MovieChat Forums > Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) Discussion > How did they know it was her? (spoilers)

How did they know it was her? (spoilers)


Okay, so sorry if this has already been discussed but this is the only thing about the film that I thought was really strange (aside from the whole bringing people back to life thing ;] )

Justine runs into the barn when she's looking for the missing kid (who's been killed by the creature) and falls asleep. The creature then plants the necklace the little kid was playing with on Justine while she's asleep. Next thing, the police (or whoever those authority figures were) are knocking on the front door saying they've apprehended the murderer - Justine - and then she's suddenly stolen from jail by the townspeople and unceremoniously hung infront of everyone.

My first point is that I know this is set a long time ago so they didn't have the benefits of dna testing and other forensics but surely they wouldn't have just seen the necklace and thought "Right that's definetely her"? This is in no way enough evidence to condemn her, especially as it seems they didn't even give her a chance to explain herself. She was a trusted friend of the Frankensteins so why would they just let her be taken to jail? Victor especially must have known the truth.

Secondly, when the townspeople broke into the jail, why did they do this? There must have been prisoners in there which had done things just as terrible as the things Justine was accused of doing, so why did they partake so much in her death? Was the young boy like a celebrity of the time or something?

Any comments appreciated.

reply

It was an unfair assumption but because they had been looking for the boy and found her "hiding" in the barn with the locket, they figured she killed him. Doesn't seem they knew who she was cuz he called her "the murderer" not Justine. The kid wasn't famous but the family was wealthy and known so with a lot of people searching when he went missing word traveled fast when they found the murderer. Followed by crazy mob mentality.

reply

It's called weak writing. This movie's full of it.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

weak writing?? its a monster movie.....name one that has superior writing

---------------
Hey Laser Lips Yo Momma Was A Snow Blower - Johnny 5

reply

Does Jaws count? I have the screenplay sitting in my room right now.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

oh yes jaws, such a great flick lol

well that one is really 50/50, yes its a monster movie but its just a super smart killer shark. the idea isn't THAT far out there opposed to creating a man of various human body parts and bringing him to life lol

in this to make it plausible they have to have reason, a killer shark just kills, its a wild animal. it had mystery behind it no stupid "reason" like deep blue sea "we made them more intelligent" ooh smart idea there.

in this, yes the writing isn't amazing, it was just one of those scenes i could see things going that way but they didn't do enough to push it that way

basic understanding i got was:

-they found her and the locket "hiding" in the barn
-they may have no instantly found her guilty(court wise) but high suspicions and felt she was their only suspect
-then word spreads of the little boy's death and that this woman "apparently" did it
- towns people get in a huge uproar over the idea of a woman murdering a kid (like today when you hear a mother kills her kids who doesn't want them to instantly fry?)
-so they take matters into their own hands, go and hang her themselves

its a concept that is "plausible" just went to that extreme too quickly it felt.

but like i said alot of monster movies have weak writing minus Jaws though but thats really how u define a monster movie, its a great white shark. its just more bloodthirsty than others. is a monster movie a genetically engineered animal? a completely unknown monster? or a basic animal that is just "naturally" more intelligent.

to me the more natural the "monster" the better the writing, the more out there the concept the weaker the writing. in Jaws, the shark just kills and rams things lol. theses no reason to add. frankenstein did good, yes the writing was weak but look at the plot at least the reactions were possible. just wasn't backed up enough to make that extreme happen that quickly is all

---------------
Hey Laser Lips Yo Momma Was A Snow Blower - Johnny 5

reply

It's called weak writing. This movie's full of it.



She is framed by the creature when he lets the locket in her pocket, so she is accused of murdering the kid. It happens almost the exact same way in the original novel.

It is impressive how ignorant and retarded some people are by calling it 'weak writing'. The original novel was written almost 200 years ago, and it has survived all that time as one of the most iconic literary works in history, it is considered the very first science fiction novel and it has had countless stage and cinematographic versions throughout the ages.

The day you write something that has 1% of the success and importance that this classic novel has, perhaps you will be qualified to label certain works as weak writing.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

Wow, a Frankenstein fanboy. That's a first for me. Opinion is subjective. Deal with it.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

The facts are the facts, and there is nothing of subjective about them. A novel that has survived for 2 centuries and counting is NOT weak writing by any means.

Deal with it.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

A book being good is not a fact; it cannot be proven.

Beowulf is of chief historical interest and is still taught in high schools everywhere, yet I think it technically has a very flat narrative and one-note characters. Do you have a problem with that, too?


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

A bad book does not survive 200 years or more. Period.

As for Beowulf, your comment clearly proves your ignorance about literature.

For starters, the 'flat' narrative is due to 2 factors; first, the style of the 8th or 10th century, when it has been dated, and second, it was originally written in Old English, it was a poem, and in the countless translations made throughout the centuries there has to be some adaptation to make it understandable in different languages, not to mention that verses that were meant to rhyme or have certain sense in its original language are lost in translation to a great extent.

But even nowadays it is considered a master literary piece due to other factors that clearly you do not take in consideration due to your ignorance about the subject. Beowulf combines epic legend with mythology, real events, places and characters.

Sure, the verses might result boring for a XX-XXIst century person, to a great extent due to the factors I described previously, however, it is undeniably that behind those verses lies an epic storyline which results fascinating after over a 1000 years.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

No, a book survives by being in the library.

I'm pretty sure 99% of the public only knows of Frankenstein through the film adaptations and never read a single page of the book. Those who have are apparently lit-snobs.

