The last time I read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I was in grade school. I hadn't watched the movie at all, only a parody of it called Young Frankenstein, directed by Mel Brooks. In the book, the 'secret of life' that Victor Frankenstein discovered was never explained. In the movie, the monster was hooked up to machines and then charged with lightning. I guess the movie had the difficult part, because it had to show a possible mechanism for reanimation, while the book didn't need to.
How does Frankenstein the book and the film reflect upon the role of morality and science?
Victor Frankenstein desecrated graves and mutilated dead bodies, and gave his science experiment consciousness, after which he abandoned it. I think the main point was that you have to be smart, but you also have to be humane. There are a lot of possible science experiments, but some of them we are unable to do because it would not be 'good.' By good I mean it would cause physical or mental duress upon people or animals. Though I think it's pretty hard to say absolutely what is moral and what isn't—because after all, who has the right?
The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent conversation. Why was the monster made dumb? Did it work?
I liked how they made communication a theme in the movie. The monster wasn't able to communicate properly, and due to his unsightly appearance, he scared everyone off—except the man who couldn't see what he looked like. Communication and presentation is an important part of science, which is why people who are able to explain science in layman's terms are very important to its development and role in society. There are some things that we need to understand and have understood in order for progress.
Marianne Cadiz
2013-14735
No comments:
Post a Comment