MovieChat Forums > Penny Dreadful (2014) Discussion > The Monster is WHINY. I cannot stand him...

The Monster is WHINY. I cannot stand him. SPOILERS below

posted 7 years ago by writetopcat
10 replies | jump to latest

I have seen the entire series a couple of times now. I like this series a lot.
But the monster character really irritates me.
There will be spoilers below.

When the Monster came back to Victor and killed Prometheus he spewed his rage upon Victor, blaming V. for his depression and his gloomy personality and outlook on the world.
He recalled his resurrection, which entailed the monster emitting continuous loud screams as he grabbed Victor's hand and would not release his grasp on Victor.
Victor was shocked and frightened half out of his wits; he obviously was unprepared for the screaming, the look of horror on the monster's face, his body covered in blood, and his unpredictable behavior. Victor did what most anyone would do when frightened half to death, he ran away.
The monster recounts "

And so you fled. The first human interaction I experienced was rejection. So do not wonder at my loathing at your species.

"
The monster recalls this as justification for killing Prometheus. He killed him as revenge, to get back at Victor for 'rejecting' him during his bloody horrified screaming fit.
The monster killed Prometheus, threatened to kill Victor, and threatened to kill the entire human race, expressing extreme rage. Then he recalls his rebirth, and switches into his self pity.
"Has there ever been a creature so alone, so utterly helpless?" says the monster, now seeking sympathy, maximizing his victimhood. (Actually monster, babies are much more helpless than you were).
Sorry monster, feeling lonely and abandoned doesn't give you a pass for being a homicidal maniac.

Throughout the series the monster is portrayed as a humble shy, kind, sweet, lonely, and quite intelligent character, but also one given to almost pathological and morose self pity, with occaisional outbursts of anger, violence and rage, mostly unjustified.

He nurtures his self pity and holds on to it. He stores it up and then uses it to justify extreme brutality. That is why I cannot feel sympathy for him.
He expects me to agree with him that because his feelings were hurt, he is justified in committing murder, assault, and threatening more of the same.
I cannot stand to listen to such emotional immaturity being validated.
I could understand this reaction perhaps at the moment of his rebirth, but it is carried forth through most of the series. He expresses mature emotional responses at times, but returns again and again to his self pity as justification for killing.

Have you ever known someone who always expressed a poor outlook, always was down on his luck, always drowning in self pity, someone who never looked at a sunny day and found anything positive to say? You probably tried to cheer them up, help them look on the bright side, tried to help them overcome the issues which seemed to have them feeling defeated, etc. And others probably did the same. But after months passed, after his situation had improved somewhat and he had reason to feel hopeful, if he continued to mope and poor mouth and tell everyone who spoke to him how pitiful and depressed he was, people began to get burnt out on his constant doom and gloom.
Their sympathy began to wane. They could not take any more of the constant downer this guy was.

That is how I see this monster character.
I get the impression that the viewer is expected to feel sorry for him, particularly when the monster switches from the raging murderer who blames the whole world for his loneliness and wants to kill them for it to the meek, self conscious, sweet little thing desperate for acceptance, but continually feeling rejected and blue.
And I can't.
I just can't like him. I can't feel sorry for him.

The only time I can like him is when he finds his wife and son and he expresses love and devotion for his child. There he expresses some healthy mature adult emotions.

In real life of course, you never see someone who switches personalities like that unless they are seriously mentally ill.

[–] CountVladDracula 7 years ago

You don't need obnoxious spoiler black outs on descriptions from three years ago for a show that is canceled.

The Creature was like that in Mary Shelley's novel. You have to remember he is literally two-years-old. All of his life experiences are new and his education came from romantic literature. It's like being trained to be an emo Goth kid from Birth and it does not help that his father abandoned him and the world rejected him.

It's not "Mental illness." My God! Grow a freakin' soul or an ounce of compassion. If you can't feel sympathy for fictional characters how do you act in the real world? Never mind, don't answer that. If you can't follow the narrative of the Frankenstein story you probably should never have attempted to follow this series.

