Frankenstein's Monster: A Lesson in Scientific Limits

This blog task was assigned by Megha Trivedi Ma'am (Department Of English, MKBU).

1) What are some major differences between the movie and the novel Frankenstein?

The Major Differences Between Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) and the Original Novel

When Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley's Frankenstein hit theaters in 1994, it was a bold reimagining of one of the most famous Gothic novels in literature. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has captivated readers since its publication in 1818, and Branagh’s film adaptation sought to stay true to the novel’s spirit while adding its own dramatic flair. However, while the film follows the general trajectory of the novel, there are several key differences between the two versions of the Frankenstein story. In this blog post, we’ll explore these differences and discuss how Branagh’s adaptation deviates from Mary Shelley's original tale.

1. Victor Frankenstein’s Character and Motivation

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein is portrayed as a driven but somewhat detached figure, obsessed with his scientific pursuits. His motivations for creating the Creature are complex but revolve around intellectual curiosity and a desire to conquer death. However, much of his personal life and background are not explored in great detail.

In contrast, Branagh’s Frankenstein gives Victor a much more pronounced personal backstory. His obsession with defying death is intertwined with a more emotional motivation—he is tormented by the death of his mother and seeks to bring her back to life. This addition creates a more human and relatable Victor, whose emotional baggage propels his actions throughout the film. This backstory was not a part of the original novel and serves to heighten the emotional stakes of the story.

2. The Creature’s Appearance

In the novel, the Creature is described as being "yellowed" and "gaunt," with large features that make him hideous to behold, but not necessarily monstrous. His appearance is shocking, yes, but it is his isolation and his growing intellectual and emotional capabilities that define him.

In Branagh’s film, the Creature is far more grotesque and visually exaggerated. Portrayed by Robert De Niro, the Creature is a hulking figure with a deeply deformed face, making him appear more monstrous than the version described by Shelley. The film takes liberties with his look, opting for a more immediate visual shock factor, which works for the cinematic medium but adds a layer of horror that’s less present in the novel. This change emphasizes the Creature as a terrifying monster, rather than a tragic figure of deep intellectual and emotional conflict.

3. Victor’s Relationship with the Creature

One of the novel’s most compelling themes is the isolation and rejection faced by the Creature. In Mary Shelley’s version, Victor, horrified by the sight of his creation, abandons him immediately after bringing him to life, which sets the Creature on a path of revenge and despair. Their relationship is complex, but it remains one-sided for much of the novel, with Victor refusing to take responsibility for the being he created.

Branagh’s film alters this dynamic, making it far more intimate and emotional. In the film, Victor’s relationship with the Creature becomes a central focus. Victor feels an ongoing, almost fatherly responsibility for the Creature, even as the Creature spirals into vengeance. The Creature actively seeks out Victor, resulting in a far more direct confrontation between the two characters. This development adds an emotional layer that is less present in the novel, where Victor largely remains a passive figure, consumed by guilt and fear.

4. The Creation Scene

In the novel, Victor Frankenstein’s act of creating life is a relatively understated moment. Shelley's description of the creation process is philosophical rather than graphic, focusing more on Victor's ambition and the consequences of his actions rather than on the physicality of the event.

Branagh’s film, however, takes a dramatically different approach. The creation scene in the film is one of the most iconic in the entire movie, featuring an elaborate sequence in which Victor uses electrical equipment, lightning, and an almost ritualistic setup to bring the Creature to life. The visual spectacle of the scene, with its thunderstruck moments and dramatic music, amplifies the horror of the moment, giving it an almost supernatural quality that elevates it far beyond what Shelley described in the novel.

5. The Creature’s Education

In the novel, the Creature learns about human nature, language, and literature through observation and self-education. By reading Paradise Lost and other texts, he becomes increasingly aware of his own isolation and the injustice of his existence. This intellectual growth gives the Creature depth and complexity, transforming him from a mere “monster” into a tragic figure capable of profound insight.

In the film, while the Creature does display some self-education, the focus is less on his intellectual development and more on his emotional journey. His growing awareness of his suffering, loneliness, and the cruelty of the world around him is emphasized, but the philosophical exploration that defines the novel is not as prominent in the film. Instead, Branagh's film opts for a more visceral and emotional portrayal of the Creature’s internal conflict.

6. Elizabeth’s Fate

Elizabeth Lavenza, Victor’s fiancée, is a central character in the novel, though she is somewhat passive and idealized. In the book, she is murdered by the Creature on their wedding night, a tragic moment that spurs Victor into a final chase after the Creature in the Arctic.

In Branagh’s version, Elizabeth’s death is equally tragic but presented with more cinematic flair. The scene is more dramatic, showing her being killed by the Creature in a more immediate, visceral manner. This change adds to the film's emphasis on spectacle and emotional tension, making Elizabeth's death an even more pivotal moment in the story.

