MovieChat Forums > Revenge of the Creature (1955) Discussion > poor creature

poor creature

posted 16 years ago by runforthesun
10 replies | jump to latest

I like these Creature movies, I think they’re great.

The thing that gets me though is, in all three movies, this Creature is minding his own business, and mankind comes in and tortures and torments him until he has to kill a couple of people to make the point that he needs to be left alone.

In the first one, his home territory is invaded, and he’s poisoned, shot at, set on fire, clubbed.

In the second one, he’s kidnapped from his home, chained, tortured with a cattle prod, shot at.

In the third one, they kidnap him again, set him on fire, and then mutilate him (and on top of that give him steroids or something).

I like John Agar, but I was ready tie him up and cattle prod him a couple of times myself in Revenge. I know the movie was made at a different time, but how could anyone not see how cruel and vicious that kind of treatment was?

Was the point of this series to show that mankind is a bunch of jerks?

[–] MrDudeMan 16 years ago

Was the point of this series to show that mankind is a bunch of jerks?

That was kind of the vibe I got from them. Sure, some people think of them as only monster movies, but I see them as a study on animal cruelty.

My DVD collection:
http://mrdudeman.dvdaf.com/owned

[–] tepista 15 years ago

"Was the point of this series to show that mankind is a bunch of jerks?"

yes, the human monsters. King Kong had the same vibe.

[–] Skye_Reynolds 15 years ago

Revenge of the Creature was pretty boring, but it did a good job of building sympathy for the creature. It's pretty hard not to feel for the poor thing when it's in a tank tugging at the chain on his ankle. I haven't seen the third one yet, but I don't care too much for his new look from the previews.

[–] putrescent_stench 14 years ago

I don't feel the same sympathy for the creature, and I don't feel that the films really support this. They do to a degree, but I think they also show the creature as inherently violent and evil. In the first movie, we see the creature killing before anyone even knows he's there. It's his killing that pins the humans against him.

Also, after Mark was killed, they tried to leave, but the Gill Man stopped them from doing so, leading to more punishment for him.

Like many older horror movies, we are made to feel some sympathy for the villain as an outsider or as a victim of circumstances not under their control (fate, a curse, the cruelty of others). Yet they don't quite get past the prejudice that these beings really ARE ugly and horrific.

[–] lartrak 13 years ago

"In the first movie, we see the creature killing before anyone even knows he's there. It's his killing that pins the humans against him."

Actually, the first two people the creature kills attack him IMMEDIATELY just as he's walking slowly towards them - one with a machete at that! Perhaps the creature would have attacked them without provocation, perhaps it was merely curious (they do show it watching the characters in the film numerous times without attacking), we don't actually know.

The only person the creature kills for a reason beyond self-defense is the one brother on the boat, which happens after others on the boat have already speared and repeatedly attacked him - meaning, for all intents and purposes, the boat and its occupants were now the creature's enemies.

I don't think the film's intent is to portray mankind as the real bad guy (well, maybe in the third film), but that's certainly how it comes across to me anyway.

[–] gnome-5 13 years ago

"Was the point of this series to show that mankind is a bunch of jerks?"

That's a modern perspective. At the time these movies were coming out, there was a general idea that nature was inherently dangerous and had to be subdued. There was an endless parade of movies about animals that were taken from their natural environment, escaped and went on a rampage, and were destroyed. Yes, sometimes they generated some sympathy for the animal, but civilization was better off at the end.

Then of course there's the symbolism that the monster represents some aspect of human nature, like uncontrolled lust. Why is it that these creatures always carry off women? By defeating the animal, the hero shows that he's in control of his lust or whatever. Again, civilization wins.

[–] porfle 12 years ago

I disagree. I think the CREATURE series and many films of its kind show the "monsters" to be victims of civilization. Richard Dennings' character in the first film is certainly no hero and we're not meant to think of him as one. Neither is Dr. Barton in the third film, who by the end of the story has shown himself to be much more of a monster than the poor Creature. The only reason he ever had to be subdued was after he'd been provoked by the humans in the first place.

hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
porfle.blogspot.com

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hey_Sweden 11 years ago

The creature is definitely a sympathetic character. You wish humanity would just leave him the hell alone.

What do you think this is, a signature? It's a way of life!

[–] Emily_Seung 10 years ago

he's not a monster, he's one of us.. he just wants a mate, he needs to make love. wouldnt you be angry too?