Content uploaded by Francisco Javier Sánchez-Verdejo Pérez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Javier Sánchez-Verdejo Pérez on May 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Estudios de Literatura Comparada 3
LITERATURA Y ECOLOGÍA,
LITERATURA Y VISUALIDAD,
VOCES DE ÁFRICA
editores generales
Margarita Rigal Aragón
Fernando González Moreno
Estudios de Literatura Comparada 3: Literatura y Ecología, Literatura y Visualidad,
Voces de África: 978-84-09-34951-7
Publicado en Marzo de 2022
© de la edición: SELGyC
© de los textos e ilustraciones: sus respectivos autores
Estudios de Literatura Comparada 3
LITERATURA Y ECOLOGÍA,
LITERATURA Y VISUALIDAD,
VOCES DE ÁFRICA
editores generales
Margarita Rigal Aragón
Fernando González Moreno
coordinadores
José Manuel Correoso Rodenas: “Literatura y Ecología”
Alejandro Jaquero Esparcia: “Literatura y Visualidad”
Aurelio Vargas Díaz-Toledo: “Voces de África”
5
Índice
Margarita Rigal Aragón y Fernando González Moreno
Introducción General
1: Literatura y Ecología 9
José Manuel Correoso Rodenas, coordinador
Introducción a la sección 1 11
Pilar Andrade
Trasvases y particularidades de la ecocrítica de ámbito francófono 13
Fatemeh Hosseingholi Noori
La dialéctica del amor y la revelación del secreto tesoro del espíritu en
La Celestina y La leyenda de Cosroes y 25
Isabel González Gil
Poesía y naturaleza: una lectura ecocrítica de la obra de Aníbal Núñez 45
Paula Granda Menéndez
Racismo medioambiental en Quedan los huesos de Jesmyn Ward:
lo «humano» y lo «natural» en el huracán Katrina 59
Rut Fartos Ballesteros
Claves ecologistas en la saga Crepúsculo 67
2. Literatura y visualidad 77
Alejandro Jaquero Esparcia, coordinador
Introducción a la sección 2 79
David Taranco
Écfrasis y alteridad: la mujer japonesa bajo la mirada de Blasco Ibáñez 81
Ana Belén Doménech García
Un paseo por la Barcelona de Barrantes o la adaptación de los espacios
literarios en «The Murders in the Rue Morgue» 89
Gema Martínez Ruiz
«El corazón delator» a través de sus ilustraciones: representación del
cuento en las ediciones españolas 97
Jesús Bartolomé
La transformación de la écfrasis del escudo de Eneas (Eneida VIII
636-731) en Lavinia, de Ursula Le Guin 109
Guillermo Aguirre Martínez
Narración gráca como escenario prototípico del proyecto
arquitectónico 125
Francisco Javier Sánchez-Verdejo Pérez
Dialogue between Literature and Early Silent Cinema: An Approach to
J. S. Dawley’s Frankenstein 133
Shiang Tian
The Remains of the Day-Novels into Films 147
José Manuel Correoso Rodenas
La producción de Michael Nicoll Yahgulanaas: el ‘haida manga’ como
conversación entre texto imagen 155
Carmen García Blanco
El lenguaje narrativo visual en los libros de artista de Warja Lavater:
hacia una poética de la abstracción 167
Cristina Fernández Lacueva
El desafío a la hegemonía de la visualidad en Catedral de Raymond Carver 177
Mónica Sánchez Tierraseca
El personaje entre la cción y la acritud de su realidad en la adaptación
cinematográca de «Espuelas» por Tod Browning 187
Zahra Nazemi
Shahrzad: From Classical Literature to Iranian Television 201
3. Voces de África 211
Aurelio Vargas Díaz-Toledo, coordinador
Introducción a la sección 3 213
Leonor Merino
En el escalofrío de la Luna, Resiliencia: Maïssa Bey 215
Rafael Fernando Bermúdez Llanos
En esta casa todas las paredes tienen mi boca: teoría general do
Esquecimento de J. E. Agualusa 231
María Álvarez de la Cruz
Yo, el otro yo y los demás otros. El «viaje» de un inmigrante congoleño
a París en Tais-toi et meurs de Alain Mabanckou 243
133
Dialogue between Literature and Early Silent Cinema:
an Approach to J. S. Dawley’s Frankenstein
Diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación al
Frankenstein de J. S. Dawley
Francisco Javier Sánchez-Verdejo Pérez
(UCLM)
FcoJavier.SVerdejo@uclm.es
Filomena Fernandes
(Universidade Nova de Lisboa - Portugal)
lomenafernandes@esars.pt
Abstract
In 1818 when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus, she could
hardly infer the impact her masterpiece would have. Critics agreed from the very beginning on
its astonishing power over man’s imagination. Let us consider the innumerable translations and
adaptations. Shelley could not think of an invention that was to come, the cinema, and the impact
it would have. Unfortunately, however, little attention has been paid to one of the earliest produc-
tions: Frankenstein
screen adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel. We intend to show and analyze the productions of two
authors separated by a little more than a century, who used the resources available to them, both
achieving the visuality of their texts. Dialogue, then, is mutual, between literature and cinema.
: Frankenstein, Monster, Horror, Literature, Silent Cinema
Resumen
Cuando en 1818 Mary Shelley escribió Frankenstein; Or The Modern Prometheus, difí-
cilmente podría inferir el impacto que su obra maestra tendría. En todo caso, los críticos coin-
cidieron desde el principio en su asombroso poder sobre la imaginación del hombre: tengamos
en cuenta las innumerables traducciones y adaptaciones. Shelley no podía pensar en un inven-
to que estaría por llegar, el cine, y el impacto que tendría. Sin embargo, lamentablemente, poca
atención se ha prestado a una de las primeras producciones: Frankenstein (1910), un cortome-
pantalla de la novela de Mary Shelley. Pretendemos mostrar y analizar las producciones de dos
autores separados por algo más de un siglo de diferencia, los cuales se sirvieron de los recur-
sos que tenían a su alcance, consiguiendo ambos lograr la visualidad de sus textos. El diálogo,
pues, es mutuo, desde la literatura y el cine.
: Frankenstein, Monstruo, Terror, Literatura, Cine Mudo
«If you can look, see, if you can see, notice.»
(2005)
Introduction
The nature of this contribution is associated with several aspects ranging from Gothic to
134
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
cinema), including early silent horror cinema from the beginning of the twentieth century and
some marks of gothic and decadent romanticism associated with it.
In 1818 when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus, she could
never imagine the impact her master work would have on future readers, writers, generations
Prometheus, but also Narcissus, so brilliantly explained by Professor Ballesteros González 1998)
story, the vast reception of Mary Shelley’s novel and famous character (farther than just the mon-
ster) over the years has swung between fascination and sometimes repulsion. However, no one
can deny that both the scientist and his creature (both taken one for another) are now undeniable
myths: consideration should be given to the many translations of Shelley’s work as well as its
adaptations into media. Undoubtedly, she could not think of a future invention to come, cinema,
brothers gave birth to the motion picture. However, shamefully, little attention has been paid to
Frankenstein (19101
the magical use of the mirror, the importance of light and the power of words in a silent release.
Entering Shelley’s progeny...
In talking about literature, a common device is the reinterpretation of a literary work.
In other words, each of them is written with a certain intention but, once published, readers
this occurs are multiple; in the case of the work we are dealing with, the fact that it was writ-
335). Frankenstein was inspired –among others– by the Italian Luigi Galvani’s (1737-1798)
attempts to reanimate the bodies of dead frogs when stimulated with metal bars. The body
and taking control of bodies. What is undeniable is the relationship between the power of elec-
tricity and the force of life, a theory that captivated Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft,
Less known is the fact that shortly before, in 1803, the British physician Thomas Percival
(1740-1804) published Medical Ethics2
the Hippocratic texts. This work is especially important because it raised the fact that a doctor
who wants to try new medical remedies or surgical treatments should consult with other col-
leagues before starting them. This is a point especially relevant when you enter the analysis of
Shelley’s work.
-
in the progress of humankind, an idea found in the two productions we are dealing with. This
complex character seems to ‘play God’.
Being such an interesting character, he has never been out of fashion, just as Chris Bal-
2 The complete name is: Medical Ethics; or, a Code of Institutes and Precepts, Adapted to the Professional Conduct
of Physicians and Surgeons.
