Monster Vs. Frankenstein's Monster

1438 Words6 Pages
Katie Gallagher
Adam Wadenius
Film 120
23 September 2015
Don’t Judge a Book By Its’ Cover:
A Comparison of the Internal Monster vs. the External Monster As the world around us evolves so do the monsters in popular horror films. Nosferatu (1922), Frankenstein (1931) and Psycho (1960) are all horror films in which a monster terrorizes innocent bystanders. However a clear distinction can be made between the earlier horror films like Nosferatu and Frankenstein and later films like Psycho in regards to the type of monster being presented. These monsters differ not only in appearance, but in attitude, motives for their murders and how they go about killing their victims. Count Orlok of Nosferatu and Dr. Frankenstein’s monster exemplify the external
…show more content…
Both villains have the physical appearance of external monsters. Those who first lay eyes on these monsters feel uneasy and have a sense that because they do not look like average humans, they are dangerous. Dr. Frankenstein’s monster only kills because he doesn’t understand cultural norms, and the only way Count Orlok can survive is by a food source outside the cultural norms of humans. Each monster has specific reasons as to why they kill their victims, whether it is out of self defense, misunderstanding, or because they needed…show more content…
Aesthetically Norman Bates is not your external movie monster, since he is a white heterosexual male who appears to look normal (“An Introduction to the American Horror Film” 3). Although he might not appear to be a monster, Norman Bates is one of the most gruesome killers of all. Norman Bates simply kills for joy and is depicted in a scene as he stabs the body of Marion Crane countless times. As he stabs her body over and over again, letting her continue to suffer before his own eyes. His murders are very bloody and graphic, and he shows no remorse at all. He attacks his victims when they are most vulnerable, giving them no chance of survival. Hitchcock terrorizes his audience by having Psycho take place in an “arbitrary place, date, and time, and now an apparently arbitrary window: the effect is of random selection: this could be any place, any date, any time, any room: it could be us” (“Psycho” 39). As viewers watch Psycho, they can easily make connections between their own life and the setting of the movie. The film gives the viewer a sense that this could be their town, and the victim could be them and the monster could be someone that they see everyday. The connection the viewer makes to Norman that anyone can be a monster is heightened when norman states, “we all go a little mad sometimes.” It is this inner
Open Document