At all times, people were trying to explore nature and master their laws. Curiosity is one of the major human features, and it pushes people to discover new things and seek for new inventions. However, rarely if ever scientists were interested in the consequences that their discoveries might lead to. Thus, the ethical concern about relations between nature and science was the core idea of many literary works at all times.
A novel Frankenstein (1818) by Mary Shelley is a romantic work that reflects the consequences of “blind science” and human ambition, and Blade Runner (1992) by Ridley Scott depicts the industrialized society and world of the future which, in fact, deals with the same problems as Frankenstein.
In this essay, we are going to discuss the relationship between science and nature as an important universal concern through the comparative study of Frankenstein and Blade Runner.
Blade Runner & Frankenstein: Comparative Analysis
First of all, let us discuss the problems and the main idea of the Frankenstein. This work was written during the epoch of Romanticism, and thus, it explores the concerns typical for that period.
The authors focused their attention on the emotional state of people and relations with nature and ethical problems of scientific discoveries. These problems are explored in Frankenstein. The author deals with the question of creating. Victor Frankenstein was intended to create a human being: “So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein—more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation” (Shelley 86)
Practically, he achieved his aim and made a human, but only physically. The soul of this creature was far from being a human soul. The creature was the part of the world, but it did not belong to it.
The solitude and despair pushed this creature to do terrible things. Victor Frankenstein says about his creation: “I pursued nature to her hiding-places” (Shelley 52). However, did he succeed in this? Certainly, he did not. Thus, the author emphasizes that creation is only God’s responsibility, and science should not interfere in natural law as it will never surpass it.
However, the work by Mary Shelly was not a final point in the discussion of the relationship between science and nature. As Nadine Wolf comments in her book: “When Mary Shelley wrote this novel, she probably didn’t expect that her vision of a manmade monster actually could become possible in the future. Though the development of genetic engineering, humankind is now in the same role of responsibility as Victor is in Frankenstein (20).
Really, the concern about the relations of science and nature is still popular in our era. In 1982, Ridley Scott created film Blade Runner that explored the same moral and ethical problems between science and nature.
Though the film was directed almost 200 years later than Frankenstein, in a “time of phenomenal change: from IVF to genetic research to DNA and stem cell research” (Dixon 20), it also argues the right oh people interfere in the process of creation.
The idea of the film was partially inspired by the medical debates around cloning: “transplants of human organs became accepted though the implications of selling these have become an ethical minefield.” (Dixon 21). Eldon Tyrell in Blade Runner wanted to create the replicants to show the power of progress and science over nature. His creations were perfect physically and intellectually, though they lack the emotions and understanding of their creator.
As human beings that felt the need for life, they were struggling for it and tried to survive in any possible way. There is a short but very significant dialogue in the film which explains its main idea: Tyrell: “What seems to be the problem?” Roy: “Death.” Indeed, life is what all living beings want and what can be given only by nature and not by science.
Conclusion
Both works discuss the question: “what is it like to be a human being, even if you are not?” Both works had a very strong influence on the society they depicted. In addition, both authors explore the universal concerns about how far people can go in studying nature, “it is, in fact, an amazingly sophisticated, sumptuously visionary treatise on the consequences of attaining godhood” (Kempley n. p.).
The works are very far from each other in time, but very close in ideas. They demonstrate that there is a great danger in human ambitions and knowledge with respect to the dominance of science over nature to which all scientists aspire to. The main idea of both texts is that something should be beyond human understanding that some aspects of nature shouldn’t be discovered by people. Otherwise, the consequences can be terrible.
Thus, the concerns about relations between nature and science were popular at all times, and Frankenstein and Blade Runner are perfect examples of it: “A number of critics have claimed that the remarkable power of Blade Runner rests on a fundamental mythic structure of the novel, Frankenstein, “the struggle with human facsimiles” (Desser 53). Both texts explore the relationship between science and nature as an important universal concern and provide the idea that human is a creation of God and child of nature and people have no right to interfere into the creation process.
Works Cited
Desser, David “The New Eve: The Influence of Paradise Lost and Frankenstein on Blade Runner.” Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Ed. Judith Kerman. London: Popular Press, 1991. 53-66. Print.
Dixon, Melpomene, Texts in Time: Frankenstein and Blade Runner. English Teachers Association. NSW, 2008.
Kempley, Rita. “Blade Runner.” Washington Post. 11 Sept. 1992. Web.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus. London: Printed for G. and W.B. Whittaker, 1823
Wolf, Nadine. Nature and Civilization in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. GRIN Verlag, 2007.
The Victorian period is characterized by the paradox of a grand opening in society as well as a tremendous constraint. It is known as the time of change and social advances and the time of severe regard for the traditions. Under the reign of Queen Victoria, the Industrial Revolution came of age, blossomed, and brought sweeping change across the country and the world. Life switched from a base primarily dictated by the land one owned to a social structure based on commerce and manufacturing (Greenblatt, 2005).
In this switch, people living in these changing times began to question the status quo creating a great deal of social upheaval. Social class structures started to break down, and women, too, began to question their allotted place in society.
However, at the same time, these breaks from the traditions incited a response reaction in favor of more traditional social roles in other areas, such as the refutation of male sexual relationships to the extent that one could be sentenced to death for participating in the act of homosexuality. “The Victorian novel, with all of its emphasis on the realistic portrayal of social life, represented lots of Victorian issues in the stories of its characters.” (Greenblatt, 2005).
Homosexuality as Frankenstein’s Theme
During the above-mentioned period, writers such as Mary Shelley expressed a great deal of concern with these issues. An examination of Shelley’s novel Frankenstein demonstrates both the fear of and impossibility of suppressing homosexuality during this era. During this period in history, homosexuality advanced in awareness to a socially defined term as well as a practice punishable by law. Although laws against sodomy existed for centuries before the period in which Mary Shelley envisioned Frankenstein, none of these successfully attained perpetual statuses, and most were not developed with permanent status in mind (Harvey, 1978).
Records show that while there no functioning laws against sodomy per se existed during Shelley’s writing of the novel, other laws applied against expressions of homosexuality and there a strong adverse public reaction against homosexuality occurred in the early 1800s. “In 1810, when thirty homosexuals were arrested in a raid on the White Swan, Vere St., London, those discharged for want of evidence were so roughly handled by the crowd as to be in danger of their lives” (The Morning Chronicle, 1810).
The subject was delicately handled in the media as well. For example, one report of an execution reported the reason for the sentence as being the punishment for “a crime at which nature shudders, not a syllable of the evidence on which we can state” (Sibly, 1815). This sort of evidence illustrates the commonly held beliefs and attitudes among the general population regarding these issues.
However, Shelley did not live as part of the general population. The author of Frankenstein arrived as Mary Godwin in 1797, “just five months after her politically radical parents, William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, who did not believe in marriage, we’re married” (Wolf, 2004: 5). Her mother was one of the few feminists of her time, having published well-known commentaries regarding the rights of men and women and particularly for her stance that girls should be provided with an education sufficient to enable them to remain independent.
Her father was equally well-known for his libertarian viewpoints and published works. Although her mother died soon after giving birth to Mary, Shelley’s father exposed her to the world of the literati. He encouraged her to use her imagination. He also allowed her to read through his collection and sit in on his conversations with other prominent writers of his time. These included William Wordsworth, Charles, and Mary Lamb, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and William Hazlitt (Pabst-Kastner, 2003).
She led a rather tricky life with Percy Shelley, constantly vying for his attention with others, including male writers and his first wife, and remained unmarried through the birth of her three children, all fathered by Shelley, only the latter two of which survived. Shelley wrote Frankenstein just before her second daughter’s birth and married Shelley just before the novel’s publication after his first wife had committed suicide.
Throughout the novel, Shelley explores the social abhorrence toward homosexuality by couching it in the more socially acceptable terms of the growing machine age. “Mary Shelley used science as a metaphor for any irresponsible action, and what she was concerned with was the politics of the era.” (Pamintuan, 2002). She accomplishes this investigation into homosexuality not only in Frankenstein’s use of science as a means of producing his monster.
What is also important is how he reacts to the creature and through the consistent references to the ‘unnatural’ state of things in the absence of women. “More in keeping with eighteenth-century moralists than with either William Godwin or Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley describes innate desire not as neutral or benevolent, but as quintessentially egotistical” (Poovey, 1984: 253). Rather than being concerned with the ‘natural’ order of the world and the advancement of society, Frankenstein, like the homosexual element of Britain, concerned itself with ‘unnatural’ male love.
Unnatural as a Metaphor for Homosexuality
From the beginning of his education, Victor Frankenstein purposefully and intentionally turned his back on the natural world as a way of concentrating on discovering the secret of bringing life to inanimate material. “My attention was fixed upon every object the most insupportable to the delicacy of the human feelings.” (Shelley, 1993)
When “my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature” (Shelley, 1993). Despite the warnings received and the challenge to the natural order of things, Frankenstein went on with his search for in-depth knowledge, went on working on the creature he had started, went on envisioning it as a beautiful thing that would give all homage to him.
This fact demonstrates the unproductive passion of the homosexual lover, the desire to know something ‘unnatural’ and beyond God’s laws. Continuously giving in to his desires blinds him to the true nature of his actions until the living monster stands facing him in all its horrendous grotesqueness.
Although he creates the monster, Frankenstein cannot bear to look upon him. The young doctor falls so ill following the creature’s animation that he requires long-term care by his friend Clerval before he can travel. Although female relatives are the more traditional characters called in to be nursemaid to an ailing young man, Clerval emerges as the only individual capable of adequately tending Frankenstein’s despair. Frankenstein, having created something so disgusting that he can’t look upon it, leaves his creation to enter the world unprotected and misunderstood at every turn, essentially dooming the creature to eternal loneliness in his monstrosity.
This total disregard for the well-being of the monster wells up immediately upon his first breath. “The beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room.” (Shelley, 2004: 42). Victor only agrees to discuss anything with the monster once the threat has been made to his family, thereby forcing the creature to violence as the only means to gain an ear and illustrating the imaginary creation of the unnatural relationship between two men.
The monster, on the other hand, gains his knowledge of natural life through his experiences outside of Frankenstein’s influence. He comes into life with a gentle spirit, ready to love the natural things of the world. While the spring warmed the earth during the monster’s stay outside the De Lacey home, the monster tells Victor: “My spirits were elevated by the enchanting appearance of nature; the past was blotted from my memory, the present was tranquil, and the future gilded by bright rays of hope and anticipations of joy” (Shelley, 2004: 119).
Here, he learns that a natural life consists of the loving relationship that develops between a man and a woman, and thus, he determines to force Frankenstein to provide him with a wife, something that terrifies Frankenstein beyond measure. The creature cannot exist within the world in which he finds himself because he is neither male nor female.
He is the only one of his kind and quickly comes to the realization that without a balancing influence, he will not find peace: “You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (Shelley, 2004: 195). With his final hope for happiness ruined with Frankenstein’s refusal to create a female companion for him, the monster dedicates himself entirely to the destruction of the man he wished to love.
At the end of the novel, the creature tells Walton, “I had cast off all feeling, subdued all anguish, to riot in excess of my despair. Evil thenceforth became my good. Urged thus far, I had no choice but to adapt my nature to an element which I had willingly chosen” (Shelley, 2004: 239). This quote refers to one of the most often cited excuses why a man might consider sodomy, which rested on the absence of the availability of women.
