I, Frankenstein

by Lilly Xie

Recently I went to the movies to see Hunger Games: Catching Fire (another movie based on a book), and I saw a trailer that was very…what should I say?…interesting. From the mind of great director Stuart Beattie comes I, Frankenstein.

I, Frankenstein is not a movie adaptation of the novel, nor is it the latest new gadget from apple; instead, it is a modern day “sequel” of sorts to the original story. Remember how the Monster told Watson he had no reason to live after his creator died? Yeah, well apparently Pedro did not kill himself because 200 years later, he is still alive and is living among us in the modern world. He even has a name now; he goes by Adam (hmm interesting name choice). This movie is riddled with references to the Bible, with a villain called Neberius, who is leader of the demons and one of the originally angels that fell from Heaven during Satan’s rebellion against god. It is Adam’s (I still like the name Pedro better) job to save the human race against the battle between the gargoyles and the demons.

 

 

Enjoy the trailer folks.

So that was cool, Right guys? Drama, action, explosions, and flying gargoyles! It looks like Adam even has a love interest. I guess it was a good thing that Victor Frankenstein didn’t create a female monster after all, because based on this trailer, it seems like things are going to go very well for Adam and this blonde chick, who doesn’t think he’s actually a monster.

Honestly I would probably not pay money to see this movie, but maybe some people will! This is obviously commercial fiction, but the fact that this exists raises some pressing questions. Should people attempt to make sequels to classic tales? Do these sequels (often times written for commercial rather than literary purpose) take away from the importance of the classic?

Also another bit of information I found while researching this movie: it’s based off of a graphic novel. In case you didn’t want to think about the answer to the previous question, here’s another question for you guys: do you think graphic novels could be considered literature? (That one was for you, Athena.) 

The Symbolism of Nature

Nature is a common thread of symbolism in both movies and books alike. For instance, the seasons of nature often help to give the reader deeper understanding about the significance of a scene or the meaning behind someone's actions. For instance, winter is often used to represent a time of death or sorrow. Spring, on the other hand, often indicates rebirth, life, or purity. 

   

For example, Frankenstein by Mary Shelly incorporates a lot of references to season in the fifth chapter of the novel. At first, it's easy to miss these quick mentions, but upon deeper inspection, the number of references and the time of the references indicates their significance. Many of the references to nature come at a turning point in the narrator, Frankenstein's, life. When Frankenstein finally recovers from his month-long illness, springtime is just blooming.

“I remember the first time I became capable of observing outward objects with any kind of pleasure, I perceived that the fallen leaves had disappeared, and that the young buds were shooting forth… It was a divine spring, and the season contributed greatly to my convalescence.” In this passage, the narrator’s health and risen spirits are directly linked to the feelings of hope and peace that naturally come with spring.

But symbolism in nature isn't just used in literature… It’s also often uses in movies (of course)! One of the best animated movies of all time, Mulan, also utilizes the seasons to represent turning points in the character’s lives. Mulan has never been like other girls, but when she disappoints her family because of her horrendous meeting with the match-maker, she’s completely distraught. She runs away to find solace underneath the cherry tree in her garden, where her father comes to comfort her. Spring has already arrived, and the cherry tree is completely covered in blossoms. However, Mulan’s father immediately spots a blossom that hasn’t opened yet.

 “Look!” he exclaimed. “This flower is late. But I bet that when it blooms, it will be the most beautiful flower of all.” Little does Mulan know that this flower represents the metamorphosis that she’s about to go through. This moment with her father is an important turning point in her life. She’s about to undertake a journey that will mature her into the woman she truly is—even if she’s later than others.

Freedom Writers and Our Education System

In class this week we watched the movie Freedom Writers, featuring Hilary Swank. This movie illustrates the struggles of kids in Long Beach, California as they are entangled in the gang and drug related activities in their community. Swank’s character tries to teach these kids to the best of her ability, but isn't always able to succeed due to an obviously flawed school system. Although these flaws are readily apparent in the underprivileged school system pictured, the school system at Paul Laurence Dunbar, in Fayette County, and across the nation is far from perfect.

Our schools currently teach to a standard curriculum and base success off of standardized testing scores. Kids are forced to take certain subjects with the illusion of freedom given in the form of electives; however, this system harms the education of all students in its current state, not just the struggling ones. The brightest students are limited by those struggling because the school cannot afford new materials for the accelerated classes, which is in turn due to the low population in these classes. Students who are struggling may be intelligent, but not passionate about the subjects that they were forced to learn. If they were allowed to study subjects closer to their interests, then their success and grades would skyrocket. In addition, students who plan on becoming tradesman should be able to start honing their skill during high school, instead of waiting until they have graduated. The current system prevents the gifted kids from moving on, keeps the bottom bracket where they are, and limits the opportunities presented to those with already decided interests.

Having a basic understanding of most subjects is necessary for success, but too much stress is placed on it. The school system needs to start designing a more malleable and personalized education system, or success rates will continue to be sub-par. As Swank taught the kids, motivation and interest are the two biggest steps in an education. If these kids from high risk backgrounds can receive an education tailored to them, then we in Fayette County should expect no less.

Catherine's Ghost is Coming to Haunt Me

 

Lilly Xie

Yesterday was Halloween, and on that particularly dark and stormy night, I looked out the window to see how badly my street had flooded.  But when I looked out, I couldn’t really see anything because the branches of my tree kept blowing in the wind and blocking my view. The branches were also scratching against the glass and making a terrible, ominous sound. I suddenly recalled one of the first scenes of Wuthering Heights, when Lockwood saw the ghost of Catherine outside his window.  Not even joking, I actually let out a scream and alarmed everyone in my family.  It was pretty terrifying, considering if there was one day of the year that ghosts would be out and about, it would definitely be on Halloween.

But this experience made me realize something that movies have over books. In the last blog post, Christine discussed how books are better for characterization, giving thoughts and feelings and creating a fuller understanding of the characters. Although there are many details that are lost when converting a 200+ page book into a movie, there are also many things gained. One of the things that movies do better than books is exercise the senses of the audience. You can see movies. You can hear movies. You can even sometimes feel movies if you go to one of those “4D” theaters. When I was reading the passage in chapter three about Lockwood seeing Catherine’s ghost, I wasn’t really frightened at all. Nice try, Emily Bronte, but you didn’t scare me. However, if I had been watching the scene in the movie, if I actually heard the sound of tapping tree branches, if I had actually seen the pale, ghostly face of Catherine, I would be huddled up inside my jacket shaking like a leaf in the wind.

Although we try to be all high and mighty thinking that reading books is far superior to watching movies, we must also consider the positive aspects of watching movies too.

 

The Characterization of Movies and Books

There have been many comparisons, including our own blog posts, of movies and how they compare and contrast to books. Often, when a movie adaptation of a book is released, die-hard book fans are sorely disappointed. Why is this? Well, as Lilly: The Critic discussed in an earlier blog post, two- hour movies simply can’t fit in all of the details that a 200+ page book contains.

But more than that, most movies (depending on the narration) can’t “see inside” the character’s head like in movies. I think this is where the biggest divide between movies and books comes in. You aren’t able to see the thoughts of a character (or multiple characters, as is the case in some novels) – and this negatively affects the characterization that is used to develop the characters. In a book, you can “see” the actions that are happening through the author’s descriptions-- but you can also see the thoughts, the behind-the-scene action. In a movie, much of this detail is lost. Yes, you can perfectly visualize the actions because they’re played right in front of you on a screen. But when you lose the character’s thoughts and the extra details that an author often includes (but a director doesn't), you lose an important component of characterization.

                     

Let me preface this next part by saying that I understand that not everyone loves Pride and Prejudice like I do. And it’s okay! I understand. (Okay, I really don’t. How could you not love this gorgeous, beautifully-written work of art? But that’s beside the point.) I absolutely love both the original book and the movie adaptation of this classic, but I have to say, I never fully appreciated the movie version until after reading the novel. When I read the book, I realized just how wonderful the characters in her novel all were. Through both indirect and direct characterization, Austen crafts round, dynamic characters. Lizzie, the protagonist in the novel, is one of my favorite literary characters of all time. While I do love the movie as well, it does pale in some aspects in comparison to the novel, and a couple of years ago, I finally figured out why. Through just watching the movie, I never felt as close to the characters; I never felt like I understood them like I did in the novel. Through her character’s thoughts and extra, seemingly small details, Austen was able to characterize her memorable female protagonists better than any movie ever could. So while I do love movies, sometimes- especially when characterization is considered- there’s just no replacement for a book.

                                                      

Wuthering Heights: More than a just another tragic love story

 
Wuthering Heights is seen even today as one of the classic, tragic love stories of all time. With movies such as Titanic, The Notebook, and other contemporary "greats" in the romantic genera (I personally despise most of them) owing their origins or plot lines to this novel, one would assume that the main attraction is the relationships between the romantically involved characters. The love triangle of Heathcliff, Catherine, and Edgar is indeed responsible for the book's success, but on a much deeper level than a doomed and flawed relationship (otherwise Twilight would be considered critically genius). Wuthering Heights, and by extension Bronte, makes a statement about social class, as seen by Catherine's choice to marry Edgar over Heathcliff.

