Write a reaction to Young Frankenstein in relation to Frankenstein. Then write a second blog post commenting on someone else's reaction. Have fun with this just keep it school appropriate.
Young Frankenstein is definitely more of a comedy than Frankenstein. The farcical and super dramatic acting lightens up the whole story, which is probably the biggest difference between Young Frankenstein and Frankenstein. I really enjoy the humor that is incorporated into every character and their quirks. For example, I like Igor’s subtle sarcasm and nonchalance about his ability to move from one place to another in milliseconds. Another thing that I liked about the movie was the screen time given to the creature and his adventures which allowed me to visualize the kindhearted part of his character better than when I was reading it in a book. Thus I was able to empathize with the creature more.
That being said, I still like the book more than the movie because I think the structure - with the story inside a story - is more intriguing and touches upon some compelling moral themes. I think the themes of creation, alienation, responsibility and the dangers of sciences are fascinating. The movie, however, seems to be focused on the comic aspect, so I did not feel engaged with any of the themes throughout the movie. And to me, the book is much more realistic than the movie so I feel a deeper connection to almost all the characters. Both the book and the movie greatly contrast each other, but I enjoy them both: one for its comedy, one for its writing style.
I agree with your thoughts about giving more screen time to the creature. For me, it makes it seem like the monster wasn't really a monster but rather a big child who hasn't learned his manners. This in turn changes a big part of the plot, making the story have a more lighthearted tone to it. I also agree with you about how the book incorporates much more themes compared to the movie. The book overall is a lot deeper than the movie.
I also believe that the creatures perspective is an important aspect of the movie. However I do not agree with the fact that the movie did not engage the viewer to any themes. I believe that the comedy highlighted the humanity and the ability for humans to recover from their actions. While Frankenstein may more explicitly illustrate moral themes, the movie also does so. However since it is depicted through pictures, it is harder to understand the themes, so the book is able to cover more themes making it deeper.
I also agree that the book was more realistic and that a deeper connection is felt with the characters than the movie. The movie was more bright and funny, so you didn't really empathize with the characters like you did in the book.
I agree that the movie was far more comical than the book. The book had a stronger level of pathos through various characters and themes. For example, the book revealed the theme of abandonment, which played an essential role as Neha expressed it's purpose of being deeper. Contrary to this, the movie included comical situations that lightened up the mood of the original story that Mary Shelly created. In addition, the movie included new characters that further lead the plot to take a more comical route, one example being Igor's purpose. Based on this, the movie is far more different than the book, but both proved to be just as enjoyable.
I agree with your comment. Although the movie uses the basic idea of Frankenstein, it differs in the sense that young Frankenstein takes responsibility for his actions. In this sense, the movie is presenting an alternate ending to the original story by showing what would have happened if Frankenstein had taken responsibility for his actions and tried to help his creature. I also agree with your point that the movie has a more lighthearted approach and shows how people are capable of fixing their mistakes instead of giving up/trying to forget about it.
There are many differences between the movie and the book. An obvious one is that the movie is narrated in the perspective of Victor’s grandson. Another big difference between the book and the movie is that the movie plot is written in a more humorous and modern way. For example, the movie makes Frederick look like a crazy mad scientist and Frederick’s lab assistant is also a young, hot woman. In addition, there are many instances where the actors become very dramatic. Also, the creature that Frederick makes does not seem scary at all compared to how Mary Shelley describes Victor’s creature as. Overall, the movie was definitely not meant to be another horror story. While there were many differences between the movie and the novel, the movie did give me a better sense of how Victor’s workplace would have looked and what life would have looked like back then. As to which one I like better, I think the two story lines are very different and therefore depicts different themes. The movie presented Frankenstein’s story as more comical while the novel goes deeper into the effects of scientific knowledge and alienation etc.
I completely agree with what your interpriation about how the movie and the book compare and contrast are portrayed. However, I disagree that you hold the book on a higher standard. Personally I enjoyed the movie more over the book because it was more fun observing the shenigans than looking for quotes and deeper meanings.
I was pretty surprise by how young Frankenstein differed from the original novel. In the original book, Frankenstein was super serious warning to what the future could be like/ warn the consequences of actions. However Young Frankensiten was the opposite it showed how the consequences of our actions could be funny even hallarious, one of the similarites i sae still was how elezibeth was meant to be portaryed as very beautiful and I could see how the movie made her appear this way too. I also saw similarities in the design of the creature along with the laboratory Victor worked in. I thought it was interesting how victor's descendant found his last name embarrassing. That is something I would have never considered.Marie shellie's version on the movie truly do contrast with movie, And although the movie was inspired by the book. They are 2 completely different interpretations. I also liked how the movie wasn't as deep as the book. Like in the book we were suppose to look for symbolis. However in the movie it was created just for laughs and had a much light hearted tone to it.
I agree, even though the movie was very different from the book, a lot of the core character components (overly ambitious Frankenstein, beautiful Elizabeth, kindhearted monster) seem to be present. The movie doesn't try to be deep, and does a good job of putting a lighthearted spin on the tale of Frankenstein.
I agree, the movie was definitely more light hearted and funnier rather than the book. And your comment about Elizabeth was interesting because I never realized how she was portrayed beautiful in the movie. I also found it interesting how Dr. Frankenstein was embarrassed to be a Frankenstein!
I agree on the fact that they are totally different in their literal interpretation. Movie was rather entertaining whereas the book was more educating. I like how you were WILLING to point out that two different Frankenstein had different attitudes towards the creation. Also, I like how you were UP at midnight to write this. :)
Young Frankenstein is a fun and lighthearted take on the story of Frankenstein. Based on the portrayal of Frankenstein and the creature, I can infer that this movie is based off of the 1931 film, rather than the book. This is probably because the 1931 film which is significantly different from the book is a much more well known cultural icon rather than the book, as most depictions of the creature portray him as an awkward and pale looking man with a tall head rather than Shelley's idea of him. One thing I found particularly interesting about the movie is that Frankenstein's name seems to be infamous among the people, implying that his grandfather's attempt to raise the dead must have caught a lot of attention.
I also thought that it was interesting that Victor failed at creating the creature but his grandson did it successfully. It was also interesting how the Frankenstein name was frowned upon and what a bad reputation the Frankensteins have.
I was also surprised by how the movie citizens reacted to the Frankenstein name. It's interesting to see how different the 1931 filmed differed from the original Frankenstein intended by Mary Shelley.
The movie Young Frankenstein greatly differed from the book save for the main theme of creating a living creature from dead people. I thought it was nice how both the creature and Fredrick got to live. It was different how the creature is not intelligent like he was in the book and Fredric got the creature to listen to him through kindness and love. In the original story, the attempt to connect to the creature never happened. This was a pretty funny movie but it could do without the sex scenes... "OwO Although it was rather interesting that Fredric's fiance ended up with the creature and e ended up with his assistant... The creature being more intelligent after the 'transfusion' that Fredric did was also really interesting... I thought both the movie and the book were pretty good... :)
In Young Frankenstein, I was impressed by the main character Fredrick's compassion. Although the movie made fun of his actions and depicted him as a mad scientist, he at least took responsibility for his creation and did whatever he could to fix him so that he could live a normal life. He was even willing to give up part of his brain so that his creature could live. In Frankenstein, Victor completely neglects to care for the monster, which is what the book focuses on, The novel illustrates the consequences of neglecting ones responsibilities whereas the movie make fun of human nature and human actions. The movie also shows how humans are capable of fixing their mistakes whereas the book takes a more negative approach in describing human nature.
Hi. I was also amazed by his compassion and how he didn't give up on the creature. It's really different from Victor especially when the creature came to life since all he did was push the creature away and treated him as a monster. However, Frederick was amazed by the creature and treated him a person and even tried to assimilate the creature into society.
Hi Neha, I also liked that the movie had an alternate ending and showed the potential of humans to be compassionate, selfless, and responsible instead of focusing on the more negative parts of human nature. I wrote my blog post before I finished watching the film and commented on the movies lack of allusions to any deep themes. But I was pleasantly surprised by the movie's turn of events and the reminder that humans can be kind to one another.
Young Frankenstein's theme and plot was vastly different and far more comedial than the story in retrospect to the serious thematic undertones of Mary Shelley's intended writings. The ironic implications of the movie, in combination with offhand comments about human fantasy and sexual humor, are only a few examples of how the movie chooses to portray the ending of Frankenstein and what it means for the scientific world. In addition, each individual character received far more concentrated and specified attention than in the book with the use of longer screen-time time-frames. Each character was given time to develop their own personalities and traits-- something we weren't able to see in the book due to the overload of characters. I preferred the movie because it chose to debate the moral dilemmas over sarcastic and satirical dialogue, in comparison to the book which constantly slams the reader with direct moral issues while unrelentingly pursuing character motive and identity.
With this in mind, the book is fundamentally a more intellectually deep piece than the movie. Because directors of movies are forced to create less dry and quickly entertainable content, movies do not dig as deep for bearings in a moral compass. Whilst the various themes of knowledge, nature, creationism and social motifs are intriguing, I prefer the comical structure of the movie just because the pace of the plot development was much quicker. That being said, I did not greatly enjoy any of the pieces as both had their individual negative quirks.
I agree that the movie was less deep than the novel, and I thought it took away from the messages that Mary Shelley is trying to convey. However, in the end, I prefer the book to the movie, simply because we read the book first. I was sort of let down by all the random additions in the movie and the removal of a lot of the important moments in the book.
There were many different aspects from the movie than in the book such as the characters, plot, and mood but the main differences that the movie has changed were the reactions to the creature and the creature itself. In Frankenstein, the creature was smart and had emotions similarly to a human being but in the movie, the creature couldn't speak and had a hard time understanding until he was hooked up onto a machine with Dr. Frankenstein. Also, in the novel, Victor Frankenstein shunned the creature and tried to run away from the problems the creature has caused but in the movie, Dr. Frankenstein didn't want to destroy the creature and instead, make the creature better so that it can stay in society. Victor didn't want the creature to stay and wanted it move far away so that it will never come back. Also, when the creature ran away, Dr. Frankenstein immediately looked for the creature but Victor did the opposite.
Overall, I enjoyed the novel and the movie and I am glad that I read Frankenstein first before watching Young Frankenstein because it was fun to see the different changes the movie has made and the plot made more sense since I knew what happened in the book.
I agree, reading the novel and then watching the movie Frankenstein definitely made watching the movie more enjoyable as the plot made more sense since we knew what was going to happen based on reading the book.
After watching Young Frankenstein and reading Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, I much rather preferred reading the original book itself. With the novel, I felt deeply sympathetic towards The Creature because it was unable to be accepted by the society despite its kind heart. The Creature's conflict due to its harsh exterior draws parallels with the critical evaluation of the society we live in today, and how advertisements and movies ingrain an expectation, a standard, for the average person. An overarching theme that unfolded throughout the novel is that appearance, a quality we do not have control over (disregarding cosmetic surgery), can quite easily consume our lives, if we continue to compare ourselves to others. The Creature even mentioned that he felt comfortable with himself until he saw his reflection in the pond, and how horrendous it looked compared to the villagers.
Young Frankenstein lacked an emphasis on the emotional character buildup for The Creature and took a whole different spin from the novel. It based the core concepts off the novel, but then spun it in a light to make it exciting and suitable for a film. Because of the lack of buildup, I didn't feel much sympathy or anything really for the Creature in the film. I saw it as the mere scientific creation it was, and nothing more. Nevertheless, I enjoyed watching Young Frankenstein and enjoyed the humorous scenes with Igor and rawness of the old footage.
I really enjoyed the novel and it struck me that I didn't even know the story of Frankenstein, other than it being about bringing a deformed figure to life. It was quite a reminiscent and curious read.
I agree that the novel had much more meaning and depth behind it when compared to the movie. It is interesting how the movie spoofed certain scenes from the book, such as when the Creature is playing with the young girl. In the novel, this scene ends disastrously as the Creature commits one of his first murders and in the movie, the scene concludes with humor and the young girl safe and sound in bed.
I agree that the movie had its comedy elements, and that the movie could never live up to the book's genius. I also agree that the characters in the book are much easier to sympathize with. It is interesting how the movie played with different scenes, whether for laughter, or maybe because the director wished the book was more positive!
In the movie compared to the novel, the significant difference were the characteristics of the monster. The monster in the movie was mute, unable to communicate, and was not able to do much than stumble around town. In the novel, the monster was able to intellectually grow rather at a quick pace. My other observation about the monster is that in the movie, the monster was fearful of fire, but in the novel, the monster used fire to its advantage to cook meals and keep warm. The plot itself changed, which in the movie, the monster did not murder anyone and was rather amiable, compared to in the novel, where the monster murdered all of Frankenstein's close ones and ran wild. The emotional, psychological burden that was made prevalent in Frankenstein in the novel was nonexistent in the movie. Dr Frankenstein's distress was above the surface, without diving into any deep waters of emotion and psychological exploration. Another difference was the fact that in the movie, Dr Frankenstein was loving, proud, and caring towards his creation, while in the novel, from the moment the monster was created was fearful and regretful.
In remarks to Grace's blog post, I agree that there are several obvious differences in the characters, plot, and mood in the movie compared to the novel. What I think is the movie strayed away from the novel drastically to keep the audience from falling asleep. The few questionable sex scenes and other twists incorporated into the movie were simply to elevate, and relax seriousness and tension lying in the novel.
I think its super interesting that you recalled that the monster cooked meals with fire, and how different that was played out in Young Frankenstein. I really enjoyed reading your comparison and you pointed out quite a few things that I had yet to think about!
Write a reaction to Young Frankenstein in relation to Frankenstein. Then write a second blog post commenting on someone else's reaction. Have fun with this just keep it school appropriate.
Obviously most of Young Frankenstein was different from the Frankenstein novel. Although many of the important ideas remained in the film, minor details really changed the complexion of the story. One part of the novel that was included in the movie is the monster's initial inability to communicate with others and its eventual ability to do so at the end of the film. Big parts of the novel such as the death of Frankenstein's loved ones and his own death were missing, which took a lot away from what should have been. I'm sure everyone noticed many scenes that people would say were inappropriate. In my opinion, these scenes were meant to add to the humorous impression of the film; personally, I did not see the point in these additions. After watching the movie, I wasn't really as moved as I thought I would be, because I didn't take it really seriously since there were so many random additions. All in all, I can somewhat appreciate the film, but mainly because I read the book first.
There are many differences between Frankenstein the novel and Young Frankenstein, the satirical comedy, but I think the most significant difference was how the characters were portrayed in a comedic sense with reference to Shelley's novel. For example, in Young Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein leaves such an infamous reputation for the Frankenstein name that Frederick changes his name to Fronkensteen. It's also clear that the comedy was based on the 1931 film of Frankenstein, rather than Shelley's original novel. We see this through characters such as Igor, and the portrayal of the Monster as the modern interpretation. It is also interesting to see how influential the 1931 movie was in affecting the connotation of the name "Frankenstein". As seen through the spoof, Young Frankenstein, the modern interpretation of Frankenstein is vastly different from the serious novel that Shelley intended.
I agree with ya Karen. Young Frankenstein was not very based off of Shelley's original novel, which could also be seen by the beginning half of the movie. Unlike the book, Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein started out with Fronkensteen being a teacher and his student "making fun of him" for his grandfathers works. Then he later leaves and he has an assistant and so forth. Very different from the original novel where he went to school and fell deep into his studies
After watching the movie and reading the book Frankenstein, one major difference in the film compared to the movie was that Frankenstein wasn't portrayed as a monster that was bad, rather one that had a short temper and needed to be trained. The monster in the movie was also fearful of fire, while the one in the book would use fire to it's advantage. I believe this was the movie producers way of trying to tie in key elements found in the novel with the movie without giving away too much if someone wants to go back and read the novel.
We also find that there were also many inappropriate scenes in the movie compared to that of the book and somehow this movie still manages to get a rating of PG which amazes me. Many key events such as the dying of loved ones were also taken out of the movie as the producer took a comedic approach to the situation rather than make the movie all dark and gloomy like the novel. Many would say the film does not deserve such a high rating, but I for one think it does. This film manages to capture dark moments in Frankenstein and make it into a fun film to watch for all ages while still hitting the main ideas found in the novel. The actors we see are also very committed to their part, making the movie even better.
I agree with you on the fact that the movie did a good job of conveying themes from the book and making it watchable for all ages. I found that the comedic element to the movie made it a little more enjoyable and unique than just a movie rehash of what we had read in the book.
I agree with you, the movie was more enjoyable than the book because of the fact that it had comedy and that it wasn't serious. The book was serious which made for good story telling, however it was often boring unlike the movie which was fun to watch. While the movie was fun and different than the book, it still connected with some of the elements from the book. Even though it was completely different than the book, the movie was great because it wasn't an exact copy of the book, instead it was changed to be more enjoyable to all ages.
There are many differences and similarities between the Young Frankenstein and the Frankenstein. One difference that stood out me, the most, was the Monster's behavior. In the Frankenstein, the monster was described as someone with a kind a soul. The monster would relate fire to bad and learned how to speak, showing that he was intelligent. In the Young Frankenstein, the monster's main interactions are with Frankenstein, his assistant, Igor, and Frankenstein's great grandfather's "girl friend". However, when the monster interacted with the public, he didn't seem to know how to react or be kind. Young Frankenstein portrayed the Monster to be as a scary mean creature with an abnormal brain. The main similarity I saw between the two Frankenstein was that both monsters just wanted to be loved and cared for.
I agree that the creature was portrayed in an extremely different way in the movie than in the novel. In the movie, he basically just reacts to stimuli in either a positive or negative way (he reacts badly to fire but well to music). His emotional capacity and his thoughts are reduced to that of a baby, which is why he doesn't know how to interact properly with the villagers when they were unkind to him. However, you are also correct that the creature in the movie just wanted to be loved.
There are obviously many differences between the book and the movie. The book itself is a classic. It is one of my favorite books that I have ever read. At each point during the book, I felt the human elements and emotions. I felt like I could relate to some characters: the determined researcher, the creature who needs a parental figure, the creature who survives on instinct, and the creature who kills in rage. It is to me, a tragedy, that the creature could never be accepted as a living and a tangible thing. All the creature wanted was to feel accepted, to feel loved, and if all else, to feel human. The creature's guilt at the end broke my heart when I read the book.
The differences include: the monster's lack of ability to speak in the movie, while in the book, the monster was able to learn just by watching others speak. The monster also seemed to dominate on screen, and become a spectacle for its audience. However, in the book, the monster is quietly becoming his own form of humanity, quietly dominating in his actions behind the scenes.
All set aside, the movie could not live up to the book's potential. Although I understand that there are more details that can be placed into books than movies, I do not agree with the notion that books are always better than movies. In this case, however, the book is infinitely better than the movie. Essentially, the movie is good for what it is: a comedy full of sexual humor, and performances that play for the laughter instead of real, genuine characters. It's good-natured, but I felt it tried too hard to make the jokes work. I realize this manipulative filmmaking, a kind that plays for the laughs, but I would rather watch a movie that allows me to lay back and allow the comedy absurdity to sink in. In comedy, one does not have to try if it is truly funny. That is my opinion. I admire the director's ambition and creativity, but the movie seemed to miss some of the genuine and human moments that were provided throughout the book. I understand it's a parody, but in all great movies, we need to feel a connection to its character, in entertainment or just in relation. I felt entertained, so by no meaning is the movie a movie that deserves a Razzie award, but I felt the book was by far better.
I agree that the book did have a much stronger emotional and physiological impact on us as readers. I feel that because the movie's purpose was as a parody of Shelley's novel, the concept of humor wasn't too much of a problem. Yet, Shelley's novel is something that I feel would stick with a reader better than "Young Frankenstein".
You could tell Young Frankenstein went for the comedy route rather than following the story and it's depth into human nature. I enjoyed both versions, Young Frankenstein was funny and had it's uniqueness, but I felt that many parts were unnecessary and just ruined Mary Shelley's book. Most people watch the movie first and don't read the book. As for the book, I felt it had meaning and I could feel for the creature. The creature was actually a monster, but in the movie he was kind of idolized and Frankenstein actually wanted to get involved with the creature, whereas in the book he didn't want to at all. In the beginning of the movie, I was confused because it was just entirely different. Honestly if it weren't for Igor in Young Frankenstein, the movie would've been boring.
I agree with your point that reading the book prior to watching the movie kind of ruins the film. I felt like in the book, one main theme was abandonment, and the unwillingness to take responsibility for a creation–– this vital element seemed to be very small in the film, which seems very strange. It doesn't even feel like it is based off of the book at particular points in time.
I agree that the movie did not follow the book at all. I was a little disappointed by the lack of depth that was had in the movie. Igor was a fantastic character and really contributed to the comedy of the movie.
I personally wanted to see more depth in the movie. It seemed just like a movie about a lost child, and didn't have much more to it than that.
I think I was glad to have read the book before the movie. I understood the subtle background hints from the movie about the book and I enjoyed making connections. Overall, the movie is funny standalone but it is funnier with the book's background.
I think too many of us wanted the film to align with the book, instead of being its own stand-alone work, and this had a negative effect when we watched it. If viewed from the perspective of the book-reader, the film was definitely overshadowed by Shelley's writing. However, looking at the film in isolation, it isn't too bad as a humour piece (especially with Igor)
I believe that "Young Frankenstein" acts as a comedic parody of the original work by Mary Shelley; however, as a derivation, it does not live up to the full potential that Shelley presented in her novel. The novel provides a more captivating plotline, with the reader seeing Victor experiencing a feeling of isolation and pain after realizing the ramifications of his work on reanimating dead tissue. The movie provides a more humor-filled approach to this, as Gene Wilder portrays his grandson and rather than showing a response to an emotional impact, Dr. "Fronkensteen" creates his version of the creature as a response to curiosity. The creatures also have quite different mindsets, as the one in the novel is more of a vengeance-seeking monster who optimizes revenge, in a sense. The one in the movie, although repelled by society, ends up becoming part of it after becoming friends with the main German commander.
I agree with your thoughts, the movie doesn't delve in to human thoughts and human nature as much as the book does; instead it gives it a more lighthearted spin. The characters personalities are altered quite a bit so that they don't accurately reflect human nature.
The differences in the plot, style, and "feel" of the book and film, which you mentioned, can be attributed to the difference in the overall aim of the two tales; the film's primary objective is to entertain the audience through comedy and sex appeal, while Shelly's novel, among other things, aims to warn about the dangers of technology and explore what it means to be human through a dramatic plot and serious tone.
I think that the movie is completely different from the book. In the book, Frankenstein was portrayed as shallow and judges the monster solely by his looks. However, in the movie, Frankenstein doesn't run from the monster, but rather is willing to accept him and tries to help the monster. While Frankenstein does feel fear when he is locked in the room alone with the monster, he puts himself in this position to try to help the monster and show him love. Even the audience is willing to accept the monster when Frankenstein performs with his monster in front of an audience. Throughout the movie, there were also two themes, fire and music. The book only covered fire and the monsters fear of fire, which is also reflected in the movie. However, the movie goes on to also show the monster's love of music and his attempt to follow the sounds of music. Music in this case would represent society's development and a love of the arts.
I think what you wrote about music and fire is very interesting! Besides music representing society's development, I also think that the dramatic contrast between the creature's love of music and hatred of fire is meant to show the audience how simplistic the creature's thought process is. It's also interesting to note that in the novel, the creature recognized the usefulness and gift of fire, something the creature in the film completely disregarded.
The movie Young Frankenstein brings a new perspective to the actual story of Frankenstein. Instead of being a serious story, they changed it to a comedy. They did a pretty good job with the movie as I found it to be more interesting than the book Frankenstein. The comedy part of the movie made the movie fun to watch whereas the novel was sort of dark and made the it kind of boring to read. The movie also brought different aspects to the story that weren't in the book like, comedy,sexuality. These things made the book and movie completely different. However the book was better at telling a story, even though it was boring, it developed the characters and added more meaning to them. The movie is just something you'd watch for fun since it's a comedy.
I agree that the book was better at telling the story. I think it would have been very difficult to convey the dark emotions and themes of the novel in a movie, simply because it is easier to describe them rather than show them. I think that they made the movie into a comedy because it would be more appealing to an audience and it makes the story easier to understand.
The film Young Frankenstein is vastly different than Shelley's original novel and convey starkly different underlying messages regarding the dangers of technology. While Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, is a serious and tragic tale about Victor's disastrous creation, the comedic film uses satire and farce to paint a rosy and funny picture of technology and ridicules the mob mentality that makes townspeople hate the monster as addressed in Frankenstein. For example, the film has a happy ending with Frankenstein becoming accepted by the town, while the book has an extremely grave resolution. Both endings showed the monster finally being able to express himself to an outsider, but he was accepted into society in the film while was tragically left alone as an outcast in the novel.
