case ii - week 12: monstrosity, sex and gender draft by: jason mckahan edited by: dr. kay picart web...

Case II - Week 12: Case II - Week 12: Monstrosity, Sex and GenderMonstrosity, Sex and Gender

Draft by: Jason McKahanEdited By: Dr. Kay PicartWeb Design by: Michaela

Densmore

Edited by Dr. Kay Picart and Michaela Densmore © 2001

IntroductionIntroduction

The aim of this lecture is to focus on the intersectionalities between monstrosity, sex and gender.

In specific, we aim to examine representations of the “third shadow” – the feminine monster and the “feminine-as-monstrous.”

The Bride Of FrankensteinThe Bride Of Frankenstein

Following the immense success of Frankenstein (1931), a sequel was planned. However, it was not until 1935 that James Whale began casting for it; the title The Bride of Frankenstein emerged after much debate.

Although the title of the film may seem to insin-uate a feminine aspect of the parthenogenetic myth, the bride is really associated with mon-strosity, death, repulsiveness and beauty.


For instance, the female monster initially resembles a mummy and soon after wears a wedding gown resembling a shroud.

Thus, as Picart pints out, the horror of the male monster in Frankenstein (1931) is transferred to the female monster in The Bride of Frankenstein.


Whereas the male monster now learns to speak, participates in the “human” symbolic of “good/bad” and “friend/enemy,” and takes the final initiative to destroy Pretorius and the female monster, the female monster cannot even speak.


The feminine-as-monstrous is further under-lined by the credits of the film. In the title se-quence, Karloff is credited with the role of monster and Elsa Lanchester is credited as Mary Shelley, but the “Monster’s Mate” is credited as an ambiguous “?,” although it was known that Lanchester played both roles.

In this way, Whale was able to join the female monster together with the monstrous and som-ber side of the author, Mary Shelley.


The prologue of The Bride of Frankenstein is a meta-narrative account (“story within/about a story”) of the creation of the Frankenstein myth by Mary Shelley.

Similar to the title, the prologue to the film would seem to praise the accomplishments of a famous female author.


However, the representation of Shelley in the film is that of a meek and dainty woman, who sews and is afraid of the darkness and light-ning outside.

Whale’s Mary Shelley is portrayed in a white dress with butterflies, moons and stars on it, emphasizing her delicateness.


This representation may be derived from a (mis-)reading of Shelley’s false modesty in the introduction to her 1831 novel, a rhetorical praeteritio, in which the author puts forward un-certainty or fear of inability in the task at hand.

Later biographers would misread this as Mary Shelley’s feminine inferiority in the presence of men such as Byron and her husband, Percy Shelley.


However, the prologue also points out a con-nection between Mary Shelley and the female monster.

The female monster’s hairstyle was changed from the original description in the script of “curled close” and “straight and dark on either side,” to one stiffly standing above her head and streaked with silver.


This hairstyle is reminiscent of the headdress on the bust of Nerfertiti, the Egyptian queen.

Thus while Shelley is represented as Other through the trivialization of her status as a female writer (Shelley’s flashback on her story is in fact Whale’s version), the female monster is Othered by a correlation with exoticism and orientalism.


Finally, I would also like to add that when the female monster comes to life, she is clearly de-signated within the phallocentric symbolic as described by Lacan.

Sexual difference is integral to the law of the father and femininity is thus meaningful only in its relation to a masculine logic: the female monster is categorized only as the monster’s mate and accompanying musical score resounds with the sound of wedding bells.


As Picart argues, Whale omits the concentric framing of the novel, in which Shelley not only throws suspicion on Victor’s patriarchal creation of the male monster, but also his chauvinistic motives in destroying the female monster.


In The Bride of Frankenstein, it is instead the male monster that destroys the female monster, because the female monster does not love him.

In a similar vein, Elizabeth’s role in The Bride of Frankenstein is also diminished to passivity and non-sexuality.


Although she is adamant in defending the well-being of her husband, she thereafter is decen-tralized within the narrative and only receives attention in accordance with her victim status within the captivity subplot instigated by Pretorius and executed by the male monster.


