Bride of Frankenstein: Reaction Paper

Bride of Frankenstein, a 1935 film by James Whale, is a sort of sequel to the 1931 film based on the novel by Mary Shelley. It details the aftermath of Frankenstein’s monster’s early rampages, and the subsequent toll these rampages took not only on the townspeople and Frankenstein, but on the monster itself. It deals primarily with some of the questions that science (and social science) has struggled to answer for centuries: mainly, what is human? What defines human? Does the search for knowledge give us the moral imperative to manipulate life?

Perhaps my favorite thing about the movie is how it deals with the concept of humanity and personhood.  Science in this film is not necessarily evil, but should be treated with caution; even Dr. Frankenstein’s somewhat tempered approach led to death and destruction, while Dr. Pretorious’ obsession with his work caused everyone countless grief. In the midst of all this is Frankenstein’s monster itself, who is lost in a world he has no place in. Dr. Frankenstein basically created him and left him to roam free without any understanding of who or what or where he is; can anyone really blame him for his search for meaning and companionship?

In terms of how the film looks at humanity, we are given to sympathize with Frankenstein’s monster because we understand his alienation from his surroundings and from his very self. Because of Dr. Frankenstein’s irresponsibility in creating him and then abandoning him, the monster resorts to violence in order to find and force Dr. Frankenstein to create a mate for him to assuage his loneliness. However, even his intended mate finds him horrific, and it is at that moment that Frankenstein’s monster realizes his unnaturality and decides to put a stop to everything— even his very existence.

This film is mostly a cautionary tale. Science is not science if it is not executed with humanity and responsibility; a lack of either can result in untold suffering if left to go on untempered. As scientists and human beings, we must work for the betterment of humanity. Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is not evil in itself, but there needs to be an understanding that we exist in a social world, and not in a vacuum. Every discovery we make has consequences on the lives of other people, and we must be careful that our research does more good than harm.

2011-02507

Luisa Narciso