The Ugly and The Hairy

After reading so much about Frankenstein, the ugly monster, and watching the movie Hulk, I decided to do some comparisons with another hero movie, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Although very different, the story of Wolverine has some important similarities with the story of Frankenstein.

When Victor was working on the monster, he thought if he could “bestow animation upon a lifeless matter”, it would be possible to give life to a dead person. In other words, he was seeking immortality in a way. In Wolverine’s story, his creators wanted a super soldier with admantium covered bones allowing him to be nearly indestructible as a result of his incredible healing capacity. In both stories we can see how the pursuit of power and immortality are the main goal in the scientists’ minds. However, not everything goes according to plan.

Revenge is another similarity in the plot of the two stories. Both Wolverine and the Frankenstein monster turn against their “creators”. Frankenstein found himself ugly and lonely and blamed it all on Victor. He sought revenge on Victor for making him what he was. Although Wolverine was lucky enough to keep his human appearance and was not really ugly (other than a full head of hair making him look like an animal!), he wanted revenge on the scientists that had disturbed his life and memories.

As we can see, the scientists in both stories were so concentrated on their pursuit of immortality, they had no regard for the life they were creating and the negative impact their manipulations would have on their subjects. This eventually came back to haunt them.

Think about it. Next time you seek perfection don’t use human guinea pigs, they are too unpredictable!

Wanna Play God?

We all know by now that Frankenstein had try to play God by creating a human being super strong, tall and pretty ugly - even if that wasn't really his goal. He wanted to make a human that could never die from disease. And there he got it, his big and strong creature which the scientist chose every single part of it.

With that in mind, I was in my psychology class last week, and my teacher said something like : ''Women can now act like God and choose pretty much everything their baby will have'' as a genetic point of view. I was like ''Whoa! That's just like Frankenstein!''

Today with the technological progress, women can choose what their futur baby would look like, what kind of IQ they would have and even the personality! The artificial insemination is very much like playing God: You have a list of donor fathers/genitors, with all their genetic information, and you make your choice. Blond thin hair, green eyes, handsome face, tall limbs, high IQ and an ''easygoing'' personality. Of course, it is never 100% sure that the result - your child, in other words - will be exactly like how you imagined, but the point remains : you have the power to decide what your son or daughter will be like, even before the conception! You don't even have a partner to procreate and there you are, choosing between dark brown or light brown hair for your future child. I think it's cool but also a bit scary. At least, I guess mothers won't abandon their ''perfect'' child and give him all the love that he needs. Or maybe this will lead to deception if the baby isn't like it was expected, and the mother will act like Victor and rejected her creation. But I must exagerate because the baby would still look like a baby- which is, by the way, a human being-, and not like a monster, which is probably why Frankenstein has rejected his creature.

You really want to play God?
You're sure? Then go and get inseminated articifially! Not sure, heh? You can always ask Frankenstein, if you want...

The Dilemma

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, there is a dilemma between creating  new life, respecting ethics and the safety of Victor's family. in some sort, this book reflects today's issue of cloning.

In Frankenstein, this dilemma began when Victor Frankenstein went to Ingolstadt to study science. After he greatly improved as a scientist, he was able to give birth to a new kind of human. With this invention, he wanted to get glory and recognition, but this type of science was against the ethics of those times. In those times, people used to follow church ethics. For the church, a being had to be created by the union of a man and a woman. It would've been unacceptable believe that only one man could give birth to a being, even if it is scientifically proved. Also, after the creature was created, Victor faced another problem. The ''monster'', after he got rejected by other humans for this appearance, was putting Victor's family and close friends in danger. At the end, he chose to protect other human beings by not creating a companion for the monster, but it cost him his life and his family's life.

In today's life, we have a similar dilemma, but this time with real beings and it also involves science. A Raelian sect created a company called ''Clonaid'', they claim that they've cloned a baby, but the controversy is that they do not want to show him publicly, so we cannot proved that the baby has been cloned, because the parents think that legal actions can take the baby away from them. Also, scientists of the company fear that if the baby is shown to the society, both, the company and the family of the baby would be rejected from the society due to ethical issues. In today's world, many people's ethics are influenced by those of the church, and like explained before, the church followed by the society would not accept cloning. Another ethical issue is that people might think that it might be inhuman to expose a baby to that kind of treatments.

After reading the book of Mary Shelley and some articles about cloning, I asked myself whether we should still believe that the only way to procreate is by the union of a woman and a man, or we should go further and find other ways, such as cloning, to create beings.

