FRANKENSTEIN

              The film Frankenstein [1] was directed by James Whale in 1931 and was based on the best-selling novel by Mary Shelley. The story is about Dr. Henry Frankenstein, who creates a creature from various body parts. Unfortunately the creature evolves into a monster as a result of rejection by Dr. Frankenstein. The Doctor feels he is not what he wanted, not “perfect” enough, and now the monster is left searching for knowledge on his own. On Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Josh Pasnak describes the story eloquently: “Henry Frankenstein is a doctor who is trying to discover a way to make the dead walk. He succeeds and creates a monster that has to deal with the living again.” This movie was defined as drama/horror/ science-fiction. However, the fiction portion could really be viewed as a message about genetic and biological determinism:

            In the first scene we see Dr. Frankenstein digging up the body of a man who has just been buried. Once he sees the corpse, he immediately remarks that he is going to need a better brain. We then see a professor teaching a class on the human body and pointing to a jar that holds what he calls “one of the perfect specimens of the human brain that has ever come to his attention.” He points to another jar, which contains the brain of a man whose life was full of violence and murder; the brain is marked “abnormal”. Of course, you cannot mark a brain as normal or abnormal because the brain does not determine behavior. That kind of thinking is what eugenics is about. Dr. Frankenstein’s right-hand man, Fritz, tries to steal the “superior” brain but breaks the jar and so takes the “abnormal” one instead. Dr. Harry Haiseldon’s theory is that the human race will benefit from the elimination of “unfit” human beings. “It was terribly ugly,” Haiseldon wrote of one baby. Such ugliness was not “light or superficial”; it was a true “handicap.” [2] This film really highlighted the repulsiveness and ugliness of the unfit, especially when the created man is referred to as a monster, or an uncontrollable beast.

            This film is not a “medical movie.” It was released as a major Hollywood motion picture. Does this aspect make a difference in the way the audience views the message of the film? The Moving Picture Worlds, when asked about the film The Black Stork, complained that while “the revelation of such a subject is of vital importance to humanity,” it should be shown at eugenics society meetings and in medical schools. “The place to exploit it is not the moving picture theater.” [3] The film is a vivid pictorial drama that explains why Dr. Harry Haiselden was opposed to operating to save the lives of defective babies. It is another example of a commercial film that dealt with the issue of biological determinism. Although The Moving Picture World’s critique is about Haiseldon’s film, it raises the issue of public opinion on science and how much the public should be exposed to. The power of human reason, through science and technology, challenged many traditional principles about the world and man's relationship with his creator. Yet at the same time, many questioned these humanist notions, stressing the limits of human capacity. Basically, the idea that “knowledge is power” is dangerous to the human race.

After reading the original novel by Mary Shelley in ninth grade, my teacher talked about another theme: the idea of human injustice towards outsiders. Throughout the novel, the monster is condemned for being cruel and vicious but is misunderstood because he is different. Indeed, Frankenstein's monster is an outcast because he doesn't belong in human society.  Coincidentally, the monster and creator are similar. They both feel alienated from society, have an unfulfilled desire for a companion and maintain their ongoing struggle for revenge. The only time we see the monster being accepted is when he escapes and finds the little girl that gives him a daisy. She is not scared of him because she is unsocialized. She, unlike anyone else in the film, is not told that the monster is bad and so does not judge based on looks or demeanor.

Unfortunately, after reading the book, you are left feeling pity for the monster because he was the victim but after watching the movie, you are angry at the monster for ruining the life of his creator. Garrett Fort, who wrote the screenplay, and the director Robert Florey “jettisoned any sense of pathos, reducing the monster to a grunting beast in order to save prime screen time for the real star – Henry Frankenstein.” [4] By eliminating the theme of the monster’s turmoil and anguish, the director was conveying the message that there is such a thing as good and bad. He is almost redefining “feeble-mindedness” by suggesting that human brains are as distinct as normal and abnormal, when in reality we know that intelligence is based as much on the environment as it is on heredity. The monster was never given the chance to experience real life because he was so feared. He was judged before anyone got to know him. That a huge part of the eugenics movement - the idea that preconceived notions about behavior justifies sterilization and selective breeding. Diane B. Paul calls this idea part of “Galtonian vocabulary,” an idea which led to people assuming that, for example, criminals were born criminals. Galton’s theories would justify employing sterilizing criminals, as well as “chronic inebriates, imbeciles, perverts, and paupers.” This action would somehow “protect the community without harming the individual.” [5] Frankenstein upheld this idea that there is such a thing as an “abnormal” brain and a man can be born a monster.

            I think Frankenstein was a really ground-breaking movie at its time because it was psychologically scary. There is even a section before the movie starts where the director warns you that you may be frightened and you may witness disturbing events. This film did not create any backlash against eugenics – if anything, it just disturbed the public. This is probably because it was not advertised as a film about eugenics or the idea that society should do anything to create more “perfect” beings. Even though the message was not as clear as in The Black Stork, for example, it certainly created a stir in the science world about how pertinent this topic was at the time, especially with the impending rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi sterilization program. By the time it was released, “depression era pop culture was awash with atavistic themes often paradoxically connected to advanced ‘science.’” [6] The film tapped the audience’s need to confront dreadful images during the worst year of the depression. A general anxiety about the prospects of resurrecting a dead economy was curiously refracted in the back-from-the-grave theme of the film. [7]

            An even bigger question to ask is whether this film addressed the issue of cloning. Cloning has become one of the most controversial subjects of contemporary science. After we cloned Dolly, the scientific community questioned whether or not to continue this science on human beings. The issue of nature vs. nurture is raised because cloning ignores the normality of naturally born human. Nurture is probably more important than nature in the development of human personality. In Frankenstein, the Doctor raises a body from the dead with the use (unknowingly) of an abnormal brain. He does not consider that this experiment could cause major psychological harm on the “new” human. He only thinks about how this will help him. Nearly every technology can be applied for good or evil. In general, reproductive technologies and cloning from somatic cells is no different. We can write policies and laws to encourage "good" uses and discourage "bad" ones, but ultimately there can not be progress without some risk. Another important issue that raises questions about the advances of technology is the idea of playing God. Do we have a right to play with creation and alter the natural process for our own benefit? The movie poster’s tag line for Frankenstein is “I made him!...I made him with my own two hands!!” [8] After the experiment proves to be a success, Dr. Frankenstein cries “It’s Alive1” and “Now I know how it feels to be God!” [9] Francis Fukuyama, in his book Our Posthuman Future [10] believes that whether or not we should “play God” depends upon how we interpret the bible. Whether or not we were created in “God’s image” is debatable. What is more important to note is the battle between science and religion and where you draw the line. Scientific technology is only going to improve, so it is up to society to implement a rule that distinguishes between what is necessary and what is harmful.