7. The Ending

The novel ends with Victor Frankenstein dying from exhaustion in the Arctic after a long pursuit of the Creature. The Creature, in turn, tells Captain Walton that he intends to end his own life by setting himself on fire, thereby bringing his suffering to a close. The ending is somber and reflective, offering no real reconciliation between the characters.

The film provides a more dramatic conclusion. Instead of the Creature disappearing into the Arctic wilderness, the two characters share a more direct confrontation. After Victor dies, the Creature shows signs of emotional depth, expressing a desire for closure and, ultimately, seeking redemption through his own death. The film’s ending gives the characters a kind of emotional resolution that is absent in the novel, adding a more conventional sense of closure to the tragic tale.

8. Themes of Redemption and Forgiveness

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is deeply concerned with themes of isolation, ambition, and the consequences of playing god. The novel doesn’t dwell on forgiveness or redemption; instead, it focuses on the irreversible consequences of Victor's and the Creature’s actions. Victor’s refusal to take responsibility for his creation leads to the Creature’s violence, and there’s little hope for reconciliation or redemption by the end.

The film, on the other hand, introduces themes of redemption and forgiveness, especially in the final scenes between Victor and the Creature. The two characters are given a chance for emotional reconciliation, which serves to humanize them both and allows the film to offer a more redemptive arc. This thematic shift from the novel is one of the key reasons the film feels more emotionally resolved, even as it retains the tragic core of the story.

Final Thoughts

While Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is one of the more faithful adaptations of Shelley's novel, it takes several creative liberties to enhance its cinematic appeal. From Victor’s emotional backstory to the dramatic creation scene, Branagh’s version emphasizes visual spectacle and emotional depth, giving the characters—and the audience—a more visceral connection to the story. In doing so, the film alters some of the novel’s darker themes and philosophical reflections, adding layers of emotional complexity that weren’t present in the original work.

For fans of the novel, these changes may be seen as unnecessary embellishments, but for those new to the story, Branagh’s adaptation offers a compelling, modern take on Mary Shelley’s classic—a story that, despite the differences, still resonates with the timeless questions of creation, responsibility, and the consequences of playing god.

2)Who Do You Think Is a Real Monster?

When most people think of a "monster," they imagine something physically horrifying—something or someone with a grotesque appearance and unnatural abilities. These outward traits often define the term "monster" in our collective imagination. We might think of Frankenstein’s Creature, the werewolf, or Dracula—figures from folklore and fiction that have transcended their stories to become cultural icons of evil.

But what if the real "monsters" aren’t the ones who look monstrous, but the ones whose actions are far more terrifying than any mythical beast could be? The real monsters could be people who abuse power, commit atrocities, or perpetuate systems of injustice and cruelty.

In literature, the nature of the monster often reflects societal anxieties. In Frankenstein, the Creature is perceived as monstrous due to his outward appearance, yet he becomes violent only after being rejected by his creator and society. The "monster," then, might not be a result of nature or inherent evil but the consequence of abandonment, neglect, and mistreatment.

The real monster in this case isn’t the creature at all, but Victor Frankenstein. Driven by ambition and a desire to conquer nature, he creates life without understanding the moral responsibility that comes with it. His neglect and rejection of the creature set off a tragic series of events that could have been avoided if he had considered the implications of his actions.

This brings up a larger, philosophical point: Are "monsters" born or made? The creature’s violent actions stem from being abandoned and rejected by society. While not inherently evil, the creature is shaped by the mistreatment he faces. If we look at modern society, we might say the same about people who are marginalized or mistreated by society—are they "monsters" by choice, or are they products of their environment and the cruelty of others?

Thus, the real "monster" might not be the one who is outwardly terrifying but the one whose actions stem from a lack of empathy, foresight, and responsibility.

3) Do You Think the Search for Knowledge Is Dangerous and Destructive?

The pursuit of knowledge has often been framed as a noble endeavor. Human history is full of breakthroughs that have revolutionized the world: the discovery of fire, the development of language, the advent of the printing press, and more. Knowledge has given us the ability to understand the universe, manipulate our surroundings, and improve our quality of life in countless ways. But, as we have seen throughout history, the search for knowledge is not without its dangers.

One of the clearest examples of knowledge’s potential for harm is the development of nuclear weapons. The quest for harnessing the power of the atom led to one of humanity’s most destructive forces: the atomic bomb. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the horrifying culmination of scientific progress without full consideration of its implications. It’s a stark reminder that knowledge, when applied without moral responsibility, can lead to devastation on a scale we can hardly comprehend.

In more recent times, the advent of social media and the internet has sparked another dilemma. On one hand, the internet has made the world more connected and democratized knowledge in ways previously unimaginable. On the other hand, it has led to an explosion of misinformation, cyber-attacks, and surveillance. The search for knowledge, when unregulated, has given rise to new forms of harm—psychological manipulation, data theft, and online harassment.

Even more philosophical pursuits—such as genetic engineering or artificial intelligence—raise profound ethical questions. Genetic modification, for example, has the potential to cure diseases and improve human health. However, it also introduces the possibility of “designer babies” and the manipulation of