Science, Bad?... Science, Good? (Frankenstein Reaction Paper)

Science, Bad?... Science, Good?

                When it comes to classic Halloween monsters a certain flesh golem would surely enter one’s mind, the one and only Frankenstein’s monster. Frankenstein, a classic horror story written by Mary Shelley, is about a baron gone mad scientist who experimented on electricity for the purpose of reanimating the dead. The product of his experiments is none other than the Frankenstein’s monster, a not-so-intelligent but highly misunderstood giant flesh golem whom the villagers want to kill. The story of Frankenstein has earned its place in literature’s hall of fame and in the memories of people. What most people don’t know however is that there’s a sequel.

                The Bride of Frankenstein, a cinematic sequel to the original Frankenstein story, revolves around the idea that both the baron and the monster are alive and that the baron’s former mentor, Dr. Pretorius, wants to make another monster with him this time female. The movie focuses mainly on Frankenstein’s monster’s interaction with different people, like the blind man, and his learning of human emotions and a small knowledge of right and wrong and the creation of his “bride”, a female flesh golem. The ending was both comedic and unexpected in a way. The movie ends with the bride successfully animated by the Doctor but instead of marrying the groom, she harshly rejects him. With Frankenstein’s monster now hurt, he destroys the castle along with the Doctor and his bride but spares the baron and his wife as he sheds a tear.

                The movie was certainly entertaining but in a deeper perspective, I think it sent out messages that highlighted two important ideas during that time period. One of which was that the general public during that time was afraid of how science was progressing. With the dawn of electricity and all of its potential, people thought that harnessing electricity might lead to disastrous consequences especially if it were to be used to “play God”. The public’s fear of scientific development was shown clearly in Frankenstein and was honestly how people felt during that time, they felt science shouldn’t cross the lines set by nature and that by doing so is an evil act. However, in the sequel, a different message is brought to the audience. It showed the benefits of science, how science can be beautiful in its own way and it gives the audience the idea that scientific progress is far from bad. Overall, Frankenstein and his bride have a single message to deliver; science can make dreams come true when it is used for good but if it’s pushed too far, it may just turn into a nightmare.

The Bride of Frankenstein - Reaction Paper

The Bride of Frankenstein

2013-17819

With science, almost everything is possible. But does it mean that just because it is possible, it is acceptable to do it? Since 1996, scientists have been successfully cloning several animals.[1] Up until now, it is still being debated whether it is morally correct. Bringing the dead back to life is somewhat similar, though cloned domesticated farm animals do not have the same capabilities of killing people than undead humans. Who are scientists to decide who to live or live again? For me, man-made life is frowned upon by society because if something goes wrong with the synthetic organism, we have the scientists to blame. People will argue that the bad situation could have been avoided if not for the scientists who chose to meddle with God's plan. If life had occurred naturally though and something goes wrong, we have no one to blame. We just shrug and say, "This is what God has planned, who are we to argue?"

The fact that the monster is made from scrap pieces of dead bodies patched together also contributes to the unethical side of things. Doctor Frankenstein made the monster out of energy from a lightning strike, and he did not bother to teach him how to live. The monster remained unaware of its surroundings. When people see his grotesque appearance, they get scared and the unknowing monster gets scared as well. This resulted in several people getting killed. I believe this is why they made the monster dumb; for more action in the film. If it were intelligent and excellent in communicating with other people then people would not judge so easily. It would not have resulted in mobs, fires, and deaths. The main reason for the monster being dumb was for improved story line and great cinematography.

Reaction Paper: The Bride of Frankenstein

The movie “The Bride of Frankenstein” is somewhat a continuation of the story of Frankenstein. While it was thought that the monster was gone because of the people’s effort of capturing and burning it, the monster actually survived and had continued to cause fear and misfortune to most people. One of the main conflict was the desire of the monster to have a friend so he was persuaded to do anything to make Frankenstein make another one like the monster but instead a female counterpart.

Honestly speaking, all my life I had thought that Frankenstein was the name of the monster because the story is famously known as Frankenstein and it somehow revolved around the monster. It was just in that movie that I learned and cleared that misconception of mine that the monster is the monster and was not give a name by Frankenstein who was his creator. About the title of the movie, I am somehow confused on who is referred to as the bride of Frankenstein whether it is  the Doctor’s wife who was kidnapped or the female version of the monster who the doctor made at the end part of the story.

The story is one of those science fictions that shows ‘science go wrong’. Most of the reasons usually is because of misconduct and not properly observing the ethics and proper moral in doing science researches. The monster was made through dead human corpses patched together and was made to life by electricity from lightning. The process was mad science as Dr. Frankenstein did not follow the proper process of experiment specially using dead corpses resulting to the monster. The monster is the outcome of science not done properly where it is difficult to contain and have caused many damage to the people around.

I think, the monster made dumb was because they want to show that the people are actually misunderstanding the monster so the only thing they want was to kill it. If the monster was with intellect, then it should have been more possible for him to show what his intentions are. It was shown in the movie that the monster can be nice and only wants friends but because of the fear of others, they don’t give him the chance on getting to know him causing the misunderstanding.

