Self Reflection

Self Reflection

In looking back at my final project, I am proud of noting how far I have come as a writer this semester. In revising my third essay for this final project, I can even see in the last few weeks how much my thought process has changed in regard to starting or editing a paper. I can gladly accredit much of my improvement to the workshops and activities we have done in class, as well as learning from some of the class literature in Birkerts and Hayles. The class as a whole has helped me learn how to make a strong and argumentative thesis, and back it up with supporting paragraphs that are detailed and get to the point. In looking back at revising my third essay, I went back to the movie in which I compared to Frankenstein, Disturbia. After watching a few scenes again and looking over some basic facts about the movie that I may have previously overlooked, I believe I was able to exert my visions and points better in my revised final essay, overall making my new essay a better specimen.

In going back to my revision process for this final essay I thought about what I maybe could expand on in my essay, and what points I could maybe make stronger. The point I added about symbolism at the end of the third paragraph I feel is very important because it shows an aspect of film, the effects which can foreshadow a scene which a novel can have a hard time doing. It takes much detail and effort in a novel to set the setting for a scene, and give detail of the time of day, the weather, the emotions, and so on. In film, the viewer can visually see it raining or that it is dark outside, and can easier connect these effects to the actions which are taking place, usually dark actions as well such as murder or other deranged actions.

In adding a new paragraph right before my conclusion, I tried to give a new stance I further acquired when reviewing Disturbia for a second time. In my first essay I believed I had seen a scene in Disturbia which was very similar to the scene in Frankenstein where Elizabeth is killed by Victor’s monster. Upon further review of the film, I realized there was an even similar scene to the one just mentioned in Frankenstein, as when Kale is attacked by Turner, the relationship between him and Ashley more closely reflects the relationship between Victor and Elizabeth. I believe going back and reviewing the movie a second and third time really helped my vision of what I wanted to write, and helped shape my view on how Frankenstein and Disturbia are so similar.

When revising any piece of work it is important to be critical of yourself so you can get the best quality of work possible. There is no doubt that it is important to see the positive things that you produce, but it is also just as important to see that which can be improved, and to improve the not so positive qualities effectively. I have learned that the revision process takes time and cannot be rushed. Re-writing a piece, at least for me, has been an enlightening process, and one which I will continue to partake in, in the future.

Original Disturbia

Disturbia: A new Frankenstein? Gavora 1

The art of film is something that has revitalized the art of literature in recent years. Film can “bring a movie to life” so to speak, and help others view the scenes and ideas from a book as they were meant to be interpreted by the author. The novel Frankenstein ,written by Mary Shelley and first published in 1818, is a very controversial novel which has been interpreted through many different films, each showing the novel in a new light. Even other movies not directly related to the film have echoed it, and have many similar themes and actions which mirror Frankenstein’s underlying principles. The movie Disturbia, is one which although not directly related to Frankenstein, has many of the same themes and ideas as  Frankenstein. Although the film Disturbia does not seem to be a version of the Frankenstein story, I believe it can be viewed as a version of Shelley’s novel for the way it interprets two of the main underlying themes in the novel, monstrosity and secrecy. These two themes are evident in two main parts in the film, one occurring in the middle of the film which we will call “the confrontation” and one towards the end which we will call “ the epiphany.”

One of Frankenstein’s main concepts is secrecy. In the book, Victor keeps his troubles and mishaps a secret until the very end when he tells Walton of his life and the sadness and pain he has endured. In Disturbia, secrecy is the main underlying theme in the film, as the main character Kale, secretly knows his neighbor Turner is a murderer, and him and his friends try to keep their dangerous knowledge of Kale a secret. Just like Victor is confronted by his monster at the end of chapter ten, the “monster” in Disturbia, Turner confronts Kale’s girlfriend Ashley midway through

Gavora 2

the movie in a scene which ultimately starts to confirm Kale and Ashley’s belief about Turner. Turner confronts Ashley and tells her to stop following him, and that he knows the kids have been keeping taps on him and snooping around his property. Ashley is frightened by the sudden appearance of Turner and is forced to admit to following him and says she will stop. This is a mirror image of the confrontation Victor has with his monster, as his monster confronts him and asks for a companion and Victor complies, just as Ashley does. This scene brings to life Victor’s confrontation, as Ashley exhibits the fear the Victor did during his confrontation, and this is a prime example of how the medium of film brings to life a scene from a book, and shows how Disturbia is so closely linked with Frankenstein.

