What strikes me as interesting in this movie is the whole nature vs nurture debate. Was the monster the way he was because of how he was raised, or because of the faulty brain that was implanted into him? I believe it's a little of both. The faulty brain that he had, had a limited capacity so in theory he would never have been able to operate as a fully socially "acceptable" person. On the other side of the debate we have the nurturing process, or how the person is raised. This seems to be the more obvious in Frankenstein. Everything went awry once the monster was introduced to the flame, and fire itself. It was incomprehensible for him so he feared and hated it.
The nurturing process took a turn for the worst once that happened, as he was seen as a lost cause (and in many ways he was...). This was especially evident when he [accidentally] killed a little girl, an act that in almost all societies deserved the death penalty. He later suffered that fate by the hands of the one true menace in his world: fire.Another interesting theme of Frankenstein was "man playing God". As hard as men try, it simply doesn't work. It was manifested in this movie when the monster turned on the village. Though he was created with the best of intentions, it was beyond that of human capability and therefore the whole experiment failed miserably. When men try to play God it fails when the demand not only exceeds his/her physical capacity but psychological as well.
It was too much for even the doctors of the village to handle, as the result showed.
I agreed with your idea on the nature vs. nurture debate. Their was a definite possibility that it was in fact both the way he was raised and the faulty brain given to him.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your writing
Great Job!