So there's an explanation for the flat narrative. But it's still there. I actually love Beowulf, but I wouldn't be a pugnacious elitist towards someone for disagreeing—especially if it's an online stranger I know nothing about.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

Oh my...


Do you even see the contradictory of your argument?

Why would a book remain in a library for 200 years? The answer is quite simple, because it is a good book which manages o keep the interest on people and therefor SELLS copies. Once again, the day you write a book which achieves 1/4 of the success and cultural importance that Mary Shelly's novel has, perhaps you will be a bit more qualified to speak about 'weak writing'.

Yet in your very limited world 99% of people haven't read it and the ones who have are 'snobs' because they were interested enough to read the source material.

Same with your argument about Beowulf, first you criticize it without taking in consideration the elements I mentioned previously and then you claim to love it. It is a strange form of love I should add, since you ignored these factors during your criticism and failed to point them out even when they are rather evident.

And contrary to your claims, it doesn't require to be an 'elitist snob' to have read these original materials, quite the opposite, I am quite certain that those materials are accessible to EVERYONE if you are interested enough about them, since they are within everyone's reach they are far from being elitist.

Ever heard this? Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

Prove it. Elitist snob.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

LOL! Prove what? That there is no doubt that you will find the Frankenstein novel easily in almost any library?



Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

Prove that opinions are not subjective.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

1.- It depends on how informed these opinions are. (which in your case, is not much obviously, beginning with the fact that you practically admitted not having read the original novel.)

2.- There is a difference between opinions and facts; a well written material (whether it is a novel, a script, an article, etc) subjectivity aside is embraced by most people and survives the burden of time. (In this case, over 200 years).

3.- YOUR opinion is not fact, specially when you have proven how misinformed and ignorant about the subject you are, and you have no objective basis for your criticisms and rants about the source material of this particular story.

4.- Perhaps by now you already deducted it, but in case you haven't, objectivity defeats subjectivity, and you are lacking the first one, hence your criticisms lose validity.

5.- Back to the facts; history has proven opinions like yours as wrong, comments, rants and criticisms made previously about this novel have disappeared throughout the decades and centuries and the fact of the matter is that Mary Shelly's novel lives on, today after more than 200 years of being written, with a lot of praise from people who know what they are talking about, and no doubt will continue this way despite of misinformed pseudo intellectual individuals who mean to diss it.

Famous writers, critics and film makers throughout history such as Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Louis Stevenson, H.G. Wells, Kenneth Branagh, Mel Brooks, Lord Byron, Stephen King, Jules Verne, Bram Stoker, and almost an infinite etcetera have praised this novel and its importance in the literary world.

On the other hand, a bunch of forgettable Mr. Nobodies have done the opposite.

We all know the final result, as it prevails and becomes evident.

So as you can see, the 'subjectivity' of your arguments and opinions pale miserably to the facts of history.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

Cool story, bro.

Opinions can't be wrong.

Get laid and get over yourself.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

Like I said, it depends how informed these opinions are. Opinions made just for the sake of voicing an opinion without informed or educated background will ALWAYS pale next to the facts of life, just like your opinion did in this thread.

A bunch of zealot clergymen had the opinion once that the sun orbited around the earth, they almost had Galileo judged by the inquisition for saying otherwise, at the end of the day the church was wrong.

A bunch of uneducated idiots around the world have the opinion that the color of your skin makes you a superior or an inferior person, needless to say, these imbeciles are wrong.

And we can mention countless of other examples.

For every opinion there will always be 1 or even countless others that contradict each other, it is an impossibility that ALL of them are correct as you are implying, in other words, you are subscribing to a non existent fantasy world in the shadow of ignorance and self denial.


Get laid and get over yourself.


Having my smoke right now while I regain energies for the second round which will start right after I push the reply button.

Have a pleasant night, I know I will!

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

Bestiality is illegal.

Nice false analogies, though - comparing the criticism of a minor plot point in a book to racism and facts (re: not opinions) about astronomy is hilarious, even more so than taking 200+ words at a time to basically say "I disagree with you."


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

Justine was lynched before she could be brought to trial. Until meeting the Creature later, whom he believed to be dead, Victor had actually believed Justine guilty of murdering William in a fit of jealousy, which was why he crumbled to the ground and begged her forgiveness, not only feeling partly responsible for having lead to her death but for having doubted her innocence. In a scene cut from the final film, the Creature reveals in flashback when he stumbled upon Justine asleep in the barn how he wanted to touch her and seek her forgiveness; she was the most beautiful woman he had ever seen. But, realizing she was probably for the boy, returned the locket to her, the reason not being to frame her, but to atone for William's death, another flashback showing him weeping over William's body, overcome with remorse and mourning the loss of his innocence. So it had never been his intention that the girl to take the rap for the murder.

reply

[deleted]

According to the book, it was because she had the locket, and could not explain how she got it. When questioned about where she had been at the time of the murder, she was confused and could not answer.

In the book, there is no mob lynching. She is given a trial and hanged the next day. Victor knows who the real murderer is, but cannot speak it...not only would it require admitting to creating the creature (which he wouldn't dare), but even if he did, they would accredit it "the ravings of a madman".

reply

[deleted]

It doesn't fit in the film rewrite. In the book, Justine was accused and tried. Individuals testifying were lying to cover their ass (the sleeping watchman, etc) and in the end J became so despondent at her charge's death she confessed in a suicide gesture.

reply