2013-41010

Reaction Paper on The Bride of Frankenstein

Corpuz, Raiza M.

 The Bride of Frankenstein is one of the first science fiction films which showed how scientists attempted to reanimate the dead, which can be a good thing if not for the fact that the human being they revived does not have second thoughts in killing the townspeople and also if it isn’t considered as immoral. There are many things that science can research and conduct experiments on, but science has definite limits. It can try to innovate our lives, improving it in the process, it can try to prolong our lives, cure every disease but it has its boundaries.

Looking at the situation presented by the film, science as indeed crossed the line in its experiments, ignoring its moral laws, thus creating a monster. Ignoring the fact that the monster they created killed many people, what Doctor Frankenstein did still cannot be considered good. Let’s say reviving the dead is possible; honestly I don’t know if a reanimated human being would act the same way as Frankenstein’s monster. If not, then all is well right? No, all humans die at some point. Scientists can’t play God by judging who must die and who must live or in this case who must live again. Looking at the situation again, if you revive a human being, word will break out that resurrection is possible and the people will demand to get reanimated after dying. With that, they will lose their morality too and ignore the importance of life and time. In a world where life is unending, population never decreases and exponentially increases.

In the book, the monster has the ability to speak while in the film, it doesn’t. I think the monster was made dumb to emphasize the new life given to him by Frankenstein. A newborn child doesn’t have the ability to speak and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. Also, I think that the monster was made dumb to emphasize the danger that lies ahead if we don’t consider the morality of science. Moreover, I think that characteristic was added, also to emphasize the ending wherein the monster finally learned what friendship is and started looking for a companion, and actually caring for Doctor Frankenstein and his wife, enough to save their lives before he brought the building down.

I actually sympathized with the monster at the end because being granted a new but distorted life, he didn’t have any companion. But being alone is better than what he has been through, because in the eyes of the townspeople, he is dangerous and thus often attacked and bound. At this point, I think what I want to say is the monster is better off without his second life.

The Bride of Frankenstein

Frankenstein's monster (because, surprisingly, a lot of people didn't know that Frankenstein is the scientist and not the monster - the monster being left unnamed by the author) is the classic symbol of science gone wrong. The Monster is an experiment on creating artificial life, by parching together bits of pieces of dead human parts, and having the creature get struck by lightning. Since we are in the world of science fiction - it works. "IT'S ALIVE!"
However, all hell breaks loose, cause turns out, the Monster is, well, a monster. It is violent, dumb (at least in the movie) and easily provoked. Add a grotesque feature and we have the perfect recipe for a lot of blood that ends in a mob with torches and pitchforks.
The movie "Frankenstein" and its sequel, "Bride of Frankenstein" (because one monster is just too boring), deal with the science of life, and the moral issues behind it. Is it moral for a person to "create" life if possible? Certainly it is looked down upon by the Catholic church and other religions. Cloning is seen as a bastardization of God's work, and it is the closest thing that we have to making artificial life. They believe that creation should be left to God, and must be left alone by humans. Even in fiction most seem to frown upon the idea of bringing the dead back to life (except in Marvel and DC - nobody ever stays dead in comic books). It is almost a cliche, that every time someone brings someone else back to life, there are always "big consequences". There is always a price to pay - your soul, the creature comes back all messed up - starts eating your brain and stuff and becoming a killing machine, an arm and a leg if you use alchemy, etc. Life created in this manner is not life. It is "something else".
Frankenstein's was no exception. It is shown that this thing may be alive, but it is not human. It may be made of human parts. It may walk, talk, eat, smile, laugh and get high with a blind senile old monk, but it is NOT human. Or is it?
I believe that was why the monster was "dumbed down". In some ways, it is made more human. We can liken the monster to a child, simple-minded, easily frightened, and instinctual, operating on the basic flight or fight programming. Such a creature is easy to empathize with, rather than if you have a calculating, analytical but grotesque Monster who is intelligent enough to put cyanide in your peanut butter and leave the faucet open to increase your water bill.
More than the commonly believed question, "If we are able to make life, should we play God?'", I believe "Frankenstein" fans should ask a second question: "Can the life we make be considered life?"

Kristine Faith D. Valle

2013-14356

“A Reaction Paper on The Bride of Frankenstein”

            The Bride of Frankenstein, a story about how two scientists’ desire to create life from the dead, successfully created a being that turned out to be a monster killing many lives in their small town. Eventually, Frankenstein unfolded to be not a completely horrifying “creature” but someone with a heart who simply looked for companionship. In the end, he ended up to be the good guy in the movie and nobly killed his bride, the mad scientists and himself, seeing that it was for the better. In this movie, it was shown how morality had to take a backseat for the sake of invention and discovery. Doctor Pretorius’ passion to create life from the dead, caused ignorance towards the grave effects of this experiment to the rest of society. Here, we reflect on what the meaning of science really is and to what extent it can go, whether or not morality should be sacrificed for human discovery.

