.
Another interesting (and almost entirely overlooked) difference is in the appearance of the creature. Jack Pierce's iconic makeup set a standard which has not been significantly challenged since its debut, with innumerable variations of the man-sewn-out-of-pieces-of-other-men motif being portrayed across all media over the course of 90-plus years. The novel, in stark contrast, describes-albeit vaguely-something more organic, like a wholesale replication of anatomical structures using a variety of materials not necessarily limited to the human. Never once, to my recollection, does Shelley mention the stitching together of intact structures. I would imagine a novel-accurate creature looking something like a gigantic, amateurish model of a human figure using large animal bones, skeins of random muscle fibre, and lab-cultivated tissue. When people scream and run away, it's not because The Wretch is a biggish guy with bad scars. He's a complete bodily abomination, like a hamburger sculpture brought to life. Not imperfectly-joined real human cheeks and chin and eyes and nose, but an unimaginably grotesque living effigy. Nobody's even tried to bring that to the screen. It should be an integral part of any truly faithful adaptation of the original story.
Yeah I agree 1000%, the Creature’s appearance is something I thought about covering more, but at the time I wanted to focus on other aspects. Still, hindsight is always 20/20 lol.
But yeah I'm in the same boat. It's wild how the 1931 Frankenstein is so visually iconic when it's almost entirely made-up, and I think you lose something by making the Creature more...digestible, for lack of a better term. I always felt that the Creature needs to be horrifying AND sympathetic, as the contrast between the two elements is more interesting and creates a more interesting conflict with readers/viewers.
Sadly I'm not sure if we'd ever get a "new" interpretation Creature because the 1931 film is so iconic, big I guess we'll see next year.
4:29 sounds like Fritz had it comin
Low-key the actual villain of the story
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
I'll have to read the original book again, but just going off the way you describe it I get two very distinct modern interpretations that may not have been intended by the original story but has very much in my mind a good chance of being the way it could be told.
The first one is that the monster is not a real being and that Victor only imagines the monster while he actually does the various crimes and murders when Victor doesn't succeed in creating life. Now obviously that doesn't fit with the fact that others have seen the monster, and it does kind of pull a little bit from a doctor Jeckyl and Mr Hyde kind of story, but it does sound a lot like the monster was Victor going mad and not conceiving of the fact that he did the actual crimes.
The other interpretation that could be from this is that instead of actually bringing the dead back to life, Victor finds a person who is dying and nurses them to life learning about necrosis and other things that slowly kill people including and giving the person organ transplants. The eloquence of the person would have already been there and the monsters acts of the person once he had been healed and was nursing back to heath could be attributed to the brain not surviving oxygen deprivation and slowly dying causing brain damage. Creating a possible idea of the monster not being necessarily created from whole cloth by Victor, but still being created in the sense that while Victor was saving him it took so long that it degraded the person who originally was there.
Obviously these are still way outside of what the original story was, but these are possible reinterpretations of the original that just lept to my mind as soon as you described it. And I'm wondering if this is a similar kind of story that Mary Shelley may have been telling without realizing that she was telling it because she didn't necessarily have the idea of either a person who was going mad and why they're going mad or a person who was recovering from severe near-death experience and a lot of decaying body parts and science that had not even been invented yet. I say it is a credit to Mary Shelley's own intelligence, if not what knowledge she did have of what at the time would have been modern science,f for her to have come up with a story that interprets these two concepts in a way that makes it both easier for average people to understand them and still be a brilliant and e during tale that is open to many interpretations.
I like the idea of taking the "spirit" of the book, and tweaking it in a radically different way like you suggested. I definitely could see a version of Frankenstein that was more in line with a psychological thriller, which sounds extremely interesting.
And it really just goes to show how versatile the original story is. I feel as if there's so much in there that you could adjust any which way depending on what you the reader take away from the story. Heck, even films like Poor Things or Spirit of the Beehive are great examples of how far it's possible to adjust core elements of Frankenstein into something really interesting.
I seriously love Ito's graphic novel!
The only Frankenstein movie I've ever seen is The Curse Of Frankenstein made by Hammer Horror & starring Christopher Lee in the title role. Their version of the monster differs from the original movie apart from still being green in colour.
I've always wanted to do a depiction of the monster from her description. The Karlof monster is its own thing. Victor built it with beautiful attributes.It was supposed to be a perfect man. I took it that when it moved and lived it, had a kind of uncanny valley look. I remember right. She describes large white teeth and flowing black hair. But it definitely would not have Looks like a stitch together zombie.
Me too, that's why I always liked the Bernie Wrightson illustrations of the Creature. Not only are they really creepy, but they're also drawn in a way to where you can see the growing humanity as the story progresses.
