I recently reviewed Alex Boese’s ‘popular’ science book ‘Elephants on Acid’ for a NFTS funded live TV magazine programme called ‘Mind the Gap’.

I can safely offer no guilt in the book choice as I didn’t choose the book, the

The book in question

Producers did. Not that I wouldn’t recommend it. No passing the buck here. What I did find was a perfect introduction to the fringes of science history, that could certainly wet the appetite for those who see science as much fun as British Rail train journeys over the xmas period! And yes, it would make a perfect stocking filler and indeed a good read on said long xmas train journey.

So what is the book about?

Alex Boese has carved out a specialism of these types of ‘crazy science experiemnts’ books that reveal the curious side of science.  Elephants on Acid is the latest offering. I understand he has written others with similar sensational titles. Unfortunately I have not read t hem. What this book does do well is draw you in using tales of the strange, often quite gruesome science experiments. Done in the almost God-like name of science.

The first chapter is dedicated to historical science experiments which appear to have been performed in public. Gory demonstrations to bring corpes, or decapitated heads or even dare I say, poor dead kittens back to life (Corpse reanimation). A real insight into 19^th century evening entertainment.  If you can get past the gore in the first chapter the rest of the book offers topics that wouldn’t go amiss in the science and technology section of the Daily Mail, The Guardian or The Telegraph. Topics on sleep, the senses, memory, babies, physical attraction. The longest time someone has stayed away. Topics on physical attraction. I didn’t know that US scientists have done research to show that men do not find hard to get women attractive. What they do like though, apparently, are women who are selectively hard to get. That is, they brush off every other man except you. Riveting stuff, I wish I had read that research a few years back! Or the experiments  on music and IQ, some of these stories are quite famous but the majority you probably haven’t read about.

So is it a proper science book. Well, I think what it does well is give a warts and all insight into the history of science. A glimpse into the days when going to see a live science experiment where someone made a decapitated head move was as normal as us going to the theatre today. There is a lot of ‘lifestyle’ science stories that are great at engaging through relevance. Also what I learnt was that some of these experiments, like the corpse reanimation ones inspired writers such as Mary Shelley to create classics such as Frankenstein. The memory recall experiments by the scientist Penfield – he found that touching parts of an exposed human brain caused the patient to instantly recall memories. His experiments apparently inspired the writer Philip K. Dick to write the book that later was turned in the film Total Recall. I am a big fan of science inspiring art and art inspiring science as both disciplines help explain the world. so this aspect of the book gets the thumbs up from me. Some aspects of the book would make a great science programme fodder. Now there’s an idea!

The production went well by the way. I enthused about the merits and benefits and gave a fitting performance as an attractive science expert who reads books. You can watch it here.

HdO Adventure: Frankenstein (31 MB download)
Brad is looking for his fiance, Janet, who has mysteriously disappeared. His quest leads him to Bavaria, and a castle owned by a mad scientist, Lord Albrecht von Frankenstein. It seems Janet was helping him with his last “experiment” and now desperately needs Brad’s help in getting her body back together! Help Brad find parts of Janet’s body, as well as the pieces of the monstrous machine which will bring her back to life!

Hey y’all, it’s been a while… These past two weeks have been really taxing with my grandmother being in the hospital, and I’ve been trying harder and harder to manage my free time and still enjoy myself. Alas, that’s sorta excluded this blog. Hopefully the replacement cable for my laptop comes in this week, since the hospital has a wireless access system. and thus I could fool around on the Internet while being there. In any case, she’s doing a lot better by only needing a small nose tube like she normally has to aid her breathing (no more respirators or even masks), and today is my “day off” from vigilance at the hospital waiting room all day, so I’ll see what I can do about having something to talk about on here. Oh, and I went to the library in between the ICU’s visitation hours (well, one of the in betweens. I’m not crazy enough to go during all of them ). There’s a list below the fold for those that are into reading what I am reading.

…Still here? Alright then.

Non-Research Library Books for November 23, 2009

Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (400 pages)

The Richness of Life: the Essential Stephen Jay Gould by Stephen Jay Gould (672 pages)

Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey (416 pages)

The Monsters: Mary Shelley & the Curse of Frankenstein by Dorothy and Thomas Hoobler (400 pages)

Seit einigen Jahren hört man es immer wieder: der Alchemist Johann Konrad Dippel von Frankenstein war das historische Vorbild für Victor Frankenstein aus Mary Shelleys berühmten Roman. Diese Behauptung findet man in unzähligen Büchern, Zeitungsartikeln und Fernsehsendungen.

Man sollte der Meinung sein, irgendwer hätte diese Behauptung überprüft, bevor er diese These weiterverbreitete. Tatsächlich beziehen sich alle Werke, die diese Behauptung vertreten, aber auf gerade einmal zwei Buchveröffentlichungen, die so fehlerhaft sind, dass es regelrecht haarsträubend ist.

Wie haarsträubend kann man hier nachlesen: http://www.renegadenation.de/darmstadt/frankenstein.html

Weil das Ganze ein Fass ohne Boden ist, beschränke ich mich an dieser Stelle auf eine kurze Chronologie der wichtigsten Ereignisse, Behauptungen und Fakten:

1673
Johann Konrad Dippel wird auf Burg Frankenstein geboren. Anders als später von Walter Scheele behauptet werden wird, trägt er nicht den Namen “von Frankenstein”, nimmt diesen auch später niemals an, veröffentlicht keine Bücher unter diesem Namen und unterzeichnet keine Briefe auf diese Weise. 
 
1691
Dippel macht seinen Abschluss am Pädagog in Darmstadt, die Matrikel führen ihn als “Johannes Conradus Dippelius Franckensteinensis”. Es ist jedoch eindeutig – sowohl aus dem weiteren Zusammenhang, als auch schlicht aus der lateinischen Grammatik -, dass dieses Frankensteinensis eine Herkunftsbezeichnung und nicht Teil des Namens ist. Und selbst wenn es so wäre, würde daraus kein von Frankenstein (also die Anmaßung eines Adelstitel) werden. Das ist in einem offiziellen Dokument einer Schule schlicht undenkbar, wenn der Schüler nicht tatsächlich adliger Herkunft war (was Dippel eindeutig nicht war!).
Dasselbe gilt für den Eintrag in den Matrikeln der Universität Gießen als Franckensteina, das zweite und letzte Dokument, dass Dippels Namen irgendwie mit Frankenstein in Verbindung bringt.

1732
Dippel fordert in einem Vertragsentwurf vom Darmstädter Landgrafen als Entlohnung für ein geheimnisvolles Elixier die alte Herrschaft Frankenstein, einschließlich der Burg. Damit wäre wohl auch die Erhebung in den Adelsstand einhergegangen. Das war deutlich zu viel für eine kleine chemische Substanz und so lehnte der Landgraf dankend ab. Selbst wenn aber Dippel in den Adelsstand erhoben worden wäre, hätte er sich kaum “von Frankenstein” genannt, sondern den allgemeinen Gepflogenheiten entsprechend wohl Johann Konrad von Dippel.

1734
Dippel stirbt auf Schloss Wittgenstein – noch immer hat ihn niemand von Frankenstein genannt.

1814
Mary Shelley (damals noch unter dem Namen Godwin) bereist zusammen mit ihrer Stiefschwester Claire Clairmont und ihrem späteren Ehemann Percy Shelley den Rhein und hat in Gernsheim, ca. 15km von der Burg Frankenstein entfernt, einen dreistündigen Aufenthalt. Es ist allerdings bereits dunkel, so dass sie die Burg, die ohnehin von Gernsheim aus nur schwer auszumachen ist, nicht sehen können.

1818
Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus erscheint anonym in London.

1840
Shelley bereist die Bergstraße. In ihrem Tagebuch beschreibt sie die Hügel des Odenwaldes ganz allgemein, ohne die Burg Frankenstein beim Namen zu nennen oder in irgendeiner Weise auf ihren berühmten Roman Bezug zu nehmen.

1931
Der Film Frankenstein (Regie: James Whale) erscheint. Dieser Film prägt das allgemeine Bild und die Erzählmotive des Frankenstein Monsters weitaus mehr als Shelleys eigentlicher Roman.

1968
In einem Leserbrief des Magazins Life wird erstmals die Burg Frankenstein als mögliche Inspiration genannt. Hintergrund ist jedoch nicht Johann Konrad Dippel, sondern die Sage vom Ritter Georg und dem Lindwurm, die jedoch keinerlei  Ähnlichkeit mit Shelleys Roman hat.

1975
Radu Florescu veröffentlicht In Search of Frankenstein. Hier wird nun erstmals behauptet, Dippel könnte das Vorbild für Victor Frankenstein gewesen sein. Florescus Argumente sind aber eine wilde Ansammlung unwahrscheinlicher Spekulationen, die massiv den Tagebüchern von Mary Shelley und Claire Clairmont widersprechen. Daher behauptet Florescu auch – jedoch ohne Beleg -, dass die beiden ihre Tagebücher verfälscht haben.

Damit spricht er aber nicht nur der einzigen Primärquelle die Glaubwürdigkeit ab, nur weil sie seiner Ausgangshypothese widerspricht, es geht vor allem gerade auch aus den Tagebucheintragungen in Gernsheim hervor, dass die Tagebücher von Shelley und Clairmont zwar plausibel, aber eben gerade nicht schlüssig aufeinander abgestimmt sind, wie das bei einer bewussten Fälschung wohl zu erwarten wäre.

Wenn man eine Hypothese aufstellt, muss man anschließend die Fakten überprüfen, um zu sehen, ob diese ins Bild der Hypothese passen. Florescu tat dies. Als die Fakten aber nicht passten, hat er nicht etwa seine Hypothese überarbeitet… sondern die Fakten.

1976
Das erste Halloween-Festival findet auf Burg Frankenstein statt, laut einer Anekdote des Burgpächters auf Veranlassung eines amerikanischen Offiziers namens Brian Hill. Wenn das stimmt, fällt auf, dass die amerikanischen Soldaten ausgerechnet ein Jahr nach der Veröffentlichung von Florescus Buch auf die Idee kamen, auf der Burg Halloween zu feiern, obwohl US-Soldaten schon seit Ende des Krieges nahe der Burg stationiert waren. Der kommerzielle Erfolg des jährlichen Festivals dauert bis heute an, auch ganz ohne US-Soldaten.

1995
Der britische Moderator David Frost greift Florescus These auf und dreht eine Dokumentation, die darauf basiert. In dieser Dokumentation tritt auch Walter Scheele auf.

1996
Walter Scheele veröffentlicht im Eigenverlag die erste Version seines Buches unter dem Titel Burg Frankenstein – Monster, Mythen, Märchen und Legenden.

1997
Florescu legt In Search of Frankenstein neu auf.

1999
Walter Scheele hat endlich einen richtigen Verlag gefunden, der von nun an sein Buch unter dem Titel Burg Frankenstein – Mythen, Märchen und das Monster vertreibt.

2001
Walter Scheele veröffentlicht eine überarbeitete Fassung seines Buches unter dem Titel Burg Frankenstein – Mythos, Wahrheit, Legende. Es ist diese Version, die zu der weiten Verbreitung seiner Thesen führt. Neben einem kuriosen Panoptikum an groben historischen, physikalischen und faktischen Fehlern sowie Bezugnahme auf Personen und Quellen, die selbst aber das genaue Gegenteil aussagen, bringt er hauptsächlich zwei neue “Belege” für die These, dass Dippel das Vorbild von Frankenstein war.

Der erste Beleg ist der Eintrag in einem angeblich unbekannten Shelley-Tagebuch, in dem die Burg Frankenstein erwähnt wird. Der zweite ist ein Brief von Jakob Grimm, den dieser an die Stiefmutter Shelleys (die die Übersetzerin der Grimm’schen Märchen ins Englische gewesen sein soll) geschrieben haben soll und in dem er von einer Sage rund um die Burg Frankenstein berichtet, die frappierende Ähnlichkeit mit Shelley Roman hat.

Bei naher Betrachtung ist beides aber eine äußerst plumpe Erfindung. Der Tagebucheintrag ist in einem eher holprigen Englisch verfasst und beinhaltet eine ganze Reihe faktischer Unmöglichkeiten. So wird dort behauptet – um nur ein Beispiel zu nennen -, dass Mary Shelley die Burg im “Novembernebel” gesehen haben will. Ihre Rheinreise brachte sie aber bereits im September 1814 nach Hessen. Auch aus anderen Quellen lässt sich nachweisen, dass Shelley im November längst wieder in England war.

Der Grimm-Brief dagegen ist unbekannt. Ein Kontakt zwischen Jakob Grimm und Shelleys Stiefmutter ist nicht bekannt. Donald F. Glut, ein amerikanischer Autor und Filmemacher, den Scheele als Zeugen für den Brief angibt, weiß auf Nachfrage nichts davon. Die in dem Brief beschriebene Sage, die Grimm gehört haben will, ist – trotz sehr ausführlich vorhandener Dokumentation der im 19. Jahrhundert im Odenwald und an der Bergstraße verbreiteten Sagen – nirgendwo zu finden. Die Erzählmotive und Erzählstruktur unterscheidet sich deutlich von bekannten Sagen aus dieser Zeit und Gegend. Kurzum: diese Sage gab es in dieser Gegend zu Shelleys Zeit nicht.

2008
Walter Scheele tritt in der Pseudo-Doku Ghost Hunters International als Frankenstein-Experte auf, der sich auf Burg Frankenstein auf Geisterjagd begibt. Am Ende glaubt er die geisterhafte Stimme eines längst verstorbenen Ritters zu hören (dass der besagte Ritter nachweislich nie existiert hat, ist da fast schon nebensächlich).

Ebenfalls 2008 stellt Michael Müller vom Geschichtsverein Eberstadt-Frankenstein erstmals seine ausführlichen Recherchen zum Thema vor. Keine der vielfältigen Behauptungen Scheeles und Florescus halten einer Überprüfung stand (zu diesem Ergebnis kommt parallel auch der freundliche Autor dieses Blogs ).

2009
Der Hessische Rundfunk sendet erstmals einen kritischen Beitrag und stellt klar, dass die weit verbreiteten Thesen einer wissenschaftlichen Überprüfung nicht standhalten.

Walter Scheele veröffentlicht eine überarbeitete Ausgabe seines Buches unter dem Titel: “Burg Frankenstein – eine europäische Geschichte”. Verglichen mit der 2001er Ausgabe ist die Resonanz mehr als mäßig.

Im November sendet die ZDF-Kindersendung “Tabaluga tivi” einen an Schleichwerbung grenzenden, aufwendig inszenierten Beitrag mit Scheele, in dem das Kunststück vollbracht wird, nicht eine wirklich korrekte Information zu vermitteln. Von den falschen Behauptungen Scheeles abgesehen, offenbaren die Macher der Sendung ein etwas merkwürdiges Weltbild: das fängt zum Beispiel dabei an, dass alle Bauerndarsteller in der Sendung übelsten Dialekt sprechen, der Dorfpfarrer und Dippel dagegen Hochdeutsch, und endet damit, dass Jungfrauenblut offenbar die Fähigkeit besitzt, aus einer harmlosen Substanz Nitroglyzerin zu machen.

Den Beitrag muss man wirklich mal gesehen haben, zum totlachen: http://www.tivi.de/fernsehen/tabaluga/video/30612/video_play.html?play.x=18&play.y=8&AccessType=broad&VideoType=wm 
(wobei ich natürlich keine Garantie dafür geben kann, wie lange das ZDF den Beitrag online lässt).

I am your monster now. Not what you meant
But what I have become: an almost man -
A golem made of clay, or Caliban,
Your shapeless, misconceived experiment.

And I both bless and curse the day you sent
Your current through me first, when I began
To twitch with this existence. And I ran
With rivers of desire and discontent.

How should I live this life? What can I do
With what you’ve made me – jagged, incomplete?
Your creature, only fit to savage you -
And your mad, brittle pride -  in shared defeat:
Unless I can, somehow, myself renew
Turn all this sharpness into something sweet.

Halloween has passed, but I’m loving this tee called “Father & Son” from I Came From Nothing. It shows Dr. Frankenstein and the birth of his monster… this time, in baby form. My, that’s one ugly baby! I dig how this design is illustrated like a nice family portrait of the two. I also love how there are many different tee color options to choose from: black, brown, gray, and purple. My favorites are the gray and purple colorways. I think it looks best on those two, but the black and brown tees also work!

You can pick up “Father & Son” from I Came From Nothing for £20.00. There’s free shipping for those in the UK, and you can use the coupon code “LOVING” to take 20% off your purchase!

Frankenstein is a 1931 horror film from Universal Pictures directed by James Whale and very loosely based on the novel of the same name by Mary Shelley as well as the play adapted from it by Peggy Webling. The film stars Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, John Boles and Boris Karloff, and features Dwight Frye and Edward van Sloan. The Webling play was adapted by John L. Balderston and the screenplay written by Francis Edward Faragoh and Garrett Fort with uncredited contributions from Robert Florey and John Russell. The make-up artist was Jack Pierce.

Trivia:

• In one scene, the Monster (Boris Karloff) walks through a forest and comes upon a little girl, Maria, who is throwing flowers into a pond. The monster joins her in the activity but soon runs out of flowers. At a loss for something to throw into the water, he looks at Maria and moves toward her. In all American prints of the movie, the scene ends here. But as originally filmed, the action continues to show the monster grabbing Maria, hurling her into the lake, then departing in confusion when Maria fails to float as the flowers did. This bit was deleted because Karloff – objecting to the director’s interpretation of the scene – felt that the monster should have gently put Maria into the lake. This scene is restored in the videocassette reissue.
• Bela Lugosi was offered the role of the monster, but refused on the grounds that his character would not speak (though he eventually played the role in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)). Lugosi also insisted on creating his own makeup for the Monster, but his design was rejected. According to film historian Richard J. Anobile, Lugosi was originally offered the role of Dr. Frankenstein by original director Robert Florey, but Carl Laemmle insisted that Lugosi play the monster. Test footage of Lugosi in Monster make-up was filmed by Florey on the set of Dracula (1931). Soon after, Florey was replaced by James Whale as director, and Lugosi was replaced by Karloff.
• Those originally considered for the cast included Leslie Howard as Henry Frankenstein and Bette Davis as Elizabeth. Director James Whale insisted on Colin Clive for the role of Henry.
• John Carradine turned down the part of the Monster because he considered himself too highly trained to be reduced to playing monsters.
• After bringing the monster to life, Dr. Frankenstein uttered the famous line, “Now I know what it’s like to BE God!” The movie was originally released with this line of dialogue, but when it was re-released in the late ’30s, censors demanded it be removed on the grounds that it was blasphemy. A loud clap of thunder was substituted on the soundtrack. The dialogue was partially restored on the video release, but since no decent recording of the dialogue could be found, it still appears garbled and indistinct. The censored dialog was partially returned to the soundtrack in the initial “restored version” releases. Further restoration has now completely brought back this line of missing dialog. A clean recording of the missing dialog was reportedly found on a Vitaphone disc (similar to a large phonograph record). Modern audio technology had to be used to insert the dialog back into the film without any detectable change in the audio quality.
• According to the TLC network program “Hunt for Amazing Treasures”, a unique six-sheet poster for the original 1931 release, showing Karloff as The Monster menacing Mae Clarke, is worth at least $600,000 US and is possibly the most valuable movie poster in the world. The only known (original) copy is owned by a private collector.
• Boris Karloff offered to remove his partial bridgework as part of the monster make-up process to create the sunken cheek look.
• Ken Strickfaden, who created all the electrical effects for the movie, also doubled for Boris Karloff during the sequences that showed the million volt sparks playing over his body. The same machines were later used in the comedy Young Frankenstein (1974).
• Child actress Marilyn Harris had done several takes of the drowning scene, none of which turned out quite right. Although wet and tired, she agreed to do one last take of the scene, the one that appears in the finished film, after director James Whale promised her anything she wanted if she would do so. She asked for a dozen hard-boiled eggs, her favorite snack. Whale gave her two dozen. The DVD commentary for the film suggests that Harris wasn’t actually a good swimmer, quoting Harris as saying that she had only a couple of swimming lessons before filming and had never dived under water before.
• John Huston wrote an early version of the warning speech given at the start of the film.
• The method of animating the creature is never discussed in Mary Shelley’s novel. In the book, Frankenstein, narrating, refuses to divulge how he did it so no one can re-create his actions. However, the use of lightning to resurrect the monster has become the accepted methodology and appears in virtually every Frankenstein movie since.
• According to The People’s Almanac, at one point the movie was to have included a line of dialogue giving the Monster the name, Adam. The Almanac indicates that an early print of this film may have indeed been released with just such a scene, but that it was cut when audiences began referring to the Monster by the name Frankenstein.
• John Carradine, who later played Dracula in the Universal horror films, once claimed he was considered for the role of the Monster.
• The Monster in this film does not physically resemble Mary Shelley’s character. It was make-up artist Jack P. Pierce who came up with innovations such as the Monster’s flat head, the bolts through the neck, the droopy eyelids, and the poorly-fitted suit. Any future Frankenstein film that features any of these physical abnormalities is taking its inspiration from Pierce’s make-up work.
• The popular image of Frankenstein’s monster as green-skinned was sourced in this film. Actually, Jack P. Pierce’s monster make-up gave the monster yellow skin, one of the few consistencies from Mary Shelley’s original description of the monster.
• Some of the sets had originally been constructed for Paul Leni’s The Cat and the Canary (1927) which Universal had produced four years earlier.
• What are commonly called bolts on the neck of the monster are in reality electrodes.
• The film was banned in Kansas upon its original release on the grounds that it exhibited “cruelty and tended to debase morals”.
• A 20-minute test reel, starring Bela Lugosi as the monster and directed by Robert Florey, was filmed on the Dracula (1931) sets. This footage has not been seen since 1931 and is now considered lost. Only a poster, featuring the vague likeness of Bela Lugosi as a 30 feet colossus, remains.
• The set design of the windmill sequence was inspired by a building in Los Angeles that housed a local bakery, Van de Kamp, which displayed a large windmill as its corporate logo.
• Actor Edward Van Sloan, who played Dr. Waldman in the film, appeared in the now-lost test reel with Bela Lugosi as the Monster. In an interview conducted shortly before his death, Van Sloan remembered that Lugosi’s makeup resembled The Golem, with a large broad wig and “a polished clay-like skin.” Unfortunately, no footage of the test or any photographs of Lugosi in this makeup are known to exist.
• The movie’s line “It’s alive! It’s alive!” was voted as the #49 movie quote by the American Film Institute (out of 100).
• Carl Laemmle Jr. offered James Whale a list of 30+ film adaptations he could direct and Whale picked this one. Whale said he did so because he wanted to get away from the war pictures with which he had so far been associated. Ironically, Whale is now, by far, best-remembered for his four horror films.
• The casting of the monster was the most difficult aspect of the casting process. James Whale happened to spot Boris Karloff in the Universal commissary and passed him a note offering a screen-test, which Karloff jumped at. Karloff later joked that he was offended by being viewing as such an ugly character, since on the day that Whale spotted him, he was wearing his most elegant suit and thought he was looking handsome.
• Edward Van Sloan (Dr Waldman) also makes an uncredited appearance as himself in the film’s prologue, in order to warn audiences of what follows.
• The monster make-up design by Jack P. Pierce is under copyright to Universal through the year 2026, and licensed by Universal Studios Licensing, Inc.
• By the time the ending of the film was changed, allowing Henry Frankenstein to live, Colin Clive was no longer available for additional scenes. For the shot of Henry in long shot in the bedroom behind his father, he was played by another actor; tradition has long held that it was future cowboy star Robert Livingston filling in for him.
• Dr. Frankenstein’s first name is Henry, while his best friend’s name is Victor Moritz. In the novel, the doctor’s name is Victor Frankenstein, while his best friend is Henry Clerval.
• Boris Karloff is considered a late bloomer in Hollywood. Frankenstein (1931) premiered when he was 44 years old.
• During production there was some concern that seven-year-old Marilyn Harris, who played Maria, the little girl thrown into the lake by the creature, would be overly frightened by the sight of Boris Karloff in costume and make-up when it came time to shoot the scene. When the cast was assembled to travel to the location, Marilyn ran from her car directly up to Karloff, who was in full make-up and costume, took his hand and asked “May I drive with you?” Delighted, and in typical Karloff fashion, he responded, “Would you, darling?” She then rode to the location with “The Monster.”.