I completely agree. Because the film took a much more comedic approach to telling a vastly different story, the messages it sends and the way it says it are different as well. Because of this lackadaisical approach to this story, I also felt that the character development was nowhere near enough for the audience to draw any parallels between themselves and the characters.
There are large differences between the movie Young Frankenstein and the original novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
The movie focuses too much on reaching a larger audience, unlike Mary Shelley who wrote her novel as part of a small competition. The movie adds many comedic effects that weighs down on the seriousness and devastating consequences that occurred in the novel. It lacked the comprehension of human society and the definition of fear and isolation that the novel covered. In fact, it even lacked real consequences for the creation of a knowing being.
In my opinion, the movie Young Frankenstein is completely different and holds no real relation to the original novel.
Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein are different mainly because of the way each story was portrayed. While both stories focused on a serious topic and answered legitimate questions (such as whether the creature has a chance for happiness in his life), Young Frankenstein actually had comedic relief. However, I also feel that the humor in the movie may have taken away from the importance of the main question the book was trying to answer. Young Frankenstein didn’t focus on what it means to be human and whether it is possible to create artificial life. It portrays a story similar to the original one, but took away a lot of the meaning from it.
Another way the two differ is in that the movie takes some elements from the original movie based on Frankenstein. Young Frankenstein included the hunchbacked assistant, the angry mob of villagers, and an uncoordinated and unintelligent creature (unlike the one in the novel). This did make the movie more funny (since the creature got himself into some ridiculous situations) but it took away from the creature’s character. Overall, however, I don’t think that the movie is worse or less entertaining than the novel. The two are just meant for different people with different tastes.
I agree with Nikhila. The story is differently different because of the comedic relief and that they focused more on the funny parts instead of the profound meaning behind the original work. In addition, the monster's character also lacked character development.
I also agree with Nikhila, although both did focus on a serious topic, and answer legitimate questions. The movie took away from Mary Shelley's original work, as well as her intented use of the creatures character.
I was caught off guard towards the end of the movie because I didn't expect the creature to dress up and dance and I definitely didn't expect the creature to end up with Fredrick's ex fiancé, Elizabeth. There were many differences between Young Frankenstein and Frankenstein and the one that got me feeling something was the endings. In the novel by Mary Shelley, both Victor and the creature go through many hardships and ended with the death of both of them. Whereas in Young Frankenstein, Frederick and the creature had their happy endings. Overall, I think Young Frankenstein acted as a parody of the original for its comedic parts. Whereas, Frankenstein has a more serious tone and meaning, leaving readers to ponder of the definition humanity and the consequences of technology.
I was really surprised by the ending as well- I don't think any of us expected that either! Seeing how Young Frankenstein was, and still is, a popular film, I think it's take on the original novel, though different, was still interesting, because it depicts an alternative approach to scientific responsibility. Thought it didn't demonstrated the same eloquence and structure in its story as the original book, it was able to appease its audience through comedy.
I agree. I felt as though the movie was more of a parody because there were far too many major (and shocking) differences for it to be considered a re-telling of the novel. And while I did appreciate the light-heartedness and positive spin the movie put on the story, I felt that those aspects took away from the serious question that the novel Frankenstein is meant to portray. I think only readers of the novel can truly appreciate the application of the lesson (taking responsibility for one's creations) that Shelley teaches us.
Young Frankenstein is very, very different from the novel. There are stark differences in plot, character details, and tone.
Mary Shelley's novel had a much darker and almost brooding tone to it, where Victor Frankenstein lived an isolated life, was scared of his monster, and had his life destroyed by the creature. However, in Young Frankenstein, Frederick "Fronkonsteen" Frankenstein is notable much more sociable than his grandfather, enjoys the fruits of his work, and eventually lives in harmony with his creature. Frederick doesn't give up on his creation, and helps it assimilate into society, and even (inadvertently) "bestows" him a mate. Furthermore, Frankenstein in the original novels never had any assistants, whereas Frederick had Inga, I-gor, and even Frau Blucher (NEEEEIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHH)
In terms of tone, as alluded to before, Shelley's novel was dark and brooding, while Young Frankenstein is very comedic. This is because these two were made for significantly different purposes; Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as a challenge to see who could write the scariest novel, whereas Young Frankenstein was a movie made in the mid 1970's, where entertainment and likability were huge priorities.
Young Frankenstein had a happy ending for all of its characters, whereas Shelley's Frankenstein ended with all parties losing. This drastically changed the plot, because now Frederick had to live in harmony with the monster, which changed all of the events that happens between the creation of the creature and the end of the story.
I agree with you about the tones from the two different works of art. The novel does have a tone in which the author seems to write in a manner which a mourner would for a lost one, while the film maintains a quick and mostly cheerful dialogue, similar to what you would find in 1950-1980 sitcoms. Although the film and the novel differ from each other greatly, the most important aspects from the novel remain, such as grandchild Fronkonsteen (Frankenstein) becoming interested and successfully re-animating a corpse.
I agree with you, and think that the novel and movie can't really be compared on an equal level because of the fact that they were made for different audiences. It was really interesting to see the different take on the novel though!
As a little kid I loved this movie Young Frankenstein, I watched it a million times and it was my first kind of explanation of what the character Frankenstein was all about. There is an extreme number of differences in both Young Frankenstein and the original Frankenstein, and the one difference that stood out to me was how the monster was portrayed in both stories. In the comedy parody, the monster was not feared by its creator, and the towns people weren't afraid to interact with him. This monster played with the little girl, and preformed a dance with Fredrick Frankenstein. The monster seemed to fit in to the society a little better then it did in the original Frankenstein. Another big difference is that in the original Frankenstein, almost all of the major characters died in the end, and it was a tragic, sad ending, while for Young Frankenstein, the characters were satisfied and they had a "happy ever after".
I agree I enjoyed watching the movie because they had done a good job at creating both a humorous and scientific way of expressing the same concepts the book had shared. I definitely did not think the movie would be as fun to watch as I expected.
Young Frankenstein is really only loosely based off of the original Frankenstein book; it merely utilizes the idea of a monster made of parts of dead humans brought to life by electricity. It uses the original book as a background for a comedic rendition. I didn't really enjoy the movie because it really didn't address the same themes as the book and wasn't as meaningful. The movie emphasizes the idea that science is beneficial and always ends happily, while the book really brought out the important concept of science gone wrong. The movie merely used Mary Shelley's well-known Frankenstein to push its own story forwards into popularity. Although humorous and quirky, Young Frankenstein really can't be seen as a modern rendition of Frankenstein, but simply a story that borrows a name and monster. It's like calling a young adult vampire novel a modern rendition of Dracula. In the end, it was entertaining, but not very thought provoking.
I agree with your points. The movie was too happy go lucky and pretty fake. The movie simply just took the name and story and remade it into a comedy that had nothing to do with the book.
I agree with the idea that Young Frankenstein addresses thematic issues that are different from the original ones posed in the Frankenstein novel. Could we attribute that to the fact that movies and books are generally targeted towards different audiences? What we consider as good qualities for a book do not necessarily come off as good qualities for a movie. Since they are two different forms of artistic expression, there will be differences in between how emotions and themes are conveyed. However, I do see how the movie is not only using a different form of expression, but also different themes. That in itself is why the two stories are so different.
I completely agree with all that you've said; I don't believe that the movie was an accurate depiction of the book at all. It merely used the book as a basis for the story and didn't show the consequences of science gone wrong. I do believe, however, that they intended to make the movie more light-hearted and comical on purpose. They probably just wanted to show the two sides to Shelley's lesson; taking responsibility for one's actions and ignoring them. The movie showed how because Fredrick cared for his creature, his family members and friends stayed safe. In the book, we saw how Victor's decision to disown his creature led to his demise alongside the people who he cared about.
yeah i agree, the original book was definitely just a skeleton for the movie. a lot of characters were modernized or were just completely new but the aspect of the monster was still constant.
The movie Young Frankenstein was mostly very different from the original novel by Mary Shelley. First of all, the main character in the movie was the grandson of Victor Frankenstein, the one who was supposed to have made the creature. Also, in the book, Frankenstein was supposed to have made the creature by himself but in the movie, he was aided by Igor and the blonde woman. One of the biggest differences from the book is the fact that Frankenstein is not horrified by the creature. He does not run away in terror like he did in the novel. In fact, Frankenstein says that the creature is "beautiful." Overall, the movie was just a funny parody of the original.
I agree with you. I found that over all the movie was a lot different than the book as well as the characters. Although they were related in the movie his grandson approaches the creature almost opposite to the way Victor approached the creature
Going into Young Frankenstein, I wasn't sure what to expect of the movie compared to the original book, Frankenstein. I found the movie's lighter side and comedic elements to be very enjoyable, as opposed to the darker, more morally and scientifically conscious themes of the book. While obviously there were many differences in overall direction, I did notice some parallels between the two works. In Young Frankenstein, the blind man yearns for a friend as he states that he's always alone, similar to how Captain Walton felt like he was extremely isolated on his voyage and yearned for a friend. In both the book and the movie, the monster is portrayed as big, powerful and dangerous, until the monster speaks and personifies itself. In the movie the monster got redemption while in the book the monster's life ended in tragedy. I enjoyed both works for what they were, even though the book is obviously the one with deeper themes and meaning.
I definitely agree with you. The film was very different from the original book. I believe that Shelley intended for the book to be dark and scary but in the film there is a lot of comedy and there is a happy ending.
Young Frankenstein tells a re-interpretation of Frankenstein the novel in a much more lighthearted and playful way. Many of the darker themes in the novel, such as the creature killing Victor's loved ones and the potential consequences of new technologies were extremely toned down in the film. For example, though the monster in the movie terrified the villagers, he never actually committed murder.
One thing I found very interesting about the film was the portrayal of the creature. The novel portrayed the creature as a highly sophisticated being, something the film completely glosses over because of the creature's 'bad brain'. In the novel, though the creature starts out as a blank slate, he still has the capacity to learn to speak and read and is able to learn how to communicate by himself. However, in the film, the creature starts off not being able to communicate effectively (much like in the novel) but doesn't gain the ability to do so until he gets a part of Frankenstein's brain. Also, all the decisions that the creature in the novel made were very deliberate. He knew exactly where he was going (to find Victor and demand a mate) and what he was going to do (for example, kill Elizabeth). On the other hand, the creature in the film stumbles around with no real direction, seeming to encounter people and different situations completely by chance.
Overall, though there were too many major differences between Young Frankenstein and Frankenstein for the film to be considered a re-telling of the novel, I still enjoyed seeing a new take on a classic!
The idea that Young Frankenstein is based off of the novel Frankenstein is like saying that "American Cheese" is like Gouda. The movie is, in a sense, a mockery of the original story told by Mary Shelley. It looks sort of like the original; however, when examined closely, the similarities are barely skin deep. Young Frankenstein took the characters and the basic plot of the novel and made a movie whose message was entirely different from the message of the book. The somber tone that Shelley wrote with was lost amidst all the puns and sexual innuendos spouted by the characters of the movie. While I feel like most of the movie was just made for the entertainment factor, there is one aspect of it that I enjoyed. The Victor Frankenstein in the movie seemed to realize that his actions affected those around him, unlike the Frankenstein of the novel, who only cared about furthering his own glory. I believe that the lesson that Frankenstein learns in the movie holds more value than the lesson he learns in the novel.
When we read Shelley's Frankenstein in class, I couldn't stop thinking about how the story would have progressed had Frankenstein taken responsibility for his creation. My personal perspective was that the creature was like an infant who learnt from the people in his life and grew up to reflect their personalities and ideals. When Shelley's creature grew up around hatred and fear, he too became engrossed in torturing the people around him. So, when I watched Young Frankenstein, I was pleasantly surprised with the way that the creature was treated and how the new Frankenstein was still passionate about immortality but wanted to demonstrate compassion towards his creation. This movie helps those who read the original book recognize a way to avoid the original Frankenstein's plight- taking responsibility for one's creations and creative explorations. Though it portrays a very different story in a much less eloquent way, Young Frankenstein stays true to Shelley's expression of the responsibilities of scientists to their innovations in the modern age.
I also wanted to see a story in which Frankenstein took responsibility for his creation in a different manner, perhaps where he actually cared for him and saw the humanity in him. This movie however, wasn't able to achieve that, because the plot was simply poorly developed and I never truly saw Frankenstein's love for his creation because of the comedic aspect.
I really appreciated the light-heartedness of Young Frankenstein and how it captured the lesson behind the original novel and spinned it in a positive way. In the novel, Victor abandons his creation and when he does go looking for it, it is solely for revenge. In the movie, however, the young Frankenstein actually cares for his creature and tells him that he loves him and will help him grow. Despite having the same desire and passions to investigate and explore the depths of science, young Frankenstein it showed the characteristics a good father. In the end he was even willing to sacrifice his own life to make sure his creature lived a happy one. The movie applied Shelley's lesson of taking responsibility for one's creation. While it was much different in many aspects from Igor to to the cyborg police officer to the relationship between the Creature and Frankenstein's fiance (oh my god), it stayed true to the central message of Shelley's novel.
I agree with your point that it stayed true to the central message of the novel. I also believe that Young Frankenstein could be taken as a sequel to the novel because Frederick learned from his grandfather's mistake of not loving his creation, and actually began caring for the creature as if it were his own child.
There are many differences between the novel and the movie, like the appearance of the creature and the relationship between the creator and the creature. In the movie, Fredrick has assistants, unlike Victor who created the creature alone. And in the book, Victor immediately abandons the creature, while in the movie, Fredrick stays after the creature comes to life. I think that these changes made a big difference in what the message of the movie was. Also, I was surprised by the vulgarity of a couple of the scenes and I think they were added in to make the movie more appealing to a wider audience, but it took away from the significance of the story. Furthermore, I thought that the movie conveyed the theme of destiny. Even though the theme of love was significant nearing the end, destiny was prevalent in most of the movie, especially in the similarity between Frederick and Victor’s lives. They both chose to reanimate a dead body and they had to face the consequences of this decision.
I agree that although the movie was much more appealing and witty, a lot of the important themes that were intended to be portrayed in the novel were taken out. Instead of Victor's fear of the creature, avoiding his responsibility and shunning the creature, the film shows that Frederick was very proud of his creation and was actually willing to face the consequences by trying to capture the creature.
I felt like despite the many differences between the movie and the novel, the movie was still relatively good. In fact I liked somethings about the movie more then the book. For one I was happy that the creator was more accepting of the creature in Young Frankenstein. That simple difference changed the plot completely eventually giving the creature a happy ending as well. I also liked that Frankenstein grew positively throughout the movie unlike the books. He learned that the creature wasn't really bad and that it just needed some love. One thing I noticed however, is that the movie didn't really recreate what Shelley was trying to warn people about in the novel, that science has consequences. Because all the experiments worked in the movie, it almost counteracts what Shelley was saying in that it shows that there were no true negative consequences in reaching out of peoples' bounds.
Hi Simran! I also really liked the fact that Frankenstein was a lot more open and accepting to the creature. I forgot about it, but I remember thinking about it while watching the movie. Unfortunately the movie doesn't have the same lessons, but I believe it was because it was suppose to be seen as less realistic than the book. The comedy wouldn't have been as much as a comedy if it ended sadly.
I believe some of the main differences between Young Frankenstein and the book were related to the actions and abilities of the creature, along with the creation of it. The stories between the two were quite different; I was surprised.
In the book, Victor Frankenstein worked alone in making his creation. He was lonely and falling sick due to his obsession in making it. However, in Young Frankenstein, Fredrick Frankenstein had the help of Igor and Inga; he was not alone in making his creation. Also, in the book, once the creature came to life, Victor was disgusted with its appearance and immediately disowned him by running away. However in the movie, the creature was trying to run away but Frankenstein, Igor, and Inga were trying to make him stay. Also, in the book, everyone was disgusted with the creature's appearance and when citizens saw him, they were scared and believed him to be a monster. However, in the movie, when the creature approached that young girl, she was not scared of him and instead talked and played with him. Also, when the creature visits Frankenstein in the movie, Frankenstein tells him that he loves him and accepts him. In the book, however, Frankenstein hates the creature and it takes a lot of convincing for him to even agree to make a companion for the creature. The creature also doesn't learn how to speak by himself in the movie, but rather through Frankenstein's brain, unlike in the book. The creature moreover likes the sound of the violin in the movie, but there is no mention of that in the book.
Overall, the movie was a lot more comical and light-hearted. It depicted the events of Frankenstein in a positive manner and showed how Fredrick cared for the creature he brought to life. He took responsibility for his creation unlike Victor did for the creature in the book. The movie was very different compared to the book, but it just portrayed Shelley's lesson from the novel in a more positive manner. The book showed how Victor's decision to disown his creature led to his demise along with the people who he cared about. However, in the movie, the people he cared about stayed safe as he took care of his creature and in the end, sacrificed his own life for his creation.
I think the fact that Frankenstein didn't leave his creation in the movie is a very important thing to note. I think that this might be part of why the creature is much more liked in the movie than in the book. In the book, the alienation of the creature begins with Frankenstein and just gets worse leading to an unhappy end. In the film, however, Frankenstein tries to stay with his creation and teach it things (i.e. the dance) and the creature becomes increasingly human throughout the story ending with the transfer granting him the ability to speak and then the wedding.
Honestly, I was not expecting the movie to recreate Frankenstein in the way it did. Before watching it, I actually thought it would just be a remake of the movie but with a younger character. But was I wrong..
Young Frankenstein presented the original story line but with an artistic and comedic twist. In the movie, Frankenstein turns out to be the grandson of the original Frankenstein. As the story progresses I can see the parallel between the movie and the book such as the creation of the monster, the hurting of the innocents and the "downfall" of Frankenstein. Even though, the storyline stays true to the book for the most parts, they added many comedic aspects to the movie, for example, the romantic affair between the wife and the monster, the additional characters and the happy ending.
Overall, I thought the movie was very enjoyable with a few surprises and plot twists. Especially the movie was produced in 1974, the production still looked well constructed and executed. I am not surprised that it was nominated for so many awards.
There were a lot of differences between Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein but it also held to the same outline. I think the main difference was that Young Frankenstein was a modern Hollywood version of the original book. It used a more comedic approach and incorporated an aspect of sex which wasn't really portrayed in the book. They probably did this to appeal to an audience in a society wear comedy and sex were popular themes. I feel like since our decade still holds true to those ideas I actually really liked the movie too, more than the book. It was more light hearted and it told the same story but felt more relatable (in the sense that it was more modern). Another major difference is that in this movie 'Fronkensteen' actually takes responsibility for his actions and makes this 'right.' That's something big that we missed out on in the book. There was more morality and responsibility in the movie than in the book.
I also think that the film put a lot of Hollywood twist to it. The film portrays a lot of comedy and sex. I believe that the film tried to portray the creature as an innocent creature that is scared of things and could not be understood. As the creature assimilate to society people become more accepting of the creature.
I totally agree with what you are saying. I also think that the plot changes are to make it more of a Hollywood friendly movie/story. I also really like the point that you brought up about how Dr. Fronkensteen had to take responsibility for what he had done and that was portrayed in the movie
The movie Young Frankenstein in relation to the book Frankenstein, is very different but has a common goal of creating new life. It was very interesting viewing Young Frankenstein, for it took place after Victor Frankenstein had passed away. We were able to see the affect that Victor had on people. Fredrick Frankenstein, his grandson was embarrassed by his grandfather and tried to change his last name to Fronkensteen. He regarded Victor as a crazy person, as so did the towns people. Another thing that was surprising was that Fredrick was made out to be the creator of the Creature. In addition, there were added characters in Young Frankenstein, consisting of assistants for Fredrick, who added comedy to the story. As well as the character Elizabeth had two completely different outcomes from the book, and movie. It was very interesting to see a similar story but with a different more happy outcome.
When we first started watching the film, I expected it to be somewhat of an accurate portrayal of the Frankenstein original book–– but it was clearly different. The director of the film chose to set the movie in a very comedic light, and this may be to appeal to a more modern audience. However, I actually didn't find the film very appealing. Although yes, it was funny and very interesting, I felt like the comedy in it was very strange and unfitting, having already read the novel. Perhaps the biggest plot twist and difference between the movie and the book was the ending bit: in the movie, the monster ended up with Frankenstein's wife, and Frankenstein with his lab assistant. I felt like this ending was extremely abrupt and very strange; although some people may enjoy this type of twist, I found like it gave off too much of a "everything will always turn out okay, and the sun will always come out with rainbows and unicorns" type of feeling.
Yea, I also felt that the director of the film decided to give the novel a slight twist of comedic humor rather than horror. But we have to remember that the Frankenstein in the movie is actually the grandson (or was it great grandson) of the novel's Frankenstein - so the monster / lab assistant relationships might not be so weird.
Honestly, the movie has the name "Frankenstein" but barely does it fit the horror or genre that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was.
I agree; I don't feel like the movie was very appealing at all. I don't even think it was that funny, aside from Igor's character and a couple other parts of the movie. The comedic aspect of the movie really didn't mesh well with its basis in Mary Shelley's novel. There were very few parts of the novel that actually showed up in the film, so I don't think that the movie should even be called "Young Frankenstein." In my opinion, parodies are rarely commendable works of art, and Young Frankenstein followed suit.
Yeah, I was also expecting a accurate modernized version of the book at first. There were hardly any similarities, and the ending not only made me very uncomfortable but like you said, it was very abrupt and almost too good to be true for the characters.
If one were to anticipate the film as an exact replication of the novel in a film medium, I can see why he/she would be unfitting, for it stretches the original story to great lengths. I, however, don't think the film was meant to be viewed in that way. I feel like the producers of the film wanted the film to be its own story with a slight relation to the 1931 film. After all, the film isn't about Victor Frankenstein, but rather Fredrick Frankenstein.
I also wasn’t expecting the movie to have the type of humor and plot that it did. And the comedy was slightly awkward and strange, especially in the context of the novel. The movie paints a completely different picture than the book, sort of giving off a feeling that scientists don’t need to be held accountable for their actions, because it will all be resolved. This is the opposite of what Mary Shelley’s novel portrayed, since she was trying to warn about “science gone astray” and all the consequences that went along with that. However, as a stand alone movie not to be compared to the events that occurred in the book, I suppose it is good in its own right (but I still prefer the book).
One of the main difference between Young Frankenstein and the book Frankenstein is that the book focused more on the creature's emotions, while the movie didn't really emphasize the loneliness that the creature felt. The movie was very obviously a comedy and included a lot of plot twists that made the story of Frankenstein more satirical and also enjoyable to the audience. In the film, the creature came to life as an unintelligent being, one who didn't know how to speak and could only understand through others' words. In the novel, although the creature also didn't know how to speak at first, he eventually learned by observing the family in the cottage. Personally, I think showing the creature's process of learning to become a human was a very important aspect of the story, yet it was left out of the movie. I would have preferred the film to be more of an accurate representation of the novel, but I still enjoyed the additional characters like Igor and Frankenstein's assistant. Overall, the novel included more significant themes and lessons that the movie did not have.
I believe that the writers of Young Frankenstein never meant it to be anything close to the original plot. The movie received very mixed reviews. One stated that it was an overblown burlesque revue, right down to its giggly smuttiness ... [the writer]'s songs have a throwaway quality, as if they were dashed off on the day of the performance." This quote sounds kind of like what you may have thought about it, which is totally fine, but with the 1931 Frankenstein movie already out at the time of Young Frankenstein's release, Young Frankenstein was meant to bring more of a humorous and jovial mood to the story.
Young Frankenstein was different from the book because the movie was meant to be an entertainment film instead of a story with deeper themes. It was Hollywood’s take on a creature created from body parts versus Shelley’s task to make a scary story. The story was much darker than the movie because Victor was always isolated and he feared the creature, whereas, young Frankenstein loved the creature and thought it was “beautiful.” The movie was comedic whereas, the story had lots of death and fear. I didn’t expect the creature to be willing to put on a show for people and I noticed the creature was a lot less educated in the film than the book. He didn’t really observe people and learn how to do intellectual things like read and write in the movie.
Young Frankenstein was far different from what I had imagined it would be: I thought it would be an accurate depiction of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. However, the movie was far more comedic, and had plot twists that I could not even have imagined before watching it. I believe that this is because Hollywood wanted to draw in its audience, and therefore delivered a compelling story that did not have much relation to the original book. Another huge difference between the movie and the book is that in the movie, the creature is immediately able to understand everything Frederick and his assistants say to him, whereas in the book, it took the creature months to begin understanding humans. However, despite the stark differences between the movie and the book, I enjoyed Young Frankenstein because it showed me what happens when humans start treating the creature with more respect and allowing it to assimilate in society.
