Green is culturally considered as a color of evilness. The looks of Frankenstein is very evil like compare or Frankenstein’s monster in general. Because it is easy to remember or catch people’s attention, Frankenstein-look is often considered as the major. As well as the Caliban in the Shakespeare's play, the actual visual has the significant impact on the people’s memory. When Frankenstein visually came out in the movie or play at the first time, the image was created by the author, director, designer, and all other art staffs to make a final and ultimate image of Frankenstein. It is also tricky comparing reading a novel. Reading a novel does not give readers any limits. Readers image the world of the novel by following the author's words that describe the lighting, cutture, interior and exterior of the building, smell, taste, visual, and many other senses. On the other hand, once people look the visual image, people easily remember the image, but it is very hard to forget or recreate the image by themselves from the beginning. Like Caliban, because of the designers’ great work, no one can image other Frankenstein to recognize it as him anymore.
This is why book lovers do not like movie version of the novel or the second or third serious of the movies. Movies are very fun, but the reading novel always has more fantacies and stories rather than movies.
Does the book do a good job of capturing what the author thought Frankenstein should look like? Was the physical portrayal of frankenstein based off the novel or the producers idea of his own perception of the monster?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am not sure if it is better or not, but when a book is the original story, it can describe better the author's world because it is written by him or her. But my point is that it does not matter if the book readers or movies watcher can image in a right way. The book does not try to give the reader to image the same world that the author has imaged. The book means readers to image a creative world with the words of author.
DeleteIn the blog post, I meant the Frankenstein which is known by everyone as visual image today.
When there is a movie based on a novel, do you prefer the book or movie?
Do you think your argument for novels having more fantasies and stories than movies holds up universally? Though you say that it's tricky describing a movie and novel, do you think that this task is easier if someone wrote out and described how the movie looked, along with the dialogue? Can novels not be compared with movies, universally?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if it is universally because a lot of things in this world is not universal which is often described as "cultural differences." In cultural studies, this is often described as high context and low context cultures (see wikipedia for quick review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-context_cultures). English is a low context culture. That is, people need more words to understand the meaning of the words or contexts. Other languages such as Asian, African, and Middle Eastern languages are high context culture. Therefore, with those languages people are able to understand the situation with less words by imaging.
DeleteMy point in the blog was that the power of imagination is unlimited. Once people see the visual image of something, the image stick in their brains. It is difficult to image a new figure of the same thing. Meaning that the capacity of understudying is limited. On the other hand, the book does gives readers some tips to image the characters and the world including monsters. Imaging is unlimited; therefore, books are able to provide more opportunities for readers to deepen their ideas.
You have a good point about the dialog. I agree with you. But for instance, once people watch Harry Potter can image the Hogwarts only in a way one as the movie. On the other hand, readers who have not watched the movies can image in the school unlimited ways. Do you think it is nice to have those imagination?