Effect of Character Psyche on Film Atmosphere and Mood October 24, 2008

Obsessive?  Maybe.  Determined?  Most definitely.  Psychotic?  Debatable.  Inventive?  Without a doubt.  It takes a very particular mind to combine all of these personal aspects and develop them into the most well-known horror character of all times.  Mary Shelley is miraculously able to create this person within her novel Frankenstein and develop him with such vividness and conviction that film companies everywhere solicited- and are currently soliciting- for movie rights.  While these cinemas may be entertaining, they are all fabrications of the rudimentary text and the many evolutions portrayed within these productions may not be overlooked.  The reader may regard scenery, physical appearance and decade with some admission; but, he or she may not excuse alterations to the overall character psyche.  Victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth portray these revisions in ego during the movie Frankenstein by Parker Posey.  An almost complete transformation of both Victor and Elizabeth (from novel into film) works to develop an entirely different mood and atmosphere within the film than one would expect having read the novel.  

The 1994 version of Frankenstein, set in the midst of a modern, inner city, may be viewed as an afterwards to the novel due its’ remediation of plot within the film.  Revisions made to the plot of Frankenstein comprehensively challenge the authenticity of the script; yet, they summon the reader to widen their perspective on the overall story.  Having not one, but numerous, creations develops a new focus for the film to take.  The new focus culminates from the novel alteration that Victor Frankenstein lives on to develop and perfect his original creation.  These newly formed creations hold the power to annihilate the human species with ease, to live in society and are incapable of taking their own lives.  These new creations become truly significant to the plot when the original creature- portrayed in Mary Shelley’s novel- penetrates the film and assists the detectives in their investigation.  This investigation soon impresses into a mission of finding this newly enhanced creature who is murdering humans in order to be killed himself.  The actions and will of this monster, the gruesome murders and the nebulous, gory and dismal setting all assist in the making of a rather depressing film.     

Accurately portrayed is Victor Frankenstein who, yet again, develops the role of a self-centered, obsessive perfectionist.  Within the movie, Victor again evades the morality and righteousness of his decisions.  He is manipulative and domineering in the scene where he removes the lipstick off of Elizabeth’s face with vigor as she is dressing herself to look beautiful for him.  The intention of this scene is to amplify one’s perception regarding Victor’s major character flaw- his lack of compassion.  This unsympathetic Victor is not exotic to one who has read the novel; but, all of these negative qualities- perfectionism and engrossment in his work- have been amplified to such a degree that a person may lose all relation to the Victor Frankenstein they once knew.  His determinism to create the perfect creature has left the confinements of solely giving new life and has progressed to creating an immortal weapon.  Such a transformation in Victor could only be factored from his alteration in character during the creation of this script.  No longer may one feel sympathetic to Victor in this movie.  Only feelings of mistrust and fear may be associated with the man who cares for none but himself.

Victor’s position in the film remains relatively congruent even though his character is discernibly one of disputable qualities and ambitions.  Helios (portraying Victor in Parker Posey’s Frankenstein) is the typical obsessive, mad scientist who portrays the role of Frankenstein in numerous movies.  While Victor may be a very predictable role, it may come as a shock to the reader that Elizabeth’s placement in these movies varies discernibly.  The reader’s perception of a lovely and helpless Elizabeth is replaced with an automation of perfection in Posey’s film.  When Helios embraces his physical creation of Elizabeth, the deduction behind her perfection becomes apparent.  One may lose all respect for her character upon configuring that Elizabeth is actually created to act as Victor’s perfect spouse.  Additionally, she is portrayed as having weak ideas and emotional strength which is amplified by her pathetic attempts to be perfect for Victor.  This inferior role takes away from the great possibilities her character has as Victor’s wife and completely demoralizes any woman who watches this movie.  Instead of acting as a feeble woman who begs for a new life only to please her creator, she could act out against Victor and his horrid actions.  Victor’s control over her relates to his control over the creatures due to there lack of will and dismal outlook on life.  Cumulatively, the movie promotes the idea of perfection within a person by displaying Victor’s enhanced creations and their effect on the overall picture of the film.  Without this aspect of perfectionism being portrayed the movie may have been able to take on a lighter tone and mood.

    The portrayal of a character- their actions, confidence and development- work directly with how one may relate to a certain film.  Characters who act convincingly, have  strength and fulfill some level of self-achievement, aid in the creation of a more enjoyable film.  In contrast, a film whose characters demand perfection, have little preservation for themselves or others, or are to weak to have their own personalities, provide an atmosphere of utter gloom.  Parker Posey’s Frankenstein depicts this second example.  The setting of the film and the actions of the characters do not vary as in Mary Shelley’s novel.  Inflection and deflection of the tone of the novel- from warm and happy to dark and ominous- is steady and predictable in the novel.  Comparatively, the equable melancholy is only enhanced by the psyche of Elizabeth, Victor and his creations.  Perhaps a combination of both novel and film would beget a more enjoyable work.  The dramatic affect of the film could be altered if either more of the actual character qualities were added to the film or there is a rotation in mood and atmosphere, hence, making a more gratifying film to preview.

Frankenstein September 19, 2008

I first noticed the difference in tones of the novel upon reading the opening letters and then preceding to the text.  The change was not so much in how she styled her writing, but in the voice which she used for each character.  In the opening letters the voices were friendly, open with each other.  They spoke as if in friends/relations conversing from a distance.  As soon as the man began his description of the new passenger he becomes even more open and expressive about his fondness for the man.  

From the opening letters to the beginning of the novel yet another obvious change in tone can be uncovered.  As Victor Frankenstein, whose name we know not until later in the novel, begins his epoch monologue I, as the reader, was suddenly not impressed with the novel.  I felt that Victor lacked emotions and was without empathy.  He appeared to not care much about his family but only submersed himself in his work.  I have yet to decide whether my negative feelings for this character are due to the writing style, tone or the overall negative portrayal which Shelley gives him.  Throughout the majority of the novel, when Victor is telling the tale, I find myself hoping that Shelley will shuffle which person is speaking.  Although I believe that the actual story is worth telling, I find myself unable to connect with the character of Victor Frankenstein.  In fact, it is not until the creature begins his tale that I am able to fully enjoy the novel and connect both emotionally and through the change in tone. 

I am in awe of how Shelley is apparently able to shift the tone so effortlessly.  As the reader, I do not even realize how these subtle changes affect me until I feel the sway on an emotional level towards a different character.  Throughout the beginning of the novel I was not at all impressed by Frankenstein’s creature.  For obvious reasons Shelley purposely does not allow the reader to form an opinion of the creature in any way.  It is not until Victor lets his opinion known that the reader is able to begin thinking of his character.  Due to Victor’s depressive and monotone voice, I found myself not only contemplating whether the creature actually killed young William but if the creature was even bad at all.  Victor’s own depression and anxiety convinced me that he was only nervous that his creation would be discovered and that he would end up in jail or something to this effect.  I did not feel any sympathy towards him for during the time which he obsessed over his creation he failed to communicate with his family and let his task get the best of him.  Frankenstein meddled in things which he should never have and hence found himself backed into a dark corner.  

The creature’s narrative is what primarily altered my view of the novel.  The sympathy which his tale evoked in me caught me off guard.  I found myself not only angry with Victor Frankenstein but almost detesting him for his unconcern for how society would accept his creation.  It appears to me that the only thing he was concerned about whence he was in the process of creating was his advancements in science and how he was self-rewarded by his accomplishments.  

The creature appears so docile throughout his narrative.  He spends his nights assisting a family who are poor and in need of aid and spends the day aching to be a part of a family or just to have a friend.  His hopes tug on the heart of the reader and almost make me forgive the fact that he did kill young William.  How society treated this poor creature, who desired nothing else but acceptance and friendship from at least one person, is a crime.  The sorrow that flows from his narrative is oppressive and completely made me disregard Victor Frankenstein.  That Shelley has the power to create such a change in tone within her novel displays greatness in her writing abilities.  She is able to sway the reader with what seems like so little effort.  Without even realizing it the reader is not only disliking the main character but feeling the strongest emotions towards the “hideous monster.”

Autobiography Notes September 8, 2008

Reading/Writing Experiences

• hooked on phonics
• monkey story
• Baby Beluga
• Into the Wild
• The Cay- Mrs Deardorf
• “Shakespeare” Cleary
• Pony Stall
• Austen- significance
• Midnight oil
• bus rides
• used book stores/library
• Emotional strife- stress relief
• Journals
• Letters- communication
• Borders

Post 2 September 5, 2008

An interesting comment provoked my consideration as to why one chooses to read a certain novel.  In the past I have read specific novels for numerous reasons, including many of the following:  the book was on the New York Times bestseller list, recommendation from a friend/colleague/teacher, the cover and clever description on the novel caught my attention, a quizzical title and even due to a recently viewed movie or the desire to watch a film has been the motivation for my reading a novel.  Obviously, the last reason is the point at which I am focusing due to it’s relation to technology.  Is it wrong to desire to read a novel because it is a film?  Although Birkert may disagree with this entire idea, I believe not.  Though a movie may be the inspiration behind choosing a certain book, the book is still being read.  Watching a movie and reading a book often create more enjoyment for the reader.  The reader is then able to analyze both works of literature, comparing and contrasting characters and script alike.  Is the film creating the same feeling that one gets whilst reading the novel?  On numerous occasions it has become true for me that after reading the novel and then watching the correlating film I actual acquire more appreciation for the author and his writing.  Related novels and films can actually benefit both book and film enthusiasts everywhere by creating a situation where favorite works can be analyzed and critiqued.  If films may actually promote the reading of certain novels can they possibly as bad as Birkert believes?

For Birkert, reading has primarily been thought of as a solitary act.  Perhaps it is due to his fathers demotion of reading for males that Birkert chooses to read as a means of closing himself off from the world.  The autobiography in the second chapter creates an image of silence and loss within the reader.  Just reading about how Birkert decides to live his life during these years leaves me feeling alone and seeking the comfort of others.  How can one fulfill their life whilst hiding away in a corner, reading a novel and not practice the necessary art of discussion.  A large part of reading is in the discussion.  Upon reading a novel, any novel, I continuously feel the need to talk about it.  My sentiments, questions, frustration over the poorly written ending, etc.  Who does Birkert talk to?  No one.  He remains alone because that is his view of reading-  Reading is a solitary act.  Back to the influence of his father, Birkert once acknowledges that, “If reading was worth guarding and being secretive about, there had to be a genuine power in it.”

 While I agree with the idea of the power which can be found in reading, I denote his pretense that reading is worth guarding and being secretive about.  I am able to comprehend his valiance in admitting this statement, yet, in my opinion, a more valiant act would construe of Birkert standing up to his father and whoever else is suppressing his desires and read in that open room.  

Although I respect and admire Birkert’s desire to read any novel of value, it concerns me that instead of reading any of the novels at Border’s he instead reads solely those found at the used book store.  In doing this he restricts his knowledge of modern writers and their styles.  One can not be a writer and get caught up in another’s style.  For each one his own.  At one point in the chapter Birkert attempts to write his first novel.  Unfortunately he approaches the task completely wrong.  How can one be a great and proficient writer if they are constantly attempting to write as another.  For Birkert, the authors whom he most desired to copy were those classic writers he built his life around.  The fascination he has with classic novels and “books of worth” have turned into an obsession – not helped at all by his new friend.  If Birkert ever wants to truly become an excelling author he needs to acknowledge his desires with others and perhaps broaden his perspective on the value of reading, writing and new technological advances which may actually be beneficial to the world of literary fanatics.

Hayles has an entirely different idea of the benefits of technology.  Although a more formal writer than Birkert, her writing is more enjoyable to read due to her acceptance or modern technology and its effects on reading.  There is no critique in her writing only a broad perspective on how computer writing programs and electronic books may be beneficial to the new generation of writers.  Hayles also demonstrates how one does not need to be completely immersed in literature and only literature.  She describes Kaye as a studious scientist who just so happens to have a passion for reading as well.  This autobiography of Kaye captured my attention for this reason.  Hayle holds no faults against this character for her open desire to read and write whilst I believe Birkert, in this situation, would be completely appalled at the belief that all of these various aspects of one life can come together.  While Birkert writes of obsession, Hayle writes of passion.  The two mental states are entirely different and make Hayles- up to this poing- that much more enjoyable to read.  

