Argument Quotes

When you watch a movie, especially an action movie, you know right away who is the bad guy. Usually it’s the guy going around killing everyone or who’s plan is to dominate the world. Most of the time that’s the correct villain, but actually think about who was the catalyst of why that person became a villain. Now bringing it back to Frankenstein, who was the true villain? Some would argue that Frankenstein is the villain of the story but in my opinion, Victor Frankenstein is the start of every conflict in the story.

Victor Frankenstein, a person with many talents that walked down the wrong path of life. I believe that his curiosity was create from his childhood. Frankenstein said “I was their plaything and their idol, and something better — their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by Heaven,… whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery…”(Shelley 35). His thought process of creating this creature was with this idea in his mind, to direct the life of his child into utter happiness or misery. I find that this was one of the most influential part of his mad scientist outlook. Many people would not like to admit to it, including me, but people are always influenced by their caretakers. Victor Frankenstein was playing with life by creating it like God, but he does not only want to create he also wants to direct it like how his parents directed his life. Supporting the this idea, Frankenstein says, “No human being could have passed a happier childhood than myself. My parents were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence” (39). It would seem that the creature is the villain of the story but Frankenstein was the one who created it and it was all due to his intentions. I find that Frankenstein wanted more than just to create life but rather being able to control it. It maybe a story but why couldn’t he just marry Elizabeth and have a child of their own? Frankenstein was too entwined with his ideals which lead to the creation of a series of terrible events.

There is an idea that children can inherit the characteristics of their parents. In the novel, Frankenstein, Frankenstein said “My temper was sometimes violent, and my passions vehement; but by some law in my temperature  they were turned not towards childish pursuits but to an eager desire to learn, and not to learn all things indiscriminately” (39). The creature became extremely violent with everyone it faced but more importantly it wanted to learn. Similar to Frankenstein, the creature was very curious with everything it saw; curiosity killed the cat. Ironically, many living creatures were harmed [with the 1931 filmed in mind] due to it’s curiosity. The horrible events were not the creatures fault because it was never cared for by Frankenstein, it’s father. Frankenstein says that he was short-tempered which relates to the creature but Frankenstein was also a curious child, so was the creature. When you think about everything the monster did, you would believe that he should be destroyed but keep in mind that how was the monster even created? Victor Frankenstein is the start of every event that happened to the village. Even though he did not know it, Victor Frankenstein indeed was the villain in this novel.

Cheerios + Monster = Delicious

Hey there everyone!

This past week we saw a few adds that related to Frankenstein. Some of these ads were hilarious but I remembered one commercial I saw when I was younger about Honey Nut Cheerios. I think it was one of the reasons why I adored them so much. Here is the clip of the commercial:

Franken—Cheerios

Frankenstein played a important role in this commercial, the reason why is because the producers were portraying Frankenstein as the “bad” Frankenstein as he was in the movie. As the commercial progress, he was convinced to eat the Cheerios which in turn made him become friends with BuzzBee. BuzzBee was nice to him and this lead to their friendship; Frankenstein did not try to throw BuzzBee into a lake! Frankenstein worked so well with this commercial because at first people would expect to be evil and try to attack the bee but the bee knew that he was only misunderstood. This ad represents how anyone, including a monster like Frankenstein, can be good after some Honey Nut Cheerios! In the end, Frankenstein considers the bee a “friend” which shows the kind side of him.

Another ad that I found interesting and enjoyable is the Reese’s Frankenstein Commercial. This commercial was enjoyable, they showed that the scientist who created Frankenstein was a afraid of his creation. But this was not the case with Frankenstein since all he wanted to introduce to the scientist was that chocolate and peanut butter work well with one another. Having Frankenstein as the lead in this commercial works well because like in the movie, Frankenstein was misunderstood. The commercial represented how he was judged by his appearance very well. Similar to the 1931 movie, Frankenstein chased after the scientist not to harm him but to find a common interest. This video made me laugh when I found it for the humor in this subtle back story. If you did not know the back story then it would not be as funny as if you knew it.

Frankenstein Fanatics!!

Hey everyone! It’s superbowl weekend, I’m totally excited! What position would Frankenstein play if he were to be on a football team? I think a lineman… by himself! Hahhaaha!

Moving on to Frankenstein, I just recently read two new reviews about the Frankenstein movie. Starting off with the first one, by Keith Phipps. In his review, Mr. Phipps praises how the remake of the Frankenstein (1931) movie was very well done. With some touching up with modern technology, the newly updated Frankenstein has a more defined look to it. In Mr. Phipps views,”the restored print and cleaned-up soundtrack make it look and sound better than any previous video version.” In other words, Phipps explains how the touch of a modern magic wand can turn something old to new. He also claims that the remake has much better quality than the video cassettes. From there, he comments on how the acting of Frankenstein, by Boris Karloff, was great with appearance alone. Mr. Phipps writes, ” with his dull eyes, flat head, working-man’s clothes, and bolt-adorned neck, the creature entered the public consciousness seemingly instantly and forever”; the description of this character is an automatic light bulb to anyone since Frankenstein is such an iconic character. He also points that the image of the monster was already ingrained in the minds of the general public which in my mind, it definitely was.

In this next review by Brett Gallman, he acknowledges that not everything needs to be over the top to be considered the best; simple is sometimes the best. For instance, Gallman states “…as it proves that gore isn’t everything when it comes to horror…” Gallman point is that with modern day horror movies people believe that if movie is full of flesh that is castrated from the human body then it is frightening, but Gallman find that simple plot suspension works wonders. He reminds me of how, like a horror move, when you play a practical joke on someone by scaring them the only way to scare them is with suspense and patients. He also emphasizes the relationship he has with his father, how the start of his love for horror began with his father’s introduction movies of the horror genre. All in all, I agree with his comments about how being simple can always work out wonders.

Thanks for reading,

-Michael Ha-

Mysteries of Death

Hey guys! As you remember I had recently finished watching the Frankenstein (1931) movie. What I found interesting about the movie had actually slipped my mind since it was in the beginning of the movie, but this was brought back to me when I read the Frankensteinia: The Frankenstein Blog. The thing that interested me, that I considered out of place in a way, was the skeleton in the beginning of the movie. As mentioned by Frankensteinia, “The skeleton is an ancient and enduring symbol of death.” Frankensteinia is stating the obvious that the skeleton represents the symbol of death but was it really needed in to film? The scene was already creepy enough, I’m trying to stand in the shoes of someone of that time, and on top of that there were two creepy grown men hiding from a group of people who were mourning over the death of someone. I just found that a bit over the top but the main point that Frankensteinia is trying to get out is that the skeleton plays an important role for foreshadowing events.

As of right now, I am confident that in all cultures the skeleton represents death one way or another. Death has always been portrayed as the one to play with life. Frankensteinia agrees when he write, “ In the Middle Ages, the image of the dancing skeleton mocked life’s brevity.” In other words, Frankensteinia believes that life is like a game of heads or tails. You assume that it is a game that you have a quick, simple gamble. This is similar to Frankensteinia’s description of the “dancing skeleton mocked life’s brevity.” Though this is the thought of what a skeleton (Death) is, in the movie Frankenstein in a way degrades Death. Frankensteinia himself writes, “…blithely throws a shovelful of graveyard dirt square into the skeleton’s face…Frankenstein’s disrespect for Death itself.” When you think about how Death plays around with life and the fact that Frankenstein rather deface a gravestone and disrespect the skeleton than actually carefully removing the dead body, it can symbolize as karma. This reminds of a recent movie, Final Destination Series. The series revolved around escaping Death. In a way, Death was standing over Frankenstein as he was digging for the body but ends up escaping Death’s clutch. In Frankensteinia’s views, “I wonder if the cemetery skeleton was trotted out for bit parts in other movies…” which is what I now think that the Final Destination Series could be originate from…

Just a little something to think about!

 

See yah,

-Michael Ha-

Frank-En-Stein!!

Hey guys! Just recently, I watched Frankenstein for the first time! I really did not expect too much from the movie due to the fact that it was made in the early 1900s. Basically, the plot revolved around Professor Frankenstein creating a “man made human” through his curiosity. The experiment seemed to work but things turn awry and the rest pretty self-explanatory since Frankenstein is very incorporated in the American culture. After watching this movie, I had read a review of it by “Nate Yapp” on classic-horror.com and I agree with most of his comments. I found many flaws in the plot such as the “normal” and “abnormal” brain being the causing factor to the experiments personality. This idea was basically forgotten after the monster went on a rampage. It would have been better if they just stayed with one idea than switching to a totally different idea. The new idea that they used was Frankenstein had a more childish brain and wanted a relationship with his father. This motif appears often in this movie. Some instances would be the relationship between Professor Frankenstein and his father and the little girl and her father. I found it annoying that they switched the idea because this created a gap in the plot for me. On the other hand, I did find it amusing that Frankenstein just threw the girl in the shallow portion of the lake and she just drowns. When I was watching I noticed that she landed in the shallow portion of the lake but she still ended up drowning. I think this was the most exciting moment in the entire movie for me since I actually reacted to the scene. The movie had many flaws to it but for the time period that it was made in is pretty well done. If I had to rate this movie, I would have to say two stars, due to the plot and the acting. The acting was pretty bad but hilarious. I would recommend this movie for those who want to see the differences in movies present time and past time.

 

See ya’ll,

-Michael Ha-

Remixes Galore

In this modern age, many multimedia entertainment have been created through the idea of a previous idea. The most common remixes would be music and movies. Especially in today’s society, music has become remixed countless times, for the better or for the worst. For instance, one of the most recent song that was remixed, one of my favorites, is Justin Bieber’s “Somebody to Love.” The song only appear for a few months before it was immediately remixed. In my opinion, I enjoyed the remixed version, which featured Usher, much more than the original version which only had Justin in it. It’s interesting to see how add another person would change the entire attitude people had towards the song. Another song that was remixed countless times was the Lion King‘s “Circle of Life” who was sang by Elton John. When I heard the remixes, I was in tears. Of course not all of them were bad but most did not portray the emotions the original had.   Songs have been remixed a number of times throughout history but with the idea of trying to improve the sound.

On the other hand, movies are notorious for having “remixes” of the original. Especially when the movie originates from a book. For instance, one of the most recent books I read was Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner. I enjoyed that book, but when I watched the movie, it did not do the book justice. So many parts were omitted and things were changed around in the movie which confused me a lot. The book was more like a movie than the movie itself, as it was very descriptive. One thing that I am a little bit embarrass to admit is that when I was younger, I did watch power rangers and enjoyed it. Then when I became older I thought that I could still watch it and enjoy it. This was a mistake, every line was very cliche and childish. Of course I understood the audience that the series was aiming towards. Then,  I researched the origins of the show and found out that it had originated from Japan. After, I decided to give the show another chance but watch the Japanese version and fell in love with it all over again. The original version was made for teen audience and had a lot more action. My point is that, the series took a total 180 degree turn when it came to America.

I just find that a lot of shows and songs that were remade have been striped of all of its original meaning. Most of them are not bad but it is very hard to find good remakes of classic multimedia.

 

-Michael Ha-

About Me

Hi! My name is Khanh Ha but you can call me Michael, Mike, Michaelha (friends at home called me that), or you can call me by my first name, whatever floats your boat! I am from Everett, Massachusetts which is a five minute drive from Boston. Currently, I am freshmen majoring in Biology with a Pre-med focus. I love to listen to music and I enjoy to dance. My favorite band is not an American band, it’s a Korean pop band called Super Junior. On the other hand, I would have to say that I have Bieber Fever. I enjoy listening to Justin Bieber’s songs. But in the end, I will listen to nearly anything. I was in the band since 5th grade and played Trombone. Later, I became Drum Major of my marching band. Also, I am a martial artist in Tai Chi and Kung Fu. Martial arts is a important part of my life; there have been instances where I have had to use my martial arts in real situations.

I love to hang out with people in my spare time and relax; I am very optimistic and rarely get mad. I think the only people that can get me angry are my family. Playing video games, sports (football, tennis, frisbee, and etc.), and dancing. But one of my favorite activities to do is cooking. I love to cook whenever I have the time. If you ask me to cook for you and I probably would. My favorite television show is Supernatural and my favorite movies are the Rush Hour series.

I am aiming to be a Pediatric/Cardiac/Trauma Surgeon working at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Anything that deals with health or human anatomy intrigues me. I love to talk about different diseases and how it affects the body. Also, I love to watch how surgeries are performed; I have been through a couple of surgeries and watched about five of them. Hopefully, I will get into Harvard Medical School, wish me luck! : – )