Until the third season retconned the original narrative of "new life and new experiences" everything was new for him, his emotions were new to him. Imagine experiencing the whole gambit of human emotion for the first time and with an adult intellect but none of the life experience to know how to cope with those new emotions. It's perhaps better explained in the novel, where yes, he also killed the innocent child William Frankenstein. You're letting your own lack of imagination, bias, and inability to grasp the situation obstruct your ability to follow the narrative. The fact that you compared it to mental illlness is frankly disgusting. This is why we get idiot proofed inarticulate Frankenstein Maonsters for over eighty years because people like you can't comprehend something being well spoken but emotionally an infant. I blame you and people like you for why we get so few versions of The Creature that actually follow the novel.

So in sort, I do NOT respect your "opinion" and kindly go to Hell.

[–] writetopcat 7 years ago

Judge much?

You don't need obnoxious spoiler black outs on descriptions from three years ago for a show that is canceled.

It's on Netflix right now and some people might be watching it there for the first time, so to be considerate of them, I blacked out spoilers.

If you can't feel sympathy for fictional characters how do you act in the real world? Never mind, don't answer that.

Let me answer that.
I can't feel sympathy for someone who justifies murder, assault, and the threat of mass murder because he felt lonely and abandoned, and somehow manages to feel righteous about it.
In real life, I would not sympathize with someone who had no remorse over those crimes either. If in real life a murderer felt remorse and was sorry for his crimes, I could feel sympathy for him. But the monster acted righteous about his murder, assaults, and threats of mass murder, and showed no compunction or remorse.
Why do you think it is ordinate that one feel sympathy for an unrepentant murderer? It doesn't matter that he was an emotional child, he was literate, better educated in good literature than most young people today, and understood right from wrong. It is terrible when people suffer in life, but their sufferings don't give them carte blanche to commit revenge murders. One regrets the hardships they faced, but one cannot support those who rationalize revenge murder, assault, etc.

The curriculum in schools these days places high value on group conformity as opposed to individuality. This manifests in young people who are intolerant of those who have different opinions or viewpoints. When confronted with a variant opinion they often react with anger. They tend to label, insult, and ridicule individuals with different points of view.
This is unfortunate as it prevents calm and rational discussion.

[–] Jasonm-green 7 years ago

You know what Amanda? One of the best things about message boards going is nobody will have to listen to your bs "i was a freak at school so now im a c u n t " nonsense. Yes we all know you over identify with yhe stupid creature. Please get a life. Nobody respects your opinions.

Oh btw? Lily didnt rape him. He just say there.

[–] dead_stars 7 years ago

"It is terrible when people suffer in life, but their sufferings don't give them carte blanche to commit revenge murders."

Yes, this!! He is a tragic character, but it was so hard to sympathize with him or find him likable on this show. Especially the way he treated Lily at the beginning, like she was his property, and existed only to be his pretty little wife. That's rather hypocritical when he was so whiny about his own existence. I do agree that he had the emotional abilities of a child, and the character really echoes the original creature from the novel. However, he was just truly unlikable on this show with few redeeming qualities.

[–] Green-Chick3 7 years ago

I guess some people don't get the purpose of character development.

John Clare was never meant to be portrayed as either completely sympathetic innocent that couldn't understand human emotion so he did morally unjust things in ignorance NOR was he meant to be portrayed as an irrational monster that was immorally incomprehensible that SHOULD have known better. How he is MEANT to be seen is portrayed by differing sources that even if they all have the same base consensus on the character will still come into conflict because HEY, everyone has their own different ideas about life. No two people will completely agree on everything. There was how the writers wrote him, how his actor portrayed him, and the different directors that interpreted his character's actions that differed each episode. Some directors might have felt John was more regretful for the murderer of Proteus than Van Helsing since Helsing was part of the society that betrayed him. Some probably felt John was more regretful of Helsing because he was a defenseless old man. Some might even have felt the murder of Helsing wasn't a huge deal as he was ready to die versus Protheus' eagerness to live.

And even if we could recall what the crew had in mind when filming or writing or acting-they likely wouldn't remember. They may have been more motivated by needing a good night's sleep and wanted to finish this one *beep* shot thus it affected the quality of filming. We are all human beings but we forget when we watch a show that the people doing this are filming are human TOO and we forget to see them as thus instead we see them as character forever immortalized by film and fiction that we impress our own worldly views upon when often that might not be the intention. John Clare was likely meant to be sympathetic but still had an antagonist role so his actions will have come off crueler that perhaps he was meant to be because HEY, we all have a negative reaction to anything that antagonizes the "heroes" who we're instantly sympathetic too because we often see story was there point of view. How many stories have you watched where the villain is the protagonist and he's portrayed in a much more sympathetic light? This is done so the audience can stomach the villain protagonist enough to make it through the story. Characters are fictional devices as much as the contrived coincidences in stories that can jumpstart these stories but characters are the most crucial element that we sometimes forget that in the end they are DEVICES AND GEARS NEEDED TO FUEL THE ENGINE OF THE STORY'S VEHICLE. Characters are puppets. The part of a good actor, writer, director, and film editor is how they're able to convince you the thing is less of a puppet and be fooled with how human they are. And even than, audience will all have different reactions because our ability to be fooled will always be profoundly different than the next person's.

Like, I have less of a problem with John Clare than I do Ethan *beep* Chandler the damn "hero." John Clare made conscious decisions to murder, yes, but the overall damages he did were far less Ethan. But Ethan didn't know he was a monster, you say? But Ethan LEARNED what he was in time and didn't take actions to control himself. He did the truth was his supposed "family" because to them he was a good man and he didn't want to loose their love whether or not he was actually worthy. That cost Sembene his life. He let himself be arrested, you say? If Ethan wanted true justice done he should have killed himself ending the rabies-infested beast inside himself that he became every full moon because HEY, those cops, policemen, and ect. are just doing their jobs and you know you loose control every full moon why didn't you take measures to control your condition to protect people? NO, you let your own guilt blindside you and refused to deliberately THINK about the moral and LITERAL consequences of your actions because deep inside you know they were incomprehensible. Ethan refused to take responsibility for himself. John Clare *beep* DID. He knew right from wrong and consciously decided to do wrong because of all the wrongs done to him yet he prevented his own actions from reach the level of damage Ethan did but Ethan is still the hero and primarily focus at the end of a series that's been could and, damnit, we don't have Eva Green around enough to concentrate on her development so we'll give Ethan the redemption he may or maybe not have theoretically earned so we'll give him a happy-ish ending because he's like the second most important heron on the good guy side but we'll give the Creature a sad ending because we're Penny Dreadful and things can't be TOO happy.

[–] writetopcat 7 years ago

I appreciate you taking the time to write such a long and thoughtful reply. I want to respond to a few points you made.

Some directors might have felt John was more regretful for the murderer of Proteus than Van Helsing since Helsing was part of the society that betrayed him.

Do you mean that the monster felt rejected by most of society? I agree he was shunned by people because of his facial scars and white skin. But I wouldn't agree with the director that society had betrayed him.
I also did not see any indication that John Claire was regretful for either killing. Indeed, he was forceful in expressing his callous disregard for their lives. This is one of the principal reasons I didn't like this character; his lack of remorse for the killings and his invalid justification for them.

Some might even have felt the murder of Helsing wasn't a huge deal as he was ready to die versus Protheus' eagerness to live.

I wouldn't agree with a director about this either. I don't think Helsing was ready to die. He was an older man, but not on his death bed. It was murder plain and simple just as sure as if the director's grandfather had been murdered. Old people are not ready to die, unless at death's door, and often not even then.

we all have a negative reaction to anything that antagonizes the "heroes" who we're instantly sympathetic too because we often see story was there point of view.