Some see it as a bluff, or an attempt to cut a deal with Bing or some other search engine, others see it as the last gasps of a media mogul who just doesn’t get it and/or the desperate last throes of old media.  I heard that a year ago Rupert Murdoch had never done a Google search himself. That figures.

I love newspapers but some of them aren’t doing a great job of convincing me that I care. I loved reading the NY Times when I was there recently and bought it every morning and I’ve got a lot of time for the AGE but then I go there this week and find vitriolic opinion columns from sensationalists like Catherine Deveny or across town the same stuff from Andrew Bolt in the Herald-Sun.  It’s fun for language analysis practice for Year 12s, but you dont’ go there for insight, or even particularly good writing. Can a newspaper that has to be one thing to all people really work any more?

Truth is, when I wake up each morning I check my email and my Google Reader feeds before I check the newspaper online.  I follow 101 blog feeds daily, from people who are expert in their fields, who I respect, many of whom also write better than Bolt, Deveny and the rest. Try Scott McLeod, Derek Wenmoth, Don Tapscott or David Warlick on education, for a start. I could go on!

And I’m hopeful that a new era of open-ness has begun and that the genie is already out of the bottle in a democratisation of the media. We want access to the information that matters to us in exactly the format that works for us and I hope that Murdoch’s view of the world is fading.

I’m teaching the classic text Frankenstein to my literature class next year and have been trawling around for resources. One that struck me was a study guide on the text available as a web site you could visit, a PDF you could download or an Iphone App you could buy for $1.19. You can find it on Itunes.  It’s not anything particularly intuitive except that it understands the ubiquity around content now, and that we want choice in how we receive it.  The ABC seems to understand, they’ve been working hard at delivering their content in increasingly diverse ways, including on hand held devices.

I met with my publisher recently in planning a new text book for next year, maybe. We were talking about models of publishing and they’ve begun to move (slowly) toward a sort of print on demand model where you order a customised version of the book depending on the texts and contexts you’ve chosen to study. But what about making that same content available online? We’ve had a web site resource add-on for a while now, but I’m arguing for the book to be available in other ways too: to be read on the Kindle, downloaded and purchased in bits, even as an iphone app. It’s going to be interesting to see who catches us on quickest in all this; the slow ones aren’t likely to last.

I’ve been following the recent bluff and bluster from Rupert Murdoch with interest: ‘Google are ripping off my content’, ‘You can’t do this to me!’, ‘I’m taking my newspaper off the internet’, ‘Pay for view for news is the future’, stuff like that (I’m paraphrasing but you can do a Google News Search and get the exact quotes yourself; what am I, a journalist?)

Sin muchas presentaciones ni ceremonias, dos película de Terence Fisher, uno de los mejores directores de la historia del cine, así como suena, perteneciente a su esplendorosa saga sobre el infame Barón Frankenstein. Ambas son, en principio, cuerpos extraños dentro del ciclo, en una el personaje es casi un secundario y en apariencia y solo en apariencia es un título menor “Frankenstein created the woman”. La otra es la última y fue “la última”, parece fea y lo es, parece destartalada y lo está pero entre las paredes mohosas de manicomio sórdido encierra y nunca mejor dicho toda una reflexión/recapitulación demoledora sobre el personaje e incluso sobre el devenir de “la casa del terror”, “Frankenstein and the monster from hell”, a la vez parodia y espejo.

“Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I don´t know…”

Frankenstein created the woman

Año: 1967

País: Gran Bretaña

86 min.

Fotografía: Arthur Grant

Música: James Bernard

Guión: Anthony Hinds

Reparto: Peter Cushing, Susan Denberg, Thorley Walters, Robert Morris

Terence Fisher retoma el personaje casi diez años después de “La venganza de Frankenstein” y con el interludio de “The evil of Frankenstein” facturada por el magistral operador de fotografía y apreciable director Freddie Francis en 1964, en esta extraña realización, mucho más densa de lo que el aspecto levemente “kitsch” de su desaforado romanticismo pueda aparentar.

En esta ocasión el progresivamente enloquecido Barón ocupa una posición secundaria ejerciendo como el elemento necesario para una (doble) venganza de ultratumba, la de una muchacha deforme, coja y con medio rostro desfigurado, víctima de las burlas y vejaciones de los mozos del pueblo a la que el doctor reconvertirá en una belleza despampanante y la del novio de esta (y ayudante de Frankenstein en su nuevo laboratorio), falsamente acusado de asesinato y por ello ajusticiado, tal y como lo había sido su padre. Un fatalismo que Fisher inmortaliza con la presencia obsesiva de una solitaria y descomunal guillotina que amenaza ominosa el plano cada vez que puede. Todo ello en el marco de esa historia de amor entre desesperados que acabará retorciéndose entre todo tipo de sugerencias pringosas y/o luctuosas. El Doctor Frankenstein aprovechará tan dramáticas circunstancias para poner en práctica sus nuevas técnicas de transmigración y sus teorías sobre conservación, es decir queda claro que nuevamente es ajeno a la tragedia y a las personas que le rodean a las que no contempla más que como probetas y sujetos experimentales, un desapego emocional y una frialdad indiferente a la que nuevamente Cushing presta su ensimismada energia y su magnético carisma.

De tal modo el “alma” o la “identidad” conservada en la cabeza decapitada del muchacho será trasportada (¿mesmerizada?) al (arreglado) cuerpo de la chica. A partir de aquí la atmósfera perversa y trágica que Fisher crea resulta tan pegajosa como audaz, de una profundidad conceptual y de huna turbiedad sexual asombrosas: la mente escindida de la chica es dominada alternativamente por uno de los dos ocupantes. El deseo de venganza provoca que la aparte masculina prevalezca y entonces nos encontramos con que el descabezado novio utiliza a “la criatura”, al nuevo (y espléndido) cuerpo de su amada y el deseo que esta lustrosa apariencia provoca, como cebo sobre sus antiguos acosadores a los que irá ejecutando, es decir usa sexualmente a el objeto de su amor, a la que defendió hasta la muerte para satisfacer una vendetta personal. Pero más aún, tenemos una mente masculina usando un cuerpo de mujer para satisfacer apetitos ocultos de la mente femenina y de la misma masculina, recordar que también el era rechazado y así es aceptado….y deseado lo que incluso desliza una extraña pulsión homoerótica. Y viceversa claro, la parte femenina también reclama su ración de atenciones eróticas que no había tenido antes y además saca a la bestia castradora a pasear, exhibiendo con orgullo lo que antes había sido rechazado y negándolo en el último momento. En fin…increíble, que cada cual elucubre su combinación, son tan inagotables como retorcidas. En cualquiera de los casos una idea magistral en su subversivo tratamiento de la dualidad sexual y el descubrimiento del poder erótico como arma. Todo en 86 apretados minutos y sin salirse del género.Formalmente resulta ser una (otra) película tremendamente brillante merced a la elegancia habitual del director, a ese intransferible sentido de la puesta en escena y a l adinámica interna del plano, una mezcla de precisión en el encuadre y movimiento constante en el interior del mismo. Peter Cushing tan bien como suele, dando aquí una imagen más distendida del Barón (sobre todo en comparación a la siguiente y magnífica “El cerebro de Frankenstein” donde descenderá a simas de abyección nunca vistas) que incluso y dada la magnitud de la tragedia acabará por verse conmovido y la más que saludable Susan Denberg antológica en su (doble) papel como pobrecita desvalida y mantis depredadora sexual.