Yes the plot twists in this film! I definitely feel as though it drew a wide audience and kept people on the edge of their seats the whole time. I also assumed the movie would be similar to the book but then again it is called YOUNG frankenstein. The rendition is, although unorthodox, equally as captivating as the film. Also, the comment about his ability to pick up language so fast, I noticed that too! There was a lot of missing information in the film.
Like many others, I expected the movie to accurately follow the plot of the novel. However,after the first initial minutes of the film, I realized that it was a parody of the novel. Although I have to admit I prefer a book over its movie counterpart, I enjoyed the movie for its successful attempt at being different. Gone were the deaths of important characters and the rage of the monster, replaced by somewhat modern jokes and predictable comedic moments that force a laughter from you. It allowed me to see another "world" of Frankenstein, in which the monster does get accepted into society and obtains a happy ending. The ending was unforeseen, yet contributed to the comedy genre of the movie with the swapping of partners between Frederick and the monster. All I can assume is that the movie was trying to appease a more mature audience, while using "innocent" comedy to entertain the younger audience. Overall, I felt that the movie was a great attempt at showing a dark novel in a friendlier manner while still maintaining the major parts in the plot from the book.
I agree with you Joseph, the movie and the novel are very different in plot and genre. The movie was a parody of the book. No one died in the movie, everyone had a unforeseen happy ending, however, in the novel, it was the opposite.
I feel that the movie of Young Frankenstein compared to Frankenstein by Mary Shelly for many reasons. I feel that Young Frankenstein was extremely different in comparison to Frankenstein when it came to comedy. Young Frankenstein was very focused on the idea of comedy such as the hilarious ending or the witty things that Igor would do or say. Another difference was settings in time, Frankenstein by Mary Shelly took place in the 1800s and Young Frankenstein took place in the 1900s. Also Frankenstein the main character of the movie was the grandson of the original victor of Mary Shelly. In Frankenstein by Mary she really focused a lot more on the story of the creature, she showed why the creature was so upset and what the creature had endured. Mary Shelly showed how smart the creature truly was and its attempts with communicating with mankind.
Young Frankenstein made me very proud of Frodrick Fronkensteen. He had done what Victor Frankenstein hadn't: care for the creature. Victor's creature and Fredrick's creature started out almost the same. They were both created out of dead tissue and had the mental capacity of a child. The road diverges from here. Victor neglects his creature, which is forced to learn about the world by itself. On the other hand, Fredrick tries to make his creature feel loved. This is what I am proud of Fredrick for doing. Fredrick was even willing to give up half his brain to save his creature from the villagers. Young Frankenstein is similar but very different from Frankenstein. The story of a human creating synthetic life was the same, but everything else was almost opposite of what happened in the original novel. This movie was a refreshing, comedic relief from the tragic novel, but I enjoyed both greatly.
I agree. I also enjoyed the fact that the young Frankenstein cared for the creature. There's definitely some sort of foil that was placed between the two, and I definitely liked Frederick more than Victor.
Personally for me, I was thoroughly entertained with Young Frankenstein. The story line was easy to follow however it did contain some holes in the plot. If those scenes were executed more properly then this film would have been as clear as the original Frankenstein novel. The main difference that I noticed and appreciated was that at the end, the creature was not viewed as a monster. In the novel we knew that the creature meant no harm and in the film that was shown. Evidently the film maker did not intend for this film to replicate the book, otherwise it wouldn't be titled "YOUNG Frankenstein". The transitions from scene to scene were truly a work genius, almost as genius as Igor's character. Somehow, a film made in the 1970's still manages to bring laughs to today's young generation. I believe that alone deserves a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
I was really entertained by the movie as well! I noticed some of the plot issues as well. I was especially bothered at how Frankenstein's fiancee just fell in love with the monster without any reasoning or buildup to their relationship. It just felt like it was only done to have a happy ending for everyone without making Frankenstein seem like a jerk. I agree with you on the director's talent. I feel like they did a really good job with this film.
Young Frankenstein is significantly different than the book in many ways. The movie is a humorous version of the actual book. There are many scenes that are in the book, but aren't in the movie. There are also scenes that are in the movie that aren't in the book. I-gor is an interesting character who jokes around a lot in the movie. He jokes with Dr. Fronkesteen's wife. The book isn't like the movie at all. For example, Victor doesn't kill the girl who was throwing parts of the flower down the well. Rather, when playing on seesaw she flies into her bed. Overall, the movie is funny to watch it shouldn't be watched if one wants to get an accurate understanding of the text.
I personally found some the characters of Young Frankenstein much more likable than those of the book. When I finished reading the book for the first time, I was thoroughly exasperated with Victor's shenanigans and really wanted him to just stop. In addition, I didn't find Clerval or Elizabeth particularly likeable either, because they seemed to perfect to be human. In the movie, however, I found Frederick somewhat admirable because he was willing to take responsibility for his creation, and even gave up some of his brainpower to allow the monster to function properly in society. Igor and Inga on the other hand, although incapable, were both charming and entertaining in their own ways.
I also thought the characters in Young Frankenstein were more relatable and empathetic. Specifically, Frederick's attempts to help express the feelings of the monster were much better than Victor's reaction to the monster.
I think that while the book shared many of the same qualities as the movie, the movie had of course added many details in order to make it more interesting for the viewers. The concept that the movie had followed was tailored specifically to mirror what was expressed in the novel by creating an alternative path to follow. The book was written as a series piece of fiction, while the movie had been more of a comedy, not entirely using all the ideas which had been portrayed in the book. As for people who are comparing the movie and the book, it is quite clear that movie is in no way an accurate depiction of the story.
I agree. The movie was nothing like the book. The movie was directed toward a more broad audience, while the book was for a more serious audience. For this reason, I think that it is wrong to compare the book and movie.
I have mixed feelings about Young Frankenstein. It was childishly and crudely funny and was surprised that it got such a high rating on various websites-- I think if the movie came out in today’s age, it wouldn’t have gotten nearly as high of a rating as it did decades ago. One of my major gripes about the movie was Frankenstein’s assistant, Inga. I don’t think she added anything to the movie except make me uncomfortable. It was honestly really disgusting for me to watch her character’s sexual advances and her portrayal as a sex object and nothing else. On the other hand, Frankenstein’s other assistant, Igor, was a really funny and quirky character. Almost everything he did-- his comments, his voice, his indecisive hump-- made me laugh, and he was my favorite part of the movie. Without Igor, I might not have even given the movie a chance.
Another part of the movie that I liked was getting so much exposure to the monster’s character. Although he was still a very violent creature, he did have some childish and human characteristics that allowed me to see him as less of a monster. The “Putting on the Ritz” performance was especially amusing/entertaining to watch.
Whoa I never really even thought about the portrayal of Inga in the movie! Now that I think about it, it was pretty juvenile and sexist, and her character was pretty useless. I gotta agree that I did love Igor's character a lot - he was my favorite part of the movie too and added plenty of humor to the film.
I agree. The movie Young Frankenstein is pretty humorous and funny. Igor as a character adds a lot to the movie, he is very funny. The movie is fun to watch, but isn't the best medium of understanding the actual story.
The book and the movie have many differences from each other. One of the differences in the ending. In the book, the monster is "evil" throughout the entire movie. He is not able to change and be among man kind. However, in the movie, the monster changes in the end. In the beginning of the movie he is the monster that was told in the novel, but by the end of the movie the movie completely changes from the book, the monster changes. Both the book and the movie associate the monster with different symbolism. In the book, the monster represents evil, something that cannot change. However in the movie, the monster is able to change and become "good" and live among humans. Over all, I enjoyed both the book and the movie.They are both directed toward different audiences, the book is for a more specific group of people, while the movie is for a much more broad audience.
I also thought the way the creature was so differently portrayed in the movie and the novel was interesting. One thing that really stuck out to me is that even though as you stated the creature was more evil in the book and more good in the movie his communication was the opposite. In the movie the creature would only grunt and speak incoherently, yet in the novel he is quite elequent. Although it would seem that more developed skills in communication should help him connect and befriend the people he meets the novel and film portray just the opposite.
I agree but I also think that between the book and movie, the creatures kind of become opposite characters. In the book, the creature was born with kindness, however, is completely changed after meeting humans who didn't respect his attempt at kindness and judged him upon appearance. Contrarily, the creature in the movie was able to learn how to be "good" and be accepted by society.
I think it is very interesting to see how different the book and the movie are. Despite both including some of the same characters, the characters are very different in each story. For example, Elizabeth meets the creature while lying in the hay much like the way Justine did, but what happened thereafter was very different. The scene had a very different role in each story. These differences make the two stories very different. When making the film they took scenes from the book and changed them to fit an entirely different genre. Another example of this is the role of the blind man in each story. The creature learned a lot from that family in the book, but in the film the blind man was used to add comedy while not really adding to the plot. The two have a very different stories.
I agree with the fact that these two stories differ as the movie is much more comedic and fitting to a more modern generation, and the novel has a much more meaningful interpretation to it which led these two stories to go different ways.
The book and movie are pretty different. While in the book Victor rejects the monster and hates it, the film's Frankenstein loves the monster and wants to help it. The movie was laced with comedy and wackiness, and also a lot of weirdness towards the end. It's take on a modern Frankenstein following the footsteps of his grandfather was interesting, but honestly near the end when everybody started to do the do I got pretty weirded out. Ending aside, the movie was funny and still entertaining, but I still prefer the book's original tragic storyline and darker elements.
I agree that the movie definitely had some wackiness, especially when (in your words) "everyone started to do the do." I personally liked the movie better, but that's because I'm a wimp and dislike darker stories.
I think that Young Frankenstein was never meant to be much like the original Frankenstein as written as Shelley. While the original book had a darker tone and was meant to scare the reader, the movie portrayed a very comedic story, and was clearly meant to entertain the audience. The fact that each of the main characters had some humorous quality(Igor is sarcastic, Inspector dude had a fake arm, the monster is childlike, etc.) helped to lighten the mood of the movie, which I thought would turn out to be a horror movie because of the name. The movie does parallel the events in the book, but add some comical twists to everything, such as the monster launching the girl into her bedroom via seesaw. I enjoyed both the book and movie, but they are quite different and each appealed to me in ways the other could not.
I agree that the movie and the book were definitely enjoyable in each of their own ways, with the book being more like a dark drama and the film being a funny parody of the novel. The characters from each form of media also reflected the tone and themes of their respective version of the story.
Young Frankenstein differs from Frankenstein in many different ways. The tone of the film is much more lighthearted than the original Frankenstein and is meant for audiences who have already read Frankenstein or are familiar with the story. By telling the story from the grandson’s point of view and including characters like Igor, Inga, and Frau Blucher, the movie combines the main idea of Frankenstein with new and interesting characters (to appeal to everyone). One striking difference is the monster itself. The monster in Frankenstein is an intelligent creature that becomes evil through the actions of others. On the other hand, the monster in the film is unintelligent and begins attacking people from the beginning. In addition, it is easily swayed by promises of “love” that the original monster rejects towards the end. The original Frankenstein and the young Frankenstein also differ in some respects. The older Frankenstein was more open-minded in his approach to creating his monster and read works from Agrippa and other authors that were deemed useless by others. The younger Frankenstein rejects the idea of creating life from the start and only opens up to the idea once he finds his grandfather’s books. Overall, I enjoyed the book and the film. I’m glad the director chose to vary the film from the book because it was interesting to watch a different take on the ideas presented in Frankenstein.
I really enjoyed both the movie and the book. I really like how the movie made it similar to the book, but more of a comedic version of it. I thought it was smart that they didn't use the same story line as the book, and just try to alter it, not using the actual characters (Victor, the Creature...). They were able to be more creative that way. I might have not liked it if they did try to redo the actual story in Shelly's novel, for it might have ruined a classic. They were able to add characters, and backgrounds, like "Fronkeshtein" hating his grandfather Frankenstein, and people like Victors old "girlfriend". I also really enjoyed the humorous script and characters, like everything about Igor. While it is a different story altogether,they do reference common plots and themes in Shelly's novel. For instance, Fredrick having dreams about fate and destiny, and the creature expressing that because he was hated, he decided to cause fear instead.
Yeah, I liked the way they used a different storyline, and altered it to make it more entertaining. They were definitely able to be more creative that day and also appealed to the audience.
All right well I didn't really see any of Young Frankenstein except for the last 20 minutes maybe (being sick sucks..) but the main difference that I noticed was the humor. Young Frankenstein was full of jokes, sexual innuendos, quirky characters, and it definitely made me laugh. This is a stark difference from Frankenstein because I don't really recall any funny moments in the novel; the entire thing followed dark themes of fear, misery, and loneliness. Another difference that I noticed was that in Young Frankenstein, the creator wanted to bring the monster back to him (to help him I believe?), or to make him smarter/more able to communicate. I'm not 100% sure because I don't really know the story but if that's the case, it's very different from the novel where Frankenstein feared the creature and wanted nothing to do with it for most of the novel. Overall, I have to say I liked the book better, for its lack of aloof characters (Elizabeth and the assistant in the movie seemed pretty dumb) and its ability to have a story within a story. Plus the movie was in black and white which I detest, but its humor was worth it at times.
Hahaha being sick definitely sucks but you really didn't miss that much. I feel like the humor was one of the only redeeming qualities about this film. It had a feasible plot but did not live up to the book itself so it was kind of disappointing? But I still enjoyed watching it.
As many others have said, the film adaptation that is Young Frankenstein is more of a parody than a strict interpretation of the original novel. While some of the general themes were shown in the movie, barely any of the complex emotions that Victor had felt were manifested in the film. Moreover, the monster that young Frankenstein had created was quite different than the creature in the book: the creature young Frankenstein made was much more human-like. It wasn't nearly as ugly as it was illustrated in the book and somehow the abnormal brain used in the movie also had an effect on the monster's mindset, which wasn't supposed to matter in the novel. The movie's ending was quite unexpected and strayed off from the original. The overall events that take place in the film create a wacky and silly comedy that was quite enjoyable. Bottom line is, Young Frankenstein is a parody of the original book that doesn't come close to delivering the dark, enthralling narrative the original book intended. But, it's still worth a watch just to see Igor's outrageous character.
I agree with the fact that the creature young Frankenstein made was much more human-like. Although seeing what the creature looked like help me relate more and recall back to Shelley's creature's loneliness, the creature portrayed in the film wasn't nearly as grotesque looking as Shelley described in the novel. I felt that this took away from the theme of the original creature's loneliness. For example, when the creature first escapes, he finds a little girl and she plays with him just as if he were a normal adult. If the creature made by young Frankenstein were as horrific looking as Mary Shelley's described creature, I think she would have ran away in terror instead.
I agree that the monster was much more appealing in the movie than was described in the book. I think this was because the producers wanted to stray from the novel's cold, ominous theme and make the story more welcoming to young families. As a result, they made both Frankenstein and the monster more amiable towards each other and changed several pivotal points of the plot to foster a warmer experience.
I also agree that the monster was more human-like and therefore more appealing to a wider audience. It wasn't as serious and dark as the original novel, where the monster was ugly and so gross that everyone who sees him is afraid. But I also thought that the monster in the movie wasn't as developed as well as the one in the novel. In the novel, you see the monster's deepest thoughts, his fear, his pain through his long monologues. You don't see much of this in the movie.
I agree that the film did not have the complexity of the book. However, I think it did a great job giving the audience a simple, lighthearted comedy. There was no significant internal conflict with Frederick or the monster but that's fine since the film had a different take on the Frankenstein story. I also agree that the monster is not as terrifying as in the book, but I like how the film was able to sum up his feelings of being misunderstood in a short, consise scene at the end. The monster was not scarred by painful experiences like in the book, but his brief speech to the mob still conveyed the same message.
Young Frankenstein is in my opinion the better work of the two. It accomplishes the exact same goal of showing the audience what can happen when you deprive a creature of love, while at the same not boring me half to death (just like the creature). In my opinion Gene Wilder's performance of Dr. Fronkensteen conveys the emotions that must have gone through God himself as he created Adam and Eve. In contrast the novel by Mary Shelley lacks the emotional depth, instead reading like an ancient tome full of the physical reactions of Dr. Frankenstein. The movie also has a much better supporting cast in both I-gor who helped get the movie over the hump from the good to great, and Igna makes up the width and breast of the story. All things considered, Young Frankenstein wins, hands down.
I believe that the movie is the parody version of the book, making the two have very different stories. For example consider Igor, in the novel, he wasn't mentioned at all, however, in the movie, he plays a key role for the comedy, making funny expressions in serious situations, giving Frederick advice when his fiancée came to the visit him and etc. Next is Elizabeth, in the novel, when she faces the creature, she dies, however, in the movie, she falls in love with him and in the end, they get married. It was really awkward/disgusting because Mrs. Ene's son was in the room when the cave scene was playing and everyone were saying "What the heck", then suddenly Elizabeth starts to sing, which made it a little bit funny. Finally another one is the blind man, in the novel, the creature learns a lot from his family, however, in the movie, he lives alone and is used for comedy, spilling soup and wine all over the creature. In the end, the movie and the book have very different genres. One is funny, and the other is horror.
the different people change how the story moves forward. victor abandoned his while Frederick believed in his and loved his, even if he was scared at first
young Frankenstein is much better than Frankenstein because while it is a drama, it is also a comedy and comedies don't have unhappy endings, leading to a ridiculous one instead leaving the same message but also closing the story in a more satisfying way. also while saving money. ~Barath Paulvannan
Although the Young Frankenstein film added many things to the original story of Mary Shelley's novel, I still preferred the novel more. The addition of Igor in the film added a humorous appeal to the film; Igor's awkwardness compared to other characters - the hump, his facial expressions, and other things made the film more lighthearted and a little humorous. If this movie were made today with a character like Inga, it would not be well perceived by the audience. Inga was a sexist portrayal, making women seem like objects, back in the time. The creature's "affair" with Dr. Frankenstein's fiance at the time also made it seem like women were being portrayed as objects, which would not be well-received by a 2016 movie audience. I also felt that the love triangle in the end was very unnecessary. All of these things, while I could see that they were meant to appeal to the audience as being more humorous, took away from the deeper meaning of Mary Shelley's original story.
One thing I did like, however, that I was able to visually see "the monster" in the film, which made it easier to sympathize with him, and understand the theme of Shelley's creature's loneliness. Especially in the end, when the creature could finally think and act more like a human, it made me see him more in a human light, and think back to Shelley's portrayed creature as more human as well.
Overall, I still prefer the book over the film because it was easier to follow along without many unnecessary distractions.
I agree with you on how the movie portrays a more anti-feminist message. Perhaps it's due to the sentiments of the time it was made? However, I don't think we should quickly dismiss the subtle nod to women the movie gives. I feel that Frau Blucher (neighhhh) symbolizes a women's loyalty to her lover. Not saying that she as a woman must serve her male partner, but more that she highlights a woman's superior value off devotion in relationships.
I agree with you, and I think that many things in the movie were unnecessary for understanding the main plot, but were only put in for making it funny. I also agree with you that the movie makes it easier for us to understand the two different points of view - from Frankenstein’s side and from the Creature’s side, with the characters and actions.
I agree with you that the addition of Igor definitely made the film a lot more humorous and interesting. The love triangle was unnecessary, only put in to make the film more appealing to the audience; I agree with you that it took away the focus on the deeper meaning of the original Frankenstein story.
Young Frankenstein was quite a surprising twist to what we had in mind when it came to the novel, Frankenstein. The whole movie was very funny and entertaining, something different from the book, which portrayed a significantly grim and sad theme. The humor was definitely enjoyable, however a lot of it was quite ridiculous (so ridiculous that it was hilarious). It was a nice contrast to the book, especially since it gave us a different perspective on a similar storyline. There were a lot of references to Victor Frankenstein and his work. The movie actually seemed to show the main character fixing the mistakes that Victor failed to fix, especially with the creature. Victor fails to validate the creature and give him love and kindness. Fredrick on the other hand, gives him love and compassion, even though he was scared of the creature at first. The reason the creature went rogue in the first place with Victor, was that he wasn't nurtured or loved by anyone. That automatically made him a monster, feared by everyone. With Fredrick, he made a consious effort to connect with his creation, and ultimately promising to raise him like a son. From what we noticed in the movie, the creature was quite gentle and harmless unless he was aggravated. The only thing which I personally found completely strange was when Fredrick's fiance ends up with the creature (It was actually really creepy). Over all, it's a funny movie and is something people should definitely watch after reading the novel.
While watching Young Frankenstein, I continuously thought that this movie was more meant to be some sort of twisted parody of Mary Shelley's book. The original book had a gloomy and dark atmospheric feel while this movie seemed more comedic in comparison. The aims of both the book and the movie were completely different, as the movie attempted to make the dark story of an experiment going out of control into a comedy. The book on the other hand was originally planned to be a thriller/horror novel, more aimed at scaring than arousing laughter. If one were to compare the characters of both the film and the novel, the differences between both works is even more clearly pronounced. The original book almost marks the people who would die while the movie doesn't portray many scenes of death. I believe I enjoyed the book more, because the movie seemed to objectify both male and female characters. I do not fancy such jokes, so it lowered my tolerance for the movie and made it seem dull. The book was very nice in the sense that it made people, (well at least me), relate to the characters and at the same time allowed me to view these character's actions as a third party.
That's interesting! I never saw it that way, as a parody, but that analysis makes a lot of sense. I saw it more as a natural evolution since the movie is set in modern times, and things like sexuality have indeed become more prominent. It also reflects our modern society's more superficial culture and desire for comedic fluff, rather than literary greatness. But I think the main spirit of the story was captured in both the film and the novel, which just goes on to prove the timeless appeal of Shelley's original work.
Yeah, I have my suspicions as well that what the movie as going for clearly was not in the direction of staying true to the novel. I agree that Young Frankenstein was a more comedic work than Frankenstein as they likely had different purposes. Frankenstein was supposed to be a horror story while Young Frankenstein appears to have been targeted for more modern-ish day audiences. I liked the novel more because it went deeper and the characters were much more well-developed. While it wasn't really funny, the novel actually made me think—the film didn't really make me do that.
Young Frankenstein was an unexpected twist on the classic book, Frankenstein. Not that it wasn't a pleasant surprise but I was definitely expecting something as dark and depressing as the original book. The humor and acting was all very cheesy but in a good way. It was more of a comedic experience than an actual interpretation of the story. And I can appreciate this version of it because it was entertaining to watch and had memorable characters (I-gor <3). I should have seen the weirdly sexual ending coming as it was a product of Hollywood but overall I definitely enjoyed watching the movie, even with all of it's spoofs/inaccuracies.
Young Frankenstein definitely had a different interpretation on the novel Frankenstein that my personal view. Overall, the movie was enjoyable and embodied a lighthearted tone. In contrast, the novel was more serious and maintained a darker mood. I found it interesting how the two perspectives took different approaches on the plot. The main character in the movie seemed more empathetic than Victor Frankenstein as he aimed to fix his mistakes. Unlike Victor, Fredrick attempts to mend his relationship with the monster and provide care and kindness for the monster regardless of his initial feelings towards the monster. The movie also had some details that varied from the novel, such as the music that brought the monster back to the home. I thought the ending of the movie was really unique and quite a twist as I never really thought that the monster and Fredrick would switch brains. Although the movie was comedic, I still prefer the book over the film.
The film young Frankenstein, although based on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, differs from the novel in several ways, with the most prominent difference the creature itself. The creature is more based off the iconic 1931 film, Frankenstein, for the creature is an inarticulate being, similar to that of the 1931 film adaptation. This is a 180 degree contrast from the original creature, who learned speech and language through observing the peasant villagers. The film, however, does portray the creature as a sophisticated and intelligent being during the scene when the creature convinces the detective to spare young Frankenstein. By showing the two sides of the creature, I feel that the film has bridged the two portrayals of Frankenstein's creature into one, connecting the novel to its film adaptations. Overall, I quite enjoyed the film. It was a light and comedic adaptation to a dark and somber novel. Also, although a film from the 1970's, it managed to exude an early 1900's vibe to it with the black and white picture, making seem even more closely related to the 1931 film.
I actually liked the movie Young Frankenstein because I thought it adapted the classic story into a modern and creative movie. I loved the characters in Young Frankenstein than the characters in the novel because I thought they were more diverse and lighthearted. My favorite character was Igor and Inga was a close second. Igor is definitely more of a character of comedic effect rather than substance, but his character serves its purpose of being entertaining. In addition, Inga, though her character seems anti-feminist, brings a sort of sexiness to the story that I would not have expected with science fiction.
What I also found interesting was that this time Young Frankenstein portrays a creature that is loved and cared for by its creator, and thus resulting in a happy ending rather than a tragic one. The movie definitely had a more positive tone than the novel, even though the creature still faced prejudice and fear. Overall, I felt that this movie did a great job distancing itself from the novel and being able to stand on its own. I believe the creative comedy sheds a new light and perspective on the story of mad scientists bring life to dead tissue, and surprisingly does not leave a bitter aftertaste of repetition.
Young Frankenstein puts a comedic twist to the original Frankenstein book by Mary Shelley. The film Young Frankenstein really took me by surprise. I did not expect the villagers to let the creature go when it gained the ability to talk and reason. The ending took me by surprise. The Film really turned a book that was meant to be scary to something funny.
I agree with you hong, and that's also why I felt that the movie was a lot more enjoyable. It had twists and turns that you were not expecting plus it was pretty funny unlike the novel that was dark and pretty much scary/spooky
The movie would be interesting to watch for the readers, but I still prefer the novel more. Even though the movie Young Frankenstein made references to Frankenstein, there are still many differences between the two. Mary Shelley tries to warn the scientists with the story of Frankenstein, but the movie twists the story to a more positive-feeling and funny plot. For example, Fredrick starts the experiment with his lab assistant and Igor, after reading the book of how Victor Frankenstein made the Creature. The movie specifically points out the mistake young Frankenstein makes about using an abnormal brain, and shows us how young Frankenstein takes responsibility for the things he has done. The happy ending of the movie was caused by young Frankenstein’s right decisions to save the Creature and the people’s reaction of accepting the Creature, and it made up the sad ending in the novel.
I love how Young Frankenstein totally changed the plots. Similar to most of the books we learn in high school years, Original Frankenstein has so many deep literal interpretation. While it is fun to find and analyze those, I personally think that it's a great idea to watch or read a funny and changed version of the writing. Watching the movie was fun because I have read the original Frankenstein and I was able to relate and connect the movie to the novel. I like how the director of Young Frankenstein decided to set the main character as a grandson of Dr. Frankenstein since the story and plots flow nicely. One aspect that I loved the most was Igor.
Young Frankenstein was very different from the actual book. The movie itself was very comical and had varying levels of humor that were added in to make the storyline more interesting and viewer friendly. Also, the whole movie was about Dr. Fronkensteen, the grandson of Frankenstein instead of Frankenstein. The movie was very interesting because it started off with Dr. Fronkensteen really hating his grandfather and his lineage. He was very adamant on not having any relation to his grandfather until he goes to visit his old lab. There, he finds his grandfather's work and attempts to recreate it. I found it really interesting how in the book Frankenstein, there was the obvious repercussion of recreating life when the creature decides to seek revenge on his creator and murder the people that he cared about while the revenge/repercussion in Young Frankenstein was that at the end of the movie, it was very obvious that in trying to save his creation and give it knowledge, Dr. Fronkensteen was hurt and took the consequence.
The movie Young Frankenstein differs from the novel written by Mary Shelley in which the story was told. In the movie, there was a much more comedic side than the book. I think the ending shows a different perspective on human nature also because the angry villagers let the monster go as soon as he was able to talk to them more in a more sophisticated language than his mere moans. Once they understood what he was trying to say they simply let him go which shows the value of communication between humans.
Even though it was completely different from the book, I really enjoyed Young Frankenstein. The jokes were a little cheesy at time, but I found it to be pretty entertaining. As for the plot, I thought it was really interesting that Dr. Frankenstein tried so hard to avoid his grandfather's work and to dissociate himself from the twisted work, but only ended up doing the same thing. I thought it was really comparable with how a lot of kids feel about their parents. The "I won't be like my mom/dad" ideology sticks with a lot of kids and they find themselves actively avoiding all warnings, just to realize they've fallen into the same traps their parents did. Outside of that, I really liked the movie because I enjoy seeing modern interpretations of old works. I think that these interpretations help to give insight as to how people have interpreted old work over time. For example, a parody about a book made in the 1970s would be really different from a parody done in 2010, and even 2015.
I agree with you Mel. I found it intriguing how they added a little bit of spin on the classic story of Frankenstein by showing his grandson as a character filled with hate. As the movie progressed, we see the transformation of this character into a more appreciative person, which can be attributed to his respect for his grandfather's works.
I didn't get to see a large majority of Young Frankenstein because I missed school on Tuesday, but from what I could tell from the last few minutes of the video, it was a lot more lighthearted and jovial than the novel. Whereas the novel focused on themes of vengeance and morbid death, the movie was more of a comedy. It definitely did not follow the plot of the book and shocked me with all of its quirky plot twists and character development. The biggest difference for me between the two was that in the movie, Frankenstein cared deeply for the monster and risked his life in trying to facilitate its life, while in the novel he wants nothing more than for the dreadful beast to die. I think overall, I enjoyed the novel more because it provoked stronger emotion and left a more lasting impact. It wasn't just something meant to attract box office sales; instead, it explored deep themes and left the reader pondering in thought and introspection.
I agree that the novel was definitely more profound and invoked stronger emotion (while I did find the movie amusing). I also recognized the huge difference that in the movie, Frankenstein cares for the monster, while in the book, all he wants is to escape him.
Young Frankenstein has quite a few differences when being compared with the novel written by Mary Shelley. The main difference was that Young Frankenstein revolved around the grandson of Dr. Frankenstein who hated being compared with his grandfather. The main character called himself Dr. Fronkensteen in order to leave his past and stray away from his grandfather. The change of Dr. Fronkensteen's character and affection for his grandfather and his grandfather's works is what makes the Young Frankenstein a comedic movie. I loved the relationship between bluchard and the doctor throughout the movie because it was very interesting as bluchard tried to reverse what the doctor did
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and the movie Young Frankenstein are quite different in both the stories and tone or the telling. The multitude of different interpretations and spin-offs of her work show how prevalent and important it has been to so many people. The movie is a comedy, and by following Frankenstein's grandson, it gave the writers a lot of ways to both stray from and reference the original novel. Sometimes I thought this was done very well and hilariously, yet other times, they would throw some quote from the book in where it didn't really make sense, like with the creature proclaiming how he decided to inspire fear. Overall I enjoyed the jokes and absurdness of the movie, and find it amazing how something so different could be inspired by the book.
One difference that piqued my curiousity between the film and the book was the villagers of the film lost their fear of the monster when it developed the ability to speak and thus became "like them". I felt that the book addressed the event in a more realistic manner than the film. In the book, this development served to further terrify the people of Europe - the discovery of a monster whose horrifying physical appearance bore uncanny resemblance to their own and who apparently shared their capacity for thought and ability to articulate them would probably speak to nightmares of evil ingraining itself so deeply in a soul that it corrupts the physical being.
The film poses an interesting "what-if" scenario, where Frankenstein attempts to reconciliate with the monster instead of striking out to destroy it, but quickly takes it in a comic direction. Although I found the film amusing, I preferred the book's serious take on the "nature vs nurture" debate.
The thing that I really enjoyed about both books was a sense of fear and urgency concerning the monster. Even the movie was completely crazy in many ways, I think the uncertainty and genuine fear of the creature's doings showed and gave the plot some solid momentum. I also enjoyed the modern sensibilities of the movie, which were well written and not cheesy. It brought the book to life, because the humor and innuendo made things funnier and provided a lot of comic relief. Also, I enjoyed the pacing of the movie more than the novel, which had a length backstory.
But I also think the book did a lot of things better (as they usually do). For example, the monster in the book was far more vicious and developed than the monster in the movie. I'm thinking back to those long monologues that really illustrated the creature's personality with a lot of granularity.
The movie Young Frankenstein differs greatly from Mary Shelley's novel. In Young Frankenstein, we observe the grandson of the original Victor Frankenstein and in doing so we see that the grandson at first does not want any relations with his deceased and famous grandfather. This movie is not a direct movie about Mary Shelly's book, rather it is an extended version of the book and building off of the previous story.
I liked the artistic liberties that were taken during this film. I thought that Dr. Frankenstein was a funny character and I liked watching his own buffoonery get him into different situations. I liked how they used the violin to call the monster back. I thought the sexual innuendos made the movie a little more entertaining and exciting and instead of a drawn out story about a creation gone wild. I liked the modernity of the story and how it was made more applicable.
However, I would much rather have seen a movie where the monster goes crazy and wild and tries to kill it's creator. This movie was just about a creature who was afraid of fire and couldn't talk. I wanted to see an intelligent monster be cunning and clever.
All in all, very happy to have watched an adaptation on Mary Shelly's book.
Young Frankenstein has many differences from the novel Frankenstein. To start off with, the movie had a much more light hearted and humorous tone as there was a load of comedy filled through out the whole film. For example, the character Igor could've been left out of the film, and the only difference would be the humor he brought to the film. In the novel, the story has a much darker and deeper tone to it. The creature was hated and feared by everyone in the novel, while in the film, the creature is welcomed by many of the townspeople. Only when the creature does something scary, is the only time people fear him in the film, while in the novel it is the most feared thing. The film also drifted off in a different direction when the creature took Dr. Frankenstein's fiance to the hay area, while in the novel something else happened when the creature took Justine to the hay. The film's comedic effect made it definitely more enjoyable, while the novel has more of a deeper meaning to its story. Overall, the movie had a more comedic effect and the book had a darker effect through out the novel.
There was definitely a big difference in how Frankenstein was portrayed in Young Frankenstein and the novel. I believe that the movie was more directed towards a audience of a younger age while the novel is more for mature readers. However, the film is also enjoyable for both. The doctors in each are portrayed with different personalities and feelings towards the creature they create. The doctor from the novel was more dark, while the one in the movie had high hopes for its creation. Novels and its recreations are never exactly the same, so I thought Young Frankenstein was a pretty good movie based off of the novel. The movie needed to add the lighthearted moments in the film to attract a wider range of audience, especially the kids.
The movie, a sort of appendix to Mary Shelley’s original novel, obviously focused more on entertainment and took a farcical angle on Frankenstein. Something interesting that I noticed is that both Victor and Fredrick were both in love with girls named Elizabeth, and that they both had great passion for raising the dead. This similarity goes hand in hand with one of the themes of the movie: predestination. Though Fredrick tried to make a good name for himself by becoming a well known neurologist, the world still held his family name against him. He was not trusted because they all believed he would eventually fall into the family’s insanity. In a way Mel Brooks seemed to also be saying that Victor and Fredrick Frankenstein were almost the same person. The movie also says that both victor and Fredrick had assistants, both named Igor and Fredrick even looks like a replica of the picture of Victor. With all this being said, I did like the book more than the movie in terms of educational purposes. Of course, I would rather watch a comical movie than read a rather dark novel but the themes such as alienation, creation, responsibility, and the consequences of society were things that I really enjoyed exploring in the novel. I specifically liked drawing connections of Frankenstein with philosophers such as John Locke and how the idea of the inherent state of man as a blank slate was explored by Mary Shelley. The movie, made to be a sort of farce, did touch lightly upon these themes but I just didn’t find a connection to the movie as I did the novel.
Young Frankenstein was significantly different from the book Frankenstein, Mary Shelly uses the book to execute an intense level of pathos throughout the novel. For example, a major theme was abandonment and loneliness. However in Young Frankenstein, the movie differs by implementing several comical situations and characters which turns around the original story of Frankenstein. This explains Igor’s and and Inga’s purpose by creating a comical route for the movie.
I agree that different themes were highlighted in the novel than in the film. Abandonment and loneliness are somewhat touched upon in Young Frankenstein, but are resolved when Dr. Frankenstein decides to display empathy and even be willing to give up his life for the well-being of his creation. The book is a very dark, while the film took a more light-hearted approach and even featured a happy ending.
The book Frankenstein differed greatly from the more comedic film adaptation. I found it interesting that the storyline of the movie takes place a couple generations after Victor Frankenstein lived and created his monster, where the main character liked to be referred to as Fronkensteen rather than his actual name of Frankenstein. However he eventually embraces his roots and follows in his grandfather’s footsteps. Though the movie was decent in it’s own right, it can’t really be compared to the novel in most aspects. The movie was unable to capture the intricacies of each character that caused the reader to empathize with all of the difficulties and conflicts each character faced throughout the course of the novel. Since the creature in the movie had an abnormal (or abby-normal) brain, he was unable to express himself to the fullest capacity, which was a slight letdown, as the majority of the novel was viewed from the fascinating perspective of the creature. It was much lighter to view, however, with each character playing their part to keep the movie entertaining and humorous. I found it ironic that the movie seemed to leave the message that people should just go for it in terms of scientific advancements, without a care as to the possible (and numerous) consequences of certain actions, especially when considering that Mary Shelley had the opposite intentions when writing the novel. However, to be fair, such a movie was not intended as much to portray a message as it was to entertain an audience. All in all, both the movie and the book are good (just for different circumstances), but I still prefer the book over the movie.
I agree that the two cannot be compared as they served different objectives and even had different characters. The book captures the essence of the emotions that the monster and Frankenstein felt, whereas the movie was just meant for the sole purpose of entertaining, and ot much thought was given into developing the characters.
I also found a little disappointment in the fact that the movie's "abby-brain" took out the perspective of intellectual development in the movie's monster. To me, the irony you point out goes to show that most movies have no means to teach a lesson, but its priority is always to entertain. If one chose to analyze, they would have to read the novel.
The movie had a noticeable different tone than the original novel. There was a satirical comedic and lighthearted tone to the movie which was probably done to appeal to more people. I enjoyed the movie more because of this and because I was able to have a visual of what Frankenstein's place might of looked like, bringing the book to life. In addition, the monsters in the movie and book sought for care and love. However, we don't get to see a deep character development of the monster in movie, which I think was a crucial part in the original novel. You got to see the thought process of the monster, its pain and suffering and its personality, which connected to me. Overall, I enjoyed both the movie and book, but by bringing the book to life and adding comedy, the movie was more interesting to me.
I agree with you in that the tone of the movie was far different from the novel, using humor and sarcasm more than tragedy and deep emotions. I also enjoyed the movie more than the book for the same reasons, it was more entertaining and engaging for me due to the modern dialogue and witty characters. One thing I found interesting was the decision by the director/writers to have an ending where they somehow swap brain powers, gifting the monster normal speech and thought processes, living happily-ever-after with their respective partners.
Young Frankenstein took a very obvious departure from the plot of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Likely in an attempt to appeal to viewers of its time, there was the inclusion of a fully decked out mad scientist laboratory with the inclusion of full moons and lightning, extra characters, and plenty of rather inappropriate scenes. It seems like the extra characters were mainly used for integrating more "modern" ideas of Frankenstein into the film, since the hunchback, for instance, adds to the atmosphere of all things scary. Even the setting was different—Einstein's manor was apparently in Transylvania, the same city where Dracula resides. A major difference I would also like to note is the characteristic of the Creature. While in the novel the Creature is smart, in the film, the Creature is rather clueless and is for the majority of the film incapable of fluent human speech. Although rejection from society was touched upon quickly, that theme was not explored. Rather, the focus remained on the young doctor Frankenstein himself and his attempts to control his creation. Other slight similarities included the doctor's pride and the right-before-marriage worry. Unlike Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein's plot was messy and in my opinion, not very well crafted, in an attempt to add humor and modern elements to it. I'd rather prefer the movie to have kept a bit closer to the original novel's plot and themes because it was much deeper and well-developed. Basically, Young Frankenstein is a creation of Hollywood and leaves behind much of what readers learned about in Frankenstein.
The movie Young Frankenstein and the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley were very different in both plot, tone, and characters. I thought that the movie was pretty entertaining and interesting because it was more modern and was easier to understand. I thought it was pretty funny that Young Frankenstein didn’t want to be like his grandfather in the beginning and even changed the pronunciation in his name, but then ended up doing the same thing after finding his secret library. I liked how the movie was different than the book in the part where Young Frankenstein wants to care for his monster and teach him how to be civilized, differing from the original Frankenstein who ran away after he saw his monster. He also wanted to save the monster by using his own body as a “guinea pig”, which I thought was really interesting. The movie was also different in a way that the monster didn’t appear to be as grotesque as the book described it as. The addition of several characters also made the movie more appealing and unique. Overall, I thought the movie was interesting, humorous, and unique, making it easier to understand than the book.
Young Frankenstein is meant mainly as a source of entertainment with the constant plot twists such as the monster walking into a blind man's house and getting accidentally burned by the soup and getting set on fire. The movie focuses very little on the guilt that Frankenstein faces whereas the book highlights the emotional turmoil that Victor undergoes. Many of the scenes were used to entertain the audience and I don't think the movie wanted to follow in the path of the book, by diverting completely from the objective of Mary Shelley's novel. I liked the sudden twists in the movie such as the scene with Inga and Frankenstein, and Frankenstein changing the pronunciation of his name so that he is not associated with his grandfather, though his attempts come with no avail. The monster in the book was feared but also sympathized with, and the monster in the movie was meant just for comic relief for the most part. I prefer the book because of the underlying themes that it presents which are clearly not present in the movie.
Young Frankenstein is meant mainly as a source of entertainment with the constant plot twists such as the monster walking into a blind man's house and getting accidentally burned by the soup and getting set on fire. The movie focuses very little on the guilt that Frankenstein faces whereas the book highlights the emotional turmoil that Victor undergoes. Many of the scenes were used to entertain the audience and I don't think the movie wanted to follow in the path of the book, by diverting completely from the objective of Mary Shelley's novel. I liked the sudden twists in the movie such as the scene with Inga and Frankenstein, and Frankenstein changing the pronunciation of his name so that he is not associated with his grandfather, though his attempts come with no avail. The monster in the book was feared but also sympathized with, and the monster in the movie was meant just for comic relief for the most part. I prefer the book because of the underlying themes that it presents which are clearly not present in the movie.
Young Frankenstein was simply a spin off of the original novel. It merely took the idea that a man creates a monster and turns it into a Hollywood creation for a broader audience. I found the comical aspect in the movie to be distracting, making it hard to follow character development. Evidently, the novel compares to the movie from tragedy to almost of a fairytale. Frankenstein is seen as a man whose conscience drives his actions towards science over empathy. Monsters in both pieces harbor revenge but the monster has a string of empathy he holds onto throughout the film. This showed me the lesson of hope in humanity. Even through the monster's endeavors, he was able to seek "love" and in a way, humanity. The film's lesson was vastly different from of the novel's. The novel reminds us all that even with passion a line must be drawn. I always prefer the novels to movies though because I feel the light-heartedness does not allow the reader to delve into the mysterious serious nature of novels like Frankenstein.
In my opinion, Young Frankenstein was a good Hollywood adaption of the book, while at the same time retaining some of the themes and story devices that were originally in the written work. I liked how the story led directly following the events of the original book, where we see the grandson of Victor teaching in a college. An old servant of Victor comes to deliver his legacy to the young doctor, hoping that he will carry on the family tradition of reanimating the dead. Initially, young Frankenstein is shown to be appalled about the whole ordeal, but quickly becomes like his grandfather with his crazed machinations. I liked how the movie took the story of Frankenstein and pushed it into the modern era while retaining what is core to the tale.
The novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and the movie “Young Frankenstein” are immensely different when considering characters and plot. One major discrepancy between the movie and the book is the character of the creature. In the book, the creature is kind, gentle, and sensitive when created, and is transformed into a violent monster by the torment and superficiality of society. In the movie however, the creature is violent from the moment he is created. In the movie, the creature also encounters a young girl and a blind man who both accept him, while in the book, the children scream and run away. In the book, the creature kills Victor’s brother, his best friend, and his wife, Elizabeth, while in the movie, the creature does not kill anyone. In the movie, the villagers eventually accept the creature and he joins the community (once he becomes smart from a brain swap, rather than by studying in isolation), while in the book, the creature is never accepted by society. There are also some major differences in the creator's (Frankenstein's) character. In the movie, rather than trying to escape his creation in horror, the creator spends his time trying to find him. He tells the creature “you are a god” and “you are not evil, you are good” in order to reel him back so he can inform society of his discovery, while in the book, Victor wants to keep his discovery a secret. Some miscellaneous differences are that the creation takes a few weeks instead of 2 years, the creature learns about fire from the blind man rather than on his own, and some characters are added: the creators assistant (whom Frankenstein marries instead of Elizabeth) and Igor. The tone and use of humor also differentiate the two works. The book is generally foreboding and dark, while the movie is very humorous. The acting is over-dramatic, and the plot includes elements of comedy such as the creature getting married to Elizabeth, and Frankenstein using the dead person’s hand while talking to the police officer. Although the themes in the book are more profound, I found the movie to be quite amusing.
Young Frankenstein was a more comical and lighhearted story. It did not have the same impact as the book but it was a nice change of pace. I thought that the film was witty and outrageous. The book was very dark and showed a very bitter and resentful relationship between Victor and the monster. I like that film showed a more caring relationship between Frederick and the monster. The film lacks the depth of the original story, but the silliness and exaggerated acting were enjoyable and it had a different purpose than the book. The book wanted to show a cautionary tale and send a powerful message to the readers while the film was for entertainment and more of a parody of the original story.
I found that there were a few big differences between the novel, Frankenstein and the movie we watched in class Young Frankenstein. The first one being that the tone of the novel versus the book was completely different. In the novel, it had a nightmare type of vibe to it, very dark and spooky but when I was watching the movie I found it to just be the slapstick funny type of humor. I also found that because of this, that the movie was more enjoyable to me than the book. But that just might be because I love movies, and I don't enjoy reading as much! I also found that the ending differed between the movie and the book. The characters, tone and complete storytelling was different between the movie and the book.
Watching Young Frankenstein after reading the original novel was quite surprising. Obviously, Young Frankenstein is in a different genre, that of a comedy/parody rather than straight science fiction (Having Mel Brooks as director & writer gives it away, presuming you've watched some of his other shows). The movie is definitely easier to watch, being not nearly as dense and as dark as the original novel. However, to compare the two works much further is a little unrealistic. This is because these works are written with very different purposes in mind. Frankenstein was written to make people think, to question morality among other deep themes. Young Frankenstein, however was created to make people laugh. If it were to shape how a person though, it does so much more subtly, through exaggeration and ridiculousness in order to impact how people respond to similar stimuli in the real world. While the original Frankenstein is undoubtedly much more successful as a true work of art, I also get the feeling that many people did not like Young Frankenstein because it was not clear that it was a parody. Regardless, the movie itself was very enjoyable, and complemented the original novel well.
Young Frankenstein is like the original novel with a theatrical twist. Clearly there is more humor and entertainment value in the film than in the book; the characters are more quirky and exaggerated and the plot line is altered to highlight different themes. I was very impressed with how Mel Brooks started the film. Instead of mirroring the story line of Frankenstein, the film was made like a sequel, though still maintained its parodical elements. The ending was especially different, and a lot of that can be attributed to differences between the new and original characters. Dr. Frankenstein isn't like his great-grandfather; yes, he does pursue the same experimental goal, but he ends up taking responsibility for his actions. He is even willing to give up his life on several occasions for the well-being of his creation. By choosing not to follow in the footsteps of the original Dr. Frankenstein, key differences are created between these two works, and that was one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much.
As someone who has not actually read Frankenstein,(Fremont transfer whaddup) I definitely enjoyed Young Frankenstein. I really enjoyed this different interpretation of such a classic story. The characters in the movie are caricature- like and animated. The humor was quick and witty. This movie deals with such dark themes but still manages to keep a humor filled light hearted feel. The silliness of the film kept my attention and interested in the plot. Gene Wilder's portrayal of Fredrick Frankenstein was amazing.The character of Fredrick Frankenstein showed how an otherwise rational scholar can find himself reanimating the dead. His character is a definite change from the dark, mysterious Dr. Frankenstein known from the novel. All and all it was a great movie. This film does give me Rocky Horror Picture Show vibes, weird, 70s, dark. Overall, Young Frankenstein was a pretty great movie. 8/10 would definitely watch again
Young Frankenstein is definitely more of a comedy than Frankenstein. The farcical and super dramatic acting lightens up the whole story, which is probably the biggest difference between Young Frankenstein and Frankenstein. I really enjoy the humor that is incorporated into every character and their quirks. For example, I like Igor’s subtle sarcasm and nonchalance about his ability to move from one place to another in milliseconds. Another thing that I liked about the movie was the screen time given to the creature and his adventures which allowed me to visualize the kindhearted part of his character better than when I was reading it in a book. Thus I was able to empathize with the creature more.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I still like the book more than the movie because I think the structure - with the story inside a story - is more intriguing and touches upon some compelling moral themes. I think the themes of creation, alienation, responsibility and the dangers of sciences are fascinating. The movie, however, seems to be focused on the comic aspect, so I did not feel engaged with any of the themes throughout the movie. And to me, the book is much more realistic than the movie so I feel a deeper connection to almost all the characters. Both the book and the movie greatly contrast each other, but I enjoy them both: one for its comedy, one for its writing style.