As previously mentioned, the monster itself emerges as a symbol of the sexual act consumed among men. His body comprises the collected parts from the bodies of other men and comes to life in an arousal spasm that Frankenstein fails to consummate or put to rest. This concept bases upon Peter Brook’s (1984) outline of the traditionally male-centered approach to literature and sex in which there are an arousal period, a climax, and an end in quiescence.
In his own words, the male act starts with an “awakening, arousal, the birth of an appetency, ambition, desire or intention” (Brook, 1984). From this point, the aroused male takes action through a “significant discharge” before shrinking back into satisfaction and sleep (Brook, 1984). “The Masterplot of the novel would, according to the pleasure principle, be the chain of events that restores the creature to death while accounting for all the significances of its having come to life” (Winnett, 1990, p. 506).
In other words, for the novel to follow the path of male consummation, the monster must find some meaningful expression for his life, such as having made a connection of some positive sort with another member of the human race and then returned to death where he belongs. Shelley’s novel thus introduces a failure of consummation among men because neither of these essential events occurs, suggesting impotence of some kind among the characters.
The creature thus emerges not only as a symbol in his actions but also as a symbol in his mere existence. As a technologically produced, free-thinking, and self-aware being, he represents the concept of man’s science taking over the reproductive powers of women, supplanting the natural role and removing the feminine from the equation altogether. This produces horrific results both physically and psychologically, that quickly escalate much further out of control than could have been originally imagined.
The monster’s role in the death of Justine, as well as the murder of Elizabeth, also emphasizes this concept of technology attempting to replace the functions of women, thus negating their importance to society. At the same time, Victor’s refusal to create a female for the monster reflects the general fear of men that women could not be adequately contained through any other means than destruction.
Victor Frankenstein emerges as a very narcissistic male, concerned with fulfilling his desires regardless of their effect upon the rest of society. This reflects the attitude held by many Victorians regarding the unnatural issue of homosexuality. “Narcissistic males, Victor and Robert (like Percy), displace their homosexual goals and, in so doing, suppress any purpose outside the self.
Victor begins with a willful act of creation and ends with a weak act of inaction at the site of Elizabeth’s death. Mr. Veeder… in his elaboration of an analogy with Percy Shelley, he makes some interesting observations about Percy’s own latent homosexuality. Shelley’s bifurcation, the doomed alternative to Mary’s androgynous model, is understood to result from an original desire for a male object: a ‘negative’ Oedipus complex.
This is reproduced in Victor’s character, who desires Elizabeth’s death but finds in the monster/’father’ not a beloved after all but a ravisher” (Janowitz, 1989). Parallels are thus drawn between the author’s personal life and the novel that further serve to illustrate its homosexual overtones.
Conclusion
While numerous readings are possible of Shelley’s novel, it is undeniable that one of the many issues she concerned herself with was the issue of homosexuality and its effects on society. In doing so, Shelley reflected much of the sentiment of the time. Investigations into her personal life suggest Shelley perhaps also found herself trying to cope with homosexual tendencies in her lover and future husband while contemplating the incredible dynamics of life and death having just lost one child and in the process of producing another.
It is thus not surprising that she should envision the product of a homosexual relationship, its nature, and its effect upon the world, particularly given world events occurring at that time. Through the character of Victor Frankenstein, Shelley investigates the destructive forces of homosexuality as the product of his passion wanders the earth in search of a ‘normal’ life it can never have.
Although hidden within a discussion of the technological advances of science, Shelley includes small details to help illustrate the homosexual bent of the novel, such as in the case of Clerval and Frankenstein’s deep attachment to this male character and in the killing of the female characters as a means of keeping the story couched within the male sphere.
The process of creation itself is even distanced from the natural collaboration of male and female. Through the progress of the novel, Shelley demonstrates the destructive and, at best, isolating effects of homosexuality.
Works Cited
Brooks, Peter. Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. New York: Knopf, 1984.
Greenblatt, Stephen (Ed.). “Introduction: The Victorian Age.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol. 8. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.
Harvey, A.D. “Prosecutions for Sodomy in England at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century.” The Historical Journal. Vol. 21, N. 4, December 1978.
Janowitz, Anne F. “Book Review of Mary Shelley and Frankenstein: The Fate of Androgyny.” The Modern Language Review. Vol. 84, N. 4, October 1989.
Pamintuan, Tina. “‘It’s Alive’: Frankenstein’s Monster and Modern Science.” Humanities. Vol. 23, N. 5, September/October 2002.
Poovey, Mary. “‘My Hideous Progeny” The Lady and the Monster.” From “The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Shelley, Mary. The Essential Frankenstein. Leonard Wolf (Ed.). New York: Simon & Schuester, 2004. Sibly, Job. The Morning Chronicle. April 6, 1815.
Winnett, Susan. “Coming Unstrong: Women, Men, Narrative, and Principles of Pleasure.” MLA. Vol. 105, N. 3, Special Topic: The Politics of Critical Language, May 1990.
Directed by James Whale, Frankenstein, a 1931 film, story line is largely adapted from the Peggy Webling play, which is based on Mary Shelley’s novel by the same title. The film features the story of human struggles to unveil the realities of nature, through deploying science to recreate life.
Frankenstein was done during the pre-code era. With the adoption of codes for regulation of films with moving pictures in 1931, it was apparent that the movie was open to censorship. With this critical acclaim, the paper seeks to scrutinize how Frankenstein (1931), through its textual operations attempts to generate a socially or politically “appropriate” message and whether or not it succeeds in doing this.