“..y podeis moriros todos de risa porque la llevo con orgullo”, Elvis Costello

Frankenstein and the monster from hell

Año: 1974

País: Gran Bretaña

99 min.

Fotografía: Brian Probyn

Música: James Bernard

Guión: Anthony Hinds

Reparto: Peter Cushing, Shane Briant, Madeline Smith, David Prowse

Un título bastante superior a lo que se le suele conceder que supone un cierre divertidamente sardónico para el glorioso ciclo “frankensteiniano” pero que aún así resulta una triste despedida para el gran Terence Fisher además de una película desmañada y carente casi por completo, aunque refulja por instantes, de la elegancia del maestro, claramente incómodo con las modas hacia las que la “Hammer” viró en los años 70 y que en gran medida precipitaron el adiós de un director que había sido viga maestra en su crecimiento y evolución conceptual y estética.

Ofrece una relectura crepuscular cuyo punto de partida absolutamente genial ya sienta las bases de la ironía cruel que preside toda la función, de tal modo que reencontramos al inefable Barón en un manicomio ¡pero como director!, siendo así el regente el más loco de todos los internos, una inmersión a lo bruto en la demencia y el sinsentido, un mundo bocabajo regido por la lógica extraviada de un personaje convertido en parodia. El atildado “look” de Cushing y el aire ensimismado e incongruentemente risueño que otorga a su interpretación o el aberrante aspecto de la criatura no hacen más que subrayarlo. El antaño imparable Doctor Frankenstein ni siquiera parece darse cuenta de la chapuza que está perpetrando en la creación de ese  recosido grotesco compuesto por abollados restos de serie, en cierto modo tanto como lo está el mismo a esta alturas.

Frankenstein atraerá con malas artes (será condenado por sus experimentos a una temporada en el sanatorio) a un prometedor y revolucionario médico al que forzará a colaborar en una lucha eterna que a estas alturas ya ha adquirido un carácter mitológico y patético a partes iguales. El nuevo discípulo necesario (recordemos que, aparte del carácter vanidoso y arrogante del Barón, este necesita unas manos que hagan la faena desde que el se las quemase en la tercera parte de la serie) está interpretado por el inquietante lampiño Shane Briant, uno de los actores que la “Hammer” intentó lanzar como herederos de los clásicos con bien poca fortuna, a excepción del gran Ralph Bates, claro.El resto es más o menos lo de siempre (el doctor recolectando las piezas de entre la quincalla que ofrecen su enfermos, el jovenzuelo engreído dándose cuenta del camino que toma, la damisela en apuros, aquí la sexy Madeline Smith,  irresistible “Hammer girl” a la que Ingrid Pitt vampirizaba a base de bien en la simpática “The vampire lovers”, etc …) pero todo visto a través de una óptica de frenopático, que acentúa despiadadamente lo inútil del intento y exhibe sin pudor la eterna repetición a la que esta condenado el protagonista. Fisher desnuda a su personaje y lo despoja de cualquier grandeza para dejarlo convertido en un guiñapo terrorífico, un espantajo que barre el suelo de su último fracaso con la ilusión  de comenzar el próximo mientras la cámara se aleja de semejante mundo dejando a los personajes encerrados en una habitación mientras el espectador se va de allí espantado, y con Terence Fisher de la mano.

The composers of Frankenstein and Blade Runner both use non-human characters to shine a spotlight on the human experience. In addressing questions related to these texts we must ask ourselves, what are the fundamental needs, experiences and desires shared by human beings? We are all born, we all need nurturing, we all desire to know the answers to questions such as, ‘why am I here?’ ‘what is my purpose?’ We all want companionship at different levels, from acquaintances to friends to romance and sexual fulfillment. We are all aware, at some level, that we will one day die and we all fear that end of our existence, yet we all hope that something of ourselves, whether it be children or achievements or just moments in time, will live on after we are gone.

Thinking about these issues in relation to the characters and themes in key moments of both texts will help you to deepen your understanding of the texts and the module. Focus on scenes that have resonated with you as reader and viewer. Spend time reviewing them and journalling your responses. The more engaged you are with the texts and concepts of a module, the better your responses will be and, more importantly, the more you will enjoy it.

Superman/Batman #66
Written by Scott Kolins
Art by Kolins

As it turns out, Bizarro is much more interesting in Black Lantern emotional spectrum vision then he is without it. Haha. I like that he said he was full of rage when the Black Lantern saw love. Nice use of the opposite speech and twisting it to fit Blackest Night perfectly. It was also great to see Frankenstein and the Bride. This was good but a little rushed. It was a quick read.

Volkskrant-recencent Kevin Toma deed in zijn zeer lezenswaardige bespreking van de animatiefilm A Christmas Carol van Robert Zemeckis een interessante constatering, die hij jammer genoeg ook gelijk weer wegwuifde:

Zemeckis zegt met de performance capture-techniek te streven naar de perfecte harmonie tussen ‘menselijke warmte’ en technisch vernuft. Dat lukt hem bij A Christmas Carol al een stuk beter dan bij The Polar Express en Beowulf, maar nog steeds zien de acteurs er te gladjes uit, zijn hun bewegingen te vloeiend en krijgt met name hun oogopslag iets levenloos. Het zal echter niet lang duren voordat de techniek zo geperfectioneerd is dat het verschil tussen levende en virtuele acteurs zich nauwelijks nog laat benoemen.

Dat laatste geloof ik dus niet. Animatie — in het woord schuilt het Latijnse animus; geest of ziel… Maar de ironie is dat dat nu precies hetgeen is dat alle computeranimaties missen. Het zijn de ogen, hè?

Kijk maar eens naar dit plaatje. Deze prachtige Scrooge heeft natuurlijk sowieso een nogal karikaturaal gezicht, met zijn grote haakneus en naar beneden hangende mondhoeken. Maar dek de ogen eens af en kijk naar het rimpelige voorhoofd — je hebt het idee dat je naar een foto kijkt. De diepe zwarte wallen, idem dito. Maar precies op het moment dat je je vinger van de ogen weghaalt, zie je direct dat deze Scrooge uit de computer komt.

En de paradox is, dat die levenloosheid van de ogen niet lijkt te komen door iets dat wij met onze ogen waar kunnen nemen. Ik bedoel: van oudere animatiefilms kon je misschien nog zeggen dat de technologie niet in staat was om de precieze visuele diepgang van een menselijk oog na te bootsen, waardoor dat er vlak en kil uitzag. Maar dat is nu niet zo, zie hoe prachtig de ogen op het bovenstaande beeld gemaakt zijn, met de juiste bolling, de juiste glinstering, de juiste uitdrukking, de juiste kleurschakering van de iris. Alles klopt. We zien geen enkel verschil met een echt oog, en toch zien we wél verschil. Hoe kan dat?

Ik denk dat de mens ten diepste niet kán animeren. We stuiten hier precies op het haast onbenoembare verschil tussen ons en tussen onze Schepper, naar wiens beeld wij geschapen zijn, maar waarmee wij toch nooit helemaal samenvallen — hoezeer de nietzscheaanse Übermensch ook meent op de troon van de dode God te kunnen zitten, hoezeer de moderne mensheid ook denkt als een hoogtechnologische Icarus het vuur uit de hemel te hebben gejat. De Schepper blies ons leven in, geest, ziel — en hoe goed wij ook kunnen scheppen en scheiden net als Hij, precies dat doen wij Hem niet na. Wij beheersen de animus niet. Laatst was ik op een symposium over nanotechnologie, waar tal van deskundigen vertelden over hoe wij materialen kunnen manipuleren op onvoorstelbaar kleine schaal; het is allemaal uiterst fascinerend om te horen. Maar op de voor de hand liggende angstige lekenvraag of wij nu echt voor God kunnen spelen, antwoordden de wetenschappers unaniem ontkennend. Het is knap wat wetenschappers kunnen, maar welbeschouwd blijft het gerommel in de marge, zei een synthetisch bioloog zelfs letterlijk. Kortom: ons technische vernuft, hoe waardevol en belangrijk ook, brengt ons geen nanometer dichter bij het werkelijke mysterie van het leven.

