Frankenstein Response Paper
Elizabeth
Rosener
While watching Frankenstein, I
noticed that throughout the film, the characters were consistently struggling
to define what is human by separating it from what is inhuman, or monstrous.
However, time after time they fail to maintain this divide, as they seem to,
instead, blur the line between the two. This ambivalence is especially seen
when it comes to both Frankenstein and his monster.
This is first seen when Dr. Waldman
is speaking to Victor and Elizabeth about Henry Frankenstein’s “insane ambition
to create life,” which he describes as his “mad dream to destroy it and then
create it.” Victor then responds by saying “but what’s the life of a few
rabbits and dogs?” implying that if Frankenstein had done the same thing with an
animal, there would be no problem. However, when Dr. Waldman replies that it is
not animal life, but human life that Frankenstein is trying to create, they
call him crazy. By doing this, they are inferring that human life is more
valuable than animal life, thus creating a divide between what is human and
what is inhuman.
Another example of this is the way in which Frankenstein never
gives the monster a name. This in itself is very inhuman-like. Additionally,
they seem to only call the monster “it” throughout the film. However, I noticed
a couple of instances when they actually slipped and called Frankenstein’s
creation “He.” The first time this happens was when the monster is first coming
out of the room and Frankenstein says, “Wait until I bring him into the light! Here he comes, turn out the light!”
The
second time was when Frankenstein and Dr. Waldman find out that Frankenstein’s
monster has killed Fritz and Dr. Waldman exclaims that “he hated Fritz, he
always tormented him.” By referring to the monster as “it” Frankenstein and the
other characters are in a way denying the monster its humanity, and thus
separating themselves from it. However, because they also refer to the monster
as “he,” in these moments, he is both human and inhuman.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI never noticed how prevalent the divide between human/inhuman is throughout the film until you pointed it out here. By refusing to name his creation, Frankenstein is setting up that divide and alienating the Monster from other humans. When marking someone as "different," we begin to exclude and fear that person, and the Monster ends up exiled from society because of his otherness. I don't think the Monster fully understands the difference between human/inhuman. This is particularly noticeable when he and Maria are throwing daisies into a river: when the Monster runs out of flowers to throw, he throws the little girl. It's possible he didn't understand what made a human girl different from a plant. I don't think he realizes that he is "different," which is why he doesn't understand the reasons for his banishment and exclusion. He does understand that he is disliked, and he does have a basic instinct for survival, and in many ways, these things make him seem--in fact--human. I don't think the Monster was lacking in humanity as a trait, but he was lacking the affirmation and inclusion that humans need, which made him behave like a creature. I liked your response! I never thought of the film in terms of human/inhuman before!
-Cierra
I'm glad you explored this element of the film! As I was watching the film, I wrote down the quotes you mentioned, but my argument ended up going a different direction. Who knew such a short film would be so bloated with motifs and symbolism! You brought up very great points and examples. I didn't even pick up the blurring of inhuman and human through the use of "he" and "it." Do you consider Frankenstein's monster human? What makes one inhuman: is it difference in appearance? good vs. evil? do religious connotations dictate what makes us human?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that Frankenstein can live with himself for creating this monster by not giving it a name. If he had made the monster have human tendencies then the creation of it would have been way more against humanity and God and just been by far and away more generally evil. By keeping the inhumannesss to the Monster he can treat it as an animal and then his creation has no real inherent evil or good qualities. It's creation becomes merely a science experiment for the benefit of nothing but Frankensteins own desire to play god. Good job pointing out this aspect of the movie!
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to consider not only the ambivalence towards the monster that is intentionally created for the viewer, but also towards Frankenstein. The blurring of what is human and what is considered inhuman is prevalent throughout "Frankenstein" and invites us to think about broader issues that remain up for debate today. For example, what is the value of human life? Is it somehow greater than animal life? If so, then who decides this? Another thing to think about -- not just the merging of the human and nonhuman but also of the human and machine. Frankenstein's monster is somewhat machine-like after being produced with electricity. How is this a reflection on our society and the modern human? With a machine (cellphone) attached to our hands, aren't we all cyborgs these days? Some fun things to discuss.
ReplyDelete