            In present society, the power of science continues to unfold and grow stronger as new forms of technology such as stem cell; bio printing, cloning, and the like prove that there are no limits when it comes to innovation. However there are instances when science has to cross morality and the latter has to be sacrificed, causing disastrous effects.   The human mind and its thirst and ability to create discoveries is truly amazing but it is also important to acknowledge that there are limits in recognizing this ability. This simply means that, science is present to benefit humanity, and in as much as it is good to encourage experiments for innovation, when it no longer serves its purpose of serving the greater good, science has to be sacrificed and not morality.

            It is also notable in the Bride of Frankenstein, that he was made “dumb”, contrary to the book, acting as someone who did not have the ability to think like humans do. Analyzing the film, I believe that this was made to create a paradox, emphasizing the personality of Frankenstein which was his caring and loving nature, desiring someone to share his life with. He was made dumb to show his scary nature, that at the start it seems that Frankenstein was only capable of causing destruction and chaos, and he can bring no benefits to the community but in the end, it was revealed otherwise, and he ended up being the one who saves his town.

            Over all, I thought that this movie was really good and entertaining. Frankenstein has been one of the classics through the course of history and it never fails to provide good entertainment to wide audiences. However, looking at it more deeply, other than serving its purpose for recreation, this movie actually provides deep insights regarding life, morality and science. This movie showed us that science and morality must never go separately and that anyone is truly capable of loving no matter how monstrous they seem. 

Marriage Blues - Reaction Paper on "The Bride of Frankenstein"

            Marriage blues is defined as having a sudden fear of marriage on or before walking down the aisle or being committed to someone. So how come this term came up? Well this is because of the film “The Bride of Frankenstein” which we viewed the other day. The term came up during the last scene of the film where Frankenstein’s mate wouldn’t accept him even though both of them were made supposedly for each other. I was like, “ooh, this is marriage blues”.

           So let’s talk about relationships or love. It is a game of give and take. It’s like a chain of supply and demand where once the flow stops, when the other party is no longer able to meet the needs and wants of the other party or vice-versa, it’s all over. In the movie, I’m not sure what his mate was looking for, but whatever that is, he did not seem to have which is why it was already over for them from the start.

               

          Moving on to the serious side of the story, the film is actually a sequel which takes off immediately after the last events of its prequel Frankenstein. Again aside from being a “horror” science fiction, like the others it touches upon the aspect of morality – what is right and what is not in the eyes of man. Given science raison d'être – to decode the mysteries of Go, and life itself, they can’t help if people see their acts as immoral for what they are doing will led to the betterment and enlightenment of each and every one of us.

          In a sense, people criticizing science are like people who have marriage blues since at first they are very excited about the findings and progress. But towards the end, they suddenly chicken out.

Friend or Foe? (A Rhetoric of Cancer Reaction Paper)

                In almost every occasion, cancer has always been depicted as an enemy. It has always been some kind of monster, a bane to man’s existence which we only hope to fight, not knowing who will come out victorious. It’s not only one fight but a war; we have declared a war on cancer. Organizations across the world have broadcast the message of our battle against cancer where they encourage those afflicted by it to fight until the last breath. But is it truly a foe?

                A Rhetoric of Cancer is a podcast that deals with how we think of cancer. It speaks of how we view it, how we take it, and how we cope with it. What makes it different though is how the speaker views cancer. Andrew Graystone, the speaker and creator of the podcast, views cancer somewhat differently. Instead of looking at cancer as an enemy that should be fought, he thinks of cancer as a part of him that should be accepted and lived with side by side. He doesn't try to fight the cancer and deny the fact that he is a cancer patient but instead he thinks of cancer as something that should be accepted and as something that you should live with throughout your lifetime.

                As I was first listening to it, it made me think that the guy was insane. I have seen my fair share of loved ones who passed away due to the cancer that the sole idea of “befriending” cancer sounded so naïve and outrageous of an idea to me. However, as I continued to listen to his reasoning and as I further thought about it, I began to understand why he thought that way. Looking back at all the people I have met who were afflicted with cancer, they all tried to fight it but to no avail. They still fell to the illness no matter how hard they fought. So maybe fighting it isn't the solution after all? After listening to Andrew, I believe so.

 I think what the speaker wanted to say was that we shouldn't solely focus on getting rid of cancer from our lives but instead accept it as a part of our life. This acceptance will help us move on with our lives and help us get most out of life. We can make new friends, meet old ones, have fun with our families, enjoy new experiences, and create more memories with those we love instead of just lying down in a hospital room, playing on the chances of curing the disease. He tells us to pay more attention to the quality of the life we live and not to the quantity of which we live. Getting cancer does not mean that it’s the end of your life and you should throw it away, contrary in fact. Having cancer should mean that you should cherish life more, to make the most of it, and to live as if you may die any moment so that when the final bell tolls, you won’t have any regrets.

 2013 - 13861