SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 25 Nov 1994 14:38:01 CST
text/plain (29 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I think that J. Roberson has a good point re:  the new Frankenstein movie.
That is, it *was* written as an exploration of other issues (science, etc.),
as the subtitle (of the Shelley's book) tells us: _Frankenstein, Or the
Modern Prometheus_.  For all those who don't know the Prometheus myth, he
was the guy who gave fire to humans (when, according to the gods, he wasn't
supposed to).  He did this because he felt sorry for them, supposedly, but
he was then chained to a rock/mountain (the myth varies) and had his liver
pecked out by large and horrible birds.  Connect this to Victor and the
issues that science brings to us, such as surrogacy, in vitro, etc., and J.
Roberson mentioned.  This was precisely my point when I said to read the
book -- *these* are the issues, not whether Kenneth Brannaugh re-made the
movie better than James Whale back in 1931.
Pretty good call, J. Roberson, for someone who hasn't  a) read the book or
b) seen the new movie or c) seen the old movies.
As a result of Victor's "taking on" of the role of God/the gods, whether or
not he is interested in/delighted by the monster's ability (in the book or
the movie) to read, to talk, and so forth, is *not* the main point, or
possibly even a main "sub" point.
Other opinions?  The book (in my opinion) has many interesting themes, and
open to much analysis.  The new movie?  I still liked it, despite the large
groups of audiences who are still panning it.  O well!
Donna Harrington