Constructions of male dominance are further accentuated by Pretorius’ miniature figures of a queen, a king, an archbishop, a devil, a bal-lerina and a mermaid in separate bottles.


Pretorius prevents the lecherous king from getting into the queen’s bottle, perhaps in order to keep the production of creatures in control of the male scientist without female participation and is thus in keeping with the parthenogenetic theme Picart views as crucial to the Franken-stein myth. This parthenogenetic creation is at odds with the statement Pretorius makes about the miniatures being from “seeds as nature does.”


In Shelley’s novel, the monster requests a mate to give him company, but in Whale’s film, the cause is Pretorius’ eugenic aspirations for a master race.

Pretorius is clearly the more evil character with his irreligious notions, but both Henry and Pre-torius marvel in parthenogenetic ambitions.


Finally, we may note how Whale outlines this diabolic relationship through the use of canted (“dutch” or tilted) angles on both Henry and Pretorius during the final creation of the monster.

Frankenstein Created WomanFrankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman, written by Anthony Hinds in 1958, evolved from a parody of the Brigitte Bardot film And God Created Woman (Roger Vadim 1956), but was not taken up by Hammer until eight years later. The actress chosen to play the female monster, Austrian Susan Denburg, had been a Playboy playmate, a fact that the publicity was sure to emphasize.


Denburg’s acting talent was another question and Maxford summarizes the critics who credit Hammer’s choice based more on Denburg’s, “bodily curves than her acting abilities” (Picart).

Despite this criticism, Frankenstein Created Woman is often credited as one of the better and more intellectual Frankenstein productions of Hammer.


Publicity stills for Frankenstein Created Woman corroborate this fetishistic emphasis. Picart refers to one such still that shows Peter Cushing as the baron, holding the female monster’s bound arms on a mechanical contraption, while she wears a costume that simultaneously resembles bandages and a bikini. In another still, Denburg lies on a dissecting table that resembles both a bed and an altar.


Some scenes originally filmed (or posed for publicity stills) imply that the Baron had be-come so enamored with his female creation that he raped her on the operating table.

Although the film entertains the androgyny of a man’s soul transplanted into a female body, the woman as object found in publicity and excerpted scenes seems to resonate more strongly in the film.


In addition, the baron may at first seem to be more vulnerable than the masculine Franken-stein in previous film versions, but the mascu-line parthenogenetic theme eventually resur-faces in Frankenstein Created Woman.

Frankenstein Created Woman

Although the plot seems to focus on Christina (Denburg)’s physical rebirth with a vengeful man’s spirit trapped inside her, she hardly attains a voice or identity. Her sexual independence is revealed only in relation to her obedience to Han’s (her dead lover) spirit now inside her body.

Ultimately, her suicide is perhaps her only means to freedom.


One may add that the resurrected Christina Kleve (Denburg) embodies the epitome of the cinematic female sexual object insofar as her previous physical “abnormalities” have been “corrected.” Her face has been modified to be an ideologically “beautiful” white female--one constructed through plastic surgery and her hair is now the “ideal” blonde.


Along with this status of woman as scopophilic object, Christina does not exist as a subject with whom the spectator may identify.

As Picart points out, the spectator does not identify with Christina during her death by plunging into the waterfall, primarily because the camera focuses on the Baron’s (Cushing) back in a medium shot as he turns away from the cliff and the ending titles commence.


Although Frankenstein Created Woman has the

potential for demystifying the feminine,

monstrous and the monstrous feminine female

shadows, it instead reinforces the male

parthenogenetic myth and represses the myth

of Baubo’s ana-suromai.


The female monster is no longer only a bride

for the monster, but also a parthenogenetic

child. Her sexual expression is “liberated”

and dangerous, thus necessitating her

choice of death in the conclusion of

Frankenstein Created Woman.

case ii - week 12: monstrosity, sex and gender draft by: jason mckahan edited by: dr. kay picart web...

Documents

feminine monster

bride of frankensteinhowever

bride of frankensteinfollowing

bride of frankensteinwhereas

role of monster

whales mary shelley

representation of shelley

frankenstein myth