Additionally the paper respond to the questions: does the film expel, discipline, or otherwise “manage” the elements of the film that might conflict the sanctioned meaning and whether these elements end up subverting or overwhelming this sanctioned message.
Overview of Frankenstein
Frankenstein opens up by Edward Van Sloan warning on the immense horrors to ensue in the course of filming, before the audience is opened up to eerie and dismal cemetery. As Dirks reveals, “the presentation of a funeral is silent, but conducted in a terrifying atmosphere setting, characterized by mourning sounds with the priests mumbling prayers” (Para.3).
When the mourners leave, the casket is cautiously lowered into the grave and is filled up with soil, which causes chilling sounds as it hits the coffin. Upon the disappearance of the gravediggers, Frankenstein and Fritz emerge to dig up the fresh grave to access the coffin. Unfortunately, the brain is useless.
Elizabeth, the wife to Frankenstein, is disturbed by her husband absence for a number of months and considers looking out for Dr Waldman (her husband’s to be a mentor) to aid her in finding Frankenstein. In his secluded laboratory, Frankenstein does not have a healthy brain to use in his endeavor to recreate life.
Consequently, he sends his assistant, Fritz to invade the laboratory of Dr. Waldman to obtain one. Scared by a powerful and horrific loud crash, he hastily picks the defective brain (criminal brain) and quickly leaves. On one stormy and proverbial dark night, Frankstein permits Elizabeth, Fritz and victor to witness the final parts of his experiment in his watchtower laboratory.
“As the body is raised to the laboratory’s ceiling, all his electrical equipments are engaged, and the body then comes down in a brilliantly pyrotechnic scene” (Dirks Para.2).
When the hand slowly moves, Frankenstein is overwhelmed with joy and proclaims the famous movie’s lines- “Look! It is moving. It is alive. It’s alive…It’s alive, it’s moving, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive!…in the name of God. Now I know what it “feels like to be God” (Dirks Para.2).The defective brain, however, makes the creature to acquit itself with only murder, hate and horror.
Frankenstein (1931) attempts to generate a socially “appropriate” message
The scene where Elizabeth, Dr. Waldman, and victor meet Frankenstein, after his long disappearance, is assertive of the existing gender differences relations stemming from historic inequalities between men and women. Elizabeth insists that she was not leaving Frankenstein that very night.
However, Frankenstein maintains that he could not suspend his experiment, and harshly utters to Elizabeth “you’ve got to leave” (Dirks Para.2). Surprisingly this is the final decision. Elizabeth was not to walk away with him. This reflects male dominance in terms of making decisions.
Another scenario reflecting unbalanced gender relations is the scene where the marriage, between the two, is postponed to pave the way for Frankenstein to pursue his creature intentionally to kill it. While it is largely agreed that the weeding would be postponed by a day, Frankenstein asks, “A day?” and furthers says, “I wonder…there can be no wedding while this horrible creation of mine is still alive” (Dirks Para.3).
These incidences of gender imbalances, in terms of making decision, largely make the film inconsistent with the struggles beginning in 1926 America, to accord equal rights to both genders within the societal mindsets. Rather they reinforce on the ability of men to dominate women.
Since time immemorial, man has endeavored to unveil and resolve miseries of nature. Apparently, Frankenstein miseries of life and death have disturbed the world immensely. Where does life come from? Where does it go while one dies?
Can it be reclaimed and re-installed? In the contexts of imminent religious faith, which was spreading across the globe, in 1930s, the movie Frankenstein was ideally socially relevant in attempting to unveil responses to these queries.
In contrast to religious mindsets and rules of Christianity, the movie is indeed a violation of the production codes of 1931, which were later to be reinforced further by the additions of more codes in 1934. The codes prohibited employment of episodes ridiculing any religious faith.
Unfortunately, the movie depicts Frankenstein assembling body parts, stolen from dead bodies, to form his creature that was later to turn out mysterious to human beings.
Indeed, the defective brain that made the creature dangerous to life of people including Frankenstein and his mentor Dr. Waldman was also stolen from the medical college laboratory belonging to Dr. Waldman. Additionally, in the film Dr. Waldman himself acquired the body parts including brains used in his laboratory by digging up graves to steal the parts.
In this context, the movie seems like justifying stealing in as much as it helped to acquire objects vital to resolution of certain human miseries. In deed, this was largely against the then spreading concepts of Christianity, which held that stealing, was both religiously and morally inappropriate irrespective of justifications raised henceforth.
Even though the film may have managed to show that things acquired through stealing can indeed work by making Frankenstein’s experiments using them a success, the horrors attributed to the Frankenstein experiments later were more than thought of confirmation of man’s inability to create life held by Christianity faith.
Arguably, from a textual approach, Frankenstein attempt to share the life creation task with God was immensely challenged by the aftermaths of his experiment. His famous proclamation – “It’s alive. It’s alive…It’s alive, it’s moving, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive, it’s alive!…in the name of God. Now I know what it feels like to be God” (Dirks Para.2) is blasphemous according to critics.
Precisely, following the enactment of 1931 production codes the phrase: “Oh – in the name of God. Now I know what it “feels like to be God” (Dirks Para.2) has been removed from the film scenes. In this context, it is possible to argue out that, despite the high success of the film, it failed to meet the preconceived anticipations of people’s religiously constructed mindsets. If it had to, the creatures needed to have not acquired life.
From a different dimension, the meaning of the film may be looked as being reflective of the societies’ anticipation of coming into terms with various societal advances evidenced in other films but later to form the realties’ of 1980s to present world technological advancement especially in robotic and their applications in executing tasks often unsuitable for normal people.
In this context, Frankenstein’s struggles to create human being-like creature may have lacked meaning then and hence get contested especially in the realm of religious believes but today, the significance of the creature is real. A possible argument is how this relates to the plot of the film.
