The Frankenstein’s play was, for me, quite nice. I found that players were really good because they played a lot of characters. Moreover, I was really impressed, I thought not that I could understand the play so easily. I don’t regret to seeing the play, it was very interesting and I think that it helped me to better understand the story because I never read the book.
I enjoyed the film too. Although supernatural isn’t always my type of movie, I found it interesting to see. In my opinion, players were good too. Finally, I liked working about Frankenstein.
Personally, I don’t really like the Frankenstein’s play. I found it not really faithful. For example, the creature didn’t kill the same characters as in the book and the end was really strange. I found this adaptation too babyish. It’s strange for me that they wanted to show a funny version of the book whereas it is rather dramatic but I understand because it is represented for teenagers. However, I think that I would have been more interested if it was more faithful and more dramatic. Nevertheless, even if I didn’t really appreciate the play I think that the players were really qualified because they arrived to play few characters whereas they are just 4.
I didn’t appreciate also the film of Coppola. I found it was far-fetched and really strange.
A new adaptation of Frankenstein was released last week. I found it, even if I didn’t watch it, really exaggerated. The fact that the creature is still alive and there are vampires is strange. It is not faithful at all. And you, did you enjoy this different version of Frankenstein? Do you know a version more faithful that I can watch?
I would like talk about this two adaptations of the Mary Shelley’s novel!
I saw, in literature in English class, the film Frankestein directed by Kenneth Branagh who plays also the main character Victor Frankestein. Before seeing the film, I went to the drama adaptation of this story. The troup who performs this calls Theatre en Anglais.
Personally, I prefered the actor’s acting in the drama rather than the movie. In the film, the actors tend to exaggerate the feelings, the emotions, it’s almost « too much ». Although, during the drama, in spite of the wrong lights, the actors are very exceptionnal, I was impressed. In my opinion, the single thing which are very great in the film is the make-up, and perharps the special effects. I was very very suprised when I knew that the creature were interprated by Robert de Niro.
Finally, I can say that I prefer the drama, even if I don’t like the some change of the original story. I find their perform breathtaking, because they manage to play in spite of the lack of space, and the fact they are only four actors, for many more characters.
Last week we saw a theatre representation of the famous novel Frankenstein. The actors were an English troup called THEATRE EN ANGLAIS
Frankenstein his the story of Sir Victor Frankenstein who had been created a monster with dead pieces of body. He had marry Elizabeth, his adoption sister. After studying he became Dr Victor Frankenstein.
On stage they were four English actors, they had to play on a stage that they didn’t even know one hour before. There was a very well done scene : the actors were playing a kind of « slow motion » like in the movies.This was a very interesting drama, the actors’ playing was very interesting, it was really great because we could understand what they were saying, they were speaking clearly and distincly.
The representation of Frankenstein in English that we saw , was very interesting. The actor’s words were simple and all of students can understand what they said. Comedians don’t much but they play many characters per actor. Sometimes their play was funny. I liked that representation.
P.S : And the actor who plays Victor Frankenstein is awesome.
Two weeks ago, we saw Frankenstein, acted by four actors in a play. First, we must say that it would be a great challenge for them, I think. The scene was narrow, it was the first time that they acted this play, above all for only young people… But they were very involved in their play and gave many energy….and we have understood. The third man who acted a comical character gave a new dimension to Frankenstein which only belongs to the romantical genre. I have tried to read the book but I didn’t finish it because I don’t know why, but I found it boring. However, the play wasn’t boring, I think it was thanks to the comical dimension.
I want to talk about the play that we saw on Monday 6 January. This play talked about the story of Frankenstein. I wanted to see this play because I wanted to pour my general knowledge in english litterature. And like I am in litterature studies, in my mind, it was something important to see.
So, I explain what I saw. First Elisabeth’s father wanted to recreate life with electricity in a dead body, but something turn wrong, The student Victor’s tried to help him but they failed, and after that, the father of Elisabeth is died. Elisabeth and Victor are in love, but after have break the promise between them to never try again to recreate life, Victor has a idea, and with the stronger of lightning, he creates a terrible monster totally out of control.
This play was very interresting, and the actors was very talented because they spoke clearly. We could understand almost all of their replies. The staging was also very well done, and there were lots of costumes, characters, even if the troup had limited ressources. I found this play really well maked.
Frankenstein is one of the most famous monsters to the world but who is the real monster ? The creature or the creator?
Mary Shelley began the writing of Frankenstein at the age of nineteen. The responsibility of the man in front of the evolution of the science is an interesting question which is implicitly mentioned in the text because of characters’s Frankenstein. Her novel of horror reflects at the same time the taste of the youth for the fantastic universes but also its curiosity and its commitment in the modern world.
On January, 6th, 2014, we saw the Frankenstein’s show in English version inspired by Mary Shelley’s novel and the Hollywood movies, written by Paul Stebbings and Phil Smith.
Four British actors will give life to the creature and to his creator in a simple and intriguing decoration. The multimedia room being very small, the actors managed well to play and the troop adapted itself with their decoration and I feel it is very impressive: the work is really satisfactory. Besides, the work of the direction and the game of the actors make us understand the story, although they changed some elements, supported by the strength of the images, funny situations and feelings.
On the whole, I was very admiring and satisfied with this show.
We saw the play of Frankenstein, the 6th January, at school. The character of the creature was very representative and faithful. The actors were very talented and we understood what they said. The stage set was not very impressive but it was just simple but representative. Even if the troup haden’t got a lot of accessories, the play was interesting.
Last monday I have seen a play about Frankenstein. Each person (except the man who played Victor) played differents characters. I think it was a good production for a little band of four actors. The young woman and the young man seemed to be particularly involved in the play.
I was surprised because I think I understood a lot of things and it helped me to understand Frankenstein’s story and the character’s relationships. I am so happy that I could see this play only for ten euros. Thank you for this idea, it was a good one !
And you ? Have you seen this play ? What is your point of view ?