Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Mary Shelley’s Unrealised Vision: The Cinematic Evolution of Frankenstein’s Monster
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
2014 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein has been the direct source for many adaptations on stage, television and film, and an indirect source for innumerable hybrid versions. One of the central premises of Julie Sanders’s Adaptation and Appropriation (2006) is that adaptations go through a movement of proximation that brings them closer to the audience’s cultural and social spheres. This essay looks at how this movement of proximation has impacted the monster’s form and behaviour and concludes that this is the main reason Shelley’s vision of her monster has rarely been accurately reproduced on screen.

It is clearly impossible for an essay of this length to adequately cover the vast number of adaptations spawned by Frankenstein. It is clear that James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931), where the monster has a bolt through its neck and a stitched forehead, created the stereotype that has been the source for many other Frankenstein film adaptations. However, contemporary film adaptations cater to target audiences and specific genres, while also reflecting the current political climate and technological innovations. The conclusion reached here is that while the form and behaviour of Frankenstein’s monster in film has inevitably been revised over the years, precisely as a result of social and cultural factors, it is the stereotype created by Whale that has prevailed over the figure produced by Shelley. This, in turn, supports and confirms Sanders’s theory of movement of proximation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. , 20 p.
Keyword [en]
Shelley, monster, form, behaviour, adaptation, film, audience
National Category
Specific Literatures
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-104476OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-104476DiVA: diva2:723403
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2014-09-29 Created: 2014-06-10 Last updated: 2014-09-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(305 kB)827 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 305 kBChecksum SHA-512
643aaba3a87ba3ec07e999a22601f6a3e1cfa48ec83219b7bf81a3cbaabcd3ab756dd43e593f65b0dc078d66f2429ffaf3220240164d05448276537c1a2f44d5
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of English
Specific Literatures

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 827 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 818 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf