Appropriations of Frankenstein Essay Example

Appropriations of Frankenstein Paper The 1931 film appropriation of Frankenstein has been integral in shaping most 20th century perceptions of what the text is really about. It retains the key element of the novel a mans quest to reanimate dead tissue yet changes many other aspects. Henry Frankenstein, aided by his assistant Fritz, and later, Dr Waldman, his best friend Victor and fianci e Elizabeth, works to create life out of dead tissue. He succeeds, although ignorant of the fact that his creation possesses an abnormal brain, which has been swapped by his assistant. Repulsed by the horrendous appearance of his creation, he rejects it, leading to a reign of terror in his normally quiet domestic scene. Eventually, Henry and his fellow townspeople kill the creature, leaving Henry and Elizabeth to marry and live their lives. Explanation: Although the 1931 film appropriation of Frankenstein retains many attributes of the original text, overall it is a challenge to the way the novel is constructed and read. The depiction of Frankensteins creature is one of the most extreme variations from the original text. Shelley gave the creature intellect he is highly intelligent and perceptive with an acute sense of self and those around him. He turns against those that shun and abandon him, yet has a sense of why he commits these acts. The monster in the film is mostly mute, only able to communicate with grunts and moans, increasing his animalistic depiction. His innocence is different to that of the creature in the novel namely, he drowns the young girl simply because he is unaware that she will drown at all, and also that there are consequences for his actions. We will write a custom essay sample on Appropriations of Frankenstein specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Appropriations of Frankenstein specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Appropriations of Frankenstein specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer They are both innocent, although in different senses of the word. Shelleys creature knows what he is doing, yet continues on, regardless of this. He hates humanity because they hate him, and have made him a victim. Both monsters are abandoned and shunned the difference is that the novels creature has the self-awareness to develop a genuine hate of humanity, rather than fear. Additionally, both are dehumanised, in different ways Boris Karloffs creature is bestial and unable to express himself; Shelleys monster is considered all the more dangerous for his intellect; the Satan in Victors life. In indignation and fear, he showers the monster with insults Abhorred monster! Fiend that thou art! Wretched devil! (p83), implying its demonic status. The films monster is not anything so sinister. His human status is not even debated, Henry proclaiming You see? It understands. The use of the it pronoun is a powerful tool in reinforcing the idea that he is an animal, rather than a newborn human. When asking his friend and mentor Dr Waldman want to do with his undomesticated creature, he is told to Kill it, as you would any savage animal. The different depiction of the monsters is one of the films strongest challenges to the reading of the original text. The depiction of the scientist also differs quite intensely between the novel and the film. In the original text, Frankenstein is (at least initially) a heroic figure, driven and destroyed by his ambition and thirst for knowledge. However, he soon takes on the role of the neglectful father who cannot accept his creation, or son for what he is. His inability to face the consequences of his actions and nurture the thing he has created leads to his downfall. The starkest contrast between Victor (novel) and Henry (film) is in the remoteness they experience. In the novel, Henry is isolated he works alone for nearly two years, and despite the horror occurring in his life, tells no one of his actions. In contrast, Henry is never alone in his quest whilst constructing the creature he is accompanied by his grotesque, hunchbacked assistant, and is joined by his best friend Victor Moritz and a mentor-figure from the university. Most importantly, none of those close to him are murdered, with the exception of his assistant Fritz. He is joined by the townspeople in hunting the creature, and as such is left nowhere near as isolated as Shelleys protagonist. He is also more grotesque, seeming more sinister and concerned with his own gain. Like the scientist of the novel, he consistently refers to body parts in the it pronoun, dehumanising the flesh and bones with which he constructs the depraved wretch. (p61) As is so often demonstrated in both texts, the values of the early 20th century are extremely to that of the early 18th century, suggesting that many societal values are rigid. One of the elements in which both texts remain very similar is the approach to women. Both film and novel contain patriarchal attitudes to women, which is unsurprising as they were both composed in pre-feminist eras. Elizabeth is a passive character in both texts, suffering for the actions of her fianci e. The other women in the original text Justine, Agatha and Safie are not considered integral enough to include in the 1931 text, reinforcing the patriarchal view of women as secondary characters. From a feminist standpoint, this devalues women and demonstrates the patriarchal nature of the early 20th century, similar to that illustrated by Shelley during the Enlightenment. The two texts both complement and contrast each other. They contain different themes and ideas, due to the separate contexts they were created in. However, each also contain similar ideas, due to the similar nature of the societies they created in. Frankenstein as a text and a movie of the 1930s fears the onslaught of science, as well as the appearance of monstrosities in our life. In this way, as a text, Frankenstein is about fighting personal demons, and the darkness that they represent.

Overview of United States v. Susan B. Anthony

Overview of United States v. Susan B. Anthony The United States v. Susan B. Anthony is a milestone in womens history, a court case in 1873. Susan B. Anthony was tried in court for illegally voting. Her attorneys unsuccessfully claimed that citizenship of women gave to women the constitutional right to vote. Dates of Trial June 17-18, 1873 Background When women were not included in the constitutional amendment, the 15th, to extend suffrage to black men, some of those in the suffrage movement formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (the rival American Woman Suffrage Association supported the Fifteenth Amendment).  These included Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Some years after the 15th Amendment passed, Stanton, Anthony, and others developed a strategy of attempting to use the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause to claim that voting was a fundamental right and thus could not be denied to women.  Their plan: to challenge limits on women voting by registering to vote and attempting to vote, sometimes with the support of the local poll officials. Susan B. Anthony and Other Women Register and Vote Women in 10 states voted in 1871 and 1872, in defiance of state laws prohibiting women from voting. Most were prevented from voting. Some did cast ballots. In Rochester, New York, almost 50 women  attempted to register to vote in 1872. Susan B. Anthony and fourteen  other women were able, with the support of election inspectors, to register, but the others were turned back at that step.  These fifteen women then cast ballots in the presidential election on November 5, 1872, with the support of the local election officials in Rochester. Arrested and Charged With Illegal Voting On November 28, the registrars and the fifteen  women were arrested and charged with illegal voting. Only Anthony refused to pay bail; a judge released her anyway, and when another judge set new bail, the first judge paid the bail so that Anthony would not have to be jailed. While she was awaiting trial, Anthony used the incident to speak around Monroe County in New York, advocating for the position that the Fourteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote.  She said,  We no longer petition legislature or Congress to give us the right to vote, but appeal to women everywhere to exercise their too long neglected citizens right. Outcome The trial was held in U.S. District Court.  The jury found Anthony guilty, and the court fined Anthony $100. She refused to pay the fine and the judge did not require her to be jailed. A similar case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1875. In Minor v. Happersett,  On October 15, 1872,  Virginia Minor  applied to register to vote in Missouri.  She was turned down by the registrar and sued.  In this case, appeals took it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the right of suffrage- the right to vote- is not a necessary privilege and immunity to which all citizens are entitled and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not add voting to basic citizenship rights. After this strategy failed, the National Woman Suffrage Association turned to promoting a national constitutional amendment to give women the vote.  This amendment did not pass until 1920, 14 years after Anthonys death and 18 years after Stantons death.