Gothic Drama Presentation

Grand Guignol

• The most common type of Gothic Drama, usually containing over the top gore.

Began in France at the Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol, or, the Theater of the Big Puppet 

Examples of Grand Guignol 

ÒUn Crime dans une Maison de Fous, by André de Lorde: Two hags in an insane asylum use scissors to blind a young, pretty fellow inmate out of jealousy.

ÒLe Baiser dans la nuit by Maurice Level: A young woman visits the man whose face she horribly disfigured with acid, where he obtains his revenge.

ÒA modern example of Grand Guignol would 

be Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Pantomime

ÒStarted in ancient Greece.

ÒBecame popular in the Mideaval Era. (In Hamlet, they mention a “Dumb Show”, which is a pantomime of the play they are about to see).

ÒEnglish pantomime was influenced by the  commedia dell'arte.

ÒBy the 1800’s, pantomimes were mostly adaptations of fairy tales.

Hippodrama

ÒA type of theater in which horses played a major role.

ÒSome productions include Don Quixote de la Mancha, The Blood Red Knight, and Shakespeare adaptations.

ÒA modern example of Hippodrama would be the show at Mideval Times.

ÒIn 2009, an  equestrian verison  of Ben Hur was preformed at the O2 in London.

Censorship

ÒNo plays publicly performed until permission granted by Lord Chamberlain

Ò“does not in its general tendency contain anything immoral or otherwise improper for the stage”

ÒExaminer of Plays read for Lord Chamberlain – “the most powerful man in England or America”

ÒExaminer could “alter expressions against his rules” to make plays more appropriate and performable

ÒPenalty of fifty pounds for defying the Censor

The cenci

ÒPrivate performance for the Shelley Society in 1886 after permission for a public performance was refused by Lord Chamberlain

ÒMomentarily a “defeat of the Censor,” but the man who lent the theater to Shelley was punished by Chamberlain and there is “now a clause in the lease of that theatre stipulating that no performances of unlicensed plays shall be given in it”

ÒNot publicly performed in England until 1922

Sources

ÒCameron, Kenneth M., and Horst Frenz. “The Stage History of   Shelley’s The Cenci.” PMLA 60.4 (1945): 1080-105.   JSTOR. Web. 21 April 2013.   http://jstor.org/stable/459292.

ÒShaw, George B. “The Censorship of the Stage in England.” The   North American Review 169.513 (1899): 251-62. JSTOR.   Web. 21 April 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25104865.

The Cenci and Apathy of Compassion

Throughout the play I realized the apathy that the characters seemed to posses towards the victims of Beatrice and everyone her father has tyrannized. The Pope who is suppoused to be the most compassionate character by definition of a follower of God shows the least compassion to any of the character's and says simply "They must die" for the crimes they committed. The lack of compassion is the catalyst for the entire play in that it's Francesco's lack of empathy that allows such evil acts to exist and ultimately brings about his death. Beatrice's unwilligness to actually kill her father and commands others to kill him was an interesting development because as the main person that he has tormented and killed her brothers I naturally assumed that she would "want" to be the one kill her father herself and her unwillingness to actually do the deed shows she still has some compassion left. This shows to us the the reader that not all characters are morally bankrupt and gives us a more sympathetic nature to Beatrice. The fact that at the end Beatrice and everyone is killed do to the need for "justice" for Francesco even though he was a absolutely horrible person shows the morally dark nature of this play and that no one is capable of truly protecting themselves. The inability of compassion in this play shows the nature of that people in this world who can't protect themselves aren't going to live very long, or that there going to pay for being weak with there lives.

Shelly's legacy

Frankenstein influence in modern culture is very relevant in all forms of media entertainment and advertisements. One of the things in which I find very interesting is that the idea of man’s creation having its free will is retold many times in different stories and genres. An example, is the movie I robot. The movie centers how robots, whose purpose was to serve mankind is suddenly turned against their creators. The robots begin to wreak havoc and thus begin a story of survival. However, during the movie one of the robots begins to act like the monster in Frankenstein as well thus the themes remain similar. Shelly’s legacy is seen throughout all forms of storytelling media and her presence will remain with us so as long her story remains told.  

