Journal Article Analysis

Journal Article Analysis:
What’s in a Frame?: The Authorizing
Presence in James Whale’s Bride of Frankenstein
By
Amy Waid

Journal Article Analysis:
What’s in a Frame?: The Authorizing
Presence in James Whale’s Bride of
Frankenstein
The journal article I chose to analyze involves an in depth analysis of Mary Shelley’s role in writing the novel Frankenstein and how she played into the making of the film Bride of Frankenstein helped to launch her authorship into the spotlight of the literary circles.
In 1818, when Mary Shelley wrote her first novel entitled Frankenstein, it was assumed by any reader that it was actually written by her husband Percy Shelley. It was not thought of in this era that a woman would be able to prose a work as fascinating as a character made entirely out of human parts stolen from graves. It takes one hundred years and several adaptations of the original text for Shelley to finally be recognized as the true author.
One of those adaptations, the original film adaptation of the novel, did nothing to hold true to the story line that Shelley put down. Instead of an articulate and philosophical creature Shelley envisioned, the film makers chose to make Frankenstein a “monster” that could barely walk or talk. This in its self made a mockery of the original text and set the image of Frankenstein forever as the adaptation played by Boris Karloff.
In order to redeem the original images put on paper by Shelley, filmmakers decided to make a sequel entitled “Bride of Frankenstein” which in the end will not only highlight the role Shelley played in penning the original text but also bring the characters back to the way they were intended. They accomplished this by embodying the author within the film, both as the narrator and the main character, the bride. The film opens with a pretty faithful account of the original story line told by Shelley and shows a significant non-participation from her husband, other than to encourage her to develop her story beyond the original few lines. He proclaims “I do think it’s a shame, Mary, to end your story quite so suddenly” to which she replies “That wasn’t the end at all”.
With those few lines, it helps to cement the fact that the novel was indeed written by Mary Shelley herself; but the film makers decided to take it one step further. In the casting for the movie, they decided to make the actress playing Shelley also play the role of the bride. They believed that in doing this, it shows that the bride is an extension of Shelley herself, a sort of inner reflection of the conflict inside of the woman. There have been many studies since the making of this film to try and rationalize how the Bride of Frankenstein is truly the result of the conflict between what a proper woman is supposed to be and what she actually wants to be.
I suppose that in order to factualize this theory, the author herself needs to be consulted. This of course is impossible, but for those that study both the original novel and its adaptations, parallels can be seen throughout giving the assumption of truth. Either way, within the second movie, it is established that the true author of the novel Frankenstein is indeed Mary Shelley.
References
ADAMS, A. (2009). What's in a Frame?: The Authorizing Presence in James Whale's
Bride of Frankenstein. Journal of Popular Culture, 42(3), 403-418. Retrieved Wednesday, July 01, 2009 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Weekly Written Analysis 5
The Cars for Clunkers Program
By
Amy Waid
Popular Culture
Professor Elizabeth Miceli
August 2, 2009
Weekly Written Analysis 5
The Cars for Clunkers Program
I was watching the television over the weekend trying to get an idea on what to use for my weekly analysis when I saw a commercial for the CARS program through the federal government. I was interested in this as I had been looking to purchase a new car for the family and really couldn’t get a great trade-in value for my old car. I decided to look up the program online and learn more about how the federal government was trying to boost the new car industry here in the United States.
The program is essentially government money, between $3500 to $4500 dollars, to trade your old non-efficient vehicle in for a new, more environmentally friendly model. In this process, it would also serve to boost the economy and help the auto industry out of the self-made slump that they are in. The program will run through November 2009 or as long as the funds last but on top of this, you also get the value of how much your car would cost in a scrap yard. As I read, I discovered that when you trade your car in, one of the conditions of the program is that your old car is sent to be used as scrap metal. I found that stipulation to be quite interesting because I don’t consider my car to be in the condition to be crushed. It has a few rough spots but nothing I would consider worth scrapping it for.
I wonder what the government is going to do with all of the scrap metal it gets from the cars it gets through these programs. I also wonder if using these funds in such a way will really give the automakers the bailout they are looking for. I’m fairly certain that it is only a surface bandaid on what is a problem that runs far deeper, knowing that most of the people around me couldn’t afford to go and trade their cars in anyway because of being laid off from the same jobs that build the cars they are trying to promote. Even so, I’m sure in governments’ noble quest, they think that this well jump start what is already a desperate economy and who knows, maybe it will help. They just may have the key to fix what may prove to be unfixable, especially from the stand point of someone that is desperately struggling to stay one step ahead.
With that, I decided not to trade my old vehicle in for a shiny, eco-friendly model. I know it seems strange that I wouldn’t take advantage of this “free money” from the government since it is out there to be used and having a car that gets better gas mileage than mine would help my economic standing in the long run, but I can’t. I feel that in the long term, not having another payment added to the budget would make me better off. That would be better for my economy, anyway.
References
U.S. Department of Transportation, (2009, July 31). Car allowance rebate system.
Retrieved August 2, 2009, from CARS.gov Web site: http://www.cars.gov/files/Cars-home.pdf