135
francisco javier sánchez-verdejo pérez - filomena fernandes
Marlowe’s Dr Faustus. Whilst Marlowe’s play is not concerned with science properly speaking,
Faustus is certainly a suitable candidate for inclusion in the mad scientist category. The mad
scientist is a key part of Shelley’s Frankenstein; it is in fact the scientist himself that the novel
is named after rather than the monster.3
Having said this, terror and horror intermingle in Frankenstein. It is not supernatural ex-
In this sense, Frankenstein marked a before and after in Gothic literature, but it also strength-
Although some consider it as a horror novel, Mary Shelley considered other aspects of
great importance such as the responsibility of one’s own actions and the consequences of not
assuming them. Looking at it from our perspective we would also see the limits of medical re-
search and the need for control. The novel touched also sensitive topics for the Church as the
possibility of creating life, something reserved for God. The expected rejection led Shelley to
husband, the writer Percy Bysshe Shelley), although in later editions her name will appear. Not
in vain, the critiques it received were similarly contradictory. Some, such as La Belle Assemblée,
this work presents… it inculcates no lesson of conduct, manners, or morality; it cannot mend,
4
Contemporary critics did not stay behind and attacked not only the work itself, calling
it grotesque and immoral, but also pointed out how much the author herself it demeaned; the
fact that the author was a woman meant a humiliation. If there is an inaccurate review lacking
a vision of the future it is the last one. Time has shown that Frankenstein is not just a moral
lesson, but also a work that admits a wealth of approaches; a polymorphic work, adapted in
countless times which has not stopped entertaining the public since it was published.
Frankenstein, a
terrifying story of a doctor who builds a creature from scavenged body parts. More than two
hundred years later, Frankenstein is still an essential reading. Thus, literature has fuelled cin-
ema since the earliest days of the ‘Seventh Art’ (Canudo 1988), which links literature to cin-
ema.5
since the silent cinema, literature has provided material and stimulated adaptations.6 After
by censorship because it was considered profane and irreverent. In 1980, the American Film
-
-
Theater in Milwaukee in 1993.7
so that the term monster is only used by other characters to refer to the creature.
4 Both references in González Moreno 2018, 8.
5
basis of an emerging art.
6Le Voyage dans la LuneAutour de
la Lune, 1870) and H. G. Wells (First Men in the Moon, 1901).
7 For a deep reference about this fact, see Dress 2016.
136
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
Since then, dozens of adaptations and re-readings of Mary Shelley’s work have succeed-
8
The Gothic literary movement came to life (a metaphor of its own characters) in the Brit-
ish Isles in the 1970’s (although its origins can be traced earlier)9
it made its way out into the British society taking hold of the popular imagination of the time,
& McEvoy 2007, 127).
is often marked by its complex and amorphous usage, although there is a clear attempt to
were for a long time referred to simply as cinéma fantastique: a broad term that has tended
phantasticus, Greek phantastikós, both coming from phantasia, which in turns comes from
bha-, bho-, bhe- meaning ‘shine,
show’, present in many Indo-European languages.10
It is also quite often said (erroneously in fact) that Dawley’s production is the world’s
Le Manoir du Diable better known as The Haunted Castle.11
12 of Frank-
enstein
Searle Dawley –approximately two decades before the most notable adaptation of Shelley’s
result of a science gone wrong (2015, 249).
In other words, new life was breathed back into Gothic literature, leaving behind in the
mouth of the audience a taste for Gothic horror, a distinct, tasty one, which would last for many
decades, as it still does. In general terms, revisiting Gothic has undoubtedly proved to be im-
The English movie Frankenstein
view of the theme of terror and human nature. In the movie, things are not the way they seem
to be. In cultural, historical and literary heritage, these two works, Frankenstein (1818) by
Mary Shelley and Frankenstein
legacies, however, convergent in what concerns the aesthetics of terror. In both the novel and
The aesthetic of fear focuses on a narrative construction which starts from two basic
principles, that fear is a construction of the mind and that this construction is shaped by the
individual’s ideological and cultural context. The construction of the locus horribilis is essen-
tial to the production of fear. The objective characteristics of narrative spaces are as important
8 Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) had a similar fate. In France, Victor Hugo, Flau-
9
10 Pokorny 1959, 104.
11 The Golem (Paul Wegener 1915), Häxan (Benjamin
The Phantom of the Opera
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde came to the silver screen was probably in 1910, in August
Den skæbnesvangre op-ndelse).
12 So far, we can assure this to be true, since we have not found any other. Future research, however, might prove
there were previous productions based on Shelley’s novel.
137
francisco javier sánchez-verdejo pérez - filomena fernandes
as the subjective perception that characters and readers themselves have of the environment.
