The Absence Of Horror In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
733 Words3 Pages
Though not as nuanced or intricate as Mary Shelley's source novel, this early horror movie masterpiece is a relatively faithful telling of her masterfully macabre tale that holds up admirably under modern scrutiny. So many films—from the hilarious Young Frankenstein to modern remakes—have referenced Frankenstein that many of its more powerful elements may be lost on viewers who discover it for the first time today, but age has not diluted this classy production, or dulled the most potent of its indelible visuals. Universal's earliest monster movies were constructed much like the dramatic and noir flagstones that propelled the studio into greatness. In essence, they were Gothic stage plays captured on film, using strong acting and atmospherics to stimulate terror where the primitive special effects capabilities of the era could not. Frankenstein is crafted with this same approach, and one of the reasons it has aged so well is because it was developed with a sense of timelessness that befits the enduring nature of the source material.…show more content… His fiancée Elizabeth and friend Victoria Moritz become worried about Frankenstein’s mental health, after he had sequestered himself in his laboratory for many hours, working on his experiments. They visit, soon discovering that Frankenstein had been successful in his experiments, and actually created a monster. Horrified, they convince Frankenstein to destroy his monster, but not before the monster escapes and kills Fritz, Frankenstein’s assistant and his torturer. Once out in the world, the monster accidentally murders a young, innocent girl. The villagers rise in mob form and trap the poor creature in a mill and burn the building to the ground. The plot, though a bit more overdone and macabre than the source novel, is successful due to strong gothic filmmaking, which serve to darken the mood as opposed to make it seem