While that may be true, it is not why I did not like the character John Claire a.k.a. the monster. The principle reasons I didn't like him were his callous disregard for human life, his invalid justifications for killing or assaulting them, and his continuous whining about his situation as described in the first post. I thought Rory Kinnear did a great job playing John Claire, but I disliked the character.

Ethan refused to take responsibility for himself. John Clare *beep* DID.

I see it just the opposite. John Claire absolved himself of responsibility for the murders he committed with his invalid justifications for them. Ethan, once he realized he was turning into a wolfman and killing people was greatly upset over it. He had himself chained up the next month in order to prevent himself hurting anyone. And he eventually turned himself in to face justice and be hanged. The law did not hang him however and instead sent him to be extradited to the United States. While in custody he changed again and the wolfman killed again. Ethan did not consciously commit those killings however. John Claire not only consciously killed, but felt no remorse.

He knew right from wrong and consciously decided to do wrong because of all the wrongs done to him

Yes, Claire knew right from wrong (unlike the wolfman) and consciously decided to do wrong! I agree with you on this.

because of all the wrongs done to him

What were those wrongs? That he felt lonely, abandoned, & rejected. While that is unfortunate, it is no justification for committing revenge killings. The people he killed had not even done anything to him at all!

I think this is why Ethan Chandler/Talbert was more likeable than John Claire, despite the fact that he was responsible for more deaths. He was a more likeable person and he truly felt remorse for his wrongs. He felt tremendous guilt over his sins, and he didn't try to shift blame to someone else. Instead he turned himself in to face justice.
John Claire blamed the world for his personal sufferings, he nurtured his hurt feelings, and used them to justify his conscious decisions to murder.

At the end of the story he seemed a different person, after he found his wife and son. For the first time he was concerned about someone else, he stopped blaming the world and became focused on loving his son and his wife. That was when I began to like the John Claire character, at the very end of the story.

But in the beginning John Claire was intentionally a bad person. He was bad because he stewed in self-pity, spitefully blaming everyone else for his feelings of loneliness, abandonment, and rejection, and cultivating his rage against those who were repulsed by his looks, and against others as well. He was bad because he planned and he took murderous revenge on people whom he had never met, who had never seen or spoken to him or done him any wrong at all. At one point he threatened mass murder of innocents. He did all this as revenge for his pitiful feelings.

One sympathizes with him over the misfortune he experienced being resurrected with scars and pale skin and the hurt feelings he had when he saw how his looks caused such repulsion in others. Like many others, I was not born as gifted or fortunate as some, and like most of us, I have felt rejection by people I wished as friends or lovers. We can all sympathize with others who experience emotional pain due to circumstances completely beyond their control. Virtually all people have felt the bitter sting of rejection and know how badly it hurts.
But one must reject and condemn the way John Claire handled his misfortunes and his feelings, and the unjustifiable, cruel, and sadistic actions he used to express his anger at the world. It wasn't merely childish, it was criminal.

If all of us lashed out at others because of our hurt feelings the world would be a bloodly place indeed. I think many viewers don't like the John Claire character because of the way he justified his actions. It was wrong, and we don't like characters or people who do that.

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

Too long to read.

[–] shawnj-18028 7 years ago

I didn't like the creature/monster either and them showing him so much in season 3 was one of many reasons why the third season was my least favorite.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

He is pretty annoying.

How did he learn to SPEAK ENGLISH??? In a POSH accent no less? And to read??? By "observing" people from a window?

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

The Monster is a complete wrong number. He is a fucking solipsist who will keep killing people who matter to Frankenstein until he gets to fuck a woman. Shelly’s novel did have the Monster enamored of poetry, but not in the mincing, fancy way that PD depicts. Bluntly, PD completely fucked up The Creature and transformed it from being sympathetic to completely face-punchable.