Such perceptions respond to certain cultural conditions (Tuan 1979).
The monstrous beings, the haunted places, the psychiatric distortions of reality function,
in the foreground, as catalysts of fear, just as fairy tales, legends and myths function in the
plane of imagination.
Fear represents the less comfortable paths that we do not know or control, and as such,
it becomes less easy to enter this universe. In addition, our religious and cultural background,
the pagan origins. In this sense, the absence of a detailed physical space (Frankenstein and
Dracula share this characteristic) provides a sense of deep horror stronger than if it were ex-
plained de facto.
It is therefore our purpose to analyze the sometimes consonant, dissonant dialogue be-
tween the Frankenstein Frankenstein and the common place for horror
tradition in western society.
Some theoretical considerations
To start with, we must express the lack of awareness existing around the original novel by
most of society, and due to this ignorance, the concept of the monster as an icon has been gener-
ated, leaving aside the real weight of the character. The monster is nameless (having no name, he
is excluded from society), but a great amount of society mixes and confuses the creator’s surname.
The monster gets life without God’s intervention, nor any woman. This fact is, undoubt-
edly, a key element since it breaks all the stereotypes of how human beings can be created. The
creation of new beings is one of the oldest arguments of literature, and cinema did not ignore
this. The creature devised by Mary Shelley warns about the fatal consequences of questioning
the female prerogative of reproduction –for it is a male scientist who intends to create life by
altering the natural process.
The above referred assertion is supported by the fact that the monster is closely connected
to the myth of Prometheus13Pyrphoros, that is, Pro-
Plasticator, who modelled a man of clay and
gave life by stealing a spark from the chariot of the Sun, Aeschylus’ Prometheus Chained, hav-
ing his liver eaten daily by an eagle, only to be regenerated at night, due to his immortality.)14
In a broad sense, Victor Frankenstein and Prometheus challenge the established laws. In turn,
Dracula, Mary Shelley took
her inspiration from old legends. The history of Frankenstein has its roots in religion and
great Is Heathcli a murderer? that, in literary terms, the creation of the young Swiss Victor,
by the formulas pronounced by the medieval rabbis (1996, 31).
13 In Greek mythology, Prometheus confronted Zeus by creating mortal human beings out of clay. He was usually
tortured (Ziman 1994).
14-
terful explanation proposed by Professor Antonio Ballesteros (1998, 97 et passim).
138
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
-
ley’s novel: Both Marlow’s and Goethe’s Faust, the Golem from Prague, Milton’s Satan, and
especially the myth of Narcissus. Related to this last myth, Frankenstein is the anti-Narcissus.
-
ever, the monster has traditionally been shown as a silly, almost speechless being. This char-
acterization is absolutely incorrect compared to the loquacity and rhetoric mastery shown by
the monster in the novel, characteristics shared by Milton’s Satan. We can say that the monster
and Satan use the language in a masterful way.
From Frankenstein to Frankenstein
best stories by the English writer Mary Shelley, was originally published in the December 1833
edition of the literary journal The Keepsake, and then reissued in the 1891 anthology, Tales
and Stories.
and especially the ethical and moral dilemma that involves prolonging human life outside nat-
ural limits. In fact, the work has many similarities with both productions we are dealing with.
prepared by his mentor, Cornelius Agrippa (we call attention to the choice of these names). It is
-
tality (revealed as the promise of eternal wisdom) seduces Winzy. However, that promise quickly
becomes a curse. Winzy is condemned to an eternal psychological torture: see all surrounding
himself, almost three hundred and twenty-three years since he drank that elixir of eternal life.
called or elixir of immortality); the powers of darkness are invoked; there is a mirror in which
the protagonist looks at himself several times (the numerous allusions to this object are note-
crucibles, invocation of spirits... Therefore, we are not talking about a doctor but about some-
thing else. We are convinced that Dawley was aware of this story, which shows very well that
facet of the alchemist who is so far from the scientist of Shelley’s work.
Frankenstein-
19, for a total budget of $500.15 It was well-received by critics, though others were quick to
to be improved. In fact, Edison’s production is a story that deals with human condition (and
the dangers of surpassing the extremes, trying to occupy God’s place), life and death. They de-
liberately omitted whatever might shock audience, any repulsive situations, concentrating on
the psychological basis.
15 For this research, we trie
been colourized and provided with new technological updates. Being our intention to follow the one spectators wat-
ched at the time of its premiere, we have chosen, thus, the following one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0K-
MwXeMRY0.
