| Junior's Academic Essays - Frankenstein
and the Depths and Complexities of Fear
†
23 April 2007
Frankenstein and the Depths and Complexities
of Fear
In examining some of the conventions that, particularly
of its day, and of its genre into the twenty-first century, this
essay will provide an increased understanding of what makes a horror
film what it is, giving it more substance and rationale for being.
In exploring the fear of “other” the classic Universal
horror film Frankenstein (Whale, 1931) will be analysed
on several distinct levels.
First, the classic conventions of such fears present
a formulaic foundation for the genre. This, it will be shown, includes
the aspects of mise-en-scene or the visual design of the film and
how this reinforces such fear. The use of human tragedy in narrative
will lead to identifying the conditions of what it is to be human.
Conversely this shows what is deemed unnatural or in conflict with
our perception of the norm generating a better understanding of
their significance behind horror for the audience. In this a revealing
of the taboo will show the darker side of human nature. Finally,
these collective principles will be shown in the context of contemporary
films to validate these findings as they participate across the
genre.
Many aspects of the horror are obvious in regards
their generation of fear yet it makes sense to examine those less
blatant features which fulfil an essential role in construction
of the genre piece. Frankenstein deals with the fear of
difference, of “other”, most specifically in the physical
astatic of disfigurement and mutation, yet there are stronger signifiers
beyond this, which are worthy of investigation.
There are many conventions which can be pointed
to which are universally a feature of the genre. Though audience
reaction over time has become generally increasingly jaded, there
remains an expectation all the same of these conventions coming
forward, fuelling fear. These form a foundation upon which other
vehicles for fear can be realised.
“Frankenstein went on to its well known success.
[…] Far from being regarded as the artful, literate horror
classic it is now considered, Frankenstein, in its day,
was seen as a grisly, blood-soaked example of exploitative filmmaking.”
(Brunas & Weaver 1990: 27)
The monster’s eyes open while on the operating
table - moments before he strangles the doctor. This sort of anticipation
creates a climax of fear-induced action, which is used throughout
the genre, and can be seen in films not wholly considered horror.
Thrillers, American Psycho (Harron, 2000), or the science
fiction action film, such as Aliens (Cameron, 1986) provide
quality examples. The audience knows what will happen yet is shocked
anyway.
Slow movements of the antagonist are particularly
formulaic in the horror and the thriller genre, creating suspense
and a delay in an anticipated gory outcome. Cuts often occur at
a moment of mystery - a question being asked, or of revelation and
mystery revealed both intrinsic of a delay mechanism, again to increase
the suspense of the unfolding narrative for viewers. These unknowns,
even if they can be predicted, provide the filmmaker a method of
inducing a particular reaction in the audience.
Ellis alludes to the vastness of scope concerning
issues of fear when he states:
“The desolate landscapes, remote ancestral
castle, forbidding stone tower in which Baron Henry Frankenstein
conducts his experiments, the laboratory interior with its flashing
electrodes – all would become familiar images of the Gothic
horror movie.” (Ellis 1979: 207)
While this suggests the ascetics, the set, the doom
and gloom so familiar to the classic horror genre, it is also essential
to the concept of fear. It is not simply the monster but also the
environment, and the mechanisms by which the creature comes about,
which are part of what constitutes “other”. Fog is often
used in horror films as a visual metaphor for mystery. Mystery taps
the unknown and that fuels a fear, for characters and audience alike.
Shadows operate in a similar way. In regards the subject film, with
gothic-like scenes of darkness and shadow (the influence of German
expressionist filmmaking are very prevalent), stormy nights and
lightening - a fear of nature’s power is coupled with Frankenstein’s
harnessing of it to create life.
From such physical and visual challenges inherent
of this fear tragedy abounds. Resultantly these negative connotations
promote a sense of darkness. While darkness is used often in the
genre as a metaphor for fear, this classic film cleverly inverses
the nature of it by showing the monster’s fear of the light,
most provocatively in Fritz’s tormenting with a torch. A teasing
of the light is torture. This leads to the monster’s need
to be restrained. Chains of literal captivity are representative
of our own fears of it, indeed in any facit of our human lives,
and of bondage to authority when such power is abused. Additionally,
the claustrophobic nature of the dungeon environment lends itself
literally to the scientific fear of confined spaces.
A circle of abuse could be suggested, a darker
side of mankind, if, for example, Fritz had been tormented by villagers
before becoming Frankenstein’s assistant.
While the most overt case of human tragedy in Frankenstein
could be argued as Little Maria’s death, there are other less
obvious aspects within this framework pertaining to our human condition.
While the girl has no perception of fear due to her innocence, adults
deem the monster’s difference enough for it to be feared.
A distinct feature of the film not often replicated in the genre
is the antagonist’s realisation that he has done something
wrong, a consciousness akin to humanity, which has resulted in the
girl’s death. This leads to the basic instinct in the traumatic
fear of consequences.
From such tragedy we recognise human response, the
emotional temperament given certain circumstances. Prince presents
the dilemma of these responses for the creature, that is, their
internal conflict, when he says:
“The screen’s most famous monsters
[...] demonstrate that the monstrousness of the monster lies in
its display of both human and inhuman characteristics. As such,
the horror film questions the viewer’s most deeply cherished
notions about what it means to be a human being. [...] the horror
film terrifies viewers by undermining their secure sense of where
human identity lies in relation to the world of the dead, of animals,
or of things.” (Prince 2001: 45)
Frankenstein presents key issues of dire
human traits such as suspicion, lumping guilt of murder upon the
monster while dispelling any consideration for human responsibility
for the situation. An instant culprit has been manufactured. A fear
of the monster produces this due to an emotional response.
