The Monster

(A Reaction Paper)

Frankenstein. This film must have been a shocker upon its release. A giant unnamed actor
lurching around the screen, throughly convincing as an undead monster. What a pleasant shock to the
viewer (no doubt heightened by the opening 'warning'). However, I believe the film is much more than
a collection of scares. Unintentionally or not, I argue that Frankenstein is about the rise of the master
shot as the go-to cinematic grammar for talkie films.
The context of Frankenstein is fairly clear; coming at 1931 on heels of the end of the silent film
era Frankenstein was part of the wave of sound films crashing into theaters. The old guard was
changing, new forms of filmmaking were brewing...and one might make the argument that these new
forms of filmmaking had the luxury of being lazy with their visual dynamics. The rise of the master
shot was in evidence at great lengths within this film. Nearly every shot is a master. Then there is the
subject of the film, The Monster. A poorly considered, rushed to creation, cobbled together dead thing,
something with no artistry, no care given it, rather constructed out of sheer necessity. In many ways the
master shot is the Frankenstein monster. The Monster is a creation of a scientist, a man driven to create
life from death simply because he can, a man on a quest to play god. What is a filmmaker but god, a
man or woman driven to create a world from nothing. In the film, The Monster is created and through
story conceit, turns out to be a limited character. Rather than respect his limitations, The Monster is
beaten, tortured then let loose on the world leaving almost incidental destruction in his wake. The
master shot is a monster shot. The shot defines the world, gives dimensionality to it. The master
comes as much from practicality (with the limitations of capturing sound) as it does from creativity.
The master has limitations, but rather than respect them, every film became a montage of masters. The
master is abused, overused, let loose upon the filmmaking landscape, unmercifully laying waste to the
world of cinematic grammar until it is destroyed. But I would argue that the master, much like the
Monster, doesn't have to become so deadly, so frightening. The master is a very effective method of

telling a story...as long as it is not overused. A scene in the parody of Frankenstein, Young
Frankenstein, uses the Master quite effectively, incorporating separation, multi-angularity and familiar
image into the actual coverage during an opening scene where Gene Wilder is challenged by one of his
students on his lineage. Does this make the Master a great filmmaking technique? Not necessarily, but
it proves that the Master, if not abused, can actually make for some interesting filmmaking.
The truth is Frankenstein is a good allegory for any number of things, and the Master shot just
resonates with me at this particular time given where I am and what I am learning about. But I think
the idea behind the allegory is a strong one. Mistreat, disrespect and abuse something, chances are it
will become a monster. This fits the use of the Master Shot quite nicely.