139
francisco javier sánchez-verdejo pérez - filomena fernandes
16 not attended by good people, not accustomed to admiring exotic
actresses of dubious conduct, phantasmagorical magicians who did tricks, or characters who,
perhaps by some diabolical work, still dared to look the spectator in the eyes. The cinema
was grotesque, exotic and scary. This view is in line with the aesthetic tendencies of the late
nineteenth century, unequivocally associated with the decadent, the gothic, the terrifying and
frightening, which yielded many pounds to the booksellers for whom this was not really new,
since penny dreadfuls were fashionable.17
–a common practice at the time– his straw-like hair and clawed hands that remind of Nosfera-
tu’s18), Augustus Phillips (who plays Frankenstein, a well-known, skilled, respected Broadway
performer, showing the use of making sweeping gestures and exaggerated posing whenever he
any screen time, but acts very natural compared to her two companions). This production is a
-
ber that, talking about brown and orange colours, electros in ancient Greek meant amber.
-
-
Frankenstein and Thomas Edison as scientists and inventors.19 There is consequently some
20
leading eventually, however, to the creation of a monstrous rather than a perfect creature.
of ethereal struggle: that between Victor and evil. The defeat of such evil is portrayed in the
The movie begins with Frankenstein leaving for the university to study science. Two
life instead; the title card reads: «Instead of a perfect human being, the evil in Frankenstein’s
16
Faculdade de Letras of the Universidade Clássica de Lisboa, on july 12th, 2016, in Lisbon (Portugal).
17 Penny dreadfuls, which appear in England in 1830, were weekly publications at a very low price; obviously, being
very economical, they reached a large audience, presenting tricky creatures.
18 Probably he decided to drive away Thomas Porter Cooke’s appearance for the 1823 English Opera curious, orig-
inal stage production (even before the reprinting of Frankenstein in 1831), called Presumption or the fate of Fran-
kenstein. We know that it was seen by Mary Shelley herself, who approved of it. The Creature was tall, menacing yet
human, walking the line between human and other.
19
path to cinema.
20 Let us bear in mind the echoes of the meaning of the creator’ name in Latin.
140
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
The central point of the movie is the scene where Frankenstein creates his creature. Un-
like in later versions where the creature is constructed from dismembered body parts, here
Frankenstein literally creates his monster from a cauldron containing a mixture of chemicals.
We watch the monster assembling itself around a skeletal frame, and thus the creature is cre-
ated. The idea is deeply original: it is about, as far as we know, the only adaptation in which
Frankenstein’s work is really shown as a work of creation and not only of (re)composition.21
When the movie came out, theatre pianists were directed to play the music at a moderato pace
and then speed up the tempo to agitato as terrifying moments were about to turn on screen. The
musical accompaniment was carried out through an orchestra that performed the pieces live
indicated in the script for each screening. Following the release of the rights, we know that the
The birth of the monster was framed with an agitato (probably by Franz Liszt), and the scene
in which the monster visits Frankenstein in his bed was accompanied by Der Freischütz (Carl
Maria von Weber). The rest of the production shifted between this piece and the Bridal Chorus
of Lohengrin (Richard Wagner) for the wedding scene of Frankenstein and Elizabeth.
In the creation scene, we as spectators and Victor, who is again placed as another spec-
tator, witness the monster rising from his alchemical cauldron, his hideous features revealing
themselves little by little. This is surely one of the creepiest images. Indeed, in this moment
«doubts whether an apparently animate being is really alive; or conversely, whether a lifeless
here its full raison d’être: opposed to the decadence of the end of the century (the emergence
Frankenstein, the creature is the materialization of Frankenstein’s dark (evil?) side. We could
22
We want to highlight another key scene: the one that refers to the table on which Victor
leans while writing his formula. In fact, it is a clear metaphor of vanitas. Indeed, on the table
closely at the position, they are aligned. The candle is right in front of the clock: a proper vanitas
image. The curious detail is that the candle is lit and in vanitas
either wisdom or, as in the extinguished candles, the transience of life. Regarding its meaning
-
lenges nature. Vanitas
nature is; also, vanitas consists of believing one is what in fact is not.23 Consequently, this vani-
tas
and will transgress that temporality and limitation of human life. Therefore, he transgresses
the two warnings of vanitas
21 There is something of Golem in this creature. Apart from the obvious relationship to Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa,
etc. we must also consider the discoveries about electricity (by Benjamin Franklin, the galvanization of the corpses...)