I agree with your thoughts about giving more screen time to the creature. For me, it makes it seem like the monster wasn't really a monster but rather a big child who hasn't learned his manners. This in turn changes a big part of the plot, making the story have a more lighthearted tone to it. I also agree with you about how the book incorporates much more themes compared to the movie. The book overall is a lot deeper than the movie.
DeleteI also believe that the creatures perspective is an important aspect of the movie. However I do not agree with the fact that the movie did not engage the viewer to any themes. I believe that the comedy highlighted the humanity and the ability for humans to recover from their actions. While Frankenstein may more explicitly illustrate moral themes, the movie also does so. However since it is depicted through pictures, it is harder to understand the themes, so the book is able to cover more themes making it deeper.
DeleteI also agree that the book was more realistic and that a deeper connection is felt with the characters than the movie. The movie was more bright and funny, so you didn't really empathize with the characters like you did in the book.
DeleteI agree that the movie was far more comical than the book. The book had a stronger level of pathos through various characters and themes. For example, the book revealed the theme of abandonment, which played an essential role as Neha expressed it's purpose of being deeper. Contrary to this, the movie included comical situations that lightened up the mood of the original story that Mary Shelly created. In addition, the movie included new characters that further lead the plot to take a more comical route, one example being Igor's purpose. Based on this, the movie is far more different than the book, but both proved to be just as enjoyable.
DeleteI agree with your comment. Although the movie uses the basic idea of Frankenstein, it differs in the sense that young Frankenstein takes responsibility for his actions. In this sense, the movie is presenting an alternate ending to the original story by showing what would have happened if Frankenstein had taken responsibility for his actions and tried to help his creature. I also agree with your point that the movie has a more lighthearted approach and shows how people are capable of fixing their mistakes instead of giving up/trying to forget about it.
DeleteThere are many differences between the movie and the book. An obvious one is that the movie is narrated in the perspective of Victor’s grandson. Another big difference between the book and the movie is that the movie plot is written in a more humorous and modern way. For example, the movie makes Frederick look like a crazy mad scientist and Frederick’s lab assistant is also a young, hot woman. In addition, there are many instances where the actors become very dramatic. Also, the creature that Frederick makes does not seem scary at all compared to how Mary Shelley describes Victor’s creature as. Overall, the movie was definitely not meant to be another horror story. While there were many differences between the movie and the novel, the movie did give me a better sense of how Victor’s workplace would have looked and what life would have looked like back then. As to which one I like better, I think the two story lines are very different and therefore depicts different themes. The movie presented Frankenstein’s story as more comical while the novel goes deeper into the effects of scientific knowledge and alienation etc.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what your interpriation about how the movie and the book compare and contrast are portrayed. However, I disagree that you hold the book on a higher standard. Personally I enjoyed the movie more over the book because it was more fun observing the shenigans than looking for quotes and deeper meanings.
DeleteI was pretty surprise by how young Frankenstein differed from the original novel. In the original book, Frankenstein was super serious warning to what the future could be like/ warn the consequences of actions. However Young Frankensiten was the opposite it showed how the consequences of our actions could be funny even hallarious, one of the similarites i sae still was how elezibeth was meant to be portaryed as very beautiful and I could see how the movie made her appear this way too. I also saw similarities in the design of the creature along with the laboratory Victor worked in. I thought it was interesting how victor's descendant found his last name embarrassing. That is something I would have never considered.Marie shellie's version on the movie truly do contrast with movie, And although the movie was inspired by the book. They are 2 completely different interpretations. I also liked how the movie wasn't as deep as the book. Like in the book we were suppose to look for symbolis. However in the movie it was created just for laughs and had a much light hearted tone to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree, even though the movie was very different from the book, a lot of the core character components (overly ambitious Frankenstein, beautiful Elizabeth, kindhearted monster) seem to be present. The movie doesn't try to be deep, and does a good job of putting a lighthearted spin on the tale of Frankenstein.
DeleteI agree, the movie was definitely more light hearted and funnier rather than the book. And your comment about Elizabeth was interesting because I never realized how she was portrayed beautiful in the movie. I also found it interesting how Dr. Frankenstein was embarrassed to be a Frankenstein!
DeleteI agree on the fact that they are totally different in their literal interpretation. Movie was rather entertaining whereas the book was more educating. I like how you were WILLING to point out that two different Frankenstein had different attitudes towards the creation. Also, I like how you were UP at midnight to write this. :)
DeleteYoung Frankenstein is a fun and lighthearted take on the story of Frankenstein. Based on the portrayal of Frankenstein and the creature, I can infer that this movie is based off of the 1931 film, rather than the book. This is probably because the 1931 film which is significantly different from the book is a much more well known cultural icon rather than the book, as most depictions of the creature portray him as an awkward and pale looking man with a tall head rather than Shelley's idea of him. One thing I found particularly interesting about the movie is that Frankenstein's name seems to be infamous among the people, implying that his grandfather's attempt to raise the dead must have caught a lot of attention.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that it was interesting that Victor failed at creating the creature but his grandson did it successfully. It was also interesting how the Frankenstein name was frowned upon and what a bad reputation the Frankensteins have.
DeleteI was also surprised by how the movie citizens reacted to the Frankenstein name. It's interesting to see how different the 1931 filmed differed from the original Frankenstein intended by Mary Shelley.
DeleteThe movie Young Frankenstein greatly differed from the book save for the main theme of creating a living creature from dead people. I thought it was nice how both the creature and Fredrick got to live. It was different how the creature is not intelligent like he was in the book and Fredric got the creature to listen to him through kindness and love. In the original story, the attempt to connect to the creature never happened. This was a pretty funny movie but it could do without the sex scenes... "OwO Although it was rather interesting that Fredric's fiance ended up with the creature and e ended up with his assistant... The creature being more intelligent after the 'transfusion' that Fredric did was also really interesting... I thought both the movie and the book were pretty good... :)
ReplyDeleteIn Young Frankenstein, I was impressed by the main character Fredrick's compassion. Although the movie made fun of his actions and depicted him as a mad scientist, he at least took responsibility for his creation and did whatever he could to fix him so that he could live a normal life. He was even willing to give up part of his brain so that his creature could live. In Frankenstein, Victor completely neglects to care for the monster, which is what the book focuses on, The novel illustrates the consequences of neglecting ones responsibilities whereas the movie make fun of human nature and human actions. The movie also shows how humans are capable of fixing their mistakes whereas the book takes a more negative approach in describing human nature.
ReplyDeleteHi. I was also amazed by his compassion and how he didn't give up on the creature. It's really different from Victor especially when the creature came to life since all he did was push the creature away and treated him as a monster. However, Frederick was amazed by the creature and treated him a person and even tried to assimilate the creature into society.
DeleteHi Neha, I also liked that the movie had an alternate ending and showed the potential of humans to be compassionate, selfless, and responsible instead of focusing on the more negative parts of human nature. I wrote my blog post before I finished watching the film and commented on the movies lack of allusions to any deep themes. But I was pleasantly surprised by the movie's turn of events and the reminder that humans can be kind to one another.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein's theme and plot was vastly different and far more comedial than the story in retrospect to the serious thematic undertones of Mary Shelley's intended writings. The ironic implications of the movie, in combination with offhand comments about human fantasy and sexual humor, are only a few examples of how the movie chooses to portray the ending of Frankenstein and what it means for the scientific world. In addition, each individual character received far more concentrated and specified attention than in the book with the use of longer screen-time time-frames. Each character was given time to develop their own personalities and traits-- something we weren't able to see in the book due to the overload of characters. I preferred the movie because it chose to debate the moral dilemmas over sarcastic and satirical dialogue, in comparison to the book which constantly slams the reader with direct moral issues while unrelentingly pursuing character motive and identity.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, the book is fundamentally a more intellectually deep piece than the movie. Because directors of movies are forced to create less dry and quickly entertainable content, movies do not dig as deep for bearings in a moral compass. Whilst the various themes of knowledge, nature, creationism and social motifs are intriguing, I prefer the comical structure of the movie just because the pace of the plot development was much quicker. That being said, I did not greatly enjoy any of the pieces as both had their individual negative quirks.
I agree that the movie was less deep than the novel, and I thought it took away from the messages that Mary Shelley is trying to convey. However, in the end, I prefer the book to the movie, simply because we read the book first. I was sort of let down by all the random additions in the movie and the removal of a lot of the important moments in the book.
DeleteThere were many different aspects from the movie than in the book such as the characters, plot, and mood but the main differences that the movie has changed were the reactions to the creature and the creature itself. In Frankenstein, the creature was smart and had emotions similarly to a human being but in the movie, the creature couldn't speak and had a hard time understanding until he was hooked up onto a machine with Dr. Frankenstein. Also, in the novel, Victor Frankenstein shunned the creature and tried to run away from the problems the creature has caused but in the movie, Dr. Frankenstein didn't want to destroy the creature and instead, make the creature better so that it can stay in society. Victor didn't want the creature to stay and wanted it move far away so that it will never come back. Also, when the creature ran away, Dr. Frankenstein immediately looked for the creature but Victor did the opposite.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I enjoyed the novel and the movie and I am glad that I read Frankenstein first before watching Young Frankenstein because it was fun to see the different changes the movie has made and the plot made more sense since I knew what happened in the book.
I agree, reading the novel and then watching the movie Frankenstein definitely made watching the movie more enjoyable as the plot made more sense since we knew what was going to happen based on reading the book.
DeleteAfter watching Young Frankenstein and reading Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, I much rather preferred reading the original book itself. With the novel, I felt deeply sympathetic towards The Creature because it was unable to be accepted by the society despite its kind heart. The Creature's conflict due to its harsh exterior draws parallels with the critical evaluation of the society we live in today, and how advertisements and movies ingrain an expectation, a standard, for the average person. An overarching theme that unfolded throughout the novel is that appearance, a quality we do not have control over (disregarding cosmetic surgery), can quite easily consume our lives, if we continue to compare ourselves to others. The Creature even mentioned that he felt comfortable with himself until he saw his reflection in the pond, and how horrendous it looked compared to the villagers.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein lacked an emphasis on the emotional character buildup for The Creature and took a whole different spin from the novel. It based the core concepts off the novel, but then spun it in a light to make it exciting and suitable for a film. Because of the lack of buildup, I didn't feel much sympathy or anything really for the Creature in the film. I saw it as the mere scientific creation it was, and nothing more. Nevertheless, I enjoyed watching Young Frankenstein and enjoyed the humorous scenes with Igor and rawness of the old footage.
I really enjoyed the novel and it struck me that I didn't even know the story of Frankenstein, other than it being about bringing a deformed figure to life. It was quite a reminiscent and curious read.
I agree that the novel had much more meaning and depth behind it when compared to the movie. It is interesting how the movie spoofed certain scenes from the book, such as when the Creature is playing with the young girl. In the novel, this scene ends disastrously as the Creature commits one of his first murders and in the movie, the scene concludes with humor and the young girl safe and sound in bed.
DeleteI agree that the movie had its comedy elements, and that the movie could never live up to the book's genius. I also agree that the characters in the book are much easier to sympathize with. It is interesting how the movie played with different scenes, whether for laughter, or maybe because the director wished the book was more positive!
DeleteIn the movie compared to the novel, the significant difference were the characteristics of the monster. The monster in the movie was mute, unable to communicate, and was not able to do much than stumble around town. In the novel, the monster was able to intellectually grow rather at a quick pace. My other observation about the monster is that in the movie, the monster was fearful of fire, but in the novel, the monster used fire to its advantage to cook meals and keep warm. The plot itself changed, which in the movie, the monster did not murder anyone and was rather amiable, compared to in the novel, where the monster murdered all of Frankenstein's close ones and ran wild. The emotional, psychological burden that was made prevalent in Frankenstein in the novel was nonexistent in the movie. Dr Frankenstein's distress was above the surface, without diving into any deep waters of emotion and psychological exploration. Another difference was the fact that in the movie, Dr Frankenstein was loving, proud, and caring towards his creation, while in the novel, from the moment the monster was created was fearful and regretful.
ReplyDeleteIn remarks to Grace's blog post, I agree that there are several obvious differences in the characters, plot, and mood in the movie compared to the novel. What I think is the movie strayed away from the novel drastically to keep the audience from falling asleep. The few questionable sex scenes and other twists incorporated into the movie were simply to elevate, and relax seriousness and tension lying in the novel.
I think its super interesting that you recalled that the monster cooked meals with fire, and how different that was played out in Young Frankenstein. I really enjoyed reading your comparison and you pointed out quite a few things that I had yet to think about!
DeleteWrite a reaction to Young Frankenstein in relation to Frankenstein. Then write a second blog post commenting on someone else's reaction. Have fun with this just keep it school appropriate.
ReplyDeleteObviously most of Young Frankenstein was different from the Frankenstein novel. Although many of the important ideas remained in the film, minor details really changed the complexion of the story. One part of the novel that was included in the movie is the monster's initial inability to communicate with others and its eventual ability to do so at the end of the film. Big parts of the novel such as the death of Frankenstein's loved ones and his own death were missing, which took a lot away from what should have been. I'm sure everyone noticed many scenes that people would say were inappropriate. In my opinion, these scenes were meant to add to the humorous impression of the film; personally, I did not see the point in these additions. After watching the movie, I wasn't really as moved as I thought I would be, because I didn't take it really seriously since there were so many random additions. All in all, I can somewhat appreciate the film, but mainly because I read the book first.
There are many differences between Frankenstein the novel and Young Frankenstein, the satirical comedy, but I think the most significant difference was how the characters were portrayed in a comedic sense with reference to Shelley's novel. For example, in Young Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein leaves such an infamous reputation for the Frankenstein name that Frederick changes his name to Fronkensteen. It's also clear that the comedy was based on the 1931 film of Frankenstein, rather than Shelley's original novel. We see this through characters such as Igor, and the portrayal of the Monster as the modern interpretation. It is also interesting to see how influential the 1931 movie was in affecting the connotation of the name "Frankenstein". As seen through the spoof, Young Frankenstein, the modern interpretation of Frankenstein is vastly different from the serious novel that Shelley intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree with ya Karen. Young Frankenstein was not very based off of Shelley's original novel, which could also be seen by the beginning half of the movie.
DeleteUnlike the book, Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein started out with Fronkensteen being a teacher and his student "making fun of him" for his grandfathers works. Then he later leaves and he has an assistant and so forth. Very different from the original novel where he went to school and fell deep into his studies
After watching the movie and reading the book Frankenstein, one major difference in the film compared to the movie was that Frankenstein wasn't portrayed as a monster that was bad, rather one that had a short temper and needed to be trained. The monster in the movie was also fearful of fire, while the one in the book would use fire to it's advantage. I believe this was the movie producers way of trying to tie in key elements found in the novel with the movie without giving away too much if someone wants to go back and read the novel.
ReplyDeleteWe also find that there were also many inappropriate scenes in the movie compared to that of the book and somehow this movie still manages to get a rating of PG which amazes me. Many key events such as the dying of loved ones were also taken out of the movie as the producer took a comedic approach to the situation rather than make the movie all dark and gloomy like the novel. Many would say the film does not deserve such a high rating, but I for one think it does. This film manages to capture dark moments in Frankenstein and make it into a fun film to watch for all ages while still hitting the main ideas found in the novel. The actors we see are also very committed to their part, making the movie even better.
I agree with you on the fact that the movie did a good job of conveying themes from the book and making it watchable for all ages. I found that the comedic element to the movie made it a little more enjoyable and unique than just a movie rehash of what we had read in the book.
DeleteI agree with you, the movie was more enjoyable than the book because of the fact that it had comedy and that it wasn't serious. The book was serious which made for good story telling, however it was often boring unlike the movie which was fun to watch. While the movie was fun and different than the book, it still connected with some of the elements from the book. Even though it was completely different than the book, the movie was great because it wasn't an exact copy of the book, instead it was changed to be more enjoyable to all ages.
DeleteThere are many differences and similarities between the Young Frankenstein and the Frankenstein. One difference that stood out me, the most, was the Monster's behavior. In the Frankenstein, the monster was described as someone with a kind a soul. The monster would relate fire to bad and learned how to speak, showing that he was intelligent. In the Young Frankenstein, the monster's main interactions are with Frankenstein, his assistant, Igor, and Frankenstein's great grandfather's "girl friend". However, when the monster interacted with the public, he didn't seem to know how to react or be kind. Young Frankenstein portrayed the Monster to be as a scary mean creature with an abnormal brain.
ReplyDeleteThe main similarity I saw between the two Frankenstein was that both monsters just wanted to be loved and cared for.
I agree that the creature was portrayed in an extremely different way in the movie than in the novel. In the movie, he basically just reacts to stimuli in either a positive or negative way (he reacts badly to fire but well to music). His emotional capacity and his thoughts are reduced to that of a baby, which is why he doesn't know how to interact properly with the villagers when they were unkind to him. However, you are also correct that the creature in the movie just wanted to be loved.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are obviously many differences between the book and the movie. The book itself is a classic. It is one of my favorite books that I have ever read. At each point during the book, I felt the human elements and emotions. I felt like I could relate to some characters: the determined researcher, the creature who needs a parental figure, the creature who survives on instinct, and the creature who kills in rage. It is to me, a tragedy, that the creature could never be accepted as a living and a tangible thing. All the creature wanted was to feel accepted, to feel loved, and if all else, to feel human. The creature's guilt at the end broke my heart when I read the book.
ReplyDeleteThe differences include: the monster's lack of ability to speak in the movie, while in the book, the monster was able to learn just by watching others speak. The monster also seemed to dominate on screen, and become a spectacle for its audience. However, in the book, the monster is quietly becoming his own form of humanity, quietly dominating in his actions behind the scenes.
All set aside, the movie could not live up to the book's potential. Although I understand that there are more details that can be placed into books than movies, I do not agree with the notion that books are always better than movies. In this case, however, the book is infinitely better than the movie. Essentially, the movie is good for what it is: a comedy full of sexual humor, and performances that play for the laughter instead of real, genuine characters. It's good-natured, but I felt it tried too hard to make the jokes work. I realize this manipulative filmmaking, a kind that plays for the laughs, but I would rather watch a movie that allows me to lay back and allow the comedy absurdity to sink in. In comedy, one does not have to try if it is truly funny. That is my opinion. I admire the director's ambition and creativity, but the movie seemed to miss some of the genuine and human moments that were provided throughout the book. I understand it's a parody, but in all great movies, we need to feel a connection to its character, in entertainment or just in relation. I felt entertained, so by no meaning is the movie a movie that deserves a Razzie award, but I felt the book was by far better.
I agree that the book did have a much stronger emotional and physiological impact on us as readers. I feel that because the movie's purpose was as a parody of Shelley's novel, the concept of humor wasn't too much of a problem. Yet, Shelley's novel is something that I feel would stick with a reader better than "Young Frankenstein".
DeleteYou could tell Young Frankenstein went for the comedy route rather than following the story and it's depth into human nature. I enjoyed both versions, Young Frankenstein was funny and had it's uniqueness, but I felt that many parts were unnecessary and just ruined Mary Shelley's book. Most people watch the movie first and don't read the book. As for the book, I felt it had meaning and I could feel for the creature. The creature was actually a monster, but in the movie he was kind of idolized and Frankenstein actually wanted to get involved with the creature, whereas in the book he didn't want to at all. In the beginning of the movie, I was confused because it was just entirely different. Honestly if it weren't for Igor in Young Frankenstein, the movie would've been boring.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that reading the book prior to watching the movie kind of ruins the film. I felt like in the book, one main theme was abandonment, and the unwillingness to take responsibility for a creation–– this vital element seemed to be very small in the film, which seems very strange. It doesn't even feel like it is based off of the book at particular points in time.
DeleteI agree that the movie did not follow the book at all. I was a little disappointed by the lack of depth that was had in the movie. Igor was a fantastic character and really contributed to the comedy of the movie.
DeleteI personally wanted to see more depth in the movie. It seemed just like a movie about a lost child, and didn't have much more to it than that.
I think I was glad to have read the book before the movie. I understood the subtle background hints from the movie about the book and I enjoyed making connections. Overall, the movie is funny standalone but it is funnier with the book's background.
I think too many of us wanted the film to align with the book, instead of being its own stand-alone work, and this had a negative effect when we watched it. If viewed from the perspective of the book-reader, the film was definitely overshadowed by Shelley's writing. However, looking at the film in isolation, it isn't too bad as a humour piece (especially with Igor)
DeleteI believe that "Young Frankenstein" acts as a comedic parody of the original work by Mary Shelley; however, as a derivation, it does not live up to the full potential that Shelley presented in her novel. The novel provides a more captivating plotline, with the reader seeing Victor experiencing a feeling of isolation and pain after realizing the ramifications of his work on reanimating dead tissue. The movie provides a more humor-filled approach to this, as Gene Wilder portrays his grandson and rather than showing a response to an emotional impact, Dr. "Fronkensteen" creates his version of the creature as a response to curiosity. The creatures also have quite different mindsets, as the one in the novel is more of a vengeance-seeking monster who optimizes revenge, in a sense. The one in the movie, although repelled by society, ends up becoming part of it after becoming friends with the main German commander.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts, the movie doesn't delve in to human thoughts and human nature as much as the book does; instead it gives it a more lighthearted spin. The characters personalities are altered quite a bit so that they don't accurately reflect human nature.
DeleteThe differences in the plot, style, and "feel" of the book and film, which you mentioned, can be attributed to the difference in the overall aim of the two tales; the film's primary objective is to entertain the audience through comedy and sex appeal, while Shelly's novel, among other things, aims to warn about the dangers of technology and explore what it means to be human through a dramatic plot and serious tone.
DeleteI think that the movie is completely different from the book. In the book, Frankenstein was portrayed as shallow and judges the monster solely by his looks. However, in the movie, Frankenstein doesn't run from the monster, but rather is willing to accept him and tries to help the monster. While Frankenstein does feel fear when he is locked in the room alone with the monster, he puts himself in this position to try to help the monster and show him love. Even the audience is willing to accept the monster when Frankenstein performs with his monster in front of an audience. Throughout the movie, there were also two themes, fire and music. The book only covered fire and the monsters fear of fire, which is also reflected in the movie. However, the movie goes on to also show the monster's love of music and his attempt to follow the sounds of music. Music in this case would represent society's development and a love of the arts.
ReplyDeleteI think what you wrote about music and fire is very interesting! Besides music representing society's development, I also think that the dramatic contrast between the creature's love of music and hatred of fire is meant to show the audience how simplistic the creature's thought process is. It's also interesting to note that in the novel, the creature recognized the usefulness and gift of fire, something the creature in the film completely disregarded.
DeleteThe movie Young Frankenstein brings a new perspective to the actual story of Frankenstein. Instead of being a serious story, they changed it to a comedy. They did a pretty good job with the movie as I found it to be more interesting than the book Frankenstein. The comedy part of the movie made the movie fun to watch whereas the novel was sort of dark and made the it kind of boring to read. The movie also brought different aspects to the story that weren't in the book like, comedy,sexuality. These things made the book and movie completely different. However the book was better at telling a story, even though it was boring, it developed the characters and added more meaning to them. The movie is just something you'd watch for fun since it's a comedy.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the book was better at telling the story. I think it would have been very difficult to convey the dark emotions and themes of the novel in a movie, simply because it is easier to describe them rather than show them. I think that they made the movie into a comedy because it would be more appealing to an audience and it makes the story easier to understand.
DeleteThe film Young Frankenstein is vastly different than Shelley's original novel and convey starkly different underlying messages regarding the dangers of technology. While Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, is a serious and tragic tale about Victor's disastrous creation, the comedic film uses satire and farce to paint a rosy and funny picture of technology and ridicules the mob mentality that makes townspeople hate the monster as addressed in Frankenstein. For example, the film has a happy ending with Frankenstein becoming accepted by the town, while the book has an extremely grave resolution. Both endings showed the monster finally being able to express himself to an outsider, but he was accepted into society in the film while was tragically left alone as an outcast in the novel.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Because the film took a much more comedic approach to telling a vastly different story, the messages it sends and the way it says it are different as well. Because of this lackadaisical approach to this story, I also felt that the character development was nowhere near enough for the audience to draw any parallels between themselves and the characters.
DeleteThere are large differences between the movie Young Frankenstein and the original novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
ReplyDeleteThe movie focuses too much on reaching a larger audience, unlike Mary Shelley who wrote her novel as part of a small competition. The movie adds many comedic effects that weighs down on the seriousness and devastating consequences that occurred in the novel. It lacked the comprehension of human society and the definition of fear and isolation that the novel covered. In fact, it even lacked real consequences for the creation of a knowing being.
In my opinion, the movie Young Frankenstein is completely different and holds no real relation to the original novel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein and Young Frankenstein are different mainly because of the way each story was portrayed. While both stories focused on a serious topic and answered legitimate questions (such as whether the creature has a chance for happiness in his life), Young Frankenstein actually had comedic relief. However, I also feel that the humor in the movie may have taken away from the importance of the main question the book was trying to answer. Young Frankenstein didn’t focus on what it means to be human and whether it is possible to create artificial life. It portrays a story similar to the original one, but took away a lot of the meaning from it.
ReplyDeleteAnother way the two differ is in that the movie takes some elements from the original movie based on Frankenstein. Young Frankenstein included the hunchbacked assistant, the angry mob of villagers, and an uncoordinated and unintelligent creature (unlike the one in the novel). This did make the movie more funny (since the creature got himself into some ridiculous situations) but it took away from the creature’s character. Overall, however, I don’t think that the movie is worse or less entertaining than the novel. The two are just meant for different people with different tastes.
I agree with Nikhila. The story is differently different because of the comedic relief and that they focused more on the funny parts instead of the profound meaning behind the original work. In addition, the monster's character also lacked character development.
DeleteI also agree with Nikhila, although both did focus on a serious topic, and answer legitimate questions. The movie took away from Mary Shelley's original work, as well as her intented use of the creatures character.
DeleteI was caught off guard towards the end of the movie because I didn't expect the creature to dress up and dance and I definitely didn't expect the creature to end up with Fredrick's ex fiancé, Elizabeth. There were many differences between Young Frankenstein and Frankenstein and the one that got me feeling something was the endings. In the novel by Mary Shelley, both Victor and the creature go through many hardships and ended with the death of both of them. Whereas in Young Frankenstein, Frederick and the creature had their happy endings.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think Young Frankenstein acted as a parody of the original for its comedic parts. Whereas, Frankenstein has a more serious tone and meaning, leaving readers to ponder of the definition humanity and the consequences of technology.
I was really surprised by the ending as well- I don't think any of us expected that either! Seeing how Young Frankenstein was, and still is, a popular film, I think it's take on the original novel, though different, was still interesting, because it depicts an alternative approach to scientific responsibility. Thought it didn't demonstrated the same eloquence and structure in its story as the original book, it was able to appease its audience through comedy.
DeleteI agree. I felt as though the movie was more of a parody because there were far too many major (and shocking) differences for it to be considered a re-telling of the novel. And while I did appreciate the light-heartedness and positive spin the movie put on the story, I felt that those aspects took away from the serious question that the novel Frankenstein is meant to portray. I think only readers of the novel can truly appreciate the application of the lesson (taking responsibility for one's creations) that Shelley teaches us.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein is very, very different from the novel. There are stark differences in plot, character details, and tone.
ReplyDeleteMary Shelley's novel had a much darker and almost brooding tone to it, where Victor Frankenstein lived an isolated life, was scared of his monster, and had his life destroyed by the creature. However, in Young Frankenstein, Frederick "Fronkonsteen" Frankenstein is notable much more sociable than his grandfather, enjoys the fruits of his work, and eventually lives in harmony with his creature. Frederick doesn't give up on his creation, and helps it assimilate into society, and even (inadvertently) "bestows" him a mate. Furthermore, Frankenstein in the original novels never had any assistants, whereas Frederick had Inga, I-gor, and even Frau Blucher (NEEEEIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHH)
In terms of tone, as alluded to before, Shelley's novel was dark and brooding, while Young Frankenstein is very comedic. This is because these two were made for significantly different purposes; Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as a challenge to see who could write the scariest novel, whereas Young Frankenstein was a movie made in the mid 1970's, where entertainment and likability were huge priorities.
Young Frankenstein had a happy ending for all of its characters, whereas Shelley's Frankenstein ended with all parties losing. This drastically changed the plot, because now Frederick had to live in harmony with the monster, which changed all of the events that happens between the creation of the creature and the end of the story.
I agree with you about the tones from the two different works of art. The novel does have a tone in which the author seems to write in a manner which a mourner would for a lost one, while the film maintains a quick and mostly cheerful dialogue, similar to what you would find in 1950-1980 sitcoms. Although the film and the novel differ from each other greatly, the most important aspects from the novel remain, such as grandchild Fronkonsteen (Frankenstein) becoming interested and successfully re-animating a corpse.
DeleteI agree with you, and think that the novel and movie can't really be compared on an equal level because of the fact that they were made for different audiences. It was really interesting to see the different take on the novel though!
DeleteAs a little kid I loved this movie Young Frankenstein, I watched it a million times and it was my first kind of explanation of what the character Frankenstein was all about. There is an extreme number of differences in both Young Frankenstein and the original Frankenstein, and the one difference that stood out to me was how the monster was portrayed in both stories. In the comedy parody, the monster was not feared by its creator, and the towns people weren't afraid to interact with him. This monster played with the little girl, and preformed a dance with Fredrick Frankenstein. The monster seemed to fit in to the society a little better then it did in the original Frankenstein. Another big difference is that in the original Frankenstein, almost all of the major characters died in the end, and it was a tragic, sad ending, while for Young Frankenstein, the characters were satisfied and they had a "happy ever after".
ReplyDeleteI agree I enjoyed watching the movie because they had done a good job at creating both a humorous and scientific way of expressing the same concepts the book had shared. I definitely did not think the movie would be as fun to watch as I expected.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein is really only loosely based off of the original Frankenstein book; it merely utilizes the idea of a monster made of parts of dead humans brought to life by electricity. It uses the original book as a background for a comedic rendition. I didn't really enjoy the movie because it really didn't address the same themes as the book and wasn't as meaningful. The movie emphasizes the idea that science is beneficial and always ends happily, while the book really brought out the important concept of science gone wrong. The movie merely used Mary Shelley's well-known Frankenstein to push its own story forwards into popularity. Although humorous and quirky, Young Frankenstein really can't be seen as a modern rendition of Frankenstein, but simply a story that borrows a name and monster. It's like calling a young adult vampire novel a modern rendition of Dracula. In the end, it was entertaining, but not very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points. The movie was too happy go lucky and pretty fake. The movie simply just took the name and story and remade it into a comedy that had nothing to do with the book.
DeleteI agree with the idea that Young Frankenstein addresses thematic issues that are different from the original ones posed in the Frankenstein novel. Could we attribute that to the fact that movies and books are generally targeted towards different audiences? What we consider as good qualities for a book do not necessarily come off as good qualities for a movie. Since they are two different forms of artistic expression, there will be differences in between how emotions and themes are conveyed. However, I do see how the movie is not only using a different form of expression, but also different themes. That in itself is why the two stories are so different.
DeleteI completely agree with all that you've said; I don't believe that the movie was an accurate depiction of the book at all. It merely used the book as a basis for the story and didn't show the consequences of science gone wrong. I do believe, however, that they intended to make the movie more light-hearted and comical on purpose. They probably just wanted to show the two sides to Shelley's lesson; taking responsibility for one's actions and ignoring them. The movie showed how because Fredrick cared for his creature, his family members and friends stayed safe. In the book, we saw how Victor's decision to disown his creature led to his demise alongside the people who he cared about.
Deleteyeah i agree, the original book was definitely just a skeleton for the movie. a lot of characters were modernized or were just completely new but the aspect of the monster was still constant.
DeleteThe movie Young Frankenstein was mostly very different from the original novel by Mary Shelley. First of all, the main character in the movie was the grandson of Victor Frankenstein, the one who was supposed to have made the creature. Also, in the book, Frankenstein was supposed to have made the creature by himself but in the movie, he was aided by Igor and the blonde woman. One of the biggest differences from the book is the fact that Frankenstein is not horrified by the creature. He does not run away in terror like he did in the novel. In fact, Frankenstein says that the creature is "beautiful." Overall, the movie was just a funny parody of the original.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I found that over all the movie was a lot different than the book as well as the characters. Although they were related in the movie his grandson approaches the creature almost opposite to the way Victor approached the creature
DeleteGoing into Young Frankenstein, I wasn't sure what to expect of the movie compared to the original book, Frankenstein. I found the movie's lighter side and comedic elements to be very enjoyable, as opposed to the darker, more morally and scientifically conscious themes of the book. While obviously there were many differences in overall direction, I did notice some parallels between the two works. In Young Frankenstein, the blind man yearns for a friend as he states that he's always alone, similar to how Captain Walton felt like he was extremely isolated on his voyage and yearned for a friend. In both the book and the movie, the monster is portrayed as big, powerful and dangerous, until the monster speaks and personifies itself. In the movie the monster got redemption while in the book the monster's life ended in tragedy. I enjoyed both works for what they were, even though the book is obviously the one with deeper themes and meaning.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. The film was very different from the original book. I believe that Shelley intended for the book to be dark and scary but in the film there is a lot of comedy and there is a happy ending.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein tells a re-interpretation of Frankenstein the novel in a much more lighthearted and playful way. Many of the darker themes in the novel, such as the creature killing Victor's loved ones and the potential consequences of new technologies were extremely toned down in the film. For example, though the monster in the movie terrified the villagers, he never actually committed murder.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found very interesting about the film was the portrayal of the creature. The novel portrayed the creature as a highly sophisticated being, something the film completely glosses over because of the creature's 'bad brain'. In the novel, though the creature starts out as a blank slate, he still has the capacity to learn to speak and read and is able to learn how to communicate by himself. However, in the film, the creature starts off not being able to communicate effectively (much like in the novel) but doesn't gain the ability to do so until he gets a part of Frankenstein's brain. Also, all the decisions that the creature in the novel made were very deliberate. He knew exactly where he was going (to find Victor and demand a mate) and what he was going to do (for example, kill Elizabeth). On the other hand, the creature in the film stumbles around with no real direction, seeming to encounter people and different situations completely by chance.
Overall, though there were too many major differences between Young Frankenstein and Frankenstein for the film to be considered a re-telling of the novel, I still enjoyed seeing a new take on a classic!
The idea that Young Frankenstein is based off of the novel Frankenstein is like saying that "American Cheese" is like Gouda. The movie is, in a sense, a mockery of the original story told by Mary Shelley. It looks sort of like the original; however, when examined closely, the similarities are barely skin deep. Young Frankenstein took the characters and the basic plot of the novel and made a movie whose message was entirely different from the message of the book. The somber tone that Shelley wrote with was lost amidst all the puns and sexual innuendos spouted by the characters of the movie. While I feel like most of the movie was just made for the entertainment factor, there is one aspect of it that I enjoyed. The Victor Frankenstein in the movie seemed to realize that his actions affected those around him, unlike the Frankenstein of the novel, who only cared about furthering his own glory. I believe that the lesson that Frankenstein learns in the movie holds more value than the lesson he learns in the novel.
ReplyDeleteWhen we read Shelley's Frankenstein in class, I couldn't stop thinking about how the story would have progressed had Frankenstein taken responsibility for his creation. My personal perspective was that the creature was like an infant who learnt from the people in his life and grew up to reflect their personalities and ideals. When Shelley's creature grew up around hatred and fear, he too became engrossed in torturing the people around him. So, when I watched Young Frankenstein, I was pleasantly surprised with the way that the creature was treated and how the new Frankenstein was still passionate about immortality but wanted to demonstrate compassion towards his creation. This movie helps those who read the original book recognize a way to avoid the original Frankenstein's plight- taking responsibility for one's creations and creative explorations. Though it portrays a very different story in a much less eloquent way, Young Frankenstein stays true to Shelley's expression of the responsibilities of scientists to their innovations in the modern age.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to see a story in which Frankenstein took responsibility for his creation in a different manner, perhaps where he actually cared for him and saw the humanity in him. This movie however, wasn't able to achieve that, because the plot was simply poorly developed and I never truly saw Frankenstein's love for his creation because of the comedic aspect.
DeleteI really appreciated the light-heartedness of Young Frankenstein and how it captured the lesson behind the original novel and spinned it in a positive way. In the novel, Victor abandons his creation and when he does go looking for it, it is solely for revenge. In the movie, however, the young Frankenstein actually cares for his creature and tells him that he loves him and will help him grow. Despite having the same desire and passions to investigate and explore the depths of science, young Frankenstein it showed the characteristics a good father. In the end he was even willing to sacrifice his own life to make sure his creature lived a happy one. The movie applied Shelley's lesson of taking responsibility for one's creation. While it was much different in many aspects from Igor to to the cyborg police officer to the relationship between the Creature and Frankenstein's fiance (oh my god), it stayed true to the central message of Shelley's novel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that it stayed true to the central message of the novel. I also believe that Young Frankenstein could be taken as a sequel to the novel because Frederick learned from his grandfather's mistake of not loving his creation, and actually began caring for the creature as if it were his own child.
DeleteThere are many differences between the novel and the movie, like the appearance of the creature and the relationship between the creator and the creature. In the movie, Fredrick has assistants, unlike Victor who created the creature alone. And in the book, Victor immediately abandons the creature, while in the movie, Fredrick stays after the creature comes to life. I think that these changes made a big difference in what the message of the movie was. Also, I was surprised by the vulgarity of a couple of the scenes and I think they were added in to make the movie more appealing to a wider audience, but it took away from the significance of the story. Furthermore, I thought that the movie conveyed the theme of destiny. Even though the theme of love was significant nearing the end, destiny was prevalent in most of the movie, especially in the similarity between Frederick and Victor’s lives. They both chose to reanimate a dead body and they had to face the consequences of this decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree that although the movie was much more appealing and witty, a lot of the important themes that were intended to be portrayed in the novel were taken out. Instead of Victor's fear of the creature, avoiding his responsibility and shunning the creature, the film shows that Frederick was very proud of his creation and was actually willing to face the consequences by trying to capture the creature.
DeleteI felt like despite the many differences between the movie and the novel, the movie was still relatively good. In fact I liked somethings about the movie more then the book. For one I was happy that the creator was more accepting of the creature in Young Frankenstein. That simple difference changed the plot completely eventually giving the creature a happy ending as well. I also liked that Frankenstein grew positively throughout the movie unlike the books. He learned that the creature wasn't really bad and that it just needed some love. One thing I noticed however, is that the movie didn't really recreate what Shelley was trying to warn people about in the novel, that science has consequences. Because all the experiments worked in the movie, it almost counteracts what Shelley was saying in that it shows that there were no true negative consequences in reaching out of peoples' bounds.
ReplyDeleteThis is Simran by the way. I don't think it showed up.
DeleteHi Simran! I also really liked the fact that Frankenstein was a lot more open and accepting to the creature. I forgot about it, but I remember thinking about it while watching the movie. Unfortunately the movie doesn't have the same lessons, but I believe it was because it was suppose to be seen as less realistic than the book. The comedy wouldn't have been as much as a comedy if it ended sadly.
DeleteI believe some of the main differences between Young Frankenstein and the book were related to the actions and abilities of the creature, along with the creation of it. The stories between the two were quite different; I was surprised.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, Victor Frankenstein worked alone in making his creation. He was lonely and falling sick due to his obsession in making it. However, in Young Frankenstein, Fredrick Frankenstein had the help of Igor and Inga; he was not alone in making his creation. Also, in the book, once the creature came to life, Victor was disgusted with its appearance and immediately disowned him by running away. However in the movie, the creature was trying to run away but Frankenstein, Igor, and Inga were trying to make him stay. Also, in the book, everyone was disgusted with the creature's appearance and when citizens saw him, they were scared and believed him to be a monster. However, in the movie, when the creature approached that young girl, she was not scared of him and instead talked and played with him. Also, when the creature visits Frankenstein in the movie, Frankenstein tells him that he loves him and accepts him. In the book, however, Frankenstein hates the creature and it takes a lot of convincing for him to even agree to make a companion for the creature. The creature also doesn't learn how to speak by himself in the movie, but rather through Frankenstein's brain, unlike in the book. The creature moreover likes the sound of the violin in the movie, but there is no mention of that in the book.
Overall, the movie was a lot more comical and light-hearted. It depicted the events of Frankenstein in a positive manner and showed how Fredrick cared for the creature he brought to life. He took responsibility for his creation unlike Victor did for the creature in the book. The movie was very different compared to the book, but it just portrayed Shelley's lesson from the novel in a more positive manner. The book showed how Victor's decision to disown his creature led to his demise along with the people who he cared about. However, in the movie, the people he cared about stayed safe as he took care of his creature and in the end, sacrificed his own life for his creation.
I think the fact that Frankenstein didn't leave his creation in the movie is a very important thing to note. I think that this might be part of why the creature is much more liked in the movie than in the book. In the book, the alienation of the creature begins with Frankenstein and just gets worse leading to an unhappy end. In the film, however, Frankenstein tries to stay with his creation and teach it things (i.e. the dance) and the creature becomes increasingly human throughout the story ending with the transfer granting him the ability to speak and then the wedding.
DeleteHonestly, I was not expecting the movie to recreate Frankenstein in the way it did. Before watching it, I actually thought it would just be a remake of the movie but with a younger character. But was I wrong..
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein presented the original story line but with an artistic and comedic twist. In the movie, Frankenstein turns out to be the grandson of the original Frankenstein. As the story progresses I can see the parallel between the movie and the book such as the creation of the monster, the hurting of the innocents and the "downfall" of Frankenstein. Even though, the storyline stays true to the book for the most parts, they added many comedic aspects to the movie, for example, the romantic affair between the wife and the monster, the additional characters and the happy ending.
Overall, I thought the movie was very enjoyable with a few surprises and plot twists. Especially the movie was produced in 1974, the production still looked well constructed and executed. I am not surprised that it was nominated for so many awards.
There were a lot of differences between Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein but it also held to the same outline. I think the main difference was that Young Frankenstein was a modern Hollywood version of the original book. It used a more comedic approach and incorporated an aspect of sex which wasn't really portrayed in the book. They probably did this to appeal to an audience in a society wear comedy and sex were popular themes. I feel like since our decade still holds true to those ideas I actually really liked the movie too, more than the book. It was more light hearted and it told the same story but felt more relatable (in the sense that it was more modern). Another major difference is that in this movie 'Fronkensteen' actually takes responsibility for his actions and makes this 'right.' That's something big that we missed out on in the book. There was more morality and responsibility in the movie than in the book.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the film put a lot of Hollywood twist to it. The film portrays a lot of comedy and sex. I believe that the film tried to portray the creature as an innocent creature that is scared of things and could not be understood. As the creature assimilate to society people become more accepting of the creature.
DeleteI totally agree with what you are saying. I also think that the plot changes are to make it more of a Hollywood friendly movie/story. I also really like the point that you brought up about how Dr. Fronkensteen had to take responsibility for what he had done and that was portrayed in the movie
DeleteThe movie Young Frankenstein in relation to the book Frankenstein, is very different but has a common goal of creating new life. It was very interesting viewing Young Frankenstein, for it took place after Victor Frankenstein had passed away. We were able to see the affect that Victor had on people. Fredrick Frankenstein, his grandson was embarrassed by his grandfather and tried to change his last name to Fronkensteen. He regarded Victor as a crazy person, as so did the towns people. Another thing that was surprising was that Fredrick was made out to be the creator of the Creature. In addition, there were added characters in Young Frankenstein, consisting of assistants for Fredrick, who added comedy to the story. As well as the character Elizabeth had two completely different outcomes from the book, and movie. It was very interesting to see a similar story but with a different more happy outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhen we first started watching the film, I expected it to be somewhat of an accurate portrayal of the Frankenstein original book–– but it was clearly different. The director of the film chose to set the movie in a very comedic light, and this may be to appeal to a more modern audience. However, I actually didn't find the film very appealing. Although yes, it was funny and very interesting, I felt like the comedy in it was very strange and unfitting, having already read the novel. Perhaps the biggest plot twist and difference between the movie and the book was the ending bit: in the movie, the monster ended up with Frankenstein's wife, and Frankenstein with his lab assistant. I felt like this ending was extremely abrupt and very strange; although some people may enjoy this type of twist, I found like it gave off too much of a "everything will always turn out okay, and the sun will always come out with rainbows and unicorns" type of feeling.
ReplyDeleteYea, I also felt that the director of the film decided to give the novel a slight twist of comedic humor rather than horror. But we have to remember that the Frankenstein in the movie is actually the grandson (or was it great grandson) of the novel's Frankenstein - so the monster / lab assistant relationships might not be so weird.
DeleteHonestly, the movie has the name "Frankenstein" but barely does it fit the horror or genre that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was.
I agree; I don't feel like the movie was very appealing at all. I don't even think it was that funny, aside from Igor's character and a couple other parts of the movie. The comedic aspect of the movie really didn't mesh well with its basis in Mary Shelley's novel. There were very few parts of the novel that actually showed up in the film, so I don't think that the movie should even be called "Young Frankenstein." In my opinion, parodies are rarely commendable works of art, and Young Frankenstein followed suit.
DeleteYeah, I was also expecting a accurate modernized version of the book at first. There were hardly any similarities, and the ending not only made me very uncomfortable but like you said, it was very abrupt and almost too good to be true for the characters.
DeleteIf one were to anticipate the film as an exact replication of the novel in a film medium, I can see why he/she would be unfitting, for it stretches the original story to great lengths. I, however, don't think the film was meant to be viewed in that way. I feel like the producers of the film wanted the film to be its own story with a slight relation to the 1931 film. After all, the film isn't about Victor Frankenstein, but rather Fredrick Frankenstein.
DeleteI also wasn’t expecting the movie to have the type of humor and plot that it did. And the comedy was slightly awkward and strange, especially in the context of the novel. The movie paints a completely different picture than the book, sort of giving off a feeling that scientists don’t need to be held accountable for their actions, because it will all be resolved. This is the opposite of what Mary Shelley’s novel portrayed, since she was trying to warn about “science gone astray” and all the consequences that went along with that. However, as a stand alone movie not to be compared to the events that occurred in the book, I suppose it is good in its own right (but I still prefer the book).
DeleteOne of the main difference between Young Frankenstein and the book Frankenstein is that the book focused more on the creature's emotions, while the movie didn't really emphasize the loneliness that the creature felt. The movie was very obviously a comedy and included a lot of plot twists that made the story of Frankenstein more satirical and also enjoyable to the audience. In the film, the creature came to life as an unintelligent being, one who didn't know how to speak and could only understand through others' words. In the novel, although the creature also didn't know how to speak at first, he eventually learned by observing the family in the cottage. Personally, I think showing the creature's process of learning to become a human was a very important aspect of the story, yet it was left out of the movie. I would have preferred the film to be more of an accurate representation of the novel, but I still enjoyed the additional characters like Igor and Frankenstein's assistant. Overall, the novel included more significant themes and lessons that the movie did not have.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the writers of Young Frankenstein never meant it to be anything close to the original plot. The movie received very mixed reviews. One stated that it was an overblown burlesque revue, right down to its giggly smuttiness ... [the writer]'s songs have a throwaway quality, as if they were dashed off on the day of the performance." This quote sounds kind of like what you may have thought about it, which is totally fine, but with the 1931 Frankenstein movie already out at the time of Young Frankenstein's release, Young Frankenstein was meant to bring more of a humorous and jovial mood to the story.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein was different from the book because the movie was meant to be an entertainment film instead of a story with deeper themes. It was Hollywood’s take on a creature created from body parts versus Shelley’s task to make a scary story. The story was much darker than the movie because Victor was always isolated and he feared the creature, whereas, young Frankenstein loved the creature and thought it was “beautiful.” The movie was comedic whereas, the story had lots of death and fear. I didn’t expect the creature to be willing to put on a show for people and I noticed the creature was a lot less educated in the film than the book. He didn’t really observe people and learn how to do intellectual things like read and write in the movie.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein was far different from what I had imagined it would be: I thought it would be an accurate depiction of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. However, the movie was far more comedic, and had plot twists that I could not even have imagined before watching it. I believe that this is because Hollywood wanted to draw in its audience, and therefore delivered a compelling story that did not have much relation to the original book. Another huge difference between the movie and the book is that in the movie, the creature is immediately able to understand everything Frederick and his assistants say to him, whereas in the book, it took the creature months to begin understanding humans. However, despite the stark differences between the movie and the book, I enjoyed Young Frankenstein because it showed me what happens when humans start treating the creature with more respect and allowing it to assimilate in society.