The overriding theme and plot of Frankenstein, is the theme of monstrosity and grotesqueness. Frankenstein is centered around a monster which the main character creates, and although in Disturbia the main character does not create the “monster” he deals with, he creates the situation he gets in because of the spying and way he acts towards his monster which is his neighbor. The scene at the end of Disturbia, when Kale realizes his mother is in grave danger, mirrors when Victor realizes that the monster came back for Elizabeth and not him. In the scene Kale is viewing footage from a camcorder his friend took while in Turner’s house an he sees  a face in the vent on Turner’s floor. Kale immediately knows he has the evidence he needs on Turner and also realizes his mother is in Turner’s house and that she needs help. Kale sort of has an epiphany in this scene, exactly the same thing Victor has when he leaves the room after Elizabeth turns in for the night, and realizes the

Gavora 3

monster is there to kill her and not him. The only difference in these scenes is in Disturbia, Kale is able to rescue his mother and kill Turner, while in Frankenstein, Victor does not get to Elizabeth in time, but I still believe the scene is a good representation of Shelley’s novel because movies are a different element than novels in that they are made for the public where as novels are written usually for the author’s view of a story. In a movie, everyone wants to see the protagonist come out successful but in the time (1800s) of Frankenstein, a grotesque ending seemed apporpiate to Shelley.

In looking closer at Disturbia, the film analyzes and re-tells the story of Frankenstein on a more local level. The movie takes the base of Frankenstein, the grotesqueness and deceptiveness, and puts it into a setting that the public of today can better relate to, because instead of creating a subhuman figure from scratch, Kale is a regular every day teenager just like you or me, and what happens to him could happen to anybody at any time. In the epiphany scene, the aspects of film are evident in that as Kale realizes he sees the face in the vent, the camera quickly flashes to both scenes of Kale looking into the camcorder and of Kale’s mother in Turner’s house showing the correlation between the scenes and the gravity of the situation. In this way, film does what literature cannot. It shows both sides of a story at once, making connections and correlations easier for the viewer, and reader.

The medium of film is one which is very important in the realm of technology. Film is the channel which a book can be viewed, and it has the unique ability to have an audience see a book or movie the same way. Many people

Gavora 4

interpret novels for themselves, and then when they see a film they can see the way it was meant to be seen by the author and can better understand different aspects of the story the might have missed. The basis of Frankenstein, of a story of grief, sadness, and monstrosity is one which has been re made in different forms, sometimes as an exact remake of the story or in a form which may not have even meant to be a form of the story but turns into that anyway. In Disturbia this is the case, as a story of a deranged neighbor and the battle of a boy to save himself, his mother, and the community at large from a “monster” clearly echoes the basis of the 1800’s Frankenstein. Shelly might not have known at the time, but her once basic, grotesque horror story has turned into one which is interpreted differently and thoroughly everyday, one which has helped shape literature, and coincidently, film.

Gavora 5

Works Cited

Disturbia. Dir. DJ Caruso. Dreamworks, 2007. Film.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 2^nd ed. London: Macmillan, 2000. Print.

Revised Disturbia

Disturbia: A new Frankenstein? Gavora 1

The art of film is something that has revitalized the art of literature in recent years. Film can “bring a movie to life” so to speak, and help others view the scenes and ideas from a book as they were meant to be interpreted by the author. The novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley and first published in 1818, is a very controversial novel which has been interpreted through many different films, each showing the novel in a new light. Even other movies not directly related to the film have echoed it, and have many similar themes and actions which mirror Frankenstein’s underlying principles. The movie Disturbia, is one which although not directly related to Frankenstein, has many of the same themes and ideas as  Frankenstein. It is a horror film just like Frankenstein, and incorporates many of the same emotions Frankenstein does such as mystery, suspense, and even darkness. Although the film Disturbia does not seem to be a version of the Frankenstein story, I believe it can be viewed as a version of Shelley’s novel for the way it interprets two of the main underlying themes in the novel, monstrosity and secrecy. These two themes are evident in two main parts in the film, one occurring in the middle of the film which we will call “the confrontation” and one towards the end which we will call “ the epiphany.”

One of Frankenstein’s main concepts is secrecy. In the book, Victor keeps his troubles and mishaps a secret until the very end when he tells Walton of his life and the sadness and pain he has endured. In Disturbia, secrecy is the main underlying theme in the film, as the main character Kale, secretly knows his neighbor Turner is a murderer, and him and his friends try to keep their dangerous knowledge of Kale a

Gavora 2

secret. Just like Victor is confronted by his monster at the end of chapter ten, the “monster” in Disturbia, Turner confronts Kale’s girlfriend Ashley midway through

the movie in a scene which ultimately starts to confirm Kale and Ashley’s belief about Turner. Turner confronts Ashley and tells her to stop following him, and that he knows the kids have been keeping taps on him and snooping around his property. Ashley is frightened by the sudden appearance of Turner and is forced to admit to following him and says she will stop. This is a mirror image of the confrontation Victor has with his monster, as his monster confronts him and asks for a companion and Victor complies, just as Ashley does. This scene also ties in the idea of “dangerous knowledge,” something that many people overlook when examining Frankenstein. This term eludes to the idea that the knowledge which someone knows about something is dangerous in that the person puts themselves at risk by knowing the information. Ashley is putting herself at risk by thinking and having evidence that Turner is a murderer, and when Turner stops her in the parking lot he is showing he is catching on to her and Kale’s trail. This knowledge is also evident in Frankenstein, as Victor knows his creation is killing his family, yet no one believes his knowledge, and his creation ultimately sets him up, leading to Victor trying to blame the monster for what the monster did, but Victor is not believed and thought to be lying which leads to him being incarcerated. Furthermore, this scene brings to life Victor’s confrontation, as Ashley exhibits the fear that Victor did during his confrontation, and this is a prime example of how the