We are the Monster

What is the legacy of Frankenstein? In both graphic novels posted, we themes presented that endure to this day. Mary Shelley was more than a writer. In many ways she was a prophet of the 20th and 21st century. Electricity, biotechnology, limb replacements, "designer" genetics, gene therapy, all these innovations in many ways go beyond what Mary Shelley envisioned, and yet are becoming more and more commonplace today. In a way, we are all Mary Shelley's children. Our culture also bears the mark of Victor Frankenstein.  Those researching  stem cells, splicing human and animal DNA and other areas are accused by their detractors of "playing God." The question of "how far is too far" is perhaps even more relevant today than during the time the novel was written. We are also Victor Frankenstein's children. And what of the monster? Our culture is becoming more and more heterogeneous. Immigration, gay rights, multiculturalism, and other issues have stratified this country more than at almost anytime in history. At a fundamental level, groups in this nation speak a "different language" and lack an understanding of the thoughts and motivations of others. Such a culture reacts with fear and violence when confronted by that which is does not understand. We are the children of the mob and the monster. Which leaves us with a question. Will we be the children of Prometheus? And what does that mean? Does it mean reaching to lofty heights and falling miserably, or does it mean daring to reach beyond what is known into the unknown, and carry the "fire" of knowledge and science as far as possible, no matter the cost.

Lord Byron's "Darkness"

"Darkness" has an overarching sense of hopelessness.  It was impossible for me to read it for symbolic meaning on my first couple of readings; I was too involved in the images themselves.  The cannibalism left a knot in my stomach, and I think it's genius how Byron moves from grandiose language on the global scale to such small details as a specific dog guarding the corpse of a specific master.  It is vague and very specific at the same time.

Byron's "Darkness" seems too dreamlike to be real yet too real to be just a dream.  The reader can't help but feel that Byron has received a glimpse into the future.  The last few words "She was the Universe", also remind me of Kali, a Hindu goddess sometimes associated with darkness and destruction.  Reading those few lines I could have sworn I was reading an Eastern text.

The Cenci and Violence: Victims and Despair

One nature I thought was very interesting about the play that we're reading was that this is the first time we've been in the viewpoint of a woman who "is" truly a victim, many female characters of the works we've read are victims of circumstance or by the actions of another party, but not nearly to the physical or emotional degree of Beatrice Cenci. Count Francesco Cenci, her father who is the most sociopathic character i've ever seen, and absolutely relishes, violence and milks the misery of those lives he destroys in the most twisted and brutal ways possible for all it's worth.  The violence he enacts on people is simply astonishing to see and truly makes me wonder whether he is a human incarnation of evil itself. Francesco's physical and emotional violence enacted on his entire family in nothing short of disgusting, and the fact that nobody tries to offer any assistance to the family for fear of Francesco makes this entire play a lesson in that you have noone to protect you but yourself. The fact that Beatrice and her mother are nothing short of slaves to Francesco's whims and are treated little better than servants fills the reader with a tender sympathy, but also  a frustrated  sense of anger, or atleast to me, because Beatrice nor her mother seem to fight Francesco or they waited until something truly horrible happened, but that just shows the beaten down personalities of both woman and the staff because they are so afraid they can't even voice an true opinion. This entire play filled me with a absolute and pure disgust for Francesco and personally I was glad he died, but yet I can't help but feel terrified for Beatrice and her mother, because this world certaintly doesn't feel like a kind place towards woman.

Lord Byron the Pessimist

From the stories and poems we have read over the course, though they have been dark, typically most of them seem to have a brighter outlook. Either grasping onto the idea of hope or bringing out reforms and awareness, yet in Byron's poem I didn't really get that vibe. More than anything it is definitely bleak and I found it very interesting that Lord Byron's poem, "Darkness" was partly influenced by the weather and the mass hysteria that came out of it. In the poem, Byron points out that much of what we take for granted (sunlight, produce) can easily disappear and there really is nothing in human nature that can guarantee it. He's reminding people that though a lot of things go right, just as many things can go wrong and there is no true security in life.

Dialectical musings on the relationship between art and science

Frankenstein’s Womb really got me thinking about the relationship between science and art (specifically literature). After throwing in some dialectics into the mix, I’ve come up with some musings about this relationship. While these thoughts are still in their infancy and in need of maturation, I encourage anyone to complicate, contribute, or refute my ideas.

I’ve come to the conclusion that art and science are one in the same, or at least very similar. Literature (and all forms of art) gives us an experience of the world by interpreting it through the recreating and reflection of different histories, ideologies, realities, which helps us to understand the world around us—by using gothic tropes, the sublime, the picturesque, etc. to comment on social inequalities, for example. Science, on the other hand, uses empirical knowledge and observations to seek a better understanding of our world/reality. However, I don't think that we can get to a full understanding of our world by simply looking at these two entities in isolation. Rather, I think that if we look at them dialectically and combine and weave them together we see how art and science ebb and flow with one another we will see that they do not deal with different problems, instead they deal with the same problems but in different ways. Or more distinctly, science gives us a conceptual knowledge of our worldview (our understanding) and art (literature) gives us the experience of that worldview; when used together, both can be the roadmap to reach a greater understanding.