ReplyDeleteYes the plot twists in this film! I definitely feel as though it drew a wide audience and kept people on the edge of their seats the whole time. I also assumed the movie would be similar to the book but then again it is called YOUNG frankenstein. The rendition is, although unorthodox, equally as captivating as the film. Also, the comment about his ability to pick up language so fast, I noticed that too! There was a lot of missing information in the film.
DeleteLike many others, I expected the movie to accurately follow the plot of the novel. However,after the first initial minutes of the film, I realized that it was a parody of the novel. Although I have to admit I prefer a book over its movie counterpart, I enjoyed the movie for its successful attempt at being different. Gone were the deaths of important characters and the rage of the monster, replaced by somewhat modern jokes and predictable comedic moments that force a laughter from you. It allowed me to see another "world" of Frankenstein, in which the monster does get accepted into society and obtains a happy ending. The ending was unforeseen, yet contributed to the comedy genre of the movie with the swapping of partners between Frederick and the monster. All I can assume is that the movie was trying to appease a more mature audience, while using "innocent" comedy to entertain the younger audience. Overall, I felt that the movie was a great attempt at showing a dark novel in a friendlier manner while still maintaining the major parts in the plot from the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Joseph, the movie and the novel are very different in plot and genre. The movie was a parody of the book. No one died in the movie, everyone had a unforeseen happy ending, however, in the novel, it was the opposite.
DeleteI feel that the movie of Young Frankenstein compared to Frankenstein by Mary Shelly for many reasons. I feel that Young Frankenstein was extremely different in comparison to Frankenstein when it came to comedy. Young Frankenstein was very focused on the idea of comedy such as the hilarious ending or the witty things that Igor would do or say. Another difference was settings in time, Frankenstein by Mary Shelly took place in the 1800s and Young Frankenstein took place in the 1900s. Also Frankenstein the main character of the movie was the grandson of the original victor of Mary Shelly. In Frankenstein by Mary she really focused a lot more on the story of the creature, she showed why the creature was so upset and what the creature had endured. Mary Shelly showed how smart the creature truly was and its attempts with communicating with mankind.
ReplyDeleteUnknown... you should put your name on a new one!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein made me very proud of Frodrick Fronkensteen. He had done what Victor Frankenstein hadn't: care for the creature. Victor's creature and Fredrick's creature started out almost the same. They were both created out of dead tissue and had the mental capacity of a child. The road diverges from here. Victor neglects his creature, which is forced to learn about the world by itself. On the other hand, Fredrick tries to make his creature feel loved. This is what I am proud of Fredrick for doing. Fredrick was even willing to give up half his brain to save his creature from the villagers.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein is similar but very different from Frankenstein. The story of a human creating synthetic life was the same, but everything else was almost opposite of what happened in the original novel. This movie was a refreshing, comedic relief from the tragic novel, but I enjoyed both greatly.
I agree. I also enjoyed the fact that the young Frankenstein cared for the creature. There's definitely some sort of foil that was placed between the two, and I definitely liked Frederick more than Victor.
DeletePersonally for me, I was thoroughly entertained with Young Frankenstein. The story line was easy to follow however it did contain some holes in the plot. If those scenes were executed more properly then this film would have been as clear as the original Frankenstein novel. The main difference that I noticed and appreciated was that at the end, the creature was not viewed as a monster. In the novel we knew that the creature meant no harm and in the film that was shown. Evidently the film maker did not intend for this film to replicate the book, otherwise it wouldn't be titled "YOUNG Frankenstein". The transitions from scene to scene were truly a work genius, almost as genius as Igor's character. Somehow, a film made in the 1970's still manages to bring laughs to today's young generation. I believe that alone deserves a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
ReplyDeleteI was really entertained by the movie as well! I noticed some of the plot issues as well. I was especially bothered at how Frankenstein's fiancee just fell in love with the monster without any reasoning or buildup to their relationship. It just felt like it was only done to have a happy ending for everyone without making Frankenstein seem like a jerk.
DeleteI agree with you on the director's talent. I feel like they did a really good job with this film.
Young Frankenstein is significantly different than the book in many ways. The movie is a humorous version of the actual book. There are many scenes that are in the book, but aren't in the movie. There are also scenes that are in the movie that aren't in the book. I-gor is an interesting character who jokes around a lot in the movie. He jokes with Dr. Fronkesteen's wife. The book isn't like the movie at all. For example, Victor doesn't kill the girl who was throwing parts of the flower down the well. Rather, when playing on seesaw she flies into her bed. Overall, the movie is funny to watch it shouldn't be watched if one wants to get an accurate understanding of the text.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally found some the characters of Young Frankenstein much more likable than those of the book. When I finished reading the book for the first time, I was thoroughly exasperated with Victor's shenanigans and really wanted him to just stop. In addition, I didn't find Clerval or Elizabeth particularly likeable either, because they seemed to perfect to be human. In the movie, however, I found Frederick somewhat admirable because he was willing to take responsibility for his creation, and even gave up some of his brainpower to allow the monster to function properly in society. Igor and Inga on the other hand, although incapable, were both charming and entertaining in their own ways.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the characters in Young Frankenstein were more relatable and empathetic. Specifically, Frederick's attempts to help express the feelings of the monster were much better than Victor's reaction to the monster.
DeleteI think that while the book shared many of the same qualities as the movie, the movie had of course added many details in order to make it more interesting for the viewers. The concept that the movie had followed was tailored specifically to mirror what was expressed in the novel by creating an alternative path to follow. The book was written as a series piece of fiction, while the movie had been more of a comedy, not entirely using all the ideas which had been portrayed in the book. As for people who are comparing the movie and the book, it is quite clear that movie is in no way an accurate depiction of the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The movie was nothing like the book. The movie was directed toward a more broad audience, while the book was for a more serious audience. For this reason, I think that it is wrong to compare the book and movie.
DeleteI have mixed feelings about Young Frankenstein. It was childishly and crudely funny and was surprised that it got such a high rating on various websites-- I think if the movie came out in today’s age, it wouldn’t have gotten nearly as high of a rating as it did decades ago. One of my major gripes about the movie was Frankenstein’s assistant, Inga. I don’t think she added anything to the movie except make me uncomfortable. It was honestly really disgusting for me to watch her character’s sexual advances and her portrayal as a sex object and nothing else. On the other hand, Frankenstein’s other assistant, Igor, was a really funny and quirky character. Almost everything he did-- his comments, his voice, his indecisive hump-- made me laugh, and he was my favorite part of the movie. Without Igor, I might not have even given the movie a chance.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the movie that I liked was getting so much exposure to the monster’s character. Although he was still a very violent creature, he did have some childish and human characteristics that allowed me to see him as less of a monster. The “Putting on the Ritz” performance was especially amusing/entertaining to watch.
Whoa I never really even thought about the portrayal of Inga in the movie! Now that I think about it, it was pretty juvenile and sexist, and her character was pretty useless. I gotta agree that I did love Igor's character a lot - he was my favorite part of the movie too and added plenty of humor to the film.
DeleteI agree. The movie Young Frankenstein is pretty humorous and funny. Igor as a character adds a lot to the movie, he is very funny. The movie is fun to watch, but isn't the best medium of understanding the actual story.
DeleteThe book and the movie have many differences from each other. One of the differences in the ending. In the book, the monster is "evil" throughout the entire movie. He is not able to change and be among man kind. However, in the movie, the monster changes in the end. In the beginning of the movie he is the monster that was told in the novel, but by the end of the movie the movie completely changes from the book, the monster changes. Both the book and the movie associate the monster with different symbolism. In the book, the monster represents evil, something that cannot change. However in the movie, the monster is able to change and become "good" and live among humans.
ReplyDeleteOver all, I enjoyed both the book and the movie.They are both directed toward different audiences, the book is for a more specific group of people, while the movie is for a much more broad audience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also thought the way the creature was so differently portrayed in the movie and the novel was interesting. One thing that really stuck out to me is that even though as you stated the creature was more evil in the book and more good in the movie his communication was the opposite. In the movie the creature would only grunt and speak incoherently, yet in the novel he is quite elequent. Although it would seem that more developed skills in communication should help him connect and befriend the people he meets the novel and film portray just the opposite.
DeleteI agree but I also think that between the book and movie, the creatures kind of become opposite characters. In the book, the creature was born with kindness, however, is completely changed after meeting humans who didn't respect his attempt at kindness and judged him upon appearance. Contrarily, the creature in the movie was able to learn how to be "good" and be accepted by society.
DeleteI think it is very interesting to see how different the book and the movie are. Despite both including some of the same characters, the characters are very different in each story. For example, Elizabeth meets the creature while lying in the hay much like the way Justine did, but what happened thereafter was very different. The scene had a very different role in each story. These differences make the two stories very different. When making the film they took scenes from the book and changed them to fit an entirely different genre. Another example of this is the role of the blind man in each story. The creature learned a lot from that family in the book, but in the film the blind man was used to add comedy while not really adding to the plot. The two have a very different stories.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they were very different, but I think the movie was more entertaining since they added the comedy.
DeleteI agree with the fact that these two stories differ as the movie is much more comedic and fitting to a more modern generation, and the novel has a much more meaningful interpretation to it which led these two stories to go different ways.
DeleteThe book and movie are pretty different. While in the book Victor rejects the monster and hates it, the film's Frankenstein loves the monster and wants to help it. The movie was laced with comedy and wackiness, and also a lot of weirdness towards the end. It's take on a modern Frankenstein following the footsteps of his grandfather was interesting, but honestly near the end when everybody started to do the do I got pretty weirded out. Ending aside, the movie was funny and still entertaining, but I still prefer the book's original tragic storyline and darker elements.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the movie definitely had some wackiness, especially when (in your words) "everyone started to do the do." I personally liked the movie better, but that's because I'm a wimp and dislike darker stories.
DeleteI think that Young Frankenstein was never meant to be much like the original Frankenstein as written as Shelley. While the original book had a darker tone and was meant to scare the reader, the movie portrayed a very comedic story, and was clearly meant to entertain the audience. The fact that each of the main characters had some humorous quality(Igor is sarcastic, Inspector dude had a fake arm, the monster is childlike, etc.) helped to lighten the mood of the movie, which I thought would turn out to be a horror movie because of the name. The movie does parallel the events in the book, but add some comical twists to everything, such as the monster launching the girl into her bedroom via seesaw. I enjoyed both the book and movie, but they are quite different and each appealed to me in ways the other could not.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the movie and the book were definitely enjoyable in each of their own ways, with the book being more like a dark drama and the film being a funny parody of the novel. The characters from each form of media also reflected the tone and themes of their respective version of the story.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein differs from Frankenstein in many different ways. The tone of the film is much more lighthearted than the original Frankenstein and is meant for audiences who have already read Frankenstein or are familiar with the story. By telling the story from the grandson’s point of view and including characters like Igor, Inga, and Frau Blucher, the movie combines the main idea of Frankenstein with new and interesting characters (to appeal to everyone). One striking difference is the monster itself. The monster in Frankenstein is an intelligent creature that becomes evil through the actions of others. On the other hand, the monster in the film is unintelligent and begins attacking people from the beginning. In addition, it is easily swayed by promises of “love” that the original monster rejects towards the end. The original Frankenstein and the young Frankenstein also differ in some respects. The older Frankenstein was more open-minded in his approach to creating his monster and read works from Agrippa and other authors that were deemed useless by others. The younger Frankenstein rejects the idea of creating life from the start and only opens up to the idea once he finds his grandfather’s books. Overall, I enjoyed the book and the film. I’m glad the director chose to vary the film from the book because it was interesting to watch a different take on the ideas presented in Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed both the movie and the book. I really like how the movie made it similar to the book, but more of a comedic version of it. I thought it was smart that they didn't use the same story line as the book, and just try to alter it, not using the actual characters (Victor, the Creature...). They were able to be more creative that way. I might have not liked it if they did try to redo the actual story in Shelly's novel, for it might have ruined a classic. They were able to add characters, and backgrounds, like "Fronkeshtein" hating his grandfather Frankenstein, and people like Victors old "girlfriend". I also really enjoyed the humorous script and characters, like everything about Igor. While it is a different story altogether,they do reference common plots and themes in Shelly's novel. For instance, Fredrick having dreams about fate and destiny, and the creature expressing that because he was hated, he decided to cause fear instead.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I liked the way they used a different storyline, and altered it to make it more entertaining. They were definitely able to be more creative that day and also appealed to the audience.
DeleteAll right well I didn't really see any of Young Frankenstein except for the last 20 minutes maybe (being sick sucks..) but the main difference that I noticed was the humor. Young Frankenstein was full of jokes, sexual innuendos, quirky characters, and it definitely made me laugh. This is a stark difference from Frankenstein because I don't really recall any funny moments in the novel; the entire thing followed dark themes of fear, misery, and loneliness. Another difference that I noticed was that in Young Frankenstein, the creator wanted to bring the monster back to him (to help him I believe?), or to make him smarter/more able to communicate. I'm not 100% sure because I don't really know the story but if that's the case, it's very different from the novel where Frankenstein feared the creature and wanted nothing to do with it for most of the novel.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I have to say I liked the book better, for its lack of aloof characters (Elizabeth and the assistant in the movie seemed pretty dumb) and its ability to have a story within a story. Plus the movie was in black and white which I detest, but its humor was worth it at times.
Hahaha being sick definitely sucks but you really didn't miss that much. I feel like the humor was one of the only redeeming qualities about this film. It had a feasible plot but did not live up to the book itself so it was kind of disappointing? But I still enjoyed watching it.
DeleteAs many others have said, the film adaptation that is Young Frankenstein is more of a parody than a strict interpretation of the original novel. While some of the general themes were shown in the movie, barely any of the complex emotions that Victor had felt were manifested in the film. Moreover, the monster that young Frankenstein had created was quite different than the creature in the book: the creature young Frankenstein made was much more human-like. It wasn't nearly as ugly as it was illustrated in the book and somehow the abnormal brain used in the movie also had an effect on the monster's mindset, which wasn't supposed to matter in the novel. The movie's ending was quite unexpected and strayed off from the original. The overall events that take place in the film create a wacky and silly comedy that was quite enjoyable. Bottom line is, Young Frankenstein is a parody of the original book that doesn't come close to delivering the dark, enthralling narrative the original book intended. But, it's still worth a watch just to see Igor's outrageous character.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the creature young Frankenstein made was much more human-like. Although seeing what the creature looked like help me relate more and recall back to Shelley's creature's loneliness, the creature portrayed in the film wasn't nearly as grotesque looking as Shelley described in the novel. I felt that this took away from the theme of the original creature's loneliness. For example, when the creature first escapes, he finds a little girl and she plays with him just as if he were a normal adult. If the creature made by young Frankenstein were as horrific looking as Mary Shelley's described creature, I think she would have ran away in terror instead.
DeleteI agree that the monster was much more appealing in the movie than was described in the book. I think this was because the producers wanted to stray from the novel's cold, ominous theme and make the story more welcoming to young families. As a result, they made both Frankenstein and the monster more amiable towards each other and changed several pivotal points of the plot to foster a warmer experience.
DeleteI also agree that the monster was more human-like and therefore more appealing to a wider audience. It wasn't as serious and dark as the original novel, where the monster was ugly and so gross that everyone who sees him is afraid. But I also thought that the monster in the movie wasn't as developed as well as the one in the novel. In the novel, you see the monster's deepest thoughts, his fear, his pain through his long monologues. You don't see much of this in the movie.
DeleteI agree that the film did not have the complexity of the book. However, I think it did a great job giving the audience a simple, lighthearted comedy. There was no significant internal conflict with Frederick or the monster but that's fine since the film had a different take on the Frankenstein story. I also agree that the monster is not as terrifying as in the book, but I like how the film was able to sum up his feelings of being misunderstood in a short, consise scene at the end. The monster was not scarred by painful experiences like in the book, but his brief speech to the mob still conveyed the same message.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein is in my opinion the better work of the two. It accomplishes the exact same goal of showing the audience what can happen when you deprive a creature of love, while at the same not boring me half to death (just like the creature). In my opinion Gene Wilder's performance of Dr. Fronkensteen conveys the emotions that must have gone through God himself as he created Adam and Eve. In contrast the novel by Mary Shelley lacks the emotional depth, instead reading like an ancient tome full of the physical reactions of Dr. Frankenstein. The movie also has a much better supporting cast in both I-gor who helped get the movie over the hump from the good to great, and Igna makes up the width and breast of the story. All things considered, Young Frankenstein wins, hands down.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the movie is the parody version of the book, making the two have very different stories. For example consider Igor, in the novel, he wasn't mentioned at all, however, in the movie, he plays a key role for the comedy, making funny expressions in serious situations, giving Frederick advice when his fiancée came to the visit him and etc. Next is Elizabeth, in the novel, when she faces the creature, she dies, however, in the movie, she falls in love with him and in the end, they get married. It was really awkward/disgusting because Mrs. Ene's son was in the room when the cave scene was playing and everyone were saying "What the heck", then suddenly Elizabeth starts to sing, which made it a little bit funny. Finally another one is the blind man, in the novel, the creature learns a lot from his family, however, in the movie, he lives alone and is used for comedy, spilling soup and wine all over the creature. In the end, the movie and the book have very different genres. One is funny, and the other is horror.
ReplyDeletethe different people change how the story moves forward. victor abandoned his while Frederick believed in his and loved his, even if he was scared at first
Deleteyoung Frankenstein is much better than Frankenstein because while it is a drama, it is also a comedy and comedies don't have unhappy endings, leading to a ridiculous one instead leaving the same message but also closing the story in a more satisfying way. also while saving money.
ReplyDelete~Barath Paulvannan
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlthough the Young Frankenstein film added many things to the original story of Mary Shelley's novel, I still preferred the novel more.
ReplyDeleteThe addition of Igor in the film added a humorous appeal to the film; Igor's awkwardness compared to other characters - the hump, his facial expressions, and other things made the film more lighthearted and a little humorous. If this movie were made today with a character like Inga, it would not be well perceived by the audience. Inga was a sexist portrayal, making women seem like objects, back in the time. The creature's "affair" with Dr. Frankenstein's fiance at the time also made it seem like women were being portrayed as objects, which would not be well-received by a 2016 movie audience. I also felt that the love triangle in the end was very unnecessary. All of these things, while I could see that they were meant to appeal to the audience as being more humorous, took away from the deeper meaning of Mary Shelley's original story.
One thing I did like, however, that I was able to visually see "the monster" in the film, which made it easier to sympathize with him, and understand the theme of Shelley's creature's loneliness. Especially in the end, when the creature could finally think and act more like a human, it made me see him more in a human light, and think back to Shelley's portrayed creature as more human as well.
Overall, I still prefer the book over the film because it was easier to follow along without many unnecessary distractions.
BEA IS BAE <3
DeleteI agree with you on how the movie portrays a more anti-feminist message. Perhaps it's due to the sentiments of the time it was made? However, I don't think we should quickly dismiss the subtle nod to women the movie gives. I feel that Frau Blucher (neighhhh) symbolizes a women's loyalty to her lover. Not saying that she as a woman must serve her male partner, but more that she highlights a woman's superior value off devotion in relationships.
I agree with you, and I think that many things in the movie were unnecessary for understanding the main plot, but were only put in for making it funny. I also agree with you that the movie makes it easier for us to understand the two different points of view - from Frankenstein’s side and from the Creature’s side, with the characters and actions.
DeleteI agree with you that the addition of Igor definitely made the film a lot more humorous and interesting. The love triangle was unnecessary, only put in to make the film more appealing to the audience; I agree with you that it took away the focus on the deeper meaning of the original Frankenstein story.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein was quite a surprising twist to what we had in mind when it came to the novel, Frankenstein. The whole movie was very funny and entertaining, something different from the book, which portrayed a significantly grim and sad theme. The humor was definitely enjoyable, however a lot of it was quite ridiculous (so ridiculous that it was hilarious). It was a nice contrast to the book, especially since it gave us a different perspective on a similar storyline. There were a lot of references to Victor Frankenstein and his work. The movie actually seemed to show the main character fixing the mistakes that Victor failed to fix, especially with the creature. Victor fails to validate the creature and give him love and kindness. Fredrick on the other hand, gives him love and compassion, even though he was scared of the creature at first. The reason the creature went rogue in the first place with Victor, was that he wasn't nurtured or loved by anyone. That automatically made him a monster, feared by everyone. With Fredrick, he made a consious effort to connect with his creation, and ultimately promising to raise him like a son. From what we noticed in the movie, the creature was quite gentle and harmless unless he was aggravated. The only thing which I personally found completely strange was when Fredrick's fiance ends up with the creature (It was actually really creepy). Over all, it's a funny movie and is something people should definitely watch after reading the novel.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching Young Frankenstein, I continuously thought that this movie was more meant to be some sort of twisted parody of Mary Shelley's book. The original book had a gloomy and dark atmospheric feel while this movie seemed more comedic in comparison. The aims of both the book and the movie were completely different, as the movie attempted to make the dark story of an experiment going out of control into a comedy. The book on the other hand was originally planned to be a thriller/horror novel, more aimed at scaring than arousing laughter. If one were to compare the characters of both the film and the novel, the differences between both works is even more clearly pronounced. The original book almost marks the people who would die while the movie doesn't portray many scenes of death. I believe I enjoyed the book more, because the movie seemed to objectify both male and female characters. I do not fancy such jokes, so it lowered my tolerance for the movie and made it seem dull. The book was very nice in the sense that it made people, (well at least me), relate to the characters and at the same time allowed me to view these character's actions as a third party.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting! I never saw it that way, as a parody, but that analysis makes a lot of sense. I saw it more as a natural evolution since the movie is set in modern times, and things like sexuality have indeed become more prominent. It also reflects our modern society's more superficial culture and desire for comedic fluff, rather than literary greatness. But I think the main spirit of the story was captured in both the film and the novel, which just goes on to prove the timeless appeal of Shelley's original work.
DeleteYeah, I have my suspicions as well that what the movie as going for clearly was not in the direction of staying true to the novel. I agree that Young Frankenstein was a more comedic work than Frankenstein as they likely had different purposes. Frankenstein was supposed to be a horror story while Young Frankenstein appears to have been targeted for more modern-ish day audiences. I liked the novel more because it went deeper and the characters were much more well-developed. While it wasn't really funny, the novel actually made me think—the film didn't really make me do that.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein was an unexpected twist on the classic book, Frankenstein. Not that it wasn't a pleasant surprise but I was definitely expecting something as dark and depressing as the original book. The humor and acting was all very cheesy but in a good way. It was more of a comedic experience than an actual interpretation of the story. And I can appreciate this version of it because it was entertaining to watch and had memorable characters (I-gor <3). I should have seen the weirdly sexual ending coming as it was a product of Hollywood but overall I definitely enjoyed watching the movie, even with all of it's spoofs/inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein definitely had a different interpretation on the novel Frankenstein that my personal view. Overall, the movie was enjoyable and embodied a lighthearted tone. In contrast, the novel was more serious and maintained a darker mood. I found it interesting how the two perspectives took different approaches on the plot. The main character in the movie seemed more empathetic than Victor Frankenstein as he aimed to fix his mistakes. Unlike Victor, Fredrick attempts to mend his relationship with the monster and provide care and kindness for the monster regardless of his initial feelings towards the monster. The movie also had some details that varied from the novel, such as the music that brought the monster back to the home. I thought the ending of the movie was really unique and quite a twist as I never really thought that the monster and Fredrick would switch brains. Although the movie was comedic, I still prefer the book over the film.
ReplyDeleteThe film young Frankenstein, although based on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, differs from the novel in several ways, with the most prominent difference the creature itself. The creature is more based off the iconic 1931 film, Frankenstein, for the creature is an inarticulate being, similar to that of the 1931 film adaptation. This is a 180 degree contrast from the original creature, who learned speech and language through observing the peasant villagers. The film, however, does portray the creature as a sophisticated and intelligent being during the scene when the creature convinces the detective to spare young Frankenstein. By showing the two sides of the creature, I feel that the film has bridged the two portrayals of Frankenstein's creature into one, connecting the novel to its film adaptations.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I quite enjoyed the film. It was a light and comedic adaptation to a dark and somber novel. Also, although a film from the 1970's, it managed to exude an early 1900's vibe to it with the black and white picture, making seem even more closely related to the 1931 film.