Same themes, different stories

“Real Steel” is a science fiction movie that came out in 2011. The movie takes place in 2020, where human boxers have been replaced by robots because they are more entertaining to watch. While watching it, it reminded me in some ways of the book we just read, Frankenstein. Some themes were present in both the movie and the book; however the stories are very different. For example, revenge, isolation and appearance were themes clearly developed in Mary Shelley’s novel. Those themes could also be recognized while watching “Real Steel” even though the story is quite different.

Max, one of the main characters, gets in a junkyard with his dad trying to find pieces to put together a new robot but he slips and snags a robot’s arm. Pulling out his son, Charlie (the dad) also pulls out an entire robot named Atom. He is considered old because he was built in 2014. People judge him because of that and it is also the reason why he has been left alone. That is one part where we can see the theme of isolation being effective. After that, Charlie teaches Atom how to box after being begged by Max, the robot’s companion. Unlike Mary Shelley’s story, the robot (who could be compared to the creature in Frankenstein) makes himself a companion easily and adapts to the situation very well. Also, at a certain moment in the film, the robot looks at itself in the mirror and once again, unlike Frankenstein’s creature, likes its reflection. The robot is pleased with what it sees and therefore, has positive feelings about its own self. The appearance theme is not as strong in “Real Steel” as it is in “Frankenstein” but the seen with the robot and the mirror was very symbolic.

At the end, of course the main robot of the story, Atom will “win” the last fight and avenge Charlie, who previously lost to his main rival, Ricky. Again, the idea of revenge is used in a very common way in the movie “Real Steel” but what’s interesting is the fact that a lot of themes used in the book were also used in the movie, even though the stories are very different.

Adamstein

It is evident that Mary Shelly was inspired from John Milton’s Paradise Lost when she wrote Frankenstein. Her novel is like the shattered reflection of Milton’s Adam and Eve story.  God creates Adam, takes care of him, treats him like his child, and parents him. He tells Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree, just like many parents tell their children to not go into that tempting cookie jar.  Adam obeys, like a good boy, because he embodies goodness and innocence.

In Shelley’s version, Victor Frankenstein decides to play God and create a perfect being (though not externally, I mean, what could you expect from something made from corpses?).  He is mad with excitement during his days of creation! Yet the moment his baby is born, he is disgusted by his creation and leaves him to face a cruel, judgemental world on his own. In his early days, he is very much like Milton’s Adam: innocent, well-intentioned and full of love. However, the actions against him lead him to anger which then causes him to commit the sin: murder. And suddenly, just like Milton’s Satan, he rebels against his creator! He preys on those Frankenstein holds dear, unless, he is given a female companion who looks like him (you know, more dead bodies). He wants his own Eve. When Adam eats the fruit, he does not do it because he wants the knowledge it provides, but to stay with his love, Eve.  On the contrary, the creature sins just to be given a companion.

In all honesty, Milton’s poem may reflect our stages of development. We begin virtuous and innocent, like Adam. Once we’re told not to touch that cookie jar, we become curious. Sometimes we do not even think about going near that tempting snack and stay true like Adam in order to please our parents. But usually, we transform into Eve and become tempted. Our conscious becomes Satan in disguise of the serpent, “one cookie won’t hurt…”  And even the story with Lucifer and God is like a child rebelling against their parents. But Frankenstein is the shattered portrayal of this story. The bad parenting and horrible childhood just seem to switch the order of events around. The one thing that I think is eminent is the fact that we are initially good, we are born as Adam.  

The Modern Frankenstein?

Halloween is my favourite holiday, and for all the horror lovers, no Halloween is complete without a movie marathon of all the classics. At the top of my list is The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a 1975 film adaptation of a British rock musical stageplay. For the readers who are not familiar with this movie, if you enjoy kitschy, loud and somewhat offensive musicals, I suggest you become acquainted. Apart from The Rocky Horror Picture Show being a cult classic, I have recently come to realize it contains many semblances with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show may be seen as the comedic version of the original Frankenstein, wherein Dr. Frank N. Furter brings life to a creature (named Rocky) for his own personal pleasure, but soon finds he is unable to control his creature’s lust. Both Frankenstein and Frank N. Furter bring creatures into the world over whom they are powerless.

While there are many finer themes in the novel which are somewhat lost in the film, there is one idea which remains equally present in both: It is never wise to extend one’s boundaries past what is capable.  Frankenstein and his modern day counterpart pay dearly for exploring the forbidden realms of creation. Victor’s monster kills those closest to him, while Rocky betrays his creator and seduces various others into his bed. Exactly like in the novel, The Rocky Horror Picture Show ends with the destruction of both creature and creator.

This twisted and comedic film mirrors the Frankenstein novel but in a contemporary light; updating themes to suit the trends of the day.

It shocked me how many years I had been watching this film without making even the slightest connection to the Frankenstein novel, to which it undoubtedly owes its roots.