Terug naar computeranimaties… De trend om animaties steeds realistischer te maken, steeds meer life-like, is vanuit dit oogpunt bezien een heilloze onderneming. Het zal niet lukken, al ons technisch vernuft ten spijt; we zullen levenloze ogen blijven zien… Misschien kun je zelfs wel zeggen dat hoe dichter wij letterlijk op de huid van de mens kunnen kruipen met deze technologie, hoe preciezer wij iedere rimpel en oneffenheid en porie in beeld kunnen brengen, hoe duidelijker het de toeschouwer zal opvallen dat de ogen niet menselijk, niet life-like zijn. Inderdaad, filmmakers zouden er beter aan doen het niet eens te proberen.

Als je er over nadenkt doet de poging tot hyperrealisme zelfs afbreuk aan het wezen van wat niet geheel terecht ‘animatie’ heet. Waarin schuilt de kracht van animatiekunst, al vanaf de vroegste tekenfilmpjes? Niet zozeer in het feit dat zij een olifant kan laten lopen en vogel kan laten vliegen — dat kunnen olifanten en vogels uit zichzelf ook al — maar veeleer in het feit dat zij olifanten kan laten vliegen en vogels kan laten lopen; zie respectievelijk Dumbo en Road Runner. (Natuurlijk, die laatste is een renkoekoek, die ook in het echt hard kan lopen; maar het briljante aan deze tekenfilm is toch dat Road Runner zelfs door tunnels kan lopen die Wile E. Coyote net op een rotswand geschilderd heeft; iets wat echte renkoekoeken bij mijn weten niet kunnen.)

Goede animatie tart de wetten van de natuurkunde, en heus niet om natuurkundigen boos te maken. (En atheïsten: vandaag precies een jaar geleden, hoera!, plaatste ik het allereerste berichtje op dit weblog, over Richard Dawkins die vond dat kinderliteratuur alleen maar wetenschappelijk correcte informatie mocht bevatten. Ik kan nu een jaar later nog steeds smakelijk lachen om die onzalige gedachte!) Het punt is dat animatiekunst ons iets uittilt boven de werkelijkheid, ons laat zien dat de fysieke werkelijkheid an sich nooit het hele verhaal vertelt, dat er iets meer is, iets dat zich niet laat vatten in natuurwetten en technische termen. Zelfvertrouwen, bijvoorbeeld, in het geval van het aandoenlijke olifantje Dumbo. De fantasieloze kwezel die zegt dat ook zelfvertrouwen een olifant nooit zal laten vliegen, mist de pointe. Dat Dumbo vliegt, moet ons er enkel op wijzen dat deze olifant meer is dan een optelsom van biologische eigenschappen en natuurkundige omstandigheden die maken dat hij wel altijd op de grond zal blijven lopen. Er bestaat een perspectief dat dingen mogelijk maakt die voor onmogelijk worden gehouden. Dat is een perspectief dat werkelijk leven schept, ja, animeert… een bezielend perspectief, dat wij ons eigen kunnen maken, en dat maakt dat wij ondanks dat wij niet met Hem samenvallen, toch waarlijk aan Hem gelijk zijn — je moet dan wel het subtiele, maar wezenlijke verschil vatten tussen de wijze waarop de seculiere humanist zich aan God gelijk acht, en de wijze waarop de christen zich aan God gelijk acht. De eerste meent de eigenschappen van God — kennis, macht — te bezitten; de tweede meent dat al zijn eigenschappen ten diepste het bezit van God zijn. Dat laatste klinkt misschien als een vage, mystieke kreet, en het is zeker een mystieke kreet, maar absoluut niet vaag — althans, niet vager dan de gemiddelde tekenfilm. Goede animatiefilms bieden ons de sleutel tot dit mystieke inzicht. Zij blazen leven in levenloze dingen (en maken hun naam dus tóch waar), nadrukkelijk niet zoals Dr. Frankenstein dat deed (de hoogmoedige, die via de technologie meende zijn monster te kunnen animeren), maar wellicht meer zoals Geppetto dat deed (de deemoedige, die door toeval een levende pop uit levenloos hout maakte).

Het is in dit kader goed om je het volgende te realiseren. Het monster van Frankenstein, hoe afzichtelijk ook, leek in eerste instantie veel meer op een mens dan Pinocchio. Dr. Frankenstein wilde een hyperrealistisch mens maken. Life-like. Echter dan echt, met een huid waarin we de rimpels en poriën konden tellen, met een fonkeling in de ogen… Juist, als de Scrooge van Robert Zemeckis. Geppetto aan de andere kant was helemaal niet bezig met het zo realistisch en menselijk mogelijk maken van zijn houten pop, maar opmerkelijk genoeg was het juist zijn creatie die tot leven kwam. Ook dat zie je in de wereld van de computeranimatie gebeuren; denk bijvoorbeeld aan de schitterende films van Pixar. Die studio slaagt erin om allerlei levenloze dingen tot leven te wekken: speelgoed, auto’s, een vierkant robotje, een schemerlampje. Al die voorwerpen zijn veel geloofwaardiger en levendiger en zelfs menselijker dan de mensen die zo af en toe ook in de films figureren. In de liefdevolle en zorgzame handen van hun makers, maar ook in de welwillende ogen van de toeschouwers, wordt het niet-menselijke menselijk; een grote wonder van bezieling bestaat niet.

Wat in gelikte realistische animatiefilms als A Christmas Carol te zien is, kan nog beter ‘reanimatie’ heten dan ‘animatie’. Het is Frankenstein-animatie, dat geen hoopgevend perspectief wil bieden dat de werkelijkheid overstijgt, maar dat juist zo dicht mogelijk op de huid van de werkelijkheid wil kruipen. Het resultaat: een monster, dat levend lijkt, maar niet levend is — en het zijn de levenloze ogen die hem verraden.

May I present the Toshiba ‘Space Chair’ project. A great ad from Toshiba (filmed using Toshiba HD cameras of course) to show how good the atmosphere looks on the new SV Regaza LCD TV (the alternate execution promotes the Satellite T series laptop). The chair reached 98,268 feet before breaking apart (possibly an alien’s laser) and took 82 minutes to ascend (unfortunately a little too long for a lunch-break flight).

Matt McDowell, Marketing Director at Toshiba UK comments: “Our aim was to create a new advertising campaign that would bring to life Toshiba’s brand philosophy of leading innovation. We chose to send a chair on the journey as it is central to the user’s experience of Toshiba’s products; whether they are watching TV or using a laptop.” – Works for me Matt.

Of course most people will think of ‘Balloon Boy’ Falcon Heene but he was a fraud so stop right there. I much prefer the story of ‘Lawnchair Larry‘ who actually had the balls to sit on a floating chair.

It appears that there are some conspiracy theorists using the internet (yeah, I was shocked too) and there have been some cries of ‘fake’ floating around. Personally I think it’s real but here’s the making of video to help you to make your mind up:

It’s a brilliant idea from Grey London, so original… so… What? It’s someone else’s idea? Someone’s done it before? Ad land has pinched somebody’s original work? That’s unheard of, I’m so surprised. Ah well, Simon Faithful will be glad of the extra publicity, right? Anyway, they have bettered his studenty attempt by spending loads of money. Funny how I can’t find any mention of Simon’s work in Toshiba’s blurb though.

Here’s the original:

Anyway, embittered sideswipes aside: I fucking love the Toshiba film which is why I’m going on about it and have been trawling the internet all morning for facts. I want one.