I actually liked the movie Young Frankenstein because I thought it adapted the classic story into a modern and creative movie. I loved the characters in Young Frankenstein than the characters in the novel because I thought they were more diverse and lighthearted. My favorite character was Igor and Inga was a close second. Igor is definitely more of a character of comedic effect rather than substance, but his character serves its purpose of being entertaining. In addition, Inga, though her character seems anti-feminist, brings a sort of sexiness to the story that I would not have expected with science fiction.
ReplyDeleteWhat I also found interesting was that this time Young Frankenstein portrays a creature that is loved and cared for by its creator, and thus resulting in a happy ending rather than a tragic one. The movie definitely had a more positive tone than the novel, even though the creature still faced prejudice and fear.
Overall, I felt that this movie did a great job distancing itself from the novel and being able to stand on its own. I believe the creative comedy sheds a new light and perspective on the story of mad scientists bring life to dead tissue, and surprisingly does not leave a bitter aftertaste of repetition.
Young Frankenstein puts a comedic twist to the original Frankenstein book by Mary Shelley. The film Young Frankenstein really took me by surprise. I did not expect the villagers to let the creature go when it gained the ability to talk and reason. The ending took me by surprise. The Film really turned a book that was meant to be scary to something funny.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you hong, and that's also why I felt that the movie was a lot more enjoyable. It had twists and turns that you were not expecting plus it was pretty funny unlike the novel that was dark and pretty much scary/spooky
DeleteThe movie would be interesting to watch for the readers, but I still prefer the novel more. Even though the movie Young Frankenstein made references to Frankenstein, there are still many differences between the two. Mary Shelley tries to warn the scientists with the story of Frankenstein, but the movie twists the story to a more positive-feeling and funny plot. For example, Fredrick starts the experiment with his lab assistant and Igor, after reading the book of how Victor Frankenstein made the Creature. The movie specifically points out the mistake young Frankenstein makes about using an abnormal brain, and shows us how young Frankenstein takes responsibility for the things he has done.
ReplyDeleteThe happy ending of the movie was caused by young Frankenstein’s right decisions to save the Creature and the people’s reaction of accepting the Creature, and it made up the sad ending in the novel.
I love how Young Frankenstein totally changed the plots. Similar to most of the books we learn in high school years, Original Frankenstein has so many deep literal interpretation. While it is fun to find and analyze those, I personally think that it's a great idea to watch or read a funny and changed version of the writing. Watching the movie was fun because I have read the original Frankenstein and I was able to relate and connect the movie to the novel. I like how the director of Young Frankenstein decided to set the main character as a grandson of Dr. Frankenstein since the story and plots flow nicely. One aspect that I loved the most was Igor.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein was very different from the actual book. The movie itself was very comical and had varying levels of humor that were added in to make the storyline more interesting and viewer friendly. Also, the whole movie was about Dr. Fronkensteen, the grandson of Frankenstein instead of Frankenstein. The movie was very interesting because it started off with Dr. Fronkensteen really hating his grandfather and his lineage. He was very adamant on not having any relation to his grandfather until he goes to visit his old lab. There, he finds his grandfather's work and attempts to recreate it. I found it really interesting how in the book Frankenstein, there was the obvious repercussion of recreating life when the creature decides to seek revenge on his creator and murder the people that he cared about while the revenge/repercussion in Young Frankenstein was that at the end of the movie, it was very obvious that in trying to save his creation and give it knowledge, Dr. Fronkensteen was hurt and took the consequence.
ReplyDeleteThe movie Young Frankenstein differs from the novel written by Mary Shelley in which the story was told. In the movie, there was a much more comedic side than the book. I think the ending shows a different perspective on human nature also because the angry villagers let the monster go as soon as he was able to talk to them more in a more sophisticated language than his mere moans. Once they understood what he was trying to say they simply let him go which shows the value of communication between humans.
ReplyDeleteEven though it was completely different from the book, I really enjoyed Young Frankenstein. The jokes were a little cheesy at time, but I found it to be pretty entertaining. As for the plot, I thought it was really interesting that Dr. Frankenstein tried so hard to avoid his grandfather's work and to dissociate himself from the twisted work, but only ended up doing the same thing. I thought it was really comparable with how a lot of kids feel about their parents. The "I won't be like my mom/dad" ideology sticks with a lot of kids and they find themselves actively avoiding all warnings, just to realize they've fallen into the same traps their parents did. Outside of that, I really liked the movie because I enjoy seeing modern interpretations of old works. I think that these interpretations help to give insight as to how people have interpreted old work over time. For example, a parody about a book made in the 1970s would be really different from a parody done in 2010, and even 2015.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Mel. I found it intriguing how they added a little bit of spin on the classic story of Frankenstein by showing his grandson as a character filled with hate. As the movie progressed, we see the transformation of this character into a more appreciative person, which can be attributed to his respect for his grandfather's works.
DeleteI didn't get to see a large majority of Young Frankenstein because I missed school on Tuesday, but from what I could tell from the last few minutes of the video, it was a lot more lighthearted and jovial than the novel. Whereas the novel focused on themes of vengeance and morbid death, the movie was more of a comedy. It definitely did not follow the plot of the book and shocked me with all of its quirky plot twists and character development. The biggest difference for me between the two was that in the movie, Frankenstein cared deeply for the monster and risked his life in trying to facilitate its life, while in the novel he wants nothing more than for the dreadful beast to die. I think overall, I enjoyed the novel more because it provoked stronger emotion and left a more lasting impact. It wasn't just something meant to attract box office sales; instead, it explored deep themes and left the reader pondering in thought and introspection.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the novel was definitely more profound and invoked stronger emotion (while I did find the movie amusing). I also recognized the huge difference that in the movie, Frankenstein cares for the monster, while in the book, all he wants is to escape him.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein has quite a few differences when being compared with the novel written by Mary Shelley. The main difference was that Young Frankenstein revolved around the grandson of Dr. Frankenstein who hated being compared with his grandfather. The main character called himself Dr. Fronkensteen in order to leave his past and stray away from his grandfather. The change of Dr. Fronkensteen's character and affection for his grandfather and his grandfather's works is what makes the Young Frankenstein a comedic movie. I loved the relationship between bluchard and the doctor throughout the movie because it was very interesting as bluchard tried to reverse what the doctor did
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein by Mary Shelley and the movie Young Frankenstein are quite different in both the stories and tone or the telling. The multitude of different interpretations and spin-offs of her work show how prevalent and important it has been to so many people. The movie is a comedy, and by following Frankenstein's grandson, it gave the writers a lot of ways to both stray from and reference the original novel. Sometimes I thought this was done very well and hilariously, yet other times, they would throw some quote from the book in where it didn't really make sense, like with the creature proclaiming how he decided to inspire fear. Overall I enjoyed the jokes and absurdness of the movie, and find it amazing how something so different could be inspired by the book.
ReplyDeleteOne difference that piqued my curiousity between the film and the book was the villagers of the film lost their fear of the monster when it developed the ability to speak and thus became "like them". I felt that the book addressed the event in a more realistic manner than the film. In the book, this development served to further terrify the people of Europe - the discovery of a monster whose horrifying physical appearance bore uncanny resemblance to their own and who apparently shared their capacity for thought and ability to articulate them would probably speak to nightmares of evil ingraining itself so deeply in a soul that it corrupts the physical being.
ReplyDeleteThe film poses an interesting "what-if" scenario, where Frankenstein attempts to reconciliate with the monster instead of striking out to destroy it, but quickly takes it in a comic direction. Although I found the film amusing, I preferred the book's serious take on the "nature vs nurture" debate.
The thing that I really enjoyed about both books was a sense of fear and urgency concerning the monster. Even the movie was completely crazy in many ways, I think the uncertainty and genuine fear of the creature's doings showed and gave the plot some solid momentum. I also enjoyed the modern sensibilities of the movie, which were well written and not cheesy. It brought the book to life, because the humor and innuendo made things funnier and provided a lot of comic relief.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I enjoyed the pacing of the movie more than the novel, which had a length backstory.
But I also think the book did a lot of things better (as they usually do). For example, the monster in the book was far more vicious and developed than the monster in the movie. I'm thinking back to those long monologues that really illustrated the creature's personality with a lot of granularity.
The movie Young Frankenstein differs greatly from Mary Shelley's novel. In Young Frankenstein, we observe the grandson of the original Victor Frankenstein and in doing so we see that the grandson at first does not want any relations with his deceased and famous grandfather. This movie is not a direct movie about Mary Shelly's book, rather it is an extended version of the book and building off of the previous story.
ReplyDeleteI liked the artistic liberties that were taken during this film. I thought that Dr. Frankenstein was a funny character and I liked watching his own buffoonery get him into different situations. I liked how they used the violin to call the monster back. I thought the sexual innuendos made the movie a little more entertaining and exciting and instead of a drawn out story about a creation gone wild. I liked the modernity of the story and how it was made more applicable.
However, I would much rather have seen a movie where the monster goes crazy and wild and tries to kill it's creator. This movie was just about a creature who was afraid of fire and couldn't talk. I wanted to see an intelligent monster be cunning and clever.
All in all, very happy to have watched an adaptation on Mary Shelly's book.
Young Frankenstein has many differences from the novel Frankenstein. To start off with, the movie had a much more light hearted and humorous tone as there was a load of comedy filled through out the whole film. For example, the character Igor could've been left out of the film, and the only difference would be the humor he brought to the film. In the novel, the story has a much darker and deeper tone to it. The creature was hated and feared by everyone in the novel, while in the film, the creature is welcomed by many of the townspeople. Only when the creature does something scary, is the only time people fear him in the film, while in the novel it is the most feared thing. The film also drifted off in a different direction when the creature took Dr. Frankenstein's fiance to the hay area, while in the novel something else happened when the creature took Justine to the hay. The film's comedic effect made it definitely more enjoyable, while the novel has more of a deeper meaning to its story. Overall, the movie had a more comedic effect and the book had a darker effect through out the novel.
ReplyDeleteThere was definitely a big difference in how Frankenstein was portrayed in Young Frankenstein and the novel. I believe that the movie was more directed towards a audience of a younger age while the novel is more for mature readers. However, the film is also enjoyable for both. The doctors in each are portrayed with different personalities and feelings towards the creature they create. The doctor from the novel was more dark, while the one in the movie had high hopes for its creation. Novels and its recreations are never exactly the same, so I thought Young Frankenstein was a pretty good movie based off of the novel. The movie needed to add the lighthearted moments in the film to attract a wider range of audience, especially the kids.
ReplyDeleteThe movie, a sort of appendix to Mary Shelley’s original novel, obviously focused more on entertainment and took a farcical angle on Frankenstein. Something interesting that I noticed is that both Victor and Fredrick were both in love with girls named Elizabeth, and that they both had great passion for raising the dead. This similarity goes hand in hand with one of the themes of the movie: predestination. Though Fredrick tried to make a good name for himself by becoming a well known neurologist, the world still held his family name against him. He was not trusted because they all believed he would eventually fall into the family’s insanity. In a way Mel Brooks seemed to also be saying that Victor and Fredrick Frankenstein were almost the same person. The movie also says that both victor and Fredrick had assistants, both named Igor and Fredrick even looks like a replica of the picture of Victor.
ReplyDeleteWith all this being said, I did like the book more than the movie in terms of educational purposes. Of course, I would rather watch a comical movie than read a rather dark novel but the themes such as alienation, creation, responsibility, and the consequences of society were things that I really enjoyed exploring in the novel. I specifically liked drawing connections of Frankenstein with philosophers such as John Locke and how the idea of the inherent state of man as a blank slate was explored by Mary Shelley. The movie, made to be a sort of farce, did touch lightly upon these themes but I just didn’t find a connection to the movie as I did the novel.
Young Frankenstein was significantly different from the book Frankenstein, Mary Shelly uses the book to execute an intense level of pathos throughout the novel. For example, a major theme was abandonment and loneliness. However in Young Frankenstein, the movie differs by implementing several comical situations and characters which turns around the original story of Frankenstein. This explains Igor’s and and Inga’s purpose by creating a comical route for the movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree that different themes were highlighted in the novel than in the film. Abandonment and loneliness are somewhat touched upon in Young Frankenstein, but are resolved when Dr. Frankenstein decides to display empathy and even be willing to give up his life for the well-being of his creation. The book is a very dark, while the film took a more light-hearted approach and even featured a happy ending.
DeleteThe book Frankenstein differed greatly from the more comedic film adaptation. I found it interesting that the storyline of the movie takes place a couple generations after Victor Frankenstein lived and created his monster, where the main character liked to be referred to as Fronkensteen rather than his actual name of Frankenstein. However he eventually embraces his roots and follows in his grandfather’s footsteps. Though the movie was decent in it’s own right, it can’t really be compared to the novel in most aspects. The movie was unable to capture the intricacies of each character that caused the reader to empathize with all of the difficulties and conflicts each character faced throughout the course of the novel. Since the creature in the movie had an abnormal (or abby-normal) brain, he was unable to express himself to the fullest capacity, which was a slight letdown, as the majority of the novel was viewed from the fascinating perspective of the creature. It was much lighter to view, however, with each character playing their part to keep the movie entertaining and humorous. I found it ironic that the movie seemed to leave the message that people should just go for it in terms of scientific advancements, without a care as to the possible (and numerous) consequences of certain actions, especially when considering that Mary Shelley had the opposite intentions when writing the novel. However, to be fair, such a movie was not intended as much to portray a message as it was to entertain an audience. All in all, both the movie and the book are good (just for different circumstances), but I still prefer the book over the movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the two cannot be compared as they served different objectives and even had different characters. The book captures the essence of the emotions that the monster and Frankenstein felt, whereas the movie was just meant for the sole purpose of entertaining, and ot much thought was given into developing the characters.
DeleteI also found a little disappointment in the fact that the movie's "abby-brain" took out the perspective of intellectual development in the movie's monster. To me, the irony you point out goes to show that most movies have no means to teach a lesson, but its priority is always to entertain. If one chose to analyze, they would have to read the novel.
DeleteThe movie had a noticeable different tone than the original novel. There was a satirical comedic and lighthearted tone to the movie which was probably done to appeal to more people. I enjoyed the movie more because of this and because I was able to have a visual of what Frankenstein's place might of looked like, bringing the book to life. In addition, the monsters in the movie and book sought for care and love. However, we don't get to see a deep character development of the monster in movie, which I think was a crucial part in the original novel. You got to see the thought process of the monster, its pain and suffering and its personality, which connected to me. Overall, I enjoyed both the movie and book, but by bringing the book to life and adding comedy, the movie was more interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that the tone of the movie was far different from the novel, using humor and sarcasm more than tragedy and deep emotions. I also enjoyed the movie more than the book for the same reasons, it was more entertaining and engaging for me due to the modern dialogue and witty characters. One thing I found interesting was the decision by the director/writers to have an ending where they somehow swap brain powers, gifting the monster normal speech and thought processes, living happily-ever-after with their respective partners.
DeleteYoung Frankenstein took a very obvious departure from the plot of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Likely in an attempt to appeal to viewers of its time, there was the inclusion of a fully decked out mad scientist laboratory with the inclusion of full moons and lightning, extra characters, and plenty of rather inappropriate scenes. It seems like the extra characters were mainly used for integrating more "modern" ideas of Frankenstein into the film, since the hunchback, for instance, adds to the atmosphere of all things scary. Even the setting was different—Einstein's manor was apparently in Transylvania, the same city where Dracula resides. A major difference I would also like to note is the characteristic of the Creature. While in the novel the Creature is smart, in the film, the Creature is rather clueless and is for the majority of the film incapable of fluent human speech. Although rejection from society was touched upon quickly, that theme was not explored. Rather, the focus remained on the young doctor Frankenstein himself and his attempts to control his creation. Other slight similarities included the doctor's pride and the right-before-marriage worry. Unlike Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein's plot was messy and in my opinion, not very well crafted, in an attempt to add humor and modern elements to it. I'd rather prefer the movie to have kept a bit closer to the original novel's plot and themes because it was much deeper and well-developed. Basically, Young Frankenstein is a creation of Hollywood and leaves behind much of what readers learned about in Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteThe movie Young Frankenstein and the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley were very different in both plot, tone, and characters. I thought that the movie was pretty entertaining and interesting because it was more modern and was easier to understand. I thought it was pretty funny that Young Frankenstein didn’t want to be like his grandfather in the beginning and even changed the pronunciation in his name, but then ended up doing the same thing after finding his secret library. I liked how the movie was different than the book in the part where Young Frankenstein wants to care for his monster and teach him how to be civilized, differing from the original Frankenstein who ran away after he saw his monster. He also wanted to save the monster by using his own body as a “guinea pig”, which I thought was really interesting. The movie was also different in a way that the monster didn’t appear to be as grotesque as the book described it as. The addition of several characters also made the movie more appealing and unique. Overall, I thought the movie was interesting, humorous, and unique, making it easier to understand than the book.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein is meant mainly as a source of entertainment with the constant plot twists such as the monster walking into a blind man's house and getting accidentally burned by the soup and getting set on fire. The movie focuses very little on the guilt that Frankenstein faces whereas the book highlights the emotional turmoil that Victor undergoes. Many of the scenes were used to entertain the audience and I don't think the movie wanted to follow in the path of the book, by diverting completely from the objective of Mary Shelley's novel. I liked the sudden twists in the movie such as the scene with Inga and Frankenstein, and Frankenstein changing the pronunciation of his name so that he is not associated with his grandfather, though his attempts come with no avail. The monster in the book was feared but also sympathized with, and the monster in the movie was meant just for comic relief for the most part. I prefer the book because of the underlying themes that it presents which are clearly not present in the movie.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein is meant mainly as a source of entertainment with the constant plot twists such as the monster walking into a blind man's house and getting accidentally burned by the soup and getting set on fire. The movie focuses very little on the guilt that Frankenstein faces whereas the book highlights the emotional turmoil that Victor undergoes. Many of the scenes were used to entertain the audience and I don't think the movie wanted to follow in the path of the book, by diverting completely from the objective of Mary Shelley's novel. I liked the sudden twists in the movie such as the scene with Inga and Frankenstein, and Frankenstein changing the pronunciation of his name so that he is not associated with his grandfather, though his attempts come with no avail. The monster in the book was feared but also sympathized with, and the monster in the movie was meant just for comic relief for the most part. I prefer the book because of the underlying themes that it presents which are clearly not present in the movie.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein was simply a spin off of the original novel. It merely took the idea that a man creates a monster and turns it into a Hollywood creation for a broader audience. I found the comical aspect in the movie to be distracting, making it hard to follow character development. Evidently, the novel compares to the movie from tragedy to almost of a fairytale. Frankenstein is seen as a man whose conscience drives his actions towards science over empathy. Monsters in both pieces harbor revenge but the monster has a string of empathy he holds onto throughout the film. This showed me the lesson of hope in humanity. Even through the monster's endeavors, he was able to seek "love" and in a way, humanity. The film's lesson was vastly different from of the novel's. The novel reminds us all that even with passion a line must be drawn. I always prefer the novels to movies though because I feel the light-heartedness does not allow the reader to delve into the mysterious serious nature of novels like Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Young Frankenstein was a good Hollywood adaption of the book, while at the same time retaining some of the themes and story devices that were originally in the written work. I liked how the story led directly following the events of the original book, where we see the grandson of Victor teaching in a college. An old servant of Victor comes to deliver his legacy to the young doctor, hoping that he will carry on the family tradition of reanimating the dead. Initially, young Frankenstein is shown to be appalled about the whole ordeal, but quickly becomes like his grandfather with his crazed machinations. I liked how the movie took the story of Frankenstein and pushed it into the modern era while retaining what is core to the tale.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and the movie “Young Frankenstein” are immensely different when considering characters and plot. One major discrepancy between the movie and the book is the character of the creature. In the book, the creature is kind, gentle, and sensitive when created, and is transformed into a violent monster by the torment and superficiality of society. In the movie however, the creature is violent from the moment he is created. In the movie, the creature also encounters a young girl and a blind man who both accept him, while in the book, the children scream and run away. In the book, the creature kills Victor’s brother, his best friend, and his wife, Elizabeth, while in the movie, the creature does not kill anyone. In the movie, the villagers eventually accept the creature and he joins the community (once he becomes smart from a brain swap, rather than by studying in isolation), while in the book, the creature is never accepted by society.
ReplyDeleteThere are also some major differences in the creator's (Frankenstein's) character. In the movie, rather than trying to escape his creation in horror, the creator spends his time trying to find him. He tells the creature “you are a god” and “you are not evil, you are good” in order to reel him back so he can inform society of his discovery, while in the book, Victor wants to keep his discovery a secret.
Some miscellaneous differences are that the creation takes a few weeks instead of 2 years, the creature learns about fire from the blind man rather than on his own, and some characters are added: the creators assistant (whom Frankenstein marries instead of Elizabeth) and Igor.
The tone and use of humor also differentiate the two works. The book is generally foreboding and dark, while the movie is very humorous. The acting is over-dramatic, and the plot includes elements of comedy such as the creature getting married to Elizabeth, and Frankenstein using the dead person’s hand while talking to the police officer. Although the themes in the book are more profound, I found the movie to be quite amusing.
Young Frankenstein was a more comical and lighhearted story. It did not have the same impact as the book but it was a nice change of pace. I thought that the film was witty and outrageous. The book was very dark and showed a very bitter and resentful relationship between Victor and the monster. I like that film showed a more caring relationship between Frederick and the monster. The film lacks the depth of the original story, but the silliness and exaggerated acting were enjoyable and it had a different purpose than the book. The book wanted to show a cautionary tale and send a powerful message to the readers while the film was for entertainment and more of a parody of the original story.
ReplyDeleteI found that there were a few big differences between the novel, Frankenstein and the movie we watched in class Young Frankenstein. The first one being that the tone of the novel versus the book was completely different. In the novel, it had a nightmare type of vibe to it, very dark and spooky but when I was watching the movie I found it to just be the slapstick funny type of humor. I also found that because of this, that the movie was more enjoyable to me than the book. But that just might be because I love movies, and I don't enjoy reading as much! I also found that the ending differed between the movie and the book. The characters, tone and complete storytelling was different between the movie and the book.
ReplyDeleteWatching Young Frankenstein after reading the original novel was quite surprising. Obviously, Young Frankenstein is in a different genre, that of a comedy/parody rather than straight science fiction (Having Mel Brooks as director & writer gives it away, presuming you've watched some of his other shows). The movie is definitely easier to watch, being not nearly as dense and as dark as the original novel. However, to compare the two works much further is a little unrealistic. This is because these works are written with very different purposes in mind. Frankenstein was written to make people think, to question morality among other deep themes. Young Frankenstein, however was created to make people laugh. If it were to shape how a person though, it does so much more subtly, through exaggeration and ridiculousness in order to impact how people respond to similar stimuli in the real world. While the original Frankenstein is undoubtedly much more successful as a true work of art, I also get the feeling that many people did not like Young Frankenstein because it was not clear that it was a parody. Regardless, the movie itself was very enjoyable, and complemented the original novel well.
ReplyDeleteYoung Frankenstein is like the original novel with a theatrical twist. Clearly there is more humor and entertainment value in the film than in the book; the characters are more quirky and exaggerated and the plot line is altered to highlight different themes. I was very impressed with how Mel Brooks started the film. Instead of mirroring the story line of Frankenstein, the film was made like a sequel, though still maintained its parodical elements. The ending was especially different, and a lot of that can be attributed to differences between the new and original characters. Dr. Frankenstein isn't like his great-grandfather; yes, he does pursue the same experimental goal, but he ends up taking responsibility for his actions. He is even willing to give up his life on several occasions for the well-being of his creation. By choosing not to follow in the footsteps of the original Dr. Frankenstein, key differences are created between these two works, and that was one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has not actually read Frankenstein,(Fremont transfer whaddup) I definitely enjoyed Young Frankenstein. I really enjoyed this different interpretation of such a classic story. The characters in the movie are caricature- like and animated. The humor was quick and witty. This movie deals with such dark themes but still manages to keep a humor filled light hearted feel. The silliness of the film kept my attention and interested in the plot. Gene Wilder's portrayal of Fredrick Frankenstein was amazing.The character of Fredrick Frankenstein showed how an otherwise rational scholar can find himself reanimating the dead. His character is a definite change from the dark, mysterious Dr. Frankenstein known from the novel. All and all it was a great movie. This film does give me Rocky Horror Picture Show vibes, weird, 70s, dark. Overall, Young Frankenstein was a pretty great movie. 8/10 would definitely watch again
ReplyDelete