Along with the previous aspects, the print in which Hayle’s novel is published in is unique in that it is purposely modern.  One can suspect what the novel is about by flipping through the pages.  This in itself is unique to the novels style.  The tone is much more friendly- although slightly too formal for my liking in the beginning- and makes for a more enjoyable read.  Birkert always seems to have a depressing underlying to his writing which makes it difficult to read for long before desiring a simple and generic novel.  The sentence structure is also quite different, particularly in word usage but also by word placement.  Birkert seems to write entirely on the premise that he will make worthy quotes within each paragraph and hence ruins the ease in which one could read the novel.  Although I enjoy many of his quotes, it is almost as if he tries to hard to validate his writing.  Hayles seems more comfortable with herself as a writer and is able to communicate her thoughts effectively through the use of simpler sentences which are still capable of relaying the message effectively.  Although I prefer Hayle’s style, I do believe that Birkert has potential to become a more solid writer if he is able to open up through his writing and display more of his own style. It seems as if he is still trying to work the styles of authors such as Kurt into his own and it is having an adverse effect. 

Gutenberg Elegies 1 August 29, 2008

My first experience with The Gutenberg Elegies by Sven Birkert left me surprisingly satisfied. I say surprisingly because I began this novel believing that I would not agree with his biased and uninformed opinions regarding readers in my and later generations. Expecting to be attacked by these ridiculous theories, Birkert’s subtle approach towards this testy subject challenged me to uncover the memorandum hidden within his tales and explanations of excerpts such as “Jude the Obscure” and “Ever After”. One such example of this is found within “Ever After” where Swift writes of how the beautiful, natural melding of the three scenes- the train running along the old tracks, three motor bridges in the distance, and the gleaming motorcar driving through the distance- are suddenly infested by hints of technology. This infestation appears to scare Birkert due to his anxiety that in the future technology will manifest the world of his daughter.

Birkert’s summarization of this “natural” portrait fits perfectly into the idea that technology is ruining the overall picture. These technical advances are preventing us from seeing the natural beauty of the simple forms of technology and it occurs so quickly that no one realizes what missing from their life of technology. On page 17, Birkert remarks, “All around us, already in place, are the technologies that will render it antiquated”. This comment greatly supports his thesis that technology will soon wipe out a person’s desire to read or comprehend a novel of worth. Soon even the “natural” world we see today will be shadowed by even more technology.

Though Birkert placed much emphasis on how technology is preventing us- the younger generation- from experiencing life through influential works of literature, he fails to perceive how many young and motivated readers there are hidden within society. In the second chapter Birkert emphasizes upon his childhood love of reading. Particularly he recalls, “I had no idea of bettering myself. I was simply looking for novels with characters whose lives could absorb mine for a few hours.” After acknowledging his past views of reading in such an accepting way, why, in chapter one, is Birkert condemning those who wish to read solely for the pleasure of it? Does his father’s disapproval of his passion prevent him from focusing on reading to the same capacity?

Disapproval from a parental figure is capable of being so detrimental. I, for one, was never in Birkert’s position. Shamed into hiding within my room for fear of being caught reading or forced to participate in a game of football. Instead, I am able to recall my first days of reading when I played hooked-on-phonics with my parents and older sister, having Baby Beluga read to me at night and later having the treat of going to the book store on occasion and picking out whatever book I wanted. The experiences I had verses Birkert are so different so why does a book still hold within it “the magic- the startling and renewable discovery that a page covered with black markings could, with a slight mental exertion, be converted into an environment, an inward depth populated with characters and animated by diverse excitements” for both of us?

My conclusion is that a book is what one makes it out to be. The young Birkert and I apparently share the unfathomable love for a novel that takes one away to a new century, mind even world. Perhaps because I am fortunate enough to grow up in a different lifestyle full of accepting people my desire to read is not stifled as his has been. I hope my passion for novels never changes as Birkert’s passion undeniably has.