Gavora 3

medium of film brings to life a scene from a book, and shows how Disturbia is so closely linked with Frankenstein.

The overriding theme and plot of Frankenstein, is the theme of monstrosity and grotesqueness. Frankenstein is centered around a monster which the main character creates, and although in Disturbia the main character does not create the “monster” he deals with, he creates the situation he gets in because of the spying and way he acts towards his monster which is his neighbor. The scene at the end of Disturbia, when Kale realizes his mother is in grave danger, mirrors when Victor realizes that the monster came back for Elizabeth and not him. In the scene Kale is viewing footage from a camcorder his friend took while in Turner’s house an he sees  a face in the vent on Turner’s floor. Kale immediately knows he has the evidence he needs on Turner and also realizes his mother is in Turner’s house and that she needs help. Kale sort of has an epiphany in this scene, exactly the same thing Victor has when he leaves the room after Elizabeth turns in for the night, and realizes the

monster is there to kill her and not him. The only difference in these scenes is in Disturbia, Kale is able to rescue his mother and kill Turner, while in Frankenstein, Victor does not get to Elizabeth in time. Despite this difference, this scene is still a good representation of Shelley’s novel because movies are a different element than novels in that they are made for the public where as novels are written usually for the author’s view of a story. In a movie, everyone wants to see the protagonist come out successful but in the time (1800s) of Frankenstein, a grotesque ending seemed appropriate to Shelley. These two scenes also deal with the underlying symbol of

Gavora 4

darkness. In Frankenstein, the scene where the monster kills Elizabeth happens at night. This shadows the idea that whenever something horrific happens in a story or film it is usually during the night or when it is dark outside, to mirror the “dark” emotions and actions that are taking place in the story. This is the same in Disturbia, as it is raining heavily and the setting is at night when Kale’s mother is attacked by Turner in his home. Again, the rain symbolizes the grotesque actions being witnessed, as Turner tries to stab Kale’s mother and eventually Kale, and the dark weather symbolizes the dark actions which are transgressing.

In looking closer at Disturbia, the film analyzes and re-tells the story of Frankenstein on a more local level. The movie takes the base of Frankenstein, the grotesqueness and deceptiveness, and puts it into a setting that the public of today can better relate to, because instead of creating a subhuman figure from scratch, Kale is a regular every day teenager just like you or me, and what happens to him could happen to anybody at any time. In the epiphany scene, the aspects of film are evident in that as Kale realizes he sees the face in the vent, the camera quickly flashes to both scenes of Kale looking into the camcorder and of Kale’s mother in Turner’s house showing the correlation between the scenes and the gravity of the situation. In this way, film does what literature cannot. It shows both sides of a story at once, making connections and correlations easier for the viewer, and reader.

While Disturbia and Frankenstein have many similar scenes, one glaring almost identical scene partakes in a scene in Disturbia that involves Kale, Ashley, and Turner. As previously stated the scene where Turner attacks Kale’s mother and

Gavora 5

Kale realizes his mother is in danger mirrors the scene where Victor realizes the monster came for Elizabeth and not him. When taking a closer look at the film, a more identical scene which echoes the monster’s actual attack of Elizabeth, is a scene where Turner attacks Kale and Ashley. Turner attacks Kale just as the monster attacks Elizabeth, but Ashley is able to come to Kale’s defense and kick Turner off Kale, while Victor was unable to wake up and stop the monster from doing the unthinkable to Elizabeth. Besides the glaring similarities of the two scenes, an underlying correlation is the fact that the monster attacked Victor’s lover Elizabeth, and Turner attacks Kale, Ashley’s lover. In both situations the lover of a main character is attacked, showing the divine thought that the best way to get back at someone who has done wrong to you is to hurt one who is closest to them, a lover, someone the character cares about beyond normal circumstances. After further review of Frankenstein and Disturbia, I firmly believe that this scene where Turner attacks Kale has a direct symbolism to Shelley’s scene in which the monster attacks and subsequently kills Elizabeth.

The medium of film is one which is very important in the realm of technology. Film is the channel which a book can be viewed, and it has the unique ability to have an audience see a book or movie the same way. Many people

interpret novels for themselves, and then when they see a film they can see the way it was meant to be seen by the author and can better understand different aspects of the story they might have missed. The basis of Frankenstein, of a story of grief, sadness, and monstrosity is one which has been re made in different forms,

Gavora 6

sometimes as an exact remake of the story or in a form which may not have even meant to be a form of the story but subsequently turns into a form anyway. In Disturbia this is the case, as a story of a deranged neighbor and the battle of a boy to save himself, his mother, and the community at large from a “monster” clearly echoes the basis of the 1800’s Frankenstein. Shelly might not have known at the time, but her once basic, grotesque horror story has turned into one which is interpreted differently and thoroughly everyday, one which has helped shape literature, and coincidently, film.

Gavora 7

Works Cited

Disturbia. Dir. DJ Caruso. Dreamworks, 2007. Film.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 2^nd ed. London: Macmillan, 2000. Print.

What Really is Wikipedia?

Gavora 1
What really is Wikipedia?
Throughout history, stories and other forms of literature have evolved time and again, and have helped change the course of knowledge in which humans partake. Theorist Marshall McLuhan set out the course of these media shifts long ago, as “ from orality to print, and from print to electronic.” (Birkerts 154) It seems as though McLuhan was right, in that as the years have gone by and our world shifts into a more electronic age, more and more people are turning to the internet or other electronic mediums to read things, which were previously obtained by print. This new electronic age has brought with it many attributes which make the quality of work one can do within a certain amount of time much more efficient and possibly even more accurate. Wikipedia is such a medium, as being an online encyclopedia, one can find information with just a click of the mouse, which previously would have taken hours to find in books or other print sources. The question still remains to this day, is Wikipedia a legitimate source of literature, and should it be used for study? Literature can be described as writings in which expression and form in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest are characteristic or essential features and analysis is prominent such as in essays, novels or even poetry. Does this describe Wikipedia? I believe not. Although Wikipedia is a web detailed encyclopedia, which does give detailed accounts of almost anyone and anything, it is not a legitimate form of writing. Any legitimate form of writing has an author and or credibility to back the information up which Wikipedia does not have. There is no depth to Wikipedia; it only gives details and facts, it doesn’t describe anything with emotion or critical analysis, and there is no
Gavora 2
ending to any Wikipedia post, it only gives the information to a current date, and has no means to resolve or explain to the reader what will become of the topic being discussed.
On the back cover of any book and under the title of any article or piece of literature online, you will find the author’s name, and sometimes even a little information about the author. This is one of the key elements of literature, as this shows that someone actually wrote the piece of work, and that they credibly cited and took account for the information the reader is reading. If you look at any Wikipedia page on any topic or subject, finding the author will be hard to do. Why is this? Due to the fact there is no author. Wikipedia doesn’t give the name of who edited or wrote the page, and just presents the information. Therefore you do not know if any of the information is right. It is up to the reader to trust that the words they are reading are the actual truth, and that someone didn’t just create a page on a topic in which they had no knowledge of. Wikipedia does cite some of its information, but how do we even know if those articles are legitimate or even correct? As Birkerts has exerted in his views, the electronic age whether we like it or not is taking over literature. Birkerts seems to be skeptical of this takeover, and one of the reasons why is Wikipedia is very easy for anyone to post information to the internet, and with no author cited, Wikipedia seems to be taking the risk of putting its validity on the line for critiquing and analyzing by the public at hand.
In looking back at the definition of literature stated above, one of the first words used is expression. Although Wikipedia does give the facts and details one
Gavora 3
may find necessary for a given topic, a key element in literature which Wikipedia is missing is expression, any critical analysis of why things are they way they are. One of the main reasons why Wikipedia is not considered a form of literature is because it does not give any food for thought, any reasoning on anything. It tells you what is, but it doesn’t say why those things are they way they are. For example, in looking at theorist Marshall McLuhan’s Wikipedia page, one can find many facts about McLuhan’s life, from his views on literature to how many kids he had. But one thing you cannot find is analysis. Why were his views on literature they way they were? Did he experience some sort of childhood trauma that caused him to look at life the way he did? Wikipedia tends to leave critical information such as this out. This can be called flattening of historical perspectives, which Birkerts believed would come with the electronic age of literature, that our “perception of history will inevitably alter” (BIrkerts 129) with the electronic age. One of the major downfalls of Wikipedia is its failure to explain why something is the way it is, instead of just giving you the facts and letting the reader interpret missing information for his or herself.
Another illegitimacy of Wikipedia is the fact that some of the pages of Wikipedia have no ending, basically that they aren’t “finished” in a sense. This defies one of the main points of the definition of literature, the idea of permanence. Wikipedia is updated weekly, sometimes daily and changes as its topics change. The information in Wikipedia may be valid, but with no ending, Wikipedia leaves the reader with a sense of uncertainty as to what will happen next, or what is to become
Gavora 4
of said topic. This also ties back into the lack of analysis of Wikipedia, as with an ending, an author may use to wrap up an idea or make some sort of analytical thought, but again with no ending, Wikipedia leaves no possibility for this analysis to be done.
In looking back at why Wikipedia is not a legitimate form of writing, I can see where one might disagree with my argument and vouch for Wikipedia’s legitimacy. After all Wikipedia does include full sentences, and sometimes even full paragraphs to explain information. Wikipedia is basically a print encyclopedia, only larger, and online. And this is where the difference between being real literature and not surface. An encyclopedia is not meant to analyze information; it is more of a tool to use to find out facts and shorter ideas about a topic, not to ask questions about why the topic is the way it is. A work of literature needs to provide the information but also analyze it, give reasoning and give credibility to its readers. Without this credibility Wikipedia is just a large forum where a bunch of information is stated and it’s up to the reader to decided its value to them. A print encyclopedia can be seen as a work of literature because it has writings, ideas, and full sentences, but one must look deeper into the real definition of literature, into the aspects which a work must have to be properly called literature such as analysis, credibility and a reasonable conclusion. These qualities correctly define a work as “literature.”
The value of Wikipedia in an educational sense will be debated for years to come. It is very ease to use, so it has become more and more popular over recent years, and some even look to it as a legitimate form of writing. Wikipedia is a nice
Gavora 5
source to use to look up facts and other short blurbs, but it is not a legitimate form of writing. It is missing all the major elements of literature, and although it may appear to have a few of literature’s qualities such as universal ideas and their connectedness to other topics, it does not have the basic fundamental aspects of writing in credibility, analysis, and a plausible conclusion. This is why Wikipedia may be a lot of things, but a legitimate form of literature is not one of them.

Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: the Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.

Composting of Final ESsay

1. The site in which I will be critically analyzing/evaluating, is Wikipedia.

2. Although Wikipedia is an informative web based encyclopedia which gives detailed accounts of almost any subject in the world, it is not a legitimate form of writing because it is the medium by which something is presented which is important, not the content which is presents, and therefore novels and written sources provide a better medium to understand and interpret a work, than any electronic source ever could.

3. “ “ Words are still words- on a page, on a screen- what’s the difference? “ There is a much shrugging of the shoulders. But this will never do. The changes are profound and the differences consequential. Nearly weightless though it is, the word printed on a page is a thing. The configuration impulses on a screen is not- it is a manifestation, an indeterminate entity both particle and wave, an ectoplasmic arrival and departure. The former occupies a position in space- on a page, in a book- and is verifiably there. The latter, once dematerialized, digitalized, back into storage, into memory, cannot be said to exist in quite the same way.” (Birkerts, 154-155)

This quotation shows that although the words may be the same between a written source and an electronic source, they really aren’t because although they look the same, an electronic source can be changed so easily, and is only really present in cyber space, while words on a page are written and printed, there for good, there for interpretation, and there to stay. A book is much more powerful than an electronic source in this way, and no matter how hard an electronic source can try and emulate a written one, the emulation will never be the same.

4. A counter argument which I could perceive to come my way, would be that although an electronic source will never quite be the same as a written one, if they have the exact some content then aren’t they the same? I can see where this argument originates, but I would have to disagree because when you reading something online you do not feel the same connectedness to a novel or written source. Reading a book you can see the hard work and effort put into the process of writing so many pages and words, and the length and amount of time it took to create such a work. Online all you see is a few long pages of an article and realize that it took little or no work to copy the written source onto the internet. A book also has the unique ability to have a few pictures if necessary added to the novel and with all the word and pages, this gives the reader a great sense of vision, and helps the reader see where the writer was going with the work. On the internet even if an article or “novel” has pictures, it is hard to focus in on them and interpret their meaning with all the advertisements and pop ups that occur on so many websites. The bottom line is the internet is much more commercialized than a book, and takes away from the true meaning and work of literature.