22ex nihil.
23 Maybe this is the reason why this sin is Devils’ favourite, since it represents the Original Sin at its greatest
141
francisco javier sánchez-verdejo pérez - filomena fernandes
emphasize that when he stands up after writing his formula for life, he takes the lit candle that is
right in front of the hourglass, a scene that is repeated twice; obviously, with the intention of giv-
ing more importance to that gesture. In fact, it is the only time that happens in the entire short.
He repeats just that magical and decisive moment in which he goes from vanitas to perform the
challenge to natural laws and human essence. It goes toward immortality and its destruction.
That visual echo that will last maybe 2 or 3 seconds is certainly important.
vanitas scene, when he writes the secret recipe;
then the creation of the monster takes place, to reach the third, that of the nightmare, since the
monster will be its enemy, its torment, from that moment on. The order is important because
everything is spun: vanity and knowledge-transgression- punishment. Here vanitas related to
another sin: arrogance.
Another important moment refers to the moment in which Victor falls into bed (or divan)
and the monster appears from behind, through a slit in the curtain. At that time, the parallels
with the painting The Nightmare (1781)24
And that is important for several reasons. That painting is part of the subconscious of the audi-
ence since it was very famous. A second version was even made by the same author between
1790-1791, being called Second version of the nightmare (the work has the original title of
-
lar elements. The woman lies asleep while the incubus, with darker features, perches on her
-
ence even though they might not be aware of it and relates that image not only to a newborn
monster but to the pictorial work and its theme: the torment, the nightmare... something that
destroys inner peace. It tells us that the newly created monster is Victor’s nightmare. Both in
form a triangle in both cases on the head of those who look through them. And both Victor
that holds the curtain and in the picture hangs a cord with a tassel. In view of the above, it is
evident that they used the painting as a reference for the scene, both in the aesthetic and in the
symbolic, given that at that moment Victor’s nightmare begins. When he fades it is actually a
product of the terror by having created the monster.
Repulsed by what he had done Frankenstein leaves his intentions and returns home to
nothing to do with the abomination he brought into being. The monster rebels after getting
-
(another human feeling).
The excellent use of mirrors in these scenes (one of the innovations and a key element
in this production, never seen again in later Frankenstein versions) emphasizes the central
theme of the movie. Dawley then takes us to Frankenstein’s wedding night. After the wed-
ding guests have left, the bride and bridegroom are alone but then suddenly the monster re-
appears. Breaking into the house, he pursues Elizabeth into the bedroom while Frankenstein
the monster on her wedding night). Here Dawley gives us something truly witty to think about.
24 Even Freud himself, who believed that dreams were at the same time the guardians of sleep and the vehicles of
142
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
In twelve minutes and forty-two seconds, it is surprising that the monster has a more
human and sweet behaviour than that of its creator. The creature, who is perhaps only a nar-
cissistic projection of its creator, falls in love with the same person as Frankenstein and, con-
scious of its ugliness and monstrosity, decides to fade away, to disappear, so that the loved one
stays with who is, or seems, more beautiful and able to make her happy. Although we are faced
that knows to be impossible.
The duality of mankind is portrayed brilliantly in this last scene where good is seen to
triumph over evil in the battle for a man’s soul. Ultimately, and thanks to the mirrors, the point
brought into question is whether Frankenstein really created this hideous creature or if it were
creature’s murderous stalking of Frankenstein in the novel runs intimate to the legend of the
DoppelgängerDoppelgänger can
Doppelgänger
refers to the twin, shadow double, demon double, and splits personality, all common charac-
love for Elizabeth that banishes the creature. The creature’s willingness to hide itself from Eliza-
beth indicates Frankenstein’s attempts to hide his darker side from the woman he loves.
Frankenstein in 1910, cinema has clearly and un-
doubtedly demonstrated a continued fascination with Mary Shelley’s creation.25
not follow the original story, since the creature is made in a sort of magical way, and it is quite
Frankenstein, the
-
ning in reverse.
The mirror
Frankenstein will be a motif
frequently used in gothic-decadent romantic literature and early silent cinema. In this short
black and white production, rather than focusing the narrative on the monster, because of the
presence of the mirror, we come across the character who manages to manipulate the reader/
spectator so that he feels sympathy and conspires with his/its criminal and brutal behaviour.
