brannagh v's shelley (1 Viewer)

[Igor]

ok, i've noticed that there are a couple of conflicting views regarding the quailty and worth of Kenneth Brannagh's version of frankenstein.
namely, people are disagreing with me. i propose a debate.
i will relent to a superior argument.

my point is this; kenneth brannagh does not use the original themes of the text as the focus of his film and goes as far as using the contemporary issues of child labour, family fragmentation and the industrial revolution as background concepts when in fact they were the source of inspiration for the novel.

please post your ideas or convictions. this will probably be useful when it comes to yearly exams for all us yr 11ers.

 

[Ath]

you have to look at the cultural context in which both the texts were composed, the role women and children played in those time periods. He does lose a fraction of the original themes, but compensates with modern themes which can be related to. that is the purpose of the contrast

 

[Igor]

just curious,

what modern themes?

shelley's book use contemporary themes such as the industrial revolution, waning family valsue and the move towards a nuclear family from the traditional extended family unit, advancements in medecine alowing for an extension of life for the people who could afford it and the huge inequality between men and women when it came to education. Shelley also used the idea of "created life" in opposition to "god's will".

as far as i could see Brannagh uses a bare minimum of these themes an only extends the idea of 'created life' a theme shelley already had. My biggest problem with this is that brannagh left out the religius implicatio

 

[Igor]

just curious,

what modern themes?

shelley's book use contemporary themes such as the industrial revolution, waning family valsue and the move towards a nuclear family from the traditional extended family unit, advancements in medecine alowing for an extension of life for the people who could afford it and the huge inequality between men and women when it came to education. Shelley also used the idea of "created life" in opposition to "god's will".

as far as i could see Brannagh uses a bare minimum of these themes an only extends the idea of 'created life' a theme shelley already had. My biggest problem with this is that brannagh left out the religius implications of this. there was no soul searching on Victor's part in Brannagh's movie.

 

[glycerine]

umm, you don't think the idea of "created life" versus "god's will" is relevant in a modern context, particularly 10 years ago when the movie was made? i think it's damn relevant - ideas of cloning, ivf etc.

 

[Igor]

it's definitely still relevant and the issues (IVF, cloning etc) are all relevant. my beef is that they weren't explored as deeply as they should have been.

brannagh did go into the idea of cloning/ creation for personal satisfaction, and very effectivley. unfortunatley, this was brief and not the running theme it could have been

 

[:kaz.n:]

Originally posted by Igor
it's definitely still relevant and the issues (IVF, cloning etc) are all relevant. my beef is that they weren't explored as deeply as they should have been.

brannagh did go into the idea of cloning/ creation for personal satisfaction, and very effectivley. unfortunatley, this was brief and not the running theme it could have been

I agree...he didnt do a very good job incorporating all of the socio-cultural points shelley put into her book in her time..he basically picked the most prominent discourse and VERY briefly touched on some of the others...what he did do well was show how much more significant women are in society now in comparison to shelleys time by making Elizabeth more bold in the movie whereas she was kinda shy in the book...and yeh it briefly touches on cloning but he could have gone so much deeper..u gotta remember this movie was for hollywood so they have to ad an element of melodramatism and "trashyness" to appeal to every1..

 

[meeli]

Personally? I think Kenneth Brannagh has an ego too big for the screen. He takes his shirt off in so many scenes it's not even funny anymore.

Do you think the whole resurrection of Elizabeth was completely necessary?In fact, do you think it even made a good point apart from being disgustingly executed for sheer horror value?

What REALLY bothers me is that Brannagh calls the film 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' as if it is an appropriation that is true to the text. Well, I guess it's not that bad. But his post-modernist references are all very very cliched.

Obviously Brannagh is making a point, but the problem then arises that if the film is so badly written, badly acted and poorly executed that the point is completely lost, does the film succeed?

Put your shirt back on, Kenneth.

 

[Igor]

lol, nice point meeli!

i think part of the problem is that there was an effort to renew the gothic movement, and shift it from literature to film and television. in 1994 there were new and very strange movies coming out, and although zombi, vampire and ghost movies were just as common as they are now they were more 'modernistic'. most of the films from the late 80s and into the 90s were more focused on very modern issues, like teenage pregnancie (not a completely modern issue, but it doesn't have the "shh don't talk about it quality now), heavy drug use, increasing rates of divorce, medical and technological advances etc.

sci fi films and horror flicks did go through a bit of a gothic revival, led by remakes of "night of the living dead", "Bram stokers dracula" and of course "mary shelley's frankenstein". problem is that these films didn't go down so well, and people were still pretty interested in modern horror so gothic *went* modern. the recent films from this very broad genre include "gothika" (not very good.) "underworld" as well as tv series like "buffy" and "angel". there are of course many others but i haven't seen them so i won't comment.

branagh tried to do justice to the idea of a gothic film and give it the smae qualities as a novel, but he went over the top and the result was a stomach churning collage of dark lighting, excesses of reds and blacks, and lots and lots of "what's around the corner" scenes.
the film quality itself is very good, the vision is very clear and the settings are easily identifiable. the music--- what can i say. i like orchestral scores, but not that much. the script-- could have done without so much screaming and branagh running around and leaping about. cinematography-- too many low shots, although it was smooth and the camera work conected with the script and themes very well there was a lot of *swooping * stuff going on that i didn't like.

i know i'm just giving an opinion i'm trying to get a point across:
too gothic. would have been better if they'd toned it down a bit.

i'd have been much happier if it hadn''t been called "*Mary Shelley's* Frankenstein" too.