I don't mind the 1931 Creature design, but I do wish that other variations leaned more to the book version. I think nailing the grotesque nature AND the humanity is critical.
@@ViviVariety Never heard of those illustrations. I will have to look it up.
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.
A creation is only as Monstrous as it’s creator
Victor’s desire to control creation is his downfall in the end
The first Hammer film is my favorite adaptation of the book as I felt it was the closes to capturing Viktor's dark side and was more about him than the Monster. That doesn't mean I don't love the 31 film, I just don't think it is the be all, end all version like many others do. Although, I do think the 31 film is better than Bride because Bride just gets too silly at times.
I would really love to a see a proper adaptation of the book made into movie form. Branaugh advertised his as such, but he made way too many changes that went against the book (not to mention it was boring) and Deniro was completely miscast as the monster. It wanted to do to the story what Coppolla did for Dracula, but missed on what make Coppolla's adaptation so good despite having a few changes from the book.
There is a comic adaptation of the book coming out that uses Karloff's likeness for the monster that I recommend. They did a version of Dracula of few years ago with Legosi's likeness and it made me love Legosi as the count. Not to mention it made me think about what could have been had they do a proper version of Dracula. I'm hoping the same happens with this upcoming Frankenstein version.
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!
Fun fact (not so fun): even though in the book, the creature kills almost all of Victor’s loved ones, there literally is a brother (middle child) that’s forgotten by even Victor himself when he goes haunting the creature. I re-read the book last year and I was surprised by his existence (I also forgot it), and after I finished the book, I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe Mary Shelley herself forgot 😅. But yeah, I wonder what happened to that little boy after so much tragedy and his whole family was decimated as a consequence of the crazy acts of his twink older brother
Wait really?!? That's crazy, I never noticed either! Maybe I'll try to look out for the elusive middle brother to see for myself, but that's honestly insane. It makes you think about the kind of story that could be told about the lone Frankenstein who lived through all that.
@ yes!! It gives me a bit of hope thinking that in the world, at least one Frankestein (maybe) survived and lived a peaceful life. I like to imagine it that way at least. His names was Ernest ! Great video btw!!
Frankenstein’s full title was “Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus.”
And like how Prometheus is punished for stealing the fire from Zeus, Frankenstein is punished for creating life as the Monster destroys everything about Frankenstein’s life. Until Frankenstein finds himself in the Arctic with nothing but his memories as he dies.
It is a cautionary tale of how one should not try to be too powerful, or else it will destroy you.
The Monster is sympathetic in the fact that people judge him upon sight. But he is still an intelligent being who murders multiple innocent people including a small child and even frames an innocent woman for the death the child he murdered.
I actually first got introduced to the modern prometheus by the novel and not the movie. So I've always thought first of the novel version when someone says the name Frankenstein or Frankenstein's monster
That's cool, that must have been an interesting experience. It's like going through your life without knowing Vader is Luke's father or something lol.
@@ViviVariety Hahahaha that's one way to put it, I only recently got around to watching the movie and I could find a lot of little references to the book, bun essentially, yes, they're two very different stories. I still like both tho
Good job. 👍
You might want to check out the 2004 TV adaptation of Frankenstein. It feels very faithful to the book, without all the pretentiousness and overacting of Kenneth Branaugh's version. I also think it has the most faithful version of the creature ever put to film.
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.
Arnold Schwartzenegger or Sylvester Stallone would be THE PERFECT Monsters. Seriously. Both are tall, strong, reasonably handsome, and Schwartzenegger's accent or Syl's watery eyes would make them perfect for the role.
Physically I like your suggestions (maybe more like back in their prime lol), but my main concern would be their acting ability. Both Arnie and Stallone can bring it when the time calls for it, so I suppose we'd need a director who can really draw out the emotion from them for a great Creature portrayal.
@ViviVariety yeah, i was talking about them in their prime, maybe in the 90s. Do you think Henry Cavill could work?
Good video but you should mention where the visuals came from. You use images from (among others) Bernie Wrightson's classic interpretation and frankly, you couldn't have made a better choice. I think his interpretation of Frankenstein is definitive and really captures (imo) the feel and epic romanticism of Mary Shelley's novel.
What happened with the visuals was sort of impromptu; I originally planned to use the Hallmark TV film because it was the most "accurate" to the book, but I couldn't find a quality source, and while I'd have liked to use the Bernie Wrightson illustrations or Junji Ito's adaptation exclusively, obviously they can only do so much by themselves. I even found a manga adaptation that covered the whole book, but basically couldn't get my digital copy into a usable format lol.
But that's basically a longer way of saying that I agree, I definitely could have at least credited the illustrations earlier, but at the time my priority was just making it work after the original plan didn't work out. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.