We can detect, in this short story, the topoi of the English Gothic literature. On the other hand,
-
-
ality of the most hidden instinctive, animal side of the human being. All rules are broken, as far
as common behaviour and moral values are concerned –and one can get pleasure out of that
transgression – revealing the malevolent, diabolical side of the human being. This allows us to
in society (being this assertion not so far from Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886).
neck-bolt and stitches. So, Kenneth Brannagh, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Robert de Niro... are unforgettable
143
francisco javier sánchez-verdejo pérez - filomena fernandes
The reality, showed by its replica in the mirror, triggers the behaviour change in the plot,
but, above all, legitimizes this same change, reinforced by the smallness and intimacy of the
room space, away from all the looks and criticism, only close to the consciousness of the indi-
vidual himself. As Goya puts it, and yet in another context, «the sleep of reason produces mon-
natural rules. This recognition of the monstrous side of the human being leads to an even more
frightening view of human nature itself. If this fact were to provoke horror in the narrator, the
truth is that he comes to live well with his other, his brutal and animalistic side, without even
a place of remorse or guilt.
Additionally, the transformation of the domestic environment (locus amoenus) into a
locus horribilis raises the appearance of the supernatural element, or rather the psychic, ani-
malistic facet of the human being. The transformation of this scenario into a ghostly environ-
ment is marked using vocabulary, images and descriptions like the scenarios consolidated by
Gothic literature whose topography has left behind recurrent images in literature, cinema and
other media.
with such an actual concept as visuality, as well as spectatorship, and mirrors. In one particu-
larly memorable shot, Victor sits with a mirror before him that we, spectators, can also see. In
that very moment, metaphorically, he also turns into a spectator watching a ‘screen’. The mon-
close and stares at its own image, reacting wildly, beastly, and then disappears.26 When Frank-
because reality is restored.
we are dealing with. We are watching the pass from writing to the visual age.27 According to Hef-
fernan (1997, 136), by forcing us to face the monster’s physical repulsiveness, which he can never
Frankenstein prompt us to rethink its monstrosity in terms of
visualization: how do we see the monster? What does he see? And how does he want to be seen?
Anyway, it is curious that the presence of a mirror triggers the recognition of itself by the
creature and that, after disappearing, there is a brief second in which, before the mirror, it is
this duality of being, creator / creature, beautiful / monstrous, narcissistic / scary.
the cinema.
Conclusions
We can conclude that the most interesting thing about this version is that Dawley’s ver-
sion seems to have more points in common with the original work than the theatre adaptations
26 These mirror scenes remind viewers of an important moment in Shelley’s novel. When the monster, made and
and showed by cinema (Mulvey 1989).
27
144
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
Frankenstein focuses on the story’s climax
–Frankenstein creates his creature that haunts the scientist until his wedding night.
example, the creation of the monster seems to respond more to a chemical experiment) and
understands the creature clearly as a Doppelgänger of the main character. Not only does the
monster recover the ability of talking, but his relationship with Victor may even suggest that
it is a product of his imagination or that only its creator can see it (the only exception occurs
-
ries of scenes in which, as in the book, Frankenstein tries to resume his normal life by leaving
his creation forgotten, although he is continuously interrupted by the persistent presence of
the monster, which appears once and again as a reminder of the error that he made.
The most interesting scene is curiously the one that goes the farthest from the novel: the
what happens next is the most striking: faced with its own image, the creature disappears, but
the monster’s, but after a while it disappears and the image that he can see is his.
It is a scene that draws attention not only by the use of very ingenious tricks for the time
but because it goes deeper than the novel on the theme of the Doppelgänger: when Victor looks
at himself in the mirror and sees the image of the monster, we are being directly informed that
his creature is the representation of a dark and evil part of himself.
decades of the cinema had to deal with the problem of transferring quite extensive texts to no
aspects of them. In our case, in general terms, all the scenes have a direct correspondence with
even more explicit the idea of the Doppelgänger-
ture of the book and decided to take it as reference for the only artistic license that was allowed
with respect to the original. In other words, instead of separating from the book to emphasize
the terrifying aspect of it, he went straight to the grounds of the Doppelgänger. However, this
-
velop as a cinematographic reference of the history of Shelley’s progeny.