As a rebuttal, to attribute this meaning to the film is a question of examination of premises of the film’s narratives. One premise is that the monster is incredibly animated. However, as Spadoni reckons the monster is “not alive on the same way that other characters in the film are and hence the story of his origin, like in his physical appearance, underscores the deeply compromised nature of the monsters living state” (102).
The creature is given life by electricity. This provides a rigid connectivity between the Frankenstein film and Metropolis. In this context, Spadoni writes, “in Whale’s film, the scene in which the monster comes to life – influenced by the scene in Metropolis (Lang 1927) in which a robot is transformed into the likeness of Maria-retains and intensifies the earlier film’s copiously visible presence of electricity” (102).
An attempt to achieve the conception of man’s ability to create creatures, capable of performing tasks, similar to those performed by human beings through the help of electricity, is indeed amplified by incorporation of copiously audible electrical effects.
In this regard, one may argue out that, the implication of the phrase the creature is “alive” textually, is that the creature can perform activities performed by human beings, but the creature is not necessary a human being, as evidenced by differences in its appearance and that of real human characters.
Frankenstein (1931) attempts to generate politically “appropriate” message
Frankenstein presentation of the process of creation of the horrible creature in an attempt to certify man’s fantasies of nature depicts the harsh consequences of conferring powers to few people, often becoming non-human analogous the monster. The creature is created, speaks and then escapes.
Political policies often involve a hefty process of creativity in an attempt to resolve certain social problem that attracts public interest. A part from certain low ranking human figures being raised into super human figures, tantamount to that of the monster in Frankenstein, it makes no sense if such figures do not speak out the powers conferred to them, in the right way.
Arguably then, Frankenstein may be seen as constructing politically significant message in response to George Cannings- a foreign secretary of state’s then, while at the house of commons on the issue of emancipation of West Indians slaves.
He remarked on the capacity of slave debates “To turn him loose in the manhood of his physical strength, in the maturity of his physical passion, but in the infancy of his uninstructed reason, would be to raise a creature resembling the splendid fiction of a recent romance” (O’Flinn 204).
In this context, the film depicts rhetoric’s of the manner in which liberal states people could have deployed its source; Mary Shelley’s novel, to delay reforms and the manner in which the monster issues referred by Canning (slaves), were transformed into brute mindless rhetoric.
What can be learnt from the films in a political context is the ability of monsters to get out of control of its philosophical creators- public. In the film, audience experience situations in which the monster struggle Frankenstein in a mill, having not even spared the person who mentored its creator (Dr. Waldman).
Additionally, people see the monster, though seemingly harmless, as having the capacity to ruin even innocent people like the young girl who was drowned by it. The remorse and guilt experienced by the creator perhaps well explains the damage executed by individualistic politicians, who only comes into terms with consequences of their poor use of power when such consequences cannot be reversed.
However, to correct people’s mistakes in conferring powers to few people, the film may be argued to spread the message that people needs to struggle. In this end, “the novel seems to warn against the recklessness of the radical philosophers who tries to construct a new body politic” (O’Flinn 204).
Indeed, the creators of those powers given to “monsters” risks even to lose their life in getting those in power out of it. Frankenstein was nearly killed by products of his innovation!
Personal opinion
On watching the film Frankenstein, several queries emerge in the minds if viewers. Some of these queries are, does the film expel, discipline, or otherwise “manage” the elements of the film that might conflict the sanctioned meaning?
In addition, do these elements end up subverting or overwhelming this sanctioned message among others? Production codes of 1931, which are followed by further reinforcement by the 1934 production codes, prohibits and sanctions some meaning in films.
In Frankenstein, the audience was opened fully to grasp every detail of situations involving explicit presentation of various methods of crime. For instance, the audience saw the monster getting hold of the little girl and throwing her into the pond thinking that she could float just as flowers did.
In the film, the fact that the monster has defective brain seems to justify this reckless action with possibilities of shifting the sympathy of the audience to the monsters cognitive defects due to human errors rather than the child drowned.
Additionally, a terrifying and a moody scene are filmed featuring Fritz and Frankenstein cutting a hanged man by his gallows to obtain his brain. This also explicitly shows scenes of crimes. In this context, in various ways, the movie depicts elements that might conflict the sanctioned meaning, which end up subverting or overwhelming the sanctioned message.
Conclusion
Directed by James whale, Frankenstein depicts the extents of danger that people’s obsession with unveiling the miseries of nature can pose to the existence of even the miseries resolvers. Dr, Waldman and the young who engaged in a play with the monster was killed while its creator Frankenstein escaped narrowly.
This being the basic interpretation of the film, the paper goes went further to assert that textually the film embraced attempts to generate socially or politically “appropriate” messages.
However, in the light of 1931 and 1934 production codes the paper claims that the film fails to expel, discipline, or otherwise “manage” the elements of the film that might conflict the sanctioned meaning by these codes by explicitly depicting every detail of scenes of execution of crimes.
The Industrial Revolution brought about a great time of change. Advances in technology and machinery touched off new scientific debate while Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution further questioned the veracity of the Bible itself. The increasingly literate public was becoming more involved in these debates being waged, particularly as newspapers and other periodicals became more available thanks to the introduction of the printing press. These new media proved essential in introducing and maintaining widespread discourse in the political and social issues of the day, not just in the form of non-fiction news articles, but also in the form of fiction novels.
