Hi everyone! Welcome back from spring break. I hope everyone caught up on some much needed R & R.Before break, we watched a segment of Kenneth Branaugh's Frankenstein with Robert De Niro as the Creature. How did this film handle one of the themes we are discussing? You may want to discuss differences from the novel as well as what effect those differences make for the film (i.e. creating audience sympathy for Victor or dehumanizing the Creature).
I don't know about you guys, but De Niro as the Creature, to me, is a baffling production choice. He's much better as Jack Byrnes in Meet the Parents and for that matter, in one of his all-time best films, Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.
19 comments:
I think that the film did an excellent job of exploring the theme of Victor's appearance and how people in society treat him based solely on that physical trait. We can see how the Creature's physical appearance impedes any chance of him reaching out to humans (except the blind man.) I know that it's present in the book, but the movie does an excellent job at showing how difficult it is for the creature to reach out to people. We see him struggle and break down when he loses his only connection to the human race, the DeLacy family.
I also don't think Robert De Niro was the right choice to portray the monster. I don't think he provided enough to make it seem like he really was the monster. Also, I don't like how the movie completely dehumanized the creature. In the novel, he is very intelligent and aware of his surroundings, and in the movie he is not.
I agree with with both Brittany and Will. I thought the movie did a good job of showing the struggles the creature had with the humans. But at the same time, the book makes it seem like the creature is aware of what is going on. In the movie, he seems a lot more clueless of what is going on. In addition, the movie doesn't really show that the creature can talk, he more like grumbles (more or less) in the movie.
I thought Robert De Niro did a good job of playing the monster. He really made me believe why he was acting the way he was and why he wanted revenge. The movie and De Niro also showed me how people acted when seeing such a frightening creature. The major difference between the movie and the book is that the creature is very human like in the movie (for example the crying scene.) The book portrays the creature as more of a monster and less of a human.
I agree with Brittany that Robert De Niro was a poor choice to play as the creature. The book describes the creature as a much more gruesome looking monster and less like a human who got into an accident. He did a great job of acting though and showed how the creature was trying to meet a friend and learning to read. All in all this movie seemed like it portrayed the book fairly well.
I defanitlly think the movie we watched portrayed the book. I pictured the creature pretty much the same as they had him in the movie. It also showed you how lonely the creature was and how much he wanted to be loved, just as the book did
i agree with ryan and brittany. Because even though he is a great actor, he did a poor choice of portraying how inteligent the creature actually is. He did a great job showing his emmotion when he lost the DeLacy family. His appearance wasnt drastic enough to make the same impression as in the other movies.
I don't like the casting of Frankenstein. I think they could've found a better actor to play this monstrous creature. However, De Niro did a good job of portraying the creatures urge to learn. I agree with Brittany about how they made the creature TOO dehumanized. In the book, the creature is much more intelligent.
I think Robert De Niro was a great choice for the role as the monster, but didn't really follow with the book on how the monster should look. The monster was more human-like in the film. Like what Will said for example, the crying scene. I also agree with him on how the delacey family were the only connection to the human race or anyone in fact. The monster's appearance turned him into a victim, b/c ppl would only judge him by that.
I agree with brittany b/c the film dehumanized the monster even though in the book he is very intelligent. I'm not sure if Robert De Niro was the right choice b/c i didn't really imagine the monster looking that way and so human-like.
I conquer with dear william of how the creature's appearence is portrayed well in the film because he is not able to reach out to anyone except of course the blind man because he cant judge the creature by his appearance. I think the director shows how he thought the creature looked like, but the good thing about the book is it lets u create ur own picture of how the creature looks it doesnt give u one.
I don't think the movie did a good job of portraying the creature. The movie made him seem dumb even though in the book, he was very intelligent. I also don't think Robert De Niro was the right casting choice because he didn't make the creature seem believable. I also agree with Brittany about how they dehumanized the creature in the movie.
I think that the movie touched the theme of the monster and society. He is portrayed as this horrible and hideous creature just like Mary Shelly wrote him as. No one in society except for the old blind man accepted him. I think that the film portrayed how Shelly wanted the monster to be, cast out of society by how he looked and how he seemed inhuman to everyone.
I think the movie did a great job of accurately portraying the creature to the watcher. I feel as though in the book we see the creature's actions yet struggle to explain them. The movie gives individuals insight into the mindset and internal conflicts the monster experiences which in turn provides them with reasons to explain the monsters actions.
I agree with Will and think the film did a great job of portraying the creatures entry into the world, and the hardships he undergoes in the process. The way the creature looked in the movie was very accurate i think, but knowing De Niro was the man behind the mask, is a little disorienting.
I agree with alex, the film definetly helped explain more in depth about how the creature is treated. His appearance was very good in the sense that he was ugly and that is why he was mistreated. I think the film explained a lot of things and was overall more clear to see how the creature was really hated.
I agree with alex. The movie does an excellent job of clarifying the hate that people put upon the creature. He is truly hated and his appearance is very ugly as well. I think the movie did a great job of demonstrating the hate towards the creatures physical traits. No one tries to help him and he is basically all alone besides for De Lacy.
I think that the movie did a good job of showing us how the creature didn't really fit in and it also helped to understand why he doesn't come out exactly as a character to the public. I can now tell why he's so scared to make an appearance to others and even to Victor, his creator. I also agree with those who said that the movie dehumanized the creature because its very true. The creature has more important aspects to him than being this scary thing that everyone's afraid of.
this movie related much to the book because it showed how ugly the creatue was and how no one accepted him except old mr delacy and even when he did a good thing people ran him out because he is hideous.
Post a Comment