I don't know exactly how relevant these ruminations are to the graphic novel, but I felt like sharing these, hopefully they help in some way, shape, or form.

Graphic Novellas

There are two individual stories per each novella. In the first one, provided by David, he is a caretaker of the past, present, and future. He shows Mary Shelley how he is "born", then he takes her back to when she was born; but most importantly, he takes her FAR into the future and shows her how life is restored through a defibrillator; electricity is the key to life, taken from the first novel. It was incredibly well organized, although it jumped around time eras a lot. It was a very intense take on how we constantly bring people from the dead back to life through the use of electricity, just like Dr. Frankenstein.

My least favourite thing though is that in the first novella, it does not show the Doctor in the creation process, or not as in depth as I would like it to be. 

Frankenstein and Science

So, it seems Walton has decided to give up his scientific journey to the North Pole at the end of the novel, as he realizes it is not worth the risk of lives. Frankenstein's story has taught him to think things through more. This begs the question, why didn't Victor think more about the consequences of creating a new being? Surely he realized something had to happen after  his experiment was finished. I think he was more focused on giving life to the creature than what kind of life it would have. He didn't plan ahead like he needed to. Victor was in love with the idea and cold not handle the reality.

The Graphic Novels

I thought that both of them had a very unique style. The more literal one looked much more like a modern comic, while the other one seems to have a more classical style. I really didn't like Frankenstein's Womb. I found the characters to be annoying and crass.I loved how the literal one was able to be faithful to the source while keeping a comic book style.

P.S: Jason Cobley also did a version of Dracula that was released last year.

“’ I was not even of the same nature as man.  I cannot describe to you the agony that these reflections inflicted upon me; I tried to dispel them, but sorrow only increased with knowledge…’”

During our class discussion on Monday on the end of Frankenstein, I was really struck by the concept of the creature’s relation to society. In the novel, we see more and more evidence of the creature’s acquisition of knowledge. With more knowledge came more agony and misery. His dealings with society are largely the biggest creators of his learned agony and misery. After saving a girl in the forest, a man shoots at him. People react negatively to all of his witnessed actions. The creature in turn feels betrayed by society, betrayed enough to take action for his creator’s abandonment. For the creature to be entirely abandoned by his creator and society, the only natural reaction is for the creature to lack faith in humanity. All of the creatures suffering, whether it be from isolation or guilt, is directly caused by his relationship with society.

Thoughts About the Preface

I thought that preface to The Cenci was interesting. It gave some insight into Shelley’s frame of mind and inspiration for the story as a whole. It also looked at the purpose of art in general. “The highest moral purpose aimed at in the highest species of the drama is the teaching the human heart, through its sympathies and antipathies, the knowledge of itself; in proportion to the possession of which knowledge every human being is wise, just, sincere, tolerant and kind.” Fiction mirrors truth and reality. Even in the most imaginative story there are bits of humanity, society, culture, reality, or some piece of relatable material for the audience. That’s what makes literature so interesting. In literature every reader can find some aspect that they relate to, maybe not agree with entirely, but you can pick out something that you’ve seen play out in life. It’s the same reason why we like certain song lyrics or lines in a movie. Shelley also says that he had to downplay the gruesome aspect of the play so that readers wouldn’t get hung up on that part and instead enjoy the story. This shows just how much the audience can get enveloped in a story such as this with believable characters and relatable aspects. Shelley had to create a little distance so that the audience can derive pleasure from the story. I thought this preface as a whole began the play with the reader in the right frame of mind to receive the ideas, characters, and story of the play as a whole. 

Pictures Are Cool

I always enjoy seeing a story told in different perspectives or mediums. There’s something intriguing about a form of art being represented in a new way. The graphic novels serve to highlight concepts in Shelley’s Frankenstein in the same way that a movie changes your idea of a novel. I read Annie Proulx’s Brokeback Mountain for another class so I’ve really been thinking about different retellings of stories and these graphic novels furthered that thought process.

Frankenstein’s Womb reminded me of Dicken’s A Christmas Carol in a way with the concept of time changing. The past, future, and present had a collision in this story and I found that really interesting. The past leads us to the future and the present gives birth to the future. “You die, Mary, giving birth to the future.”, was an interesting line in Frankenstein’s Womb.  The comic served to cement Shelley’s novel in a place in time that exists within a certain culture. Obviously scientific revelations of the time had a huge impact on writing, and this novel was certainly affected. I enjoyed the almost “prequel” aspect of the comic. This was the imagining of Shelley’s inspiration for her novel. This story hasn’t been told as thoroughly or examined as closely as the novel. The process that causes an author to create a story is just as important as the story itself so the imagining of Shelley’s experience with the castle brought more to her novel even though it was obviously fictional. It is the same idea as Baum’s Oz books, its just interesting that a story be continued in whatever direction one might take it whether it is a prequel type story or not.  