Wiki Glog

A text which I feel is very intriguing, is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been a controversial subject in classrooms across the world for years, and will be so for years to come. In short, Wikipedia is like spark notes on steroids. It has anything and everything on almost every topic or famous person, and provides a concise summary on what you need to know. It’s great because it does the research for you, showing you only what you need to know without the extra stuff that isn’t necessarily what you are looking for. In a sense it is reading your mind, it knows what the reader wants to see and only shows you that. It is much more concise than a book, and therefore many students nowadays just read the Wikipedia entry on a book instead of reading the actual book itself, causing many problems for teachers. Students are missing out on the experience a book brings, and are instead taking a shortcut to just find out what they need to know to complete a project or paper. Because of this, many teachers are beginning to not let students cite Wikipedia on papers, a huge step towards forcing students to actually read the books they are assigned.
Many scholars look upon Wikipedia as a shallow shortcut that lets students and anyone cut corners in finding out information that they are too lazy to search for. I understand this point, and agree that Wikipedia can cause problems in the classroom, but I don’t believe the problem is this severe. I believe for factual information, Wikipedia is fine to use, but for project I understand why teachers are beginning to outlaw it. It takes away from the essence of what a research paper is all about. The research! I completely see where kids are coming from, why read something you don’t want to, when the facts and information you’re looking for is sitting right there in front of you on your computer in a shortened format. Who wouldn’t want to take advantage of that? As tempting as Wikipedia is, a research paper is about research and the steps students learn in using a library and finding the necessary tools they need to complete the project without help from the oh so useful internet. Wikipedia is great, don’t get me wrong, just not for school assignments.
With Wikipedia also comes the controversial point, is Wikipedia a valid form of writing? The answer is twofold. Yes, Wikipedia is a valid form of writing in that it has full sentences and paragraphs and gives a very good summary of a given topic. But Wikipedia is not the type of writing teachers should be referring to in school and is not a valid learning medium. It is great to use for your own personal reference and instead of it being your main source to look up something it should just be used as a helper, to look up a fact or find out information on your own time. Wikipedia is the future of the internet, just not the future of reference in a classroom setting.

3rd Essay

Disturbia: A new Frankenstein? Gavora 1

The art of film is something that has revitalized the art of literature in recent years. Film can “bring a movie to life” so to speak, and help others view the scenes and ideas from a book as they were meant to be interpreted by the author. The novel Frankenstein ,written by Mary Shelley and first published in 1818, is a very controversial novel which has been interpreted through many different films, each showing the novel in a new light. Even other movies not directly related to the film have echoed it, and have many similar themes and actions which mirror Frankenstein’s underlying principles. The movie Disturbia, is one which although not directly related to Frankenstein, has many of the same themes and ideas as Frankenstein. Although the film Disturbia does not seem to be a version of the Frankenstein story, I believe it can be viewed as a version of Shelley’s novel for the way it interprets two of the main underlying themes in the novel, monstrosity and secrecy. These two themes are evident in two main parts in the film, one occurring in the middle of the film which we will call “the confrontation” and one towards the end which we will call “ the epiphany.”
One of Frankenstein’s main concepts is secrecy. In the book, Victor keeps his troubles and mishaps a secret until the very end when he tells Walton of his life and the sadness and pain he has endured. In Disturbia, secrecy is the main underlying theme in the film, as the main character Kale, secretly knows his neighbor Turner is a murderer, and him and his friends try to keep their dangerous knowledge of Kale a secret. Just like Victor is confronted by his monster at the end of chapter ten, the “monster” in Disturbia, Turner confronts Kale’s girlfriend Ashley midway through
Gavora 2
the movie in a scene which ultimately starts to confirm Kale and Ashley’s belief about Turner. Turner confronts Ashley and tells her to stop following him, and that he knows the kids have been keeping taps on him and snooping around his property. Ashley is frightened by the sudden appearance of Turner and is forced to admit to following him and says she will stop. This is a mirror image of the confrontation Victor has with his monster, as his monster confronts him and asks for a companion and Victor complies, just as Ashley does. This scene brings to life Victor’s confrontation, as Ashley exhibits the fear the Victor did during his confrontation, and this is a prime example of how the medium of film brings to life a scene from a book, and shows how Disturbia is so closely linked with Frankenstein.
The overriding theme and plot of Frankenstein, is the theme of monstrosity and grotesqueness. Frankenstein is centered around a monster which the main character creates, and although in Disturbia the main character does not create the “monster” he deals with, he creates the situation he gets in because of the spying and way he acts towards his monster which is his neighbor. The scene at the end of Disturbia, when Kale realizes his mother is in grave danger, mirrors when Victor realizes that the monster came back for Elizabeth and not him. In the scene Kale is viewing footage from a camcorder his friend took while in Turner’s house an he sees a face in the vent on Turner’s floor. Kale immediately knows he has the evidence he needs on Turner and also realizes his mother is in Turner’s house and that she needs help. Kale sort of has an epiphany in this scene, exactly the same thing Victor has when he leaves the room after Elizabeth turns in for the night, and realizes the
Gavora 3
monster is there to kill her and not him. The only difference in these scenes is in Disturbia, Kale is able to rescue his mother and kill Turner, while in Frankenstein, Victor does not get to Elizabeth in time, but I still believe the scene is a good representation of Shelley’s novel because movies are a different element than novels in that they are made for the public where as novels are written usually for the author’s view of a story. In a movie, everyone wants to see the protagonist come out successful but in the time (1800s) of Frankenstein, a grotesque ending seemed apporpiate to Shelley.
In looking closer at Disturbia, the film analyzes and re-tells the story of Frankenstein on a more local level. The movie takes the base of Frankenstein, the grotesqueness and deceptiveness, and puts it into a setting that the public of today can better relate to, because instead of creating a subhuman figure from scratch, Kale is a regular every day teenager just like you or me, and what happens to him could happen to anybody at any time. In the epiphany scene, the aspects of film are evident in that as Kale realizes he sees the face in the vent, the camera quickly flashes to both scenes of Kale looking into the camcorder and of Kale’s mother in Turner’s house showing the correlation between the scenes and the gravity of the situation. In this way, film does what literature cannot. It shows both sides of a story at once, making connections and correlations easier for the viewer, and reader.
The medium of film is one which is very important in the realm of technology. Film is the channel which a book can be viewed, and it has the unique ability to have an audience see a book or movie the same way. Many people
Gavora 4
interpret novels for themselves, and then when they see a film they can see the way it was meant to be seen by the author and can better understand different aspects of the story the might have missed. The basis of Frankenstein, of a story of grief, sadness, and monstrosity is one which has been re made in different forms, sometimes as an exact remake of the story or in a form which may not have even meant to be a form of the story but turns into that anyway. In Disturbia this is the case, as a story of a deranged neighbor and the battle of a boy to save himself, his mother, and the community at large from a “monster” clearly echoes the basis of the 1800’s Frankenstein. Shelly might not have known at the time, but her once basic, grotesque horror story has turned into one which is interpreted differently and thoroughly everyday, one which has helped shape literature, and coincidently, film.