As an aside… In some kind of Frankenteinesque monster-mashup my brain has given me this from the Land of Adverts Past:

First things first. Now that I have finished Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol, I am ready to read some more sci fi. I don’t think the critics or the book sellers are categorizing Brown’s latest opus as science fiction, but clearly it is. The villain is so much a Frankenstein (only with multiple tattoos); the almost- love interest is a bit clumsy (as often is the case in science fiction books and films), and the hero is  larger-than-life, capable of amazing feats (including not getting his loafers wet while completely submerged in a float-to-relax tank). There’s no end (and I mean that almost literally) to the number of science fiction books I could read, but I have found many so dry and boring. Still, my latest Science Fiction book is not a work of fiction; it is a non-fiction history book pulled from my collection. It is titled Things to Come, the history of science fiction film. This book, which has many photographs, is as interesting as most science fiction books I have read of late. Who knew the very first science fiction films (shorts) were created in 1897? I didn’t know that or that both Thomas Edison and H.G. Wells had their hands on and in early science fiction movie-making.

If you are a fan of science fiction, or sci fi films, you must also know the name, Georges Melies, whose film, A Trip to the Moon (1902) is sometimes regarded as the first of the thousands of science fiction films to follow. My history book reports there were sci-fi films already created before 1902. A good number of these films seemed to be about making sausages. Some earlier, and later films,  featured female robots (although they were called something else) and warriors. Those female warrior sci fi movies were created about the time women were demanding the right to vote; it figures they might have also had some influence on the male film-makers.

It is amazing to me to learn just how accurate some of these early films were when it came to predicting mental telepathy, x-ray technologies, robots, and crazy mad scientists up to no good (that’s just for starters).

The main point, to me anyhow, is how close science fiction is to psi (or the practice of extra-sensory perception). Looking backwards more than 100 years, we can see how a number of film-makers predicted ideas that became realities; in other words, like clairvoyants, they were able to visualize the future. Some of their predictions included push-button services, robots and space travel – and I am only up to 1914 in my history book. Additionally, one of the film-makers (Abel Gance, from France) used futuristic cinematography – distortion, out-of-focus photography and other camera tricks – just a few years into pioneer film-making. His brave, experimental filming blows my mind (unfortunately, Gance’s work in La Folle de Docteur Tube was not all that popular). I view Gance as a true visionary – not only as a film-maker, but as a clairvoyant. If his and other early science fiction films aren’t examples of ESP, I don’t know what is.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein is a 1971 horror film directed by Al Adamson.

 Cast
  J. Carrol Naish … Dr. Frankenstein, aka Dr. Duryea
  Lon Chaney … Groton
  Anthony Eisley … Mike Howard
  Regina Carrol … Judith Fontaine
  Greydon Clark … Strange
  Zandor Vorkov … Count Dracula
  Angelo Rossitto … Grazbo
  Anne Morrell … Samantha
  William Bonner … Biker
  Russ Tamblyn … Rico
  Jim Davis … Police Sgt. Martin
  John Bloom … Frankenstein’s Monster
  Shelly Weiss … The Creature
  Forest J Ackerman … Dr. Beaumont

Story: During the day, Doctor Duryea [J Carroll Naish] runs the Creature Emporium [a sideshow in an amusement park near the beach in Venice, California] from his wheelchair but, by night, Duryea is a mad scientist working on some sort of blood serum. For this serum he needs the blood of women who were scared to death, as it is their fear that “energizes the molecular structure of their blood”. To do this, he has his zombie Groton [Lon Chaney Jr] behead girls with an axe and then bring him their bodies. Duryea then rejunvenates them so that he can harvest their blood.

One day Dr Duryea is visited by Count Dracula [Zandor Vorkov] who has found the remains of the original Frankenstein monster. In exchange for some of Duryea’s serum (which will make Dracula invincable), Dracula offers the doctor the use of the Frankenstein monster [John Bloom] in order to get revenge on Duryea’s adversary, Dr Beaumont [Forrest J Ackerman]. Together, they reanimate the monster and he does eventually kill Beaumont.

Meanwhile, Las Vegas showgirl Judith Fontaine [Regina Carrol] is searching for her sister Joanie, who disappeared after joining a group of hippies who hang near the Creature Emporium. Police Sgt Martin [Jim Davis] has been of no help, so Judith goes to the local hippie hangout and shows around a photo of her sister. No one has seen her. When someone slips some LSD into her coffee, Judith winds up on the couch of aging hippie Mike Howard[Anthony Eisley], who offers his help (along with a few kisses). When they learn that Joanie was last seen at the Creature Emporium, they pay a visit to Dr Duryea, but he claims to have never seen Joanie.

Meanwhile, more girls have turned up missing and a few male bodies have been found chopped to bits on the beach. When friend Samantha [Anne Morrell] is carried through a trapdoor under the Creature Emporium, Mike and Judith break in and discover, to their horror, the undead bodies of all the girls, including Joanie [Marie Lease], that the doctor has been using. In the fight that ensues, Dr Duryea is beheaded in his guillotine and Groton is shot by Sgt Martin. Judith is carried off by Dracula. Mike frees Judith but, as they run away, Dracula zaps Mike with his ring of fire, burning him to a crisp. Dracula and the Frankenstein monster carry Judith to an old abandoned church where Dracula ties her to a chair and prepares to make her immortal, but the Frankenstein monster has a sudden change of heart and protects her.

Dracula and the Frankenstein monster duke it out. Their fight carries them outside into the surrounding woods. Dracula bests the Frankenstein monster by pulling off his arms and head. But the sun is rising, and Dracula must get back to his coffin. He makes a dash for the church door but collapses on the stairs and burns up in the morning sun. Judith unties her binds and gets away.

 Trivia
Final film appearances of J. Carrol Naish and Lon Chaney Jr..           

Originally planned as a sequel to Satan’s Sadists, with Russ Tamblyn and other “bikers” reprising their parts from that film. However, not long after filming began, it was decided to turn it into a horror film instead of a biker picture and much of the footage with Tamblyn and other actors from the first film was cut out. They were unable to cut them completely out of the movie, though, which is why Tamblyn and his biker gang seem to be wandering in and out of the film, with no connection to the story line and with not much to do.

It was originally intended to have Dracula turn Frankenstein’s Monster into a bloodthirsty vampire, so the Monster could better serve the Count’s purpose. The idea was dropped, however, when the fangs kept falling out of actor John Bloom’s mouth, which he couldn’t keep in due to his heavy makeup.

Much of the electrical lab equipment in Duryea’s lab are props originally used in Frankenstein. Ken Strickfaden, who had designed all the electrical gadgetry in that film, supplied the equipment.

In his scene confronting Count Dracula, J. Carrol Naish looks noticeably older than he does elsewhere in the film. This is due to the time that had elapsed between the bulk of his scenes, when it was intended as a different film entirely, and the Dracula/Frankenstein scenes that were grafted on later.

Regina Carrol and victim

At this point in his career, J. Carrol Naish was very ill and frail and could no longer remember dialogue, so he read it off cue cards. However, he had only one real eye, so in his dialogue closeups you can see one eye moving back and forth, reading the lines, while the other eye remains fixed in position.

Amazon Specials!

 

She's just seen her blind date...

HORROR WEEK at the LL-Publications Blog

Counting down to the release of THE HOLLOWS on Friday 20th November

What scares you the most? Which horror icon is the one that keeps you coming back for more? Who’s the King of Horror? Zombies, Werewolves, Vampires, even Aliens?

Or is there one character you’d definitely hate to meet in a dark alley, your dreams,  or a mist-shrouded graveyard? Perhaps it’s Freddie, Jason, Frankenstein’s monster, Michael Myers, Chucky, the IT clown?

Personally I recall watching the original Alien when it was released. Scared the utter crap out of me. I actually nightmared the whole movie that night and woke up bathed in sweat!

So who hits the fear factor for you?

Jim Brown

LL-Publications

Source: GeekForceFive

Manca solo 1 giorno ormai all’uscita in Italia di New Moon, la seconda trasposizione cinematografica della saga fantasy di Stephenie Meyer! Ieri notte, a Los Angeles, c’è stata la premiere del film, con diretta del red carpet su My Space!

