SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 4


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 24 Nov 1994 10:09:47 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (21 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I don't think we should have to read to book to understand the film.  If
>so the movie is wrong.  Though I would love to see a movie that was
>really "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I think it curious only. This new
>Frankenstein film was not so close.  But it could have replaced the
It's my understanding that the original book is less horror and more
exploratory of the questions of science and ethics - questions that
are quite pertinent today as we delve further into genetics, in-vitro
fertilization, and surrogate motherhood. I think that a lot of people are
used to thinking of Frankenstein as horror, and if the movie focuses on
the high-brow themes rather than fright. . . .it's no wonder some are
disappointed with it.
Of course, I haven't seen the new movie, or too many of the old Frank movies,
and I haven't read the book. Take it as you will.
J Roberson