On the other hand, luckily a lot of fans either are already aware of the illustrations like you, and I'm happy to point them out to the people who are curious. I also think that the Bernie Wrightson illustrations are some of my absolute favorite interpretations of the story, and they're essentially what I imagine when I read the story now.
Victor basically tells himself for the whole novel "Ugh, it's my fault for setting him loose!"
And I'm like: "No, shithead, it's your fault for creating him and giving up on him in the first place!"
Not a very self-reflective lad, that one.
What about the 1910 version.
I actually thought about including it, but with Frankenstein adaptations in particular I wanted to be careful about how deep I wanted to go in the rabbit hole, if that makes sense. There's a LOT of Frankenstein films, so I needed to focus on the most important one, namely the 1931. Otherwise things like Bride of Frankenstein, the Kenneth Branugh one, Spirit of the Beehive, etc, are all worth talking about.
Honestly though there also isn't too much I could say about the 1910 film, but it's still a neat part of film history. Maybe someday if I cover all the Frankenstein films I'll get a chance to talk about it!
@@ViviVariety ok really loved the video thanks for this reply.
There has yet to be a great true adaptation. Maybe the TV version in the late 70s-early 80s.
The Hallmark version released some time back isn't half bad either. But yeah, proper adaptations are few and far between.
Frankenstein’s monster loved fire and wanted inclusion but he was othered and excluded so he USED fire to attack the human world. Making the opening lines of the book about solidarity have a dark undertone. It’s a rumination of the abject and perhaps feminist.
That's a really good observation, I never connected the dots like that!
Ties into the Promethean theme and its alternate title.
0:42 ayo, you play Sekiro?
Yup! One of my favorite From games!
In the bride of Frankenstein movie much more of the creatures character from the book is used
Definitely, and I'd say that's one of the reasons why it's held in very high regard. I'd have loved to talk about Bride more because it's SO good, but I drew the line in the sand very early in scripting to focus only on the 1931 film and the novel...with the Kenneth Braungh version as B roll. Truth be told there's so many Frankenstein films, so maybe someday it'd be a good idea to make a video on all of them lol.
The Brannagh movie started off well, but went off the rails toward the end. The 2004 Hallmark miniseries was about 90% book accurate.
BTW, nowhere in Shelley's book does it say that the creature was assembled from body parts. In fact, she stayed away from any indication of how the creature was made. The fact that it stands eight feet tall indicates that it was not "assembled," or else Frankenstein would have needed to find several eight-foot tall corpses to work from. Any movie adaptation that features scenes of Frankenstein sewing body parts together is not getting that from the book.
I think another commentator pointed that out too about how it's actually vague what the Creature is made from and whether or not it's "assembled" or more likely, "constructed" . I think a lot of the body part interpretation comes from the 1931 film, and for most other interpretations, a reconstruction of different body parts tends to make the most logical sense.
Do you think a combination of human and animal body parts could make sense? Or like, synthetic flesh and organs? I also admit to having trouble imagining how Victor would have created his being beyond the reconstruction and assembly interpretation.
@@ViviVariety Quite honestly, given that it was written by a nineteen-year-old in 1818, I think she stayed away from it on purpose. For instance, when we read comic books and see Superman flying, we just accept it. But every time someone tries to "explain" how Superman flies, it violates the laws of physics. Better left a mystery!
I believe there is a quick blurb in Shelley where she says something like "gathering parts from charnel houses and graves," or something like that. From that I take it that in some way, the creature was created from existing organic materials; but the "what" and the "how" remain a mystery.
When Robert Louis Stevenson wrote "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," he penned it as a murder mystery. Only at the very end do we discover that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. But film versions, being a visual medium, need string visuals to make the film compelling. Thus, even as far back as 1931, the "transformation scene" has been the highlight of every Jekyll and Hyde film.
Likewise, with Frankenstein, the films make much use of the scenes of him digging up bodies, stitching parts together, etc. It's good visual storytelling, and often exciting. But it was not paramount to Shelley, who almost ignores the process entirely so that she can focus on the themes and characters.
Another advantage that Hollywood had: the creature is never eight feet tall, so they never had to explain where the eight-foot tall corpses came from. Even the Hallmark version, that wisely avoided the green-skinned, flat-topped, bolted neck character, only had the creature being around 6'2".
Frankenstein 31 holds up. It's still one of the best movies ever made.
It absolutely does, and it especially stands out when you watch other classic horror movies. For me, this Frankenstein and Dracula stand head and shoulders over the others.
@@ViviVariety Totally with you on that - include the Wolf-Man, The Mummy, The Invisible Man. The Creature, Phantom of the Opera, and Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde. I know what I'm doing for Halloween!!!