Molte persone hanno già acquistato i biglietti per le proiezioni di domani sera o del weekend (personalmente, io ho prenotato per sabato sera) e anche su Fandango, noto sito di cinema e vendita biglietti, i ticket per New Moon sono i più venduti di questa settimana e non solo! Secondo i loro calcoli, i biglietti per New Moon sono i più venduti (in prevendita) di sempre! Al secondo posto c’è il terzo episodio di Guerre Stellari, la rivincita dei Sith (2005), sul terzo gradino del podio abbiamo Harry Potter e il Principe Mezzosangue (2009), seguito da Il Cavaliere Oscuro (2008); al 5° posto c’è  Twilight (2008), che si conquista un posto nella top 5!

A riprova che questa saga è oramai diventata un vero e proprio cult, c’è una nuova parodia trasmessa giorni fa sulla NBC durante il Saturday Night Live Show. Nei panni di Bella Swan c’è la giovane cantante country Taylor Swift che, invece di innamorarsi di un Cullen, si innamora di uno dei Franks, una famiglia di Frankestein.

Ogni “mostro” ha il suo tallone d’achille: i Cullen succhiano sangue, i Franks non resistono all’mpulso di strangolare, così come dice il protagonista: “Quando bacio la gente, tendo a strangolarla accidentalmente a morte”.

Guarda il trailer di Firelight!

[credits: BadTaste]

The problem when you’re me, is that:

People get to look at me all day, and I only get glimpses…
…LOL! (that was a quote from Hannah Montana)

Anyway, to be totally honest, when you’re a shock jock like me, you can say “been there; done that; got the tee shirt” for a lot of different things.
You see, when I was young, I drew up a “to do” list, and I basically strategically executed everything on that list!

So like I told all earlier, I was inspired from the Phineas & Ferb opening sequence:

• Building a rocket
• Fighting a mommy
• Climbing up the Eiffel tower
• Discovering something that doesn’t exist
• Giving a monkey a shower
• Surfing tidal waves
• Creating nanobots
• Locating Frankenstein’s brain
• Finding a dodo bird
• Painting a continent
• Driving your sister insane

So translating that to Jeremy language, this would mean:
(And this will be my 2010 Vision)

• Developing my educational video series
• Developing “cool” electronic devices
• Acing mathematics and physics/chemistry
• Dating a hot Christian celebrity =)
• Study medicine (ok maybe this will come later)
• Graduate law (yay!)
• Finding a cure for cancer (ok maybe a bit early lol!)

As they Phineas & Ferb

“PHINEAS AND FERB (NOT THEM; JEREMY LOL!) IS GOING TO DO IT ALL WOOOOOOOOPEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Message me if you think I have missed anything out!

UPDATE: PLEASE do not email me “losing your virginity” since this is a very .. well weird lol, thing to say!  Particularly if you’re a girl!  It is NOT very princess like!  But I am a Christian virgin with model looks **makes a stunner Zac Efron look to get the ladies** LOL!

Ok tell me whos hotter:

Peace out suckazzz!!!

La casa de la abuela, de Pep Bruno (Por los caminos de la tierra oral) y Matteo Gubellini (web), es una divertida historia de miedo en la que la ilustración, repleta de guiños, cuenta más de lo que dicen las palabras, puesto que los que se llaman «la abuela» o «Francis» son en realidad, según vamos viendo, personajes salidos de las historias de terror («la casa de la abuela», claro, tampoco es que sea un lugar libre de lobos en el imaginario infantil).

Lo que iba a ser quizá un simple cumpleaños (aunque ya hay pistas claras, en la cubierta y las guardas, de que la ambientación no es la de una típica familia amable en día de fiesta) se convierte en una historia de miedo, alivio y finalmente, risa y aplauso con un desafío al lector.

• Pep Bruno y Matteo Gubellini, La casa de mi abuela. OQO, Pontevedra, 2009. 36 págs., 25×23 cm. 978-84-9871-211-7.

This summer, I will be… Finding my princess, fighting off the baddies, and saving her from the dragon!!!

Well, not really, I think the Phineas & Ferb opening title sequence (series from Disney XD Channel) just about sums it all up:

There’s 104 days of summer vacation
And school comes along just to end it
So the annual problem for our generation
Is finding a good way to spend it

Like maybe…

Building a rocket
Or fighting a mummy
Or climbing up the Eiffel Tower

Discovering something that doesn’t exist (Hey!)
Or giving a monkey a shower

Surfing tidal waves
Creating nanobots
Or locating Frankenstein’s brain (It’s over here!)

Finding a dodo bird
Painting a continent
Or driving your sister insane (Phineas!)

As you can see
There’s a whole lot of stuff to do
Before school starts this fall (Come on Perry)

So stick with us ’cause Phineas and Ferb
Are gonna do it all
So stick with us ’cause Phineas and Ferb are
Gonna do it all!
(Mom! Phineas and Ferb are making a title sequence!)

(Lyrics courtesy of this site)

Oh, and one more thing:

Dating Ashley Tisdale

She’s so funny on the series.

Let me see a cross-comparison of me and Ashley Tisdale:

From a fashionista perspective, the blonde does really offset my black hair really well =)  And, we would have really hot kids **pouts his mouth**!

Grazie a questo romanzo, scritto da Mary Shelley nei primi dell’Ottocento, possiamo buttarci a capofitto in una storia “scura”, “cupa”, ricca di suspance e colpi di scena.

Victor Frankenstein, il protagonista della narrazione, è portato alla generazione e creazione di un essere umano da un corpo privo di vita, in seguito a studi scientifici e biologici conseguiti in un’università tedesca. Il suo scopo è di creare un vivente che sia più intelligiente, forte di costituzione e salute e più longevo rispetto all’essere umano suo pari.
Purtroppo, dopo il risveglio di questa figura mostruosa e dopo la sua fuga, hanno inizio una serie di spiacevoli episodi di omicidio che vedono coinvolta la bestia creata dal povero Victor.

In quest’opera possiamo scoprire la voglia di una scrittrice dell’Ottocento di “andare oltre” rispetto a ciò che già si conosceva, di cercare di scoprire un qualcosa di nuovo e talvolta anche di peicoloso, sempre legato allo studio, alla cultura ed alla scienza. Sfidare e cercare di sovrastare quello che già si conosce in modo approfondito è una qualità dell’uomo colto, dell’uomo che indaga per scoprire la verità di ogni cosa, dell’uomo che, come il dottor Frankenstein, ricerca qualcosa di più profondo rispetto alla vita umana; si potrebbe quasi dire, a mio parere che sia alla ricerca di una specie di perfezione non dell’uomo in sé ma delle sue possibilità.

Questo romanzo viene definito “gotico” secondo me proprio per le sfumature grigiastre, nere o comunque tendenti ai colori scuri che l’autrice propone per esempio nel girovagare per cimiteri in cerca di informazioni sulla decomposizione dell’essere umano. Non mi è dispiaciuto, diciamo che non ho apprezzato molto la forma, ma il contenuto più profondo (quello che ho percepito io) mi ha fatto riflettere, soprattutto sulla volontà e sull’impegno di inseguire la propria meta.

Michela Lomi

From ReelLoop.com

A prequel to Paul W.S. Anderson’s Death Race has been given the go-ahead by Universal Studios. Penned by Tony Giglio and based on the story from Anderson, the upcoming straight-to-DVD feature will delve into the back-story of the masked and mangled Frankenstein, who was original played by the late David Carradine in the 1975 original film Death Race 2000.

Carradine provided Frank’s voice in Anderson’s Death Race.

Death Race was a marginal hit that made $75 million worldwide.

Production on the loosely titled Death Race 2 will begin after Anderson completes Resident Evil: Afterlife. He will serve in a producing capacity.

No word on a cast or who will be helming the project. We don’t care. As long as Natalie Martinez is back.

Amazon Specials!