Gavora 5
Works Cited
Disturbia. Dir. DJ Caruso. Dreamworks, 2007. Film.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 2000. Print.

Movie Reading

A movie which I feel mirrors very closely the storyline and underlying themes of Frankenstein, is Disturbia. Disturbia is a 2007 horror/thriller which is an updated version of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window. The main character in the movie, Kale Brecht, is very similar in his thoughts and actions to Victor Frankenstein. The most glaring similarity between the two is that each protagonist causes harm to loved ones because of something they did to someone else. In Disturbia, Kale spies on his neighbor and his neighbor sees him doing so, which ultimately leads to his neighbor’s attempted murder of Kale’s mother, and even Kale. This has an eerie feeling like something which happened in Frankenstein, as Victor’s creation goes around killing Victor’s loved ones as a result of his unhappiness and Victor’s unwillingness to create him a companion.
A scene which I believe to be very telling in Disturbia and screams Frankenstein when viewed, is a scene towards the end of the movie when Kale watches footage his friend has of when he snuck into his neighbor’s home. Kale zooms in on one scene and sees a human face in a vent in his neighbor’s living room. Simultaneously Kale’s mom is over visiting at his neighbor’s house, and she is attacked by him the exact moment Kale realizes he has proof his neighbor is a murderer and that his mother is in danger. This scene immediately made me think of a scene in Frankenstein towards the end when Victor and Elizabeth go to a family cottage right before their wedding and Victor is fearful that the monster may find him and kill him for not creating his companion. As Elizabeth goes to bed Victor has a premonition, and rushes to the room but is too late as he realizes the monster was after Elizabeth and not him all along, and he finds Elizabeth dead. These two scenes seem to be very similar and both very grotesque.
Another scene in Disturbia which can also be seen in Frankenstein is a scene which takes place near the middle of the film. Kale’s “girlfriend”, has been following his neighbor while he is at the hardware store so Kale and his friend can search his home. She loses sight of the neighbor in the store, calls Kale and rushes home to see if she can prevent the neighbor from finding Kale inside his home. While she is leaving the parking lot, the neighbor appears out of nowhere and jumps into her car and confronts her about following him around. The girl swears she hasn’t been doing so, but the neighbor insists the kids stop or he will have to take action. A similar scene happens in the middle of Frankenstein, as Victor runs into his monster on top of a mountain and his monster tells him to create him a companion or else he will wreck havoc on Victor’s life. Both scenes have threats made by the “bad guy” and in both cases the protagonists don’t listen to their enemies, forcing the enemies to take action in a wrongful way.
These scenes show how the movie Disturbia shares some of the same common themes and instances as the book Frankenstein.

Frankenstein essay

Robby Gavora Gavora 1
2-26-10

Frankenstein vs. Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey: More Similar Than We Thought?
While many readers have tended to view Frankenstein as a gruesome, horror story that involves battle, fighting, and a bloody ending, an understanding of the short passage from William Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” shows a more complex plot as it examines the importance of nature in life, and how nature can be a great way to let one reminisce into their past expenditures. We see this complication particularly in the end of chapter ten, as Victor goes on a family vacation and climbs the summit of Montavert, to get a scenic view to take his mind off his troubles. Although some may see this scene as minimal and minute, I believe there is great depth to it, depth that will help our understanding of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
Wordsworth’s passage in the novel hits spot on with the feelings Victor is having earlier in the novel when he escapes the tortures of his every day life to view a pleasant natural scene, and clear his mind. Wordsworth speaks of nature, but also hints at a clouded minded individual, which sounds like Victor, whose thoughts and ideas are scarred every day when he thinks of the “monster” he created. “ The sounding cataract, Haunted him like a passion…” (Shelley 137) Here Wordsworth alludes to a person whose mind and soul are haunted, troubled by something very severe, which Victor is experiencing, with the anguish his creation brings him every day.