One of the debates of the day was the question of the proper role of the scientist in the contemporary age, addressed in the novel Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley. Within the film Young Frankenstein, Mel Brooks attempts to demonstrate through humor the same types of danger of technological advancements upon society that Mary Shelley was attempting to illustrate in her novel, Frankenstein, a more serious approach to the subject
The main ideas in the book and film
One of the main themes within the book is a questioning of what it means to be human, an idea that is also addressed in the film. We see in the departure scene between Frankenstein and Elizabeth at the train station how the modern world has reduced something even as natural as human touch and emotion to a mechanized, untouchable element. Despite the length of the journey about to be taken by Frankenstein, Elizabeth won’t permit him to kiss her (it’ll mess up her lipstick), hug her (it’ll wrinkle her ‘taffeta’ dress), disturb her hair by pressing a kiss to her head or even hold her hand as it might damage her polished nails. Finally, they end up saying good-bye with a simple touch of the elbows.
In contrast, the more natural character of Inga is first seen offering a ‘roll in the hay’ as Frederick climbs into the back of a hay wagon he will be riding home. She touches him often not only here, when she curls into him for protection against the lightning and the wolves, but throughout the rest of the film, demonstrating instances of intelligent thought as well as natural carnal desire. This contrast between the two women forces attention and an obvious preference for the more natural rather than the technological.
Inspector Kemp is another example of a technologically influenced character. With a false arm and a rather ridiculous approach to his profession, Kemp illustrates the failure of technology to adequately replace humanity. To use this bendable arm, Kemp must constantly use his other hand to move it about, with a creaking sound as it ratchets into place. Another means he has of moving this arm is through exaggerated kinetic energy as he swings his shoulder around his body. Although Kemp apparently wears this false arm as a means of appearing ‘normal’, he has also developed a habit of using his arm as a tool to help him light cigars or hold darts. He is a ridiculous man illustrating the ridiculousness of attempting to blend natural humanity with the technological advancements of science.
The idea of nature’s effect on humanity is also addressed in both the book and the film. In Young Frankenstein, Brooks attempts to illustrate this idea as nature reflects human behavior, highlighting the irremovable connection between the two. This is reflected in the obscuring fog as Frankenstein arrives at his grandfather’s castle unsure of what he might find and in the habit of the weather to flash lightning and sound thunder at opportune moments in the film, such as when Frederick and Igor are digging up the body and Igor mentions it could be worse, it could be raining. Every time Frau Blucher’s name is mentioned, the pair of horses in the stables rear up and whinny in fright.
The question of nature versus nurture is another important theme shared between the novel and the film. Brooks brings attention to this theme by focusing on the monster’s underlying personality when he is not behaving as society would expect him to. When he wakes up and Frederick is standing over him shouting about him being alive, the monster looks slightly frightened, particularly when he’s told to stand on his feet.
Like a child, he’s pleased to be doing well with his walking ability and is easily frightened into dangerous behavior at the spark of controlled fire, a symbol of the earliest technology. He is quickly frightened by nature as he leaves the castle, but is still gentle and caring with the little girl he meets. Despite this, the monster only seems to bring about monstrous results until he is given a piece of Frederick’s humanity through electric transfer.
Conclusion
Throughout the film Young Frankenstein, Mel Brooks continuously attempts to use humor to bring his audience’s focus upon the various major themes inherent in the original story. He also provides the story with his own bias, clearly demonstrating how he prefers the concept of nature over technology. While he is successful in bringing attention to these issues over others, the audience has a general tendency to simply treat the film as a comedy without giving greater thought to the more serious questions involved.
Works Cited
Young Frankenstein. Dir. Mel Brooks. Perf. Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr, Marty Feldman and Madeline Kahn. Twentieth Century Fox, 1974.
Frankenstein (also referred to as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein) is a horror film directed by Kenneth Branagh in 1994 and adopted from a book by Mary Shelly bearing a similar title. In the movie, a young doctor named Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) departs from his native land of Geneva to be admitted to a medical school (IMDB, para. 2).
At the college, he studies and becomes knowledgeable in human anatomy and in chemistry. The young student has always been fascinated with death, and this leads him to initiate a project to create life. Victor designs a creature with the body parts of convicts and with the brain of a bright scientist. The ‘monster’ (Robert De Niro) comes to life and is thrown into society.
The monster then grasps that society will never accept him and seeks revenge on all persons that Victor loves. As the movie ends, Victor is all by himself as all his family members have been killed. Victor then creates a partner for the creature to love; however, due to the pain he is feeling, he opts to use Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) and resurrects her for his benefit. Eventually, Elizabeth kills herself because Victor and the monster are fighting over her.
As the film comes to an end, Victor dies on a ship while the monster he created is found crying over his dead body. Victor’s funeral ceremony is interrupted when the ice surrounding the ship starts to crack. The creature takes a burning torch and sets himself and his dead creator, alight.
Critical Analysis of the Film
Despite having a fine start, Frankenstein fails to quite come off and does not make a good film for a variety of reasons. First is the films’ duration. In slightly more than two hours, the movie feels a little extended. It is wordy, and the speed drops in some scenes. Part of the problem stems from the film’s familiarity. Preparations for Frankenstein’s journey to Vienna, his encounter with Clerval, his disobedience to the medical staff at the school, and his initial experimentations have all been undertaken before.
The audience knows where Victor is headed to, and Branagh offers no compelling spins to the storyline. This familiarity stems from the fact that several editions of the movie have been produced before. However, the film becomes more interesting in the second half. Here, Branagh uses elements from the book that have not been included in previous versions of the movie.
For instance, the Arctic scenery, the subtle fact that the creature can converse in the human voice and is smart and able to experience pain, the series of events related to William’s death and the creature’s set-up of Justine are all exclusive to the movie, making for an exciting watch. However, for someone who has not watched previous versions of the film nor read Shelley’s book, the movie makes for an interesting watch as a whole.
Another unfortunate aspect of the movie is the rapid succession of scenes, considering that the film runs for more than two hours. Just fifteen minutes into the movie, three years have already elapsed. An audience may find it hard to keep up with the story and might lose concentration midway to the end. Again, the author needs to recognize that tragedy in the film is most effective when it is allowed to develop slowly.
The scenes in Branagh’s version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein move so fast that some of the subtleties disappear along the way. This gives the movie an exciting and occasionally chaotic (particularly in the first half-hour) piece of work that, while irrefutably entertaining, is short of the depth that a work of this magnitude requires.
However, the movie can be praised in several aspects, especially that of the gorgeous scenery, superior acting of some characters, especially Elizabeth and Robert de Niro, and creativity. From one scene to another, the producer does nice finishing touches and fascinating variations that are easily noticeable.
It is exciting, for instance, to watch Frankenstein play Ben Franklin and hold hands with his family members while lying down! And in another scene, when Dr. Frankenstein pays a midwife to collect amniotic fluid and fill what resembles a cylinder, our interest is held as much as possible.
There are also some important scenes, such as the one where the doctor slips into the court to cut down a hanged man to use him as ‘raw material.’ As Frankenstein cuts the rope and the lifeless body falls to the ground, there is a swift cut to a table in the inn where a wine bottle is banged on to the table. A clever finishing touches the points that make a huge difference.
The producer also does some quality work in actor selection. Although Branagh’s performance as Dr. Frankenstein is nothing to write home about, De Niro and Elizabeth do an amazing job of making for inadequacies elsewhere (Ebert, 2). The scene where the creature becomes friends with a family and supplies them with food while watching and learning through a crack on the wall is fabulously moving and is probably the best scene in the movie.
Although his role was the most challenging, De Niro acts it out with finesse and melodrama and significantly improves the rating of the film. Similarly, Helena gives a thoroughly captivating performance. She becomes much more than Frankenstein’s secret lover and also plays a vital role in exposing the bad and good sides of Frankenstein and the creature.
Camera techniques are essential to the development of scenes, and Branagh does not fail at this. Often, the camera swerves to Victor’s laboratory, where he is upset as he faces a choice between devoting all his time to science and marrying his adopted sister, Elizabeth. The camera is also valuable in showing the audience a panoramic view of Geneva and the Swiss Alps. And as the creature lays on the snow, the camera reveals the rage, anger, and bitterness in its eyes. He will have revenge for his creation by Victor.
Conclusion
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a very intriguing movie to watch. While the film has its weaknesses, it also has several strengths that result in a fascinating watch. Aspects that make Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein a bad film include wordiness and speed drops in some scenes, audience familiarity with the storyline, and rapid succession of scenes. However, Branagh makes up for these insufficiencies by using gorgeous sceneries, excellent acting skills by the actors, and the use of camera techniques to develop scenes.
Directed by James Whale in 1931, Frankenstein is a chef-d’oeuvre horror film depicting several social issues in Europe after the First World War. The war caused unparalleled destruction, which threatened to tear the social fabric characterized by declining human welfare and stagnation in most societal issues. James Whale adapted Mary Shelley’s 1818-masterpiece book, Frankenstein. The movie Frankenstein can be interpreted from the disparate point of view as it covers many issues touching on politics, religion, sexuality, and human origins, among other issues. This paper is an analysis of the movie Frankenstein by focusing on the social themes in it.
Plot analysis
In the opening scenes of the movie, Heinrich Frankenstein creates a lifeless human figure, but he desires to get life into it, which would culminate in the successful creation of an artificial human being. His girlfriend, Elizabeth, tries to convince Heinrich to abandon his plans, but she fails terribly on this attempt. Fortunately, for Heinrich, he manages to ‘breathe’ life into his creature, which turns into a docile and obedient being.
However, the being becomes an aggressive monster upon being locked up after its creators start thinking it is unfit for society. The monster attacks Frankenstein and his friend, Waldman, as they labor to rescue Fritz, who apparently dies from the monster’s attack. At this point, Frankenstein realizes that the monster should die, and he hatches a plan to inject it with a lethal substance. He manages to execute his obliterating plans, and he leaves for his wedding, knowing that the monster is dead. Waldman is left behind to watch over the dead creature as Frankenstein leaves for his long-awaited wedding.
The monster resurrects and attacks Waldman before escaping to the unknown. In its escape, it meets a lovely girl, Maria, and after the two playing an interesting game of tossing flowers in a water body, the monster ultimately tosses the girl into the water as the final flower of the game. The monster then attacks Frankenstein’s fiancée on the wedding day and escapes without being seen. In confusion, the father of the drowned girl arrives carrying the lifeless body, which angers the villagers to pursue the monster. In the closing stages of the movie, the monster attacks Frankenstein in the mountains, but he survives after being trapped in an old mill. The monster is also trapped in the mill, and the villagers set it on fire, thus ending its spree of destruction.
Analysis of social themes
As aforementioned, James Whale, the director of the movie, hinged his script on the social difficulties that swept across Europe after the First World War. Those who participated in the war came home devastated emotionally with nothing to pride in except that the architects of the war had won. Normal people were turned into death hungry soldiers, and after the war, the majority of them suffered post-traumatic stress disorder due to the vagaries of the war. According to Remargue (1996), one of the returning soldiers from the war lamented, “We feel as if something inside us, in our blood, has been switched on…we are dead men with no feelings, who are able by some trick, some dangerous magic, to keep on running and keep on killing” (p.38).
These soldiers could not continue living normal lives, and their integration back into a society called for a series of therapies. Just like Frankenstein’s monster, the soldiers were ‘created’ by the authorities for what was believed to be a noble course. The soldiers became monsters after a spree of killings in the war, just as Frankenstein’s monster, which left a trail of destruction wherever it went. Frankenstein’s monster represents the mangled and depressed soldiers returning from the war only to find an economy in crisis, given that the Great Depression was in the offing after the war.
In a bid to understand James Whale’s motives for such a script, it is important to explore his role or participation in the war. Gatiss (1995) posits that James joined the army in 1915, and his duty “was no mean feat for the son of a Dudley furnace man, even allowing for the tremendously high casualty rate among junior officers on the Western Front” (p.72).
After returning from the war, James did not disclose a lot concerning what happened to him, but some claim that the Germans held him as a prisoner of war at one point. Therefore, Whale experienced how it feels to be involved in war only to return home to an ailing economy coupled with the trauma that accompanies killing fellow human beings in a war. In addition, during a war, soldiers crave love, affection, and romance that come easily in normal social settings. As aforementioned, Whale adopted the work of Mary Shelly, Frankenstein, which was written in 1818.
In the story, the monster requests Victor, its creator, to create a mate for it in a bid to escape loneliness. In the movie, Whale includes the love and romance aspect as he prepares to marry his longtime sweetheart. However, the monster tries to kill the fiancée on the day of the wedding. This occurrence is symbolic, and the monster, in this case, can represent the government or the mutilated soldiers returning from the war, as explored in the next two paragraphs.
The majority of the soldiers involved in the First World War were normal civilians who enlisted in the army solely to help their nations win the war. In normal circumstances, such civilians would not have enlisted in the army. However, as they entered the war and participated in the bizarre killings that normally occur in wars, these soldiers changed forever. They became bloodletting monsters with killing and death, becoming a commonplace in otherwise innocent citizens, who were pulled into a senseless war serving the interests of its architects. The monster in the film, Frankenstein, is initially docile and obedient. However, at one point, its creator seeks to seclude it from society, as it is allegedly unfit to be in such an environment. Frankenstein creates the monster for a noble course that seeks to have an alternative human being.
Unfortunately, the monster becomes aggressive and starts harming people, including its creator. In the same way, the government created monsters by sending civilians to the war. Curtis (1998) posits that the soldiers were “wrapped in tattered bandages, some limping, some blind walking with upraised arms, some stumbling like Frankenstein’s monster” (p.56). Upon their return, the depressed soldiers found an ailing economy, and they had nothing to celebrate. Suicides were widespread, and some soldiers committed suicide, while others killed people around them out of frustrations. In addition, some of the surviving soldiers returned to haunt Europe.
Babington (1997) posits, “All the senior members of the Third Reich were veterans of WWI driven mad by four years of bombardment on the Western Front, they unleashed their madness on Europe, subjecting every major city to the experience of bombardment…they brought the madness of the trenches to the whole world” (p. 83). Just like Frankenstein’s monster, which turned against its creator, some returning soldiers regrouped to form the Third Reich. This group started tormenting Europe, its creator. The European authorities, especially France and Britain, created these soldiers for a noble course just like Frankenstein with his monster. In the movie, Frankenstein uses a laboratory to create a monster, which symbolizes battlefields where normal soldiers turn into monsters.
On the other hand, the monster can be taken to represent the European governments at the time of World War I. The governments turned into monsters towards the soldiers involved in the war. The returning soldiers were evidently traumatized, and their lives had changed. In Britain, the government could not deal with the increasing number of shell shock victims, and thus it ordered their execution (Gregory 2013). Babington (1997) laments that most returning soldiers were “deliberately picked out and convicted as a lesson to others… they were selected, charged, and subjected to a mock trial often without defense one day, convicted, then shot at dawn the following day” (p.91). In this case, the government is the monster for killing its citizens. In the movie, Maria’s father carries her lifeless daughter in his arms with sorrow all over his face.
Similarly, the soldiers returned home to find a government that had ravaged their families and the economy. Whale directed the movie in 1931 as the society started experiencing the effects of the Great Depression. The farmer holding his dead daughter symbolizes the soldiers coming home to find their shattered families and dreams. They had lost everything, including their lives, as living with post-traumatic stress disorder was unbearable. Even to the government, such soldiers could not be accepted back into society, which explains why the government authorized their killing. Therefore, the movie Frankenstein seeks to highlight the plight of soldiers returning from the First World War. James Whale, the film’s director, was a victim of the vagaries of the war as a soldier, and this aspect validates the claims made in this paper concerning the impact of the war on soldiers.
Conclusion
In 1931, James Whale directed the horror film, Frankenstein, in the quest to highlight the repugnance of the soldiers who were involved in the First World War. Whale fought in the war, and thus he had firsthand experience on the effects of the combat. Just like the monster in the film, the soldiers turned violent upon their return from the war as they were suffering from the post-traumatic stress disorder. A majority of them committed suicide while others were killed under the watch and command of the very institutions that created them.
In the movie, Frankenstein tries to kill his creation, the monster, after its attempts to kill his fiancée. In the same way, the British government executed its own soldiers for different reasons, and this aspect ties the movie to the events of the First World War. In addition, some soldiers regrouped to form the Third Reich, which started tormenting its creator, viz. Europe. In the same way, the monster returns to haunt Frankenstein by killing people close to him, starting with Fritz. Therefore, the movie Frankenstein highlights the social issues surrounding the First World War, especially on the soldiers that participated in the combat.
References
Babington, A. (1997). Shell-shock: A history of the changing attitudes to war neurosis. London, UK: Leo Cooper. Web.
Curtis, J. (1998). James Whale: A New World of Gods and Monsters. Boston, MA: Faber and Faber. Web.
Gatiss, M. (1995). James Whale: A Biography; or, The Would-Be Gentleman. London, UK: Cassell Publishing. Web.