roblem in the film appears a direct inheritance form the original novel where Shelly never considered the scientific reality of the actions by Frankenstein. Shelly does not take the liability of describing the experiments and the practical elements of reasoning. She takes onto theoretical aspects as opposed to the realistic components that would actually serve the purpose better. It is possible that even Branagh could not provide a remedy to the inherent problem although he does not offer any effort to rectify the situation. The following discourse is a reader’s perspective on the book as well as the film adaptation.
In the narration by Shelley, the reader is progressively taken through the creation of a monster. However, the story does not revolve around the monster only. In fact, the novel is a classical rendition of what humans seeks. The monster is just a climax to the narration that the reader is subjected to. The reader perceives the narration, a science fiction, as a classical approach to the decisive issues affecting humanity. This is even evident in the film rendition of the same. The monster, for instance, is part of the conflict that is espoused throughout the story. Scary notes that, “most of the films that combine both visual and verbal communication started in nineteen twenty-seven after the introduction of the talkie crackle with dialogue necessary on stage during performance” (1). The author, living in those times, had to have a literary rendition of what was going on. This is seen from the sentiments of Shelley. In fact, she notes that, “None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science” (47). This is a reference to the fictional science that the work is about. This gives the reader the perception that Shelley only tries to espouses what might have been a norm or most relevant at the time of writing the novel.
The reader of Shelley’s narration is taken to through the creation of Frankenstein. Despite