Gods and Monsters: Bride of Frankenstein Reaction Paper

2013-14710
STS-THY 7
BACONGUIS, Liana Isabelle T.
Bride of Frankenstein Reaction Paper

Gods and Monsters

The sequel to 1931’s Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein is considered to be one of the most loved of the classical horror films and for good reason – it’s aged quite well, bringing several now-cliché horror film conventions to the table while still remaining enjoyable. Despite its scientific basis (taking Galvani’s frog experiment and amping it up to lightning being able to bring something to life) being rendered baseless with the advancement of technology, it’s still a very entertaining piece.

At one point in the film, someone scorns the Monster’s existence, calling it what happens when its creator, Frankenstein, tried to “play God” – the implication being that humanity and science should not interfere with the natural goings-on of life. This is still a hotly-debated ethical issue eighty years’ worth of technological advancement later: whether or not GMOs should be mass-produced, whether cloning is morally acceptable, whether stem cells are ethical at all – the list goes on.

There is one scene that stands out – when Pretorius shows Frankenstein his collection of humans in small jars. Frankenstein is horrified, claiming that “this isn’t science!” The message this scene seems to send is that science, when used sanely, for good reason, and with sound moral judgment, is good – but science bordering on meddling and black magic is bad. With the Monster’s awesome declaration of “We belong dead,” the “we” referring not just to himself and his bride, but also to Pretorius, whose experiments are morally unprecedented, the film on the whole seems to lean towards the stance that Frankenstein’s monster is a representation of the failure that inevitably results from humans interfering in things they have no right to – and by extension, that science has its boundaries that it should not cross.

And yet Karloff still plays the monster more sympathetically than its book counterpart, the latter of which was much more intelligent and fearful. Keep in mind that by no means is the monster a good creature – he murders several people and is pointlessly cruel, but is taught proper, good emotions by a kindly old man –resulting in his desire to be loved and accepted strengthening. In the end, the Monster, accepting that he can never be loved, willingly blows himself, his bride, and Pretorius up so Elizabeth and Frankenstein can live happily together. Why – because Whale wanted the viewers to empathize with the creature. He wanted to show that even the basest form of sentient life, despite the questionable morality of its origins, can still learn love. 

Monstrous Affection by Nicole Santos

Dumb, ugly, and severely misunderstood. This is how I would describe Frankenstein’s monster in the film “The Bride of Frankenstein” by James Whale. Although popular culture and children’s literature have given me an idea of who and what Frankenstein and his monster are, I was still quite amazed when I watched the film in my STS class. I had no idea that the monster’s character was so complex and that there was more to him than just his ugly appearance.

At present, there are many issues surrounding certain fields of science and morality. Some examples of these are stem cell research, cloning, and artificial pregnancy. Although there are hordes of people who protest studies such as these, scientists continue to pursue research in these fields, driven by their desire for knowledge and their thirst for novelty.

Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and James Whale’s “The Bride of Frankenstein” paint an excellent image of such issues and situations. Dr. Victor Frankenstein built his monster for the love of science, but mobs of people grew fearful of his creation. Their fear and anger towards him did not deter him from pursuing his passion, and in the end, he created a monster that caused death and destruction.

I think the book and the film serve as a warning to the world of science and its constituents against the pursuit towards studies with objectionable morality. They show how morality should still be considered in the study of science and that sometimes man is not ready for certain discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Frankenstein is a reminder that not science and technology must be used with caution and with sound moral judgment.

James Whale’s “The Bride of Frankenstein” showed a more human side of the monster; a side that craved companionship and affection. The monster had the need for an emotional connection. The monster had a heart. In contrast, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” was a more cerebral creature. It could carry on decent conversations and was able to articulate its thoughts with rudimentary language.

While “The Bride of Frankenstein” was based off of “Frankenstein,” I think it showed an emotional side to the monster because it wanted to highlight its need for a female counterpart. While Mary Shelley wanted her readers to fear her monster, James Whale’s goal was for his audience to empathize with the creature.

After seeing two interpretations of Frankenstein’s monster and analyzing their impact on the relationship of science and morality, I have a better appreciation of this classic horror story. The monster is no longer just a prospective Halloween costume or character in my Saturday afternoon cartoons. “Frankenstein” and “The Bride of Frankenstein” are allegories for today’s moral issues and science, which warn us against venturing into morally questionable fields. Moreover, the monster is not merely a symbol of fear and madness, but a lover and a man greater than the sum of his hodgepodge of parts. Beyond the pages of the book and the movie screen, Frankenstein is a lesson in life.

Nicole Catrina P Santos

2012-63269

Reaction Paper for The Bride of Frankenstin (2013-72071)

Name: Fabia, Bianca Anne M.

Student No.: 2013-72071

Section: THY

Reaction Paper for The Bride of Frankenstein

            In the movie, it was explained a bit that the monster was created by Dr. Frankenstein because he dreamed of creating a man. But the monster became a source of fear for the townspeople. No one wanted to get close to him in fear of being harmed or killed. In response to this, the old professor of Dr. Frankenstein contacted him to partner up with him to create man-made people. He also thought of creating a bride for the monster in order to keep him company since the monster was lonely.

