Monsters in Film

Midterm: Question 2

A monster, by definition, is something that instills fear. In the novels and film adaptations of Dracula and of No Country for Old Men, the monster is represented very differently, depending on the time period when it was written or produced, and also the culture in which it was written or produced for.

In No Country for Old Men, written by Cormac McCarthy and then produced by the Coen Brothers, the monster is represented through Chigurh, a man with apparently no soul who is indifferent to humanity, and life it seems. Chigurh represents death, insanity, and in general a chaos that cannot be allowed to sustain in the world because of the misbalance he achieves every time he takes a life. In both the film version and the book, from the very beginning, we are given a stark contrast between life and death. The beginning monologue of the Sherriff, introduces us to another theme, that of age, and referring the title itself, bears the question why this is not a country for old men? He questions humanity itself, pondering on the things that he has seen and experienced. The sheriff asks himself (or the reader perhaps), "What do you say to a man that by his own admission has no soul?" (4-5). This represents the monster. One who has no soul or respect for life. In the film, this opening monologue is shown with shots of the desert, sunrise, sunsets, creating a sense of loneliness. We are outside the diegesis, and in this establishing shot, we are able to locate ourselves, at least geographically, but we do not get to see the man behind the voice. Our narrator in the film then, remains anonymous for the time; an old man, weary of the world and feeling his age, and also his helplessness against the monsters he must try to control and eliminate. Shortly after, we have two murderous scenes, and in both the film and novel, it seems to be shaping the story around death. For the Sherriff, Chigurh represents death to humanity. The kind of insanity and chaos contained in Chigurh is an absolute threat to mankind. For characters like Llewelyn, Chigurh as a threat was not so much about life, but money. Llewelyn unfortunately didn't really realize how serious a threat was until it was too late, or perhaps he did realize it, it was just not in his character to concern himself with it. Carla Jean had a better idea on what a monster Chigurh was, and that is why she is perfect for his last kill.

The scene between Carla Jean and Chigurh I feel clearly represents the monster as being a chaos that cannot sustain in the world. Life cannot be determined by the flip of the coin. She says after losing the coin toss, "You make it like it was the coin. But you're the one." (258). In an age and country where the majority of people rely on government to support and protect them, a man like Chigurh completely takes away this balance. He causes chaos.

The monster in Dracula is a very different kind of monster. For Bram Stoker, writing for a British audience with many fears to play upon, he creates a monster that is multifaceted. Understanding the monster is a struggle and Stoker applies several discourses for us to try to understand him: Science (technology), Religion and in the same sense as religion is folklore. Dracula is very interested in other countries, even those which hate him and call him a monster. He, perhaps, is the least judgmental and is only trying to live in an unwelcoming world. The vampire monster is demonized in all of the film adaptations; however, not so much is the case in the Stoker novel. It almost seems that for Stoker, Dracula is a progressive being, perhaps just placed in too old of a time period. Dracula has new ideas about sexuality, and he crosses cultural boundaries which prays on Britain's fear of immigration or perhaps better said, Britain's fear of foreign invasion. Also, Dracula is immortal; eternal, which like in No Country also threatens the balance and creates space between the "normal" humans and the "monster." Dracula may be looked at as an attempt by Stoker himself, to understand a reality that is very confusing, and in using different characters, Stoker is able to explore understanding the monster in different ways. For example, for Jonathon, Dracula shakes his entire reality. He is ignorant to outsider ways, and is narrowly science minded, yet with some pull towards religion as well. When his science fails him, he turns to God, but not out of belief, out of tradition. He is fairly unwilling to accept the idea of a vampire. For Jonathon, the Count threatens his comfortable reality, and then later, his perfect wife. For Van Helsing, Dracula represents a very real threat, one in which he justifies in killing as being a threat to man. For Helsing though, I don't feel like the monster part plays such a big role. Instead, Helsing accepts him more as a supernatural being, but yet still a threat to man and that is the reason why he must be killed. To the women in the novel, Mina and Lucy specifically, Dracula is a monster because he is predatory, and actually their lives are at risk. For Mina, it is not only her life that she is concerned with, but also her soul. This is not portrayed as heavily with Lucy, however.

Stoker presents technology in such a way that it can also be viewed as one discourse in understanding life, and the monster. Whether we look at Jonathon's diary, as written in shorthand, or Dr. Seward's journal in using the phonograph, or Mina on her typewriter, we can see that all of these types of technologies are being used in order to understand reality. These specific types of technology are through the discourse of language, and these specific characters soley rely on this scientific approach, which also makes them vulnerable. When science fails, religion or mythology must replace it. There seems to be another struggle then, within these discourses, and not one alone will save them. Through the character of Van Helsing then, a man who is liminal in the sense that he can move between the worlds of monsters and myth, while also being able to apply science, brings together a sort of old world/new world character. Helsing uses multiple discourses in order to achieve some kind of understanding within this world, and perhaps, that is what Stoker is trying to say: do not rely solely on a new technology, without giving