Faces of Frankenstein

Thought this would be a disturbingly appropriate segway into a few bits of my paper on the 1931 film Frankenstein. Sorry if it reads a bit too academic for ya.



Maslow’s hierarchy of needs dictates that after basic "deficiency" needs have been satisfied, the strive for self actualization becomes a priority. Call it a will to power if you’re a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche. The need to fulfill one’s potential, the need to create—this is what makes the human condition a constant subject of thematic exploration throughout the world of cinema. It’s this constantly underlying theme that is central to the film Frankenstein (1931,) directed by James Whale. Indeed, Dr. Frankenstein’s desire for self actualization is what motivates him to create his monster. Frankenstein pleaded with those who called him mad:

“Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy. Well, if I could discover just one of these things, what eternity is, for example, I wouldn't care if they did think I was crazy."

The gratification of scientific curiosity seems to be the primary sentiment here; however, to what extent is Dr. Frankenstein merely feeding his ego by attempting to create a man in his own image?

A rather strange dynamic occurs between Frankenstein and his monster. On one hand, the being is the peak of Dr. Frankenstein’s scientific achievements. The monster represents Frankenstein’s hopes and highest ambitions, and with its death, so comes the demise of Dr. Frankenstein’s dreams. And yet, when the monster is dehumanized by society, the doctor immediately shuns his creation, and even leads the mob that kills the monster. This makes Dr. Frankenstein arguably the most complex character in the film. As obsessive as Dr. Frankenstein becomes, he is still able to recognize the consequences of his actions. Implicit in the film is a prescription regarding morality. There is something very unseemly about the manner in which Frankenstein’s monster is created. With the doctor gradually acquiring various body parts from different corpses, the dichotomy between the natural and the unnatural is exemplified. Frankenstein seeks scientific enlightenment through means that most people would consider to be perverse and downright wrong. Even one of Frankenstein’s fellow scientists is horrified by what he is doing. From this, the film seems to suggest a moral code by which knowledge ought to be sought, lest there be disastrous consequences.

The story itself ultimately succeeds through its thought provoking ambiguity. The film promotes so many different levels of interpretation, oftentimes in a contradictory manner. While it presents us with the pitfalls of technological advancement, the film also blurs the distinction between good and evil. Perhaps where Frankenstein fails is not taking that ambiguity a step further. The monster’s character ought to have been more fully developed. The film merely hints that the monster may have a human side. For me, a film is appreciably successful when it is able to question the very concepts and prejudices it has set up for itself. As such, Frankenstein is inherently flawed, since it is not able to substantially challenge its own philosophical foundations; however, it certainly is a step in the right direction.