            I was disappointed that the preview of the other graphic novel ended. My thought process with this was that I couldn’t figure out what makes a “picture book” version of a novel so interesting.  I guess it’s pretty obvious, though. It’s the same reason why we show children animated movies. At the most basic level…pictures are cool… the graphic novel takes the imaginative aspects of the story as a whole and brings it to the forefront. We don’t have to imagine the scene because its there for us. 

Frankenstein Graphic Novels

I thought Frankenstein’s Womb, while obviously not the real events leading up to Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein, helped to put a person to the story. While we all know that Mary Shelley wrote the novel, and that many of her own experiences are incorporated into it, the graphic novel helps to really put a face and a time behind the making of this classic. It offers a whimsical alternative to someone just traveling Europe while writing it. It helps to allow the reader to enter this fanciful world where impossible things can happen. This in turn can help the reader to get into the mind frame necessary to truly enjoy Frankenstein. The one illustrated by Jason Cobley is much more literal and adds illustrations to the words in the novel. I found this graphic novel very interesting because it is intriguing to see how someone else sees the novel. In my head, it looked nothing like this. Being able to see different viewpoints helps to reader to see things from different perspectives he or she may not have been able to acknowledge from his or her own imagination.

P. Shelley's Preface

I found Percy Shelley’s preface to The Cenci to be extremely interesting. He unfolds to the reader exactly why and how he chose to turn this true story into a drama. I particularly noted his own feelings about Beatrice Cenci. He seemed drawn to her story from the beginning, noting he himself had a copy of her portrait that he kept with him. What is most interesting is that he tells the audience he does not agree with her actions, saying that revenge and retaliation are “pernicious mistakes”. However, he notes the necessity of her to make the story tragic. He notes that if people seek justification for an action, there probably is not in fact any justification to be had. It is people’s desire to find justification in her acts that allows the story hundreds of years later to entrance audiences. While the preface talks about other things like Catholicism, imagery, and poetry, I found the part about Beatrice to be of the most importance. Reading this helped me frame my mind to recognize Beatrice and her actions and justifications for those actions are the heart of the story.

Mary Shelley, why do you write?

One day someone will ask you what special interest in the world causes you to write in the manner that you do. You will reply “the way a person's role in the world can be cataclysmically altered either by an internal emotional upheaval, or by some supernatural occurrence that mirrors an internal schism”

I found Frankenstein’s womb fascinating especially in the way that it explores how the novel Frankenstein came to be the way it is. When the graphic novel Mary is quoting things that her father wrote and said, one can see how she found inspiration in his ideas, but also how she interrogated those ideas to come to the conclusions that she does in Frankenstein. There is the line that says, “There is nothing that human imagination can figure brilliant and enviable, that human genius and skill do not aspire to realize.” One can imagine this line being at the forefront of Mary Shelley’s mind as she began to create the character as Victor Frankenstein. He is driven by this idea that he can give life to something that he creates and believes that science and his intelligence will create this being. 

Referring back to the quote at the start of this post, I think it’s interesting to imagine how this encounter with the nameless creature in the graphic novel might have had an effect on how Mary Shelley wrote the novel. I’m thinking specifically about how “some supernatural occurrence that mirrors an internal schism”. The author of the graphic novel is positioning this encounter as the inspiration for Shelley’s Frankenstein, so what is he saying about Mary Shelley’s creative process? We’ve noted several times about how Mary Shelley’s life story feeds into her work, so how would the story in this graphic novel feed into Frankenstein?

Cultural Legacy of Frankenstein

One of the most important aspects of the novel also seems to be the one that culture chooses to neglect: the creature's tale. Throught numerous incarnations in film, the creature rarely gets the chance to tell his side of the story. He is always the creature, a monster, nothing short of a zombie in many incarnations. The question here is why would the various screenwriters choose to take this tact? It cannot be because it would not make a good story, and thus spell financial ruin: cinema is littered with coming-of-age stories and the representation of the misunderstood. Further, especially in modern cinema, there is a love of the anti-hero or a hero that behaves less heroically. Culturally, we love stories about falls from grace as well, with Star Wars as a prime example. Perhaps the answer lies in the demonization of "The Other" that we discussed in class on Monday.