MovieChat Forums > Frankenstein (1931) Discussion > You gotta admit, the movie does pale whe...

You gotta admit, the movie does pale when compared to the novel


The movie is a great classic and easy to watch but the novel is just a masterpiece. It's just so much deeper than the movie and the monster seems even more tragic because he is so intelligent. Victor/Henry is also a lot more likeable and sympathtic in the novel.

reply

Frankenstein is a prime example of how a classic movie can be made from a classic novel while being an extremely loose adaptation. They really are two different beasts, but both classics in their own mediums.

One thing to keep in mind is that Whale's Frankenstein is not directly based on the novel, but on a stage play adaptation of the novel. Most people don't realize that over the century between Shelley's novel and Whale's movie were numerous stage adaptations of Frankenstein (yes, there was even at least one Frankenstein parody play produced decades before Mel Brooks was born). The movie was born more from the tradition of the Frankenstein stage plays than as a direct adaptation of the novel.

reply

Yeah good point

reply

Two very different beasts. But two equally good beasts, in my opinion :) Whilst this movie is often seen as a warning that science has its limits, I feel the novel is more of a warning about parental responsibility and how important it is for one to think about the consequences of ones actions.

It's not easy having a good time. Even smiling makes my face ache.

reply

I've always loved this particular discussion; both the general novel-vs-film debate, and this specific Frankenstein novel-vs-Frankenstein film sub topic.

When I was a teenager back in the '60's, I decided to read the novel of my favorite movie, Frankenstein, which I first saw on tv's Shock Theater in the 50's. I was kinda blown away at how different the two were. The eloquence of the literary monster was a huge surprise. I was a little uneasy at how my favorite movie could have been, as I briefly believed it to be at the time, such a poor representation of the classic novel. I wondered if I should be embarrassed to tell anyone how much I loved the movie. This got me interested in the wider debate of novels and their film adaptations.

Having become a huge classic horror movie fan and subscriber-in-good-standing to three or four horror magazines, I came to know the history and tradition of the film's lineage much as described by moundshroud. The screenplay of Whale's film, despite the marketing claims at the time of it's release, is indeed more directly adapted from an earlier stageplay than from the novel. (I'll have to watch the film yet again to see if the stageplay appears in the credits, as I believe it does.)

On subsequent readings of the novel, the third or fourth of which I couldn't quite finish, I have come to the conclusion that, the book's importance to literary history aside, both works are quite dated, but the film holds up better. For me, the literary doctor's eloquent but wordy self-pity, which continues page after page, on and on, ad nauseum, is really irritating.

reply

the literary doctor's eloquent but wordy self-pity, which continues page after page, on and on, ad nauseum, is really irritating.

Agreed. Mary Shelley wouldn't use one word when she could use twenty.

reply

I've read the book at least twice, and I'm not sure you could make a watchable movie from an almost unreadable book. A long time ago I watched a scene from a TV special that portayed Frankenstein and the Monster as Mary Shelley wrote them. It was a conversation between the two and used Shelley's dialog. For a breif scene it was pretty good, but I can't imagine an entire movie like that. Some of the more recent films have tried to get closer to Shelley's story, but even they eventually fall into the "evil Monster" trap.

reply

Everything in the film is suggested by the book, not least the monster not being inherently evil, but being turned that way by his treatment.

I didn't really enjoy the novel actually, too preposterous (and I don't mean the idea of bring bits back to life, rather those bits being able to attain an education far superior to my own simply from overhearing people talk!).

The monster in the movie is more interesting, I think, and the look is an all time design classic, superior in concept to what little is described in the novel. He had long hair and could pounce about like a monkey, quite different.

The novel doesn't have Boris Karloff in it, and that alone is a major flaw. :p

reply

[deleted]

I completely agree...it had a couple of frightening moments, but overall I give this a 'thumbs down'. As unpopular a stance as this is to take, I felt the DeNiro/Branagh version was FAR better. Stayed true to the book. At least, closer to the book.

reply

The very construction of the book--a series of letters by Walton to his sister relating internally first-person accounts from both Frankenstein and the Monster of the primary events of the story--makes it nearly impossible to film accurately. That said, the book succeeds better than the movie at portraying the cautionary tale of trying to be God. The movie settles for a more simplistic "There are things Man was not meant to know" approach while the book in both its original (1818) and revised (1831) versions stresses the dangers of pushing boundaries too far while ignoring responsibilities along the way. The Universal movie is very good, but its less ambitious presentation of Shelley's themes makes it a lesser partner to her classic novel.

Carthago delenda est.

reply

I just read the book, then I watched the movie, and I have to agree with the TC. The book is much better than the movie despite the movie being a classic.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

reply

The novel is not about the dangers of trying to be God. That was the 1931 Film`s deal. The novel is about the arrogance of one man failing to take responsibility for his actions causing him great misery.

reply

All movies pale when compared to the source material. I learned that over half a century ago.

I have to keep reminding myself that film and print are two VERY different story-telling media:
• The writer can be as wordy as he/she needs to be in order to explain the exact idea that he/she wishes to convey — as well as parenthetical thoughts explaining history and/or motives.
• The filmmaker has to get usable film on time (and hopefully within budget) that can be cut together to produce a visually exciting story that will make money for the financial backers.

I've lost count of the times that I've been thoroughly disappointed by the film production of a book I really enjoyed.
• Sometimes there just isn't any reasonable way to condense a novel down to a 2- or 3-hour movie without losing too much of the essential detail.
• And, where Hollywood is concerned, the other problem is the filmmakers deciding to get REALLY "creative" with the source material — and end up making a movie that has kept nothing of the source but the title and a few character names.

