Labrador, Ana Micaela
2011-02178
1.
How does Frankenstein the book and film reflect
upon the role of morality and science?
Frankenstein is a good example of
how the progression of science may sometimes aid in debunking traditional
beliefs that have been deeply engrained in the minds of society. In this case,
the time of Frankenstein had no absolute concept of any technology that could
create and sustain life, and so the phenomenon of existence was mostly
explained through religion. Both the book and film challenged this notion of
religion and the notion of a ‘god,’ saying that mankind is his own creator.
This goes against a lot of moral religious beliefs concerned with how only a
‘god’ is capable of creating life; it presents man as capable of altering
nature, and, consequentially, altering society’s way of thinking.
2.
The difference between the movie adaptation of
the monster and the book is that the monster was able to carry a decent
conversation. Why was the monster made dumb? Did it work?
I believe the monster was made
dumb to demonstrate how, ultimately, man is in charge of whatever he creates.
For example, consider a mother raising a newborn child. The child cannot speak,
and so the Mother must act as ‘God’ to the child, showing the child how to
behave and act in hopes that the child will imitate. The child is technically
less superior, dumber, and thus has the potential to be ‘molded’ in a way that
the mother sees fit. The concept is similar in the case of Frankenstein’s
monster. Once again, ideas of the concepts of morality versus science come into
play: if man is his own creator, is it then acceptable to treat his creations
as ‘lesser’? After all, Frankenstein’s creation was his own downfall, despite
him being the ‘superior’. Making the monster dumb was an effective way to prove
this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment