The Bride of Frankenstein (1 Point)

      First off, the fact that the film opens with a fictionalized Mary Shelley telling the story is hilarious, considering how different both films are from the movie. However, different is not always synonymous with "bad" or even "inferior." This film is so far removed from Shelley's novel that it should be regarded as its own work. Even when it takes plot points and ideas from the book it goes in wildly different directions with them. The concept of the film itself is taken from the book, but instead of denying the creature's request, the bride is created. 

    This film, unlike the first, is a film of indulgence. It has more set pieces, more humor, and more monsters than the first. Even the science is taken to a new level; an example is when Dr. Pretorius shows off the tiny people he created, leaving me in a state of incurable madness. It's a far campier film, fully indulging in the raw emotion and terror that defines the Gothic.

    It must be said that Dr. Pretorius is definitely queer-coded. It's not subtle at all, considering that "queer" is literally one of the first words used to describe him. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that he's able to get along with the monster so quickly if we're to see him as queer-coded as well, and that he is more than willing to make another creature. It feels like when I meet someone new that's very openly LGBTQ+; even if we don't stay friends, it's much easier to talk to them because we can relate on being different. In all ways but physical, Pretorius is just as much of an outsider as the creature and his bride (although his eyebrows are outrageous). It's telling that the bride he has a hand in creating has a far more showy design than the creature created by the straight Henry Frankenstein. While not all gay people indulge in camp, it's clear that director James Whale does, and I almost see Pretorius as a stand-in for this; the gay creator who wants to indulge in his outsider/campy aesthetics. He even announces the title of the film when the bride is fully awake and dressed. It's also telling that Dr. Pretorius is one of the people the creature says "belongs dead," showing that he's in the same category as the two creatures. Pretorius can almost be seen as someone who "passes" as a cisgender, straight, white man, whereas the creatures don't. Pretorius uses his privilege to essentially play both sides to his advantage. In a way, that makes him the greatest monster in the film. Whether he realizes it or not, the creature sees this and that just adds to his anger in the end. With all that being said, Pretorius is still my only weakness.

       God, I'm still thinking about those tiny people. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bloodchild (2 Points)

1. What is your reaction to the text you just read?  That was…a lot. There’s a lot to unpack with the relationship between the Tlic and the Terrans. It’s disgusting in a literal sense, but it also mirrors a lot of things going on in the real world. Their parasitic relationship, which the Tlic make out to seem mutually beneficial, reminds me of how some white people view Black people. In America, the whites are the ruling race, like the Tlic in the Preserve. They make it seems like Black people are just part of the “mutually beneficial” system of capitalism, but really, they are an oppressed class, being used to further the wealth of those in charge. This parallels how the Tlic use the Terrans as host bodies for their young, but make it seem like they’re doing the Terrans a favor by “protecting” them, when in reality they are putting them in harm’s way.  2. What connections did you make with the story? Discuss what elements of the story with which you were able to connect?  I was able t
Read more

Metropolis (2 Points)

A lot of Metropolis barely feels like fiction at this point, at least when it comes to its commentary on society. As a matter of fact, it weirdly feels like a predecessor to Bong Joon-Ho’s Parasite. Both visually portray class in similar ways; the working class literally live under the upper-class, who don’t really care about those beneath them. Sure, you can argue it’s a bit of an obvious visual metaphor, but I don’t think it takes away from how effective it is. I’d argue that some of the most powerful imagery seems obvious. It speaks to the core of what it’s representing, in this case how the working class is seen as below the upper class. It’s kind of hard to analyze it beyond that, because the film sums it up better than I could with its final card: “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart.”
Read more

Future Tense (2 Points)

The year is 2220. Humanity has, in essence, created immortality. When the body dies, an AI copy of the consciousness can be created and can live on through virtual reality. Some people use this to continue to interact with dead loved ones, and others meet AI versions of their idols. There has been a lot of debate over how legitimate these AI copies are considering they are created by humans. No matter how hard they try, the people who create these do have biases. This is especially true when the family is involved in crafting the AI version of their dead relative; is this a truly authentic version of the person, or an idealized version? How does this affect their legacy? In the end, does it really matter as long as the family is happy? The morality of turning this into an industry would be questioned, but capitalism was abolished after The Millennium War in 2100, so it’s no issue. VR has blown up in popularity after scientists figured out how to simulate the sens
Read more