Gavora 2
In the scene where Victor is gazing out into the forest on top of the summit, the monster appears moments after Victor is finally calmed and clear-headed, causing him much distress. Victor has feared for quite some time that the monster may be the culprit who has been murdering members of his family spontaneously. A line in Wordsworth’s poem describes the feelings Victor is having at this moment beautifully, “ For I have learned to look on nature, not as in the hour of thoughtless youth: but often hearing the still, sad music of humanity…” (Wordsworth 90-94) Looking into the abyss Victor knows his thoughts may be forever scarred because of the creation he has set on mankind, and when he sees the beast coming towards him, his fears and shames are suddenly coming at him at full force.
Another important part towards the end of chapter ten is a section in which Victor reveals a sort of inner sensitivity towards the creature, therefore showing a sign that even though he believes the creature has caused him harm, he still feels obligated to listen to his creation speak. “ I felt the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” (Shelley 95) This shows Victor as a multi-dimensional character, one who hates his creation for what it has done to him but also one who understands the sorrows of the life the creature has and he is willing to listen to its troubles. This eerily sounds similar to a passage in “Tintern Abbey”, “ Therefore I am still a lover of the meadows and woods…of all the mighty world…both what they half create and what perceive…the anchor of my purest thoughts… of my moral being.” (Wordsworth 120-127) This passage from “Tintern Abbey” echoes a part of Victor’s
Gavora 3
emotional make up, and shows the depth of thought and character he has.
William Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” speaks of a troubled individual who uses nature as a get away in life, as a place to go to think about whatever one wants and desires. Victor tries to go to a scenic place to escape his troubled thoughts, but ironically a place where he goes to have freedom, he is enclosed by the presence of his creation. Victor shows great maturity and courage by listening to the victim and showing that Frankenstein is not just a gruesome horror story, but one of emotional growth, and the ability of a protagonist to ultimately come to terms with his mistakes and repent to an innocent “creature.”

Works Cited
Blupete Poetry. Web.
.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 2000. Print.

Second Frankenstein Glog

The latter part of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one of deep sorrow and conflict. Victor’s creation is on the loose, and he fears the worst, that the monster may be responsible for the murder of his brother, and his dear friend Henry Clerval. After a family friend Justine Moritz, is executed for the conviction of Victor’s brother’s murder, Victor’s father takes the family on a trip to Belrive. Victor wanders off alone and wants to clear his head from what he fears the monster has done, and to his dismay sees the monster at the top of the summit. Victor speaks with the monster and the monster tells him of his life encounters, of the village he lived in in Germany, and of how he killed Victor’s brother in the woods. Victor is in dismay, and the monster convinces him to make him a female partner so he is not alone in the world. After much resistance Victor agrees, and the monster assures Victor he will be checking up on his progress, eager to have a soul mate for him to share his life with.
A quotation which helps shine light into why the monster is so bitter is “ I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.” (Shelley 94) In this passage the monster cries out to Victor, explaining the emotional cycle he has gone through in his short life, and begs for virtue and truth in his life. The monster realizes in his time in Germany that he is a freak of nature, and even sees his image in a pond and shutters at the look of himself. The monster pleads for Victor to talk with him and Victor ultimately agrees, feeling distraught and overwhelmed, but feels he has to hear what the monster has to say, “ I had hitherto supposed him to be the murderer of murderer of my brother, and I eagerly sought a confirmation or denial on this opinion.” (Shelley 95) Victor listens in utter disbelief as the monster confesses to his brother’s murder.
Another passage which shows the feelings and emotions the monster has is “ But “Paradise Lost” excited different and far deeper emotions. I read it, as I had read the other volumes which had fallen into my hands, as a true history.” (Shelley 116) By hearing this, Victor can see and feel the monster’s emotions and feelings and sees that he is capable of deep and plentiful thoughts. The monster speaks of how the books he found helped him cope with his feelings tremendously, as he read the books “ I now continually studied and exercised my mind upon these histories, whilst my friends were employed in their ordinary occupations.” (Shelley 115) These emotions confirm to Victor that the monster has intelligent thoughts, and is much deeper than just a brute and disgusting figure for which he had seen him previously, although he still doesn’t exactly “ think fondly” of the monster.
Some questions I had :

How did the monster end up in Germany in the first place?
Why doesn’t Victor ever try to kill the monster if it has caused so much harm to him?