When Catherine is debating whether to commit to Linton or Heathcliff, she surmises that "if Heathcliff and I married, we should be beggars? whereas if I marry Linton, I can aid Heathcliff to rise and place him out of my brother's power," (p. 99). Catherine chooses to marry the rich man, placating her conscious by claiming it is to help Heathcliff; however, Bronte is really stating the struggles of changing social class and the importance of education in social standing. When Heathcliff is denied an education, Hindley is delegating him to the life of a slave, forced to live beneath his would be peers. Bronte stresses the importance of education in social class before it was really an issue in contemporary society, now seen in financial aid by colleges and a cumulative belief in equal opportunity. One of the greatest movies of all time is Good Will Hunting, a story in which Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is an unmotivated janitor at MIT who is a math genius. This movie also explores the role of education in social class. Without spoilers, Will (begrudgingly) attempts to gain an education in order to make something out of his life and maximize his potential. This is contrasted by Ben Affleck's character, who is destined for a life of construction and other menial labor. Both Wuthering Heights and Good Will Hunting explore the social implications surrounding education, but the film captures the emotional tole that is created on the lower class more clearly, in part due to its less antiquated grammar, but also due to the emotional connection formed between Damon, Affleck, and the audience. I don't know if I am cold-hearted or just intolerant of drama, but I find it impossible to empathize or relate to almost all characters in Wuthering Heights, outside of Nelly and the dogs. Good Will Hunting is yet another example of movies capitalizing on its genera specifics to impact its audience, forcing them to encounter these uncomfortable issues in a way that is enjoyable. My question to you is "How big of a role does education play in social class and which art form captures it better?" I will almost always plead film if it is well done, but Wuthering Heights has stuck around for a reason, and I would like to think it isn't due to dreadful Catherine.

The Death of Books

Lilly Xie

Next week we’re watching Jane Eyre, and I couldn’t be more excited.

First off, I love the Brontë sisters. They were such talented young ladies who devoted their lives to writing beautiful poetry and novels. Charlotte, Emily, and Anne are basically the sisters that I wish I had. Just in case you were wondering, Charlotte wrote Jane Eyre and Emily wrote Wuthering Heights (the novel we are going to read in class). By the way, if you’re ever near the Lexington Green, there’s this awesome place inside of Joseph-Beth called Brontë Bistro, if any of you want to check it out.

But even more than that, I’m excited because we get to watch a movie. I absolutely love watching movies, especially movie adaptations of books that I’ve read. I read Jane Eyre a couple of years ago, and I’ve seen both the 1996 film adaptation and the recent 2011 film adaptation. I loved them all: the book, the movie, and the new movie. Some people hate it when books are made into movies, but I beg to differ. People say the movies ruin the books, but I just think that it’s unfair to compare the book to the movie, because they’re just such difference experiences.

If you want to get really deep into a story and if you have a lot of time to kill, then you should probably read a book. But if you don’t have a lot of time, you can watch a movie. I think both the author of a literary book and the director of a literary movie have some merit. While the authors of books need to make important decisions with characters, mood, tone, diction and syntax, directors of movies need to make those same decisions and more, because they need to take into account actors to play the characters, background music to set the mood, camera angles to best express the scene, and many other cinematic details.

A lot of people complain that movies take away many of the small details that make books great. But think about it, how hard would it be to incorporate every tiny detail into a 2 hour time frame? It’s almost impossible. That’s why directors must make important decisions on what makes it into the movie and what doesn’t. It’s tough to make a movie, just as tough if not tougher than writing a book. And although reading a book is harder than watching a movie, does that really mean you get more out of the book than the movie? A literary movie can make you think, feel, and connect to the world just as well as a literary book can, just in a smaller amount of time. Movies are just a lot more efficient than books are.

In our world today, technology is everywhere. We take up a lot of information so quickly, and it’s almost impossible to get by without multitasking. We already know that paper books are going to become extinct with the advent of eBooks, but is that where the changes will stop? What if books just disappeared completely? People nowadays get bored very easily, and need a lot of action and movement and images to keep their attention. Movies seem more suited for this generation than books do. My question for you is, in this fast paced, ever changing society, will reading books eventually become outdated?