Response #2- Frankenstein: Who is the real monster?

There were a lot of readings of the film Frankenstein that I agreed with in class. I knew of the story of Frankenstein but never saw any of the movies so I had a lot to take in during this viewing. The discussion and readings really helped wrap my mind around the story but also got me thinking about some other aspects that I saw. The aspects I focused on and found them most interesting was the question of “who is the real monster” as well as the issue of nature vs. nurture.

                The first odd thing that I noticed, because I hadn’t seen the movies before and didn’t know the full story, was that the monster was not called Frankenstein, the creator of the monster was. I think this is a common mistake people make but I think it says something more. Throughout the film, only a few people called Frankenstein by his first name, Henry. Those people were his fiancé, his friend Victor and maybe his father once or twice at the being of the film. Everyone else in the town called him Frankenstein. By the end of the movie everyone except his fiancé Elizabeth referred to him as Frankenstein. I think this plays into the fact that he himself was a monster or turning into a monster and everyone could see that except for Elizabeth who was blinded by love.

                Because Frankenstein was himself a monster, I think that he was the main influence in turning his creation into a so called monster. In the film, there is a line saying “he is the spitting image of his father.” Of course this is directly referring to Henry’s father, but can also be applied to Henry and the monster because Henry is ultimately the monsters father and if the monster is a spitting image of Henry, it means that he too is a monster. When we first see the monster, he is very calm and curious but the minute Henry puts in him in the dark and his assistant  starts torturing him with the torch, he gets very angry and lashes out. His actions throughout the movie resemble those of a child which furthers emphasizes the theory of him being Henry’s makeshift son and Henry was not ready to be a father.

The monster is constantly instigated by Henry, the professor and his assistant, which causes him to lash out more and become angrier. But the minute that the monster escapes the castle, he is happier and free from the torture and darkness. He meets a young girl and beings to play with her. This is the first time the audience sees the monster smile. However, the monster cannot grasp the

idea that flowers can  float on the water but humans can't. He throws the girl into the water, thinking that like the flowers, she would float and he ends up accidently killing her. You can see on the monster’s face that he is distraught by what he had done and runs away because that is his first instinct. This shows that he is not a malicious monster like he is made out to be, but only the monster when around the people who terrorize him and made him that way.

People might think that because of all the chaos that the monster is causing justifies that he is a monster but I believe that he is just misunderstood and doesn’t understand the world around him because Henry kept in cooped up in the castle and in the dark. In this sense, the monster kind of reminds me of Lennie from Of Mice and Men. Lennie accidentally kills a puppy and his boss’ wife. He doesn’t mean to cause harm but he just doesn’t understand because he is mentally challenged. Just like the monster, he runs away because that is the only thing he knows how to do. In the end they both suffer the same fate only Lennie’s fate doesn’t happen out of revenge, like the monster's.
 

 As the angry villagers light the windmill on fire, for the first time the audience hears the monster make a noise other than a moan. His shrieks of terror sound very human like and the audience watches as the monster gets burned by the fire. I think the significance of the sound being semi-human makes the audience decide if the monster really is a monster or is it the townspeople and Henry who are the real monsters. Throughout the entire movie, all of the killings that the monster has done have been explained or justified. He killed the professor and the assistant because they were instigating him with fire and he accidently killed the little girl because he did not understand what he was doing. I think this is trying to make the audience feel some sort of empathy towards the monster.  He was raised in the dark, was tortured, and was never taught anything except for how to cause chaos. But ultimately, it is up to the audience to choose. Who is the real monster?