There is no blame laid upon the creator, except the guilt the creator
himself feels. Only the end result is considered, not the manufacture
of the circumstances providing it. A fear of responsibility for
criminal behaviours leads to an intrinsic habit of man – someone
“else” must be found responsible for a given crime.
Alternatively, this can be construed as, “the ends justifies
the means”.
“The most shocking aspect of Frankenstein
is the accidental death of a little girl. [...] It is this killing
that arouses the villagers against the creature and leads to his
own destruction by fire in the mill.” (Curtis 1998: 146)
There is no consideration that the monster only
acts on instinctive principles of self-defence. The act is indisputably
murder - which is a premeditated act. Rage at the windmill and a
mob mentality close the narrative with a distinct question begging
what it is to be human. Are we more monster than the monster?
This reaction by the villagers demonstrates the
peoples’ fear and creates a scapegoat out of those who are
not necessarily guilty, at least not in a premeditated sense. Thorne
(1977: 35) provides insight into such flippant reaction of audiences
in the real world, having a major impact on the history of the subject
film and its subsequent sequels:
“Karloff was now tired of the monster
role […] scriptwriters were losing sight of the basic ‘childlike’
nature of the creature. He was becoming evil rather than misunderstood.”
Interpretation spans from a place of sympathy to
one of distain. In this way it is seen that the genre can be perceived
in differing ways, from pure entertainment and a way to thrill to
something much deeper.
Prince (2001: 44-45) suggests the nature of these
deeper issues of humanity when he says:
“The monster represents a confusion
- a violation - of social categories that specify boundaries between
normal and abnormal, human and animal, living and dead. [...]
Stories of the horror genre address the fragility of human identity
by showing, through the monster, the loss, destruction, or violation
of humanity.”
Conducting experiments, and harnessing technologies
to do such a thing as create life is not of the norm and would be
deemed immoral, unethical, and professionally untenable under the
tenor of civilised social behaviour. This constitutes fear of technological
progression, and of man becoming “God”, in as much as
people today vigorously debate the issues of medical science progression
in areas such as cloning. Such conflicts dominate the realms of
what it is to be human.
As a species we fear our own vulnerability in falling
below a set moral code.
From the acknowledgement of constructs that fall
outside what is deemed to be “normal” there is a fall
from grace.
As such a convention of temptation exists where
a character’s lack of will to resist some activity known to
have terrifying consequences appears. As an audience we are horrified
yet morbidly fascinated and thereby drawn in to the act of taboo.
The things that we must not touch or consider in
the real world are the very things which film allows us to explore
while we partake in the entertainment that is cinema; violence,
death, even the creation of life in the form of a mutated creature.
Thus we delve into these dark places, these places, which constitute
the “fear of other”.
While admittedly the classics now fail to genuinely
frighten a jaded contemporary audience, these films lay the basis
for modern filmmakers. What was once a mere trickle of blood in
black and white now becomes a virtual torrent as in Blade
(Norrington, 1998). This helps to maintain a relative tempo of fear
response to modern moviegoers.
No matter how much we try to escape the grasp of
the classic horror we simply cannot. From its influence through
cinema history to frighten and absorb, to homage in other arts such
as Warren Zevon’s song Werewolf of London, and his
direct reference to Lon Chaney Jnr, the genre remains steadfast
in drawing the crowds.
In setting the scene these aforementioned elements
are very much intrinsic to foundations of the genre and “fear
of the other”, thus becoming a formulaic necessity incorporated
in all horror films. These traditions continue in contemporary films
of the genre were we can extract common features linked to the reinvention
of the classic monsters;
The isolated rural setting of Dog Soldiers
(Marshall, 2002), the Gothic architecture and costume design of
Underworld (Wiseman, 2003), and the ancient culture, rites
and supernatural aspects of The Scorpion King (Russell,
2002). In each there is a fear of difference propelling the plot
along in ongoing mystery and constant battle with respective antagonists.
In regards sociopolitical issues Wilshin directly
remarks of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel, 1956)
“The Zombies are monsters intent on destroying mankind, reflecting
America’s fear of communists during the Cold War.” (2005:
12)
By going beyond the monster in horror and engaging,
through close analysis, other functioning elements of the fear construct
it allows for a greater understanding of the engineering behind
the genre. Mise-en-scène provides useful metaphors while
narrative permits challenge to an audience as to the nature of humanity
and the role fear of difference has to play in whom we are. This
creates a means of active audience participation in the themes of
the genre. Themes such as those of moral and ethical conflict raised
remain relevant to today’s world, despite the age of the founding
films of horror.
Horror can therefore have a significant role outside
of simple entertainment. We owe a great deal to the likes of Frankenstein
in regards not only cinematic history but also in how we interpret
the world around us and how we treat people.
Bibliography
Brunas, J & M, Weaver, T. (1990) Universal
Horrors: The Studio’s Classic Films, 1931-1946 North
Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Curtis, J. (1998) James Whale: A New World of
Gods and Monsters London: Faber and Faber Limited
Ellis, J.C. (1979) A History of Film New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Prince, S. (2001) Movies and Meaning: An Introduction
to Film (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Thorne, I. (1977) Frankenstein Minnesota:
Crestwood House Inc.
Wilshin, M. (2005) A Cinematic History of Horror
Oxford: Raintree
Films
Whale, J. Frankenstein (1931) Universal
Studios
Top ^ |
