You're right for one part. It did turn the monster into a joke. But then again the film was so inventive and playfull with its characters that most people (including me) don't mind. It is a spectacle!

BoF can be seen as a kind of prototype for the usual Hollywood action-comedy. Show some serious stuff and mingle it with enough humor for the whole family to enjoy.

Have you ever read the book? He's not entirely sympathetic in it; in fact, once he gets angry and hurt, he's no longer sympathetic at all.

Have you ever read the book? He's not entirely sympathetic in it; in fact, once he gets angry and hurt, he's no longer sympathetic at all.

Interesting. Nope, haven't read it yet, but I'd like to eventually to be able to compare and see all the differences.

Yeah, he kills out of revenge for Victor abandoning him. He wanted a bride so he wouldn't be alone and when his creator thought that it would be an abomination or burden on mankind if they were able to have children. He Di dnt want them replacing humanity and drowned with him in the artic ice

Yeah, the book was much darker. I read it way before seeing the films. When I watched this film for the first time, I was disappointed that the monster and his bride did not get along and they both died.

I guess that is the hopeless romantic side of me.

@Phasmophobia said:

Talking and smoking cigars?

The monster's entire persona was changed in this. In the first, he was more of a tortured soul; he only hurt others in self defense or because he didn't know any better. But in the sequel, I didn't feel as much sympathy for him (except during the blind man scenes). I'm just kind of mad at Whale for turning the character into some murderous buffoon.

He spoke in the book; sometimes he can't shut up. He started mute and sympathetic and gradually learned (from living next to a blind man and his family, who were oblivious to his existence) to speak and became less sympathetic as things went on, being responsible for multiple deaths carried out in cold blood. His character learned, grew, and evolved. The book's not flawless, we don't need so much of the captain's backstory and the creature constantly peeping through the window of the family (even learning to read that way) without their noticing him was ridiculous.

It's not meant to be a 1-1 adaption of the novel, but it does follow the story it started to its natural conclusion.

The movies made a joke out of the book. In the book, the creature is the protagonist, intelligent, sympathetic, and turned into a 'monster' by having been abandoned by its creator.

If the central metaphor isn't obvious by that description, how about the full title of Mary Shelley's novel: Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus

Prometheus was the Greek titan who created humans. Thus, the metaphor Shelley makes is that Frankenstein is "god" and the creature is the human race. Having been abandoned by its creator and left without any guidance, humanity turns to the the only primal thing that it had been taught: surivial by violence. Mary Shelley was making a compelling argument for the decay of the human race in the absence of any tangible god. The book was wayy ahead of its time, written when atheism/misotheism could get you strung up in certain parts of Europe. As well as today in certain parts of Arkansas.

James Whale of course castrated the entire story, retelling it as a simple monster mayhem flick. His cinematic techniques were masterful but as for the philosophical and literary merits of the novel, he basically pooped all over that.

Victor didn't "abandon" the creature so much as he had a nervous collapse right after it came to life that (if I remember correctly) took months to recover from, after that it's a matter of taking responsibility for his creation. They don't beat you over the head with the message in the movie and people will interpret certain aspects however they like. The 1931 film was adapted from the Peggy Webling play, not directly from the novel, and the story had been altered as early as 1821 with the stage play Presumption: or, the Fate of Frankenstein. The assistant, Fritz made his first appearance in Presumption, only three years after the original publication.

I have mixed feelings about the novel, a lot of it comes off as someone just trying to fill pages with words and crowbar their philosophies into a narrative rather than tell a coherent story.

The book isn’t for everyone. Like I said, it’s an extremely potent allegory for the human condition with cloaked themes of misotheism and even a Nietzschean sting at the end, long before Nietzsche said it much less eloquently (“God is dead.”)

If your primary interest is a snappy story then sure, much of the book’s theosophical explorations would seem like filler.

Not sure if this contributes meaningfully, but I'll always look for any chance to recommend Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Branagh presumes to attempt telling the story as close to the original novel as has ever been committed to celluloid. Criticism of his efforts abound...BUT, compared to all else that is out there, short of reading the book, this may be the best film adaptation to start with.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Not sure if this contributes meaningfully, but I'll always look for any chance to recommend Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Branagh presumes to attempt telling the story as close to the original novel as has ever been committed to celluloid. Criticism of his efforts abound...BUT, compared to all else that is out there, short of reading the book, this may be the best film adaptation to start with.

Thanks for the reminder! That’s the one where Robert De Niro plays the creature, right? It’s been a while since I saw it but I remember De Niro’s great performance 👍