All in all, a sense of the uncanny is crucial to the Frankenstein tale: we doubt whether it is
a body brought to life being a lifeless object, or a lifeless object turned into a body/object. One
of the key thoughts would be to decide what is human, what is alive, and what is to have a body.
the body into something familiar-yet-unfamiliar, something alive-yet-not-alive, something su-
pernatural and only dubiously present.
other and
inhuman but not mechanical (as later revisions will show): it is more ghostly, especially in the
moment of his creation. Its appearance may remind viewers of the ghostly apparitions cap-
depict both the monster and its scene of creation in more mechanical terms.
retain a great interest. Looking at the two of them in the 21st century, some of the aspects that
they raise maintain their value and we can learn from them. Such is its actuality that Science
published a series of articles earlier in 2018. Even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
published in 2017 a commented edition of the work.28
28 Guston, Finn and Robert 2017.
145
francisco javier sánchez-verdejo pérez - filomena fernandes
It is very likely that the aforementioned considerations were not in Mary Shelley’s mind
when she started writing her work in Villa Diodati, a disagreeable summer of 1816. Neverthe-
less, mastery works hold that condition because they surpass their authors’ intentions and
we enjoy them years –or even centuries– later not as a historical product, but as a text full of
Bibliography
. 1973. Billion Year Spree: The
True History of Science Fiction. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
. 1987. In Frankenstein’s
Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity and Nine-
teenth–Century Writing. Oxford: Claren-
don Press.
1998.
Narciso y el doble en la literatura fantás-
tica victoriana. Cuenca: Ediciones de la
UCLM.
French Film
Theory and Criticism, edited by Richard
Abel , 291-302. Princeton: U P.
. 2016 «Edison’s Franken-
Film
Buzz.
Features/Edisons-Frankenstein1.htm.
2018. «Franken-
stein, or the Modern Prometheus de Mary
Nexus 2018-01: 7-11.
D. eds. 2017.
Frankenstein. Mary Shelley. Annotated
for scientists, engineers, and creators of
all kinds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
2011. «Filmic ma-
chines and animated monsters: retelling
. PhD
thesis, Murdoch University. http://re-
searchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/
eprint/5382/
A.W. 1997. «Looking at
the Monster: Frankenstein
Critical Inquiry 24, n.º 1: 133–158.
. 2017. «‘I have a picture of the
Journal of Italian Cinema & Media Stud-
ies 5, n.º 2: 159-172.
. 1995. «On the Psychology of
Angelaki 2, n.º 1: 7-16.
S. 2015. «‘Mad? Is One Who Has
Solved the Secret of Life to Be Considered
Mad?’ The Role of the Mad Scientist in
Gothic Science
Fiction, 25-48. London: The Palgrave
Gothic Series. Palgrave Macmillan. htt-
ps://doi.org/10.1057/9781137389275_2
2015. «Monstrosi-
ties of Science: Exploring Monster Nar-
Vis-
ual Anthropology28: 248–261. Doi:
10.1080/08949468.2015.1014264
1989. Visual and Other Pleas-
ures. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
. 1959. Indogermanisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, Bern,
Munich: A. Francke.
R. 2016. The greatest benet to
mankind. A medical history of humanity
from antiquity to the present. London:
Folio Society.
.
2011. «Terror y placer: hacia una (re)con-
strucción cultural del mito del vampiro
y su proyección sobre lo femenino en la
-
sis Doctoral. Universidad de Castilla-La
Mancha.
https://ruidera.uclm.es/xmlui/bitstream/
handle/10578/1197/TESIS%20-%20
1%C2%AA%20PARTE.pdf?sequence=1
. 2005. Ensaio sobre a cegue-
ira, Lisboa: Calendário de Letras.
[Motion picture short]. United States:
Edison Manufacturing Company.
. 1993. Frankenstein, or, The
Modern Prometheus. Hertfordshire:
Wordsworth Editions.
. 1997. «The Golem – The
The
Bram Stoker Society Journal9: 16-30.
146
diálogo entre la literatura y los inicios del cine mudo: una aproximación...
. 2005. Encyclo-
pedia of Gothic Literature. New York:
Facts on File.
C. & , E. 2007. «Gothic
The Routledge Compan-
ion to Gothic, edited by C. Spooner & E.
McEvoy, 127-128. London & New York:
Routledge.
. 1996. Is Heathcli a
murderer? Puzzles in 19th century ction.
Oxford: O. U. P.
1979. Landscapes of Fear. Minne-
apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Prometheus bound: Science
in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge:
CUP.