            I think that the story of Frankenstein reflects on what happens when men want to play god. I think that it brings up questions in ethics, like is it moral to dig up the bodies of the diseased and use their body without permission from their loved ones? Also, I think that it brings up the question that should we really judge someone depending on what they look like? In the movie, when the people see the monster they run away from him afraid of what they think he might do but when he met the old, blind man, he was accepted in to his home and we saw that all he wanted was a friend who would accept who he is. Looking at that, isn’t that what all of us want? To be accepted by the people around us and to feel loved.

            I think that the film mainly talks about how we should also take into account our morals during scientific experiments, like keeping in mind to follow ethical procedures when conducting experiments. When we keep that in mind, we might prevent creating something that turns into monsters in a sense that it might bring us to destruction.

            Moving on to why the monster was made dumb in the movie, I think that it is because they wanted to convey about the learning capacity of the monster and that what he was doing, hurting humans, was because of their projected ideas of what he going to do to them. I think that it also made him more human in a sense that we are not born smart and that we have to be taught for us to learn. It made it seem like he was a child trapped in a grown man’s body.

War Metaphors and Cancer

2013-14710
BACONGUIS, Liana Isabelle T.
Rhetoric of Cancer Reaction Paper

The podcast The Rhetoric of Cancer has cancer patient Andrew Graystone discuss with several people the common metaphor of having cancer as a war zone, and whether or not it is truly appropriate. We as members of society (thanks in no small part to the media) use the war metaphor more often than we realize -- "Alice is losing the fight against cancer," "Bob is struggling," "Carol was very brave," for instance.

According to Graystone's discussion with Dr. Wendy Makin, an oncologist at the Christie Hospital, the war metaphor is sort of dehumanizing towards the person with cancer - it puts them in a passive light, lays out their body as a warzone, starts treating them as "patients" instead of "people." Natasha Hill, Cancer Research UK, notes that the public likes the idea of the war metaphor -- this paints the cancer cells as the enemy and us -- the people working to delay it, to cure it -- as the heroes. Contrary to Makin, Hill also notes that sometimes the war allegory is positive: it presents a motivation or a clear end goal for the patient to stay strong with.

Grayson also met with Michael Overduin, who talked about curing on the molecular level. Overduin's interview is very science-inclined; he also stated that he disapproves of the war metaphor, calling it "a war against oneself" (as cancer cells are body cells that just multiply uncontrollably) and "wrong." Here Grayson offers an alternative analogy that I really liked -- the human body is an orchestra, with several instruments working together to create beautiful music. Cancer is anything -- a misstune, a broken string -- that can disrupt the harmony, and curing cancer is trying to "fix" that. I prefer that metaphor far more than the war one: it treats cancer not as the enemy, but as something that, while unfortunate, just happens, and can be fixed. Jim Cotter, a priest diagnosed with leukemia, described his cancer treatment as a weed killer that was supposed to target one weed but instead killed the whole garden, a sad but common truth for cancer patients (especially in times with less developed medical technology).

Grayson's own coming to terms with his cancer involved neither opinion -- his arc, instead, involved him accepting the cancer and treating it as part of him. He expresses his disapproval of the war metaphor with this line -- "...If anyone says that I have lost my battle against cancer, I will personally come back and haunt them."

Cancer is a mystery that we are still quite far from cracking. However, as all the focus has been on the medicinal research, I appreciated the podcast because it showed what was wrong with the sensationalism on the disease, showing that sometimes even the most common of phrases have quite the unfortunate implications. 

2013-41509

Section THY

Group 7

Reaction on Bride of Frankenstein

The Bride of Frankenstein

The film the bride of Frankenstein is about Frankenstein who was really feared by the citizens in that land. Although he is not harmful, people get scared of him because of his monstrous appearance. He is a very tall man with a very unattractive face. Nobody knows that he is a kind-hearted being because he cannot expresses his feelings, every time he tries to speak, he only scares the people away. But on the later part of the film, Frankenstein was slowly learning how to speak but is still having a hard time practicing it. The life of Frankenstein was very tragic.

Frankenstein just wanted to have a friend who will accept him. Because of this, the scientist who created Frankenstein was forced to create a creature like him but this time, it will be much more humanlike and not a monster looking creature like Frankenstein. They will create a creature that can speak and react like a human. They first experimented a heart so strong that could support the dead body. The experiment was quite successful, however the created to be Frankenstein’s bride also feared Frankenstein for his physical appearance.

The film depicted that lightning or electricity can make a dead body be brought back to life. They used a kite and a lightning rod just like what Benjamin Franklin did before when he was conducting his experiment that would discover facts about electricity which was still unknown during that time. Some people before maybe thought that electricity can revive a dead creature which is scientifically wrong. All in all, the idea or the concept of the film, might be convincing to us people who are less knowledgeable about this kinds of stuffs, was just a fantasy.