On the other hand, many of the conclusions and thoughts I had come to after viewing the theatrical version stayed true to form in the film. For example, from the moment that Mr. Cooper admits that he refused to come help when he heard a woman screaming upstairs, it becomes very clear that he will not be the hero of the film. Throughout the rest of the plot, the audience is made to dislike him more and more to the point where we are almost glad that he gets killed. Ironically however, his initial suggestion of staying in the cellar might have saved them all had they followed his advice. With that said, it also seems likely that they all could have survived upstairs had they managed to work together effectively. Ultimately, I still believe that it isn't the undead that gets them killed, it's the fact that they fight among themselves.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Thoughts on Night of the Living Dead
Today in class we finished viewing Night of the Living Dead, a classic zombie film that helped spark the entire "zombie apocalypse" genre. While I had never seen the movie before, I had participated (as a special effects technician) in my high school's play adaptation, so I had most of the lines memorized beforehand. I found the contrasts and similarities between the two very interesting. Besides the obvious changes that had to be made in terms of set and script to make an adaptation plausible, it was the differences in the original film's characters surprised me the most. Barbara especially seemed exceedingly helpless and incapable. I had always assumed that she "was in a state of shock", but still capable of functioning and participating to some degree. The Barbara I saw today spoke very few words, did nothing useful to help the survivor's situation, and generally seemed to embody the sexist stereotype of women being less capable than men in stressful situations.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thoughts on Metropolis
Today I finished watching Metropolis, which was not only my first time watching the film but also my first experience with silent movies. I had anticipated disliking the lack of verbal dialog between characters, but I was actually pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to understand what was going on. The musical accompaniment was so fitting for what was happening on-screen that at times I felt it provided more clarity than words could have. It was also interesting to see how the actors worked to produce emotion through only their body movements. Sometimes they could mouth simple words, and sometimes they expressed agitation through the speed of their movements, but most commonly they seemed to utilize highly expressive facial poses. Acting must have undoubtedly been a different art form back then.
I also saw many parallels to Frankenstein in this film. Most obviously this includes the appearance of "humanoid like" monsters (in this case represented by the Machine Man), but it was also evident in the characters. Metropolis may not have had the character depth the Mary Shelley had the opportunity to develop in her novel, but the characters of Rotwang The Inventor as well as Freder both contain many elements of Victor Frankenstein. Rotwang obviously represents the ambitious, scientifically curious side of Victor (the one driven to create monsters). Freder represents the post-monster Victor, someone who has just understood a great wrong and will stop at nothing to remedy it. The female role in Metropolis, while much more significant than we see in Frankenstein was also consistently dominated and controlled by men. Just as Victor ultimately (but indirectly) kills Justine and Elisabeth, Maria is utilize by the workers, Joh, Rotwang, and ultimately saved by Freder.
The one element I felt most lacking in Metropolis had to be the logic on the laborers part. It seemed unlikely and slightly insulting to assume that the working hands of the city could by that easily lead and manipulated. Firstly, they failed to see through the guise of a (fairly obviously) crazy Maria clone. They didn't find anything suspicious about the way in which she completely changed her viewpoint after years of promoting peace. Secondly, how is it possible that every single worker managed to completely "forget" about their children when they went to flood the city? That just seems like the movie writers were trying too hard to make their conclusion work.
I also saw many parallels to Frankenstein in this film. Most obviously this includes the appearance of "humanoid like" monsters (in this case represented by the Machine Man), but it was also evident in the characters. Metropolis may not have had the character depth the Mary Shelley had the opportunity to develop in her novel, but the characters of Rotwang The Inventor as well as Freder both contain many elements of Victor Frankenstein. Rotwang obviously represents the ambitious, scientifically curious side of Victor (the one driven to create monsters). Freder represents the post-monster Victor, someone who has just understood a great wrong and will stop at nothing to remedy it. The female role in Metropolis, while much more significant than we see in Frankenstein was also consistently dominated and controlled by men. Just as Victor ultimately (but indirectly) kills Justine and Elisabeth, Maria is utilize by the workers, Joh, Rotwang, and ultimately saved by Freder.
The one element I felt most lacking in Metropolis had to be the logic on the laborers part. It seemed unlikely and slightly insulting to assume that the working hands of the city could by that easily lead and manipulated. Firstly, they failed to see through the guise of a (fairly obviously) crazy Maria clone. They didn't find anything suspicious about the way in which she completely changed her viewpoint after years of promoting peace. Secondly, how is it possible that every single worker managed to completely "forget" about their children when they went to flood the city? That just seems like the movie writers were trying too hard to make their conclusion work.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Dr. Frankenstein's Folly
In this post I would like to discuss some of Victor's decision making skills. While, as a scientist, it would be easy to assume that Victor would use logic and care when resolving decisions in his life, in reality his choices throughout the course of Frankenstein appear to consistently decrease in rationality. I primarily attributed this to the mental trauma and sorrow that he began experiencing towards the conclusion of the novel. However, in one instance he made a choice with such questionably judgement that I had to wonder how he could have assumed it would be a good idea.
I'm speaking specifically of Victor's decision to travel back to his home and marry Elisabeth. The decision he made despite an obvious threat:
One would think that those words would send a clear message to Victor about the intelligence of returning to marry his future wife. Contrary to my expectations though, when Victor does receive a request from Elisabeth about the future of their relationship, he somehow convinces himself that it could bring no danger upon her to return:
Victor both foolishly and selfishly assumes that only he could be in danger from the monster (the same monster that has already killed three of his friends without attacking him). He seems to convince himself that he is only returning to ensure her and his father's happiness for a short while, at least until he is inevitably killed. In the lines leading up to Elisabeth's death scene, the foreshadowing makes Victors obliviousness painful to read. Despite the sadness of this chapter, this was one of the times when my annoyance over his decision pulled me out of the story more than I would have liked. I understand the importance to the plot that this event occurs, but it was a moment in the novel when I would have most liked to intervene.
I'm speaking specifically of Victor's decision to travel back to his home and marry Elisabeth. The decision he made despite an obvious threat:
"I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent the injuries you inflict...I go; but remember, I shall be with you on your wedding night" -Pg 147
One would think that those words would send a clear message to Victor about the intelligence of returning to marry his future wife. Contrary to my expectations though, when Victor does receive a request from Elisabeth about the future of their relationship, he somehow convinces himself that it could bring no danger upon her to return:
"I resolved therefore, that if my immediate union with my cousin would conduce either to hers or my father's happiness, my adversary's designs against my life should not retard it a single hour"-Pg 167
Victor both foolishly and selfishly assumes that only he could be in danger from the monster (the same monster that has already killed three of his friends without attacking him). He seems to convince himself that he is only returning to ensure her and his father's happiness for a short while, at least until he is inevitably killed. In the lines leading up to Elisabeth's death scene, the foreshadowing makes Victors obliviousness painful to read. Despite the sadness of this chapter, this was one of the times when my annoyance over his decision pulled me out of the story more than I would have liked. I understand the importance to the plot that this event occurs, but it was a moment in the novel when I would have most liked to intervene.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster
Hello,
This is my first post on The Monster Blog, an online location where I will comment on different aspects of the literature I read in my Intro to Literature class (which will be focusing on monsters and monstrosities).
To start things off, I'd like to give my first impressions after reading Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. As I began the book, I almost immediately realized that my "popular culture" based understanding of Frankenstein was almost totally inconsistent with the original text. I had never read the novel or watched any of the movies beforehand, and so my understanding of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster primarily came from Halloween costumes and the "It's alive!" quote. If I were to summarize the plot, it would have revolved primarily around a deranged doctor/scientist determined to re-animate monsters for the purposes of devastation and power. In reality, I found both Frankenstein and his monster not only to be thoughtful and multifaceted characters, but also ones without any (initial) desire to cause harm or evil. Ultimately, I thought it was a story that revolved around a conflict of ambition and a lack of acceptance. Despite the well meaning intentions of all characters in the story, however, it still proved to be an incredibly depressing and dark plot. While I was impressed with most parts of the story, I did that it could have done better in two areas. Firstly, I didn't ever feel a sense of fear in what is normally defined as a horror story. Maybe this is more a reflection of the year when I read this as opposed to when it was published, but it seemed to be more of a series of increasingly tragic events that a book that made you afraid to go outside at night. Secondly, I felt that more time could have been spent on Dr. Frankenstein's transformation that lead him to the morally and ethically questionable task of reanimating parts of dead bodies. In fairness, I did read the book in one sitting over the course of a few hours, which could have made this part feel briefer than it was. Still, I never really saw a tipping point when the ambitious chemistry student suddenly turned into man capable of digging up and stitching dead body parts together. Hopefully a re-reading of this part could shed more light on his situation.
This is my first post on The Monster Blog, an online location where I will comment on different aspects of the literature I read in my Intro to Literature class (which will be focusing on monsters and monstrosities).
To start things off, I'd like to give my first impressions after reading Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. As I began the book, I almost immediately realized that my "popular culture" based understanding of Frankenstein was almost totally inconsistent with the original text. I had never read the novel or watched any of the movies beforehand, and so my understanding of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster primarily came from Halloween costumes and the "It's alive!" quote. If I were to summarize the plot, it would have revolved primarily around a deranged doctor/scientist determined to re-animate monsters for the purposes of devastation and power. In reality, I found both Frankenstein and his monster not only to be thoughtful and multifaceted characters, but also ones without any (initial) desire to cause harm or evil. Ultimately, I thought it was a story that revolved around a conflict of ambition and a lack of acceptance. Despite the well meaning intentions of all characters in the story, however, it still proved to be an incredibly depressing and dark plot. While I was impressed with most parts of the story, I did that it could have done better in two areas. Firstly, I didn't ever feel a sense of fear in what is normally defined as a horror story. Maybe this is more a reflection of the year when I read this as opposed to when it was published, but it seemed to be more of a series of increasingly tragic events that a book that made you afraid to go outside at night. Secondly, I felt that more time could have been spent on Dr. Frankenstein's transformation that lead him to the morally and ethically questionable task of reanimating parts of dead bodies. In fairness, I did read the book in one sitting over the course of a few hours, which could have made this part feel briefer than it was. Still, I never really saw a tipping point when the ambitious chemistry student suddenly turned into man capable of digging up and stitching dead body parts together. Hopefully a re-reading of this part could shed more light on his situation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)