Far too many Hollywood screen adaptations remind me of this old comic strip:
---
"Uncle Cosmo, why do they call it a 'Word Processor'?"
"It's really very simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food?"
---

reply

All movies pale when compared to the source material.

So long as we're talking about novels:

I would say that should be something like "most movies", rather than "all". For example, the general consensus seems to be that the novels of "Jaws" and "The Godfather" weren't much beyond "pretty good", but the movie adaptations of them turned out to be classics. That's certainly not common, but it does happen from time to time.


When you widen the discussion to all "source material", things start to become less consistent. When the source material is a play, the relative results seems to be much more of a mixed bag. Some plays-turned-movies stay at about the same level, seemingly arguing that a dramatic presentation is a dramatic presentation. Sometimes movie versions lose the spark that made a play great, whether because inherent differences in the two media or because of poor decisions by the adapters. And sometimes a particular play significantly benefits from a movie's ability to "open things out" (often by being able to show things that could only be discussed as off-stage events in theater), or occasionally from the even greater intimacy that can be gained from full close-ups and true whispers being audible to the audience.

reply

I stand corrected.
Sorry, but I'd never read Mario Puzo, nor Peter Benchley.
Perhaps I should have said, "Where I've seen both the movie and the source..."

I wholeheartedly agree that print and stage and film are very different storytelling media. I further agree that films adapted from the stage are much less likely to go astray than are films adapted from novels.

exempli gratia:
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" and the remake.
"Clash of the Titans" and the remake.
"I, Robot" and the robot stories of Isaac Asimov.
• both of the travesties claiming to be films of Asimov's "Nightfall"
— and couple of examples for your case:
"My Fair Lady" improved the ending of the Shaw play "Pygmalion"
"War of the Worlds" was able to open the scope of the story beyond the London suburbs.
— and some of the few where I enjoyed both:
"Lord of the Rings"
"The Time Machine"
"Butterflies Are Free"

I think my main dissatisfaction is when Hollywood decides to get entirely TOO creative. (My usual example is to describe the Hollywood writer adding a scene where General Grant rescues Marie Antoinette and Helen of Troy from Genghis Khan.)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
So is a lot.
Albert Einstein
Observations are relative to the observer.
Albert Einstein
We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.
Anaïs Nin

reply

I thought Planet of the Apes was better than the book. It was more believable.

I'd also argue the Disney version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is better than the book. It may be opinion more than anything, but I prefer the style and story of the movie over the book's.

A big-budget War of the Worlds set in 1890's London would be great, that's what I was hoping for when I heard Spielberg was going to make WOTW. Maybe even a sequel that shows what was going on in other parts of the world at the time of the invasion.

reply

Thing is, the movie has almost nothing to do with the novel except for 3 or 4 names and the general idea of creating a monstrous man. But, book aside, the movie is stunning to look at and very atmospheric

http://frankensteinfilms.blogspot.com/

reply

Wasn’t there a version in the early 70s that was supposed to be closer to the novel - possibly a mini-series? To try to make a movie that was pretty close to the novel, the movie would have to be so long that it would not be bearable for most people to watch or would have to be a mini-series that lasted for several days.

reply

Frankenstein: The True Story? It was closer to the novel than this, but a lot of the story was changed. James Mason, David McCallum, and Jane Seymour's characters in particular were all new. Well, the second part of Seymour's role was new.

I recommend it to all Frankenphiles out there.

reply

I do agree. The book is greater than the movie, as it almost always is with originals vs adaptions and remakes. However, this movie is very different from the book. Not much besides the scientist creating the monster is taken from Mary Shelley`s work.
I found the movie-version of the monster to be very tragic too. He is quite the opposite of intelligent, but from the start he was a childlike, innocent creature without malice. It was the faults and mistakes of humans that made him a monster.
Frankenstein made the monster not when he gave it life, but when he and his friends faultily judged it to be. Humanity is indeed a sad species who always creates its own misery. These themes along with its HUGE cultural impact makes "Frankenstein" great for me.

reply

I've always found this movie to be poor. I understand the production value of it...and how influential it was...but it kinda pisses on the source material too much for me.

Novels are often better than the films they get made in to...but I don't even give this film credit as a decent adaptation...it just doesn't work for me.

Even the most primitive society has an innate respect for the insane.

reply

Yeh, the film would not be able to really pull off the scale of the book convincingly in the 1930's. Yet i do think that this film is genuinely really good and holds up pretty well considering some of it's peers. Both deserve to be respected, yet i feel the novel is a bit too verbose and has too much superfluous language, it's as if she wrote the book with a thesaurus under her arm the whole time.
But in hindsight, the novel is well ahead of it's time and has not really dated at all. Kenneth Branagh's film was a pretty good adaptation.

reply

I don't think you'll win many points by starting off with telling people what they "gotta admit." Having said that...

I don't remember liking the novel. I didn't like the writing style; I found it emotionally uninvolving despite the good story.

I actually prefer the monster not being intelligent. It changes the story quite a lot:

Monster is intelligent: essence = a morality play; humanity on trial and found guilty for its failures to look deeper than the surface; not a bad moral and one that needs to be understood, admittedly, but also fairly obvious and lacking in nuance

Monster is unintelligent: essence = an existential rumination; the monster's alienation and the horrifying fact that it has nothing good to offer the world, but it's not the monster's fault because it never asked to exist; I think this is a lot more complicated and interesting of a premise to work from, personally - and how is this not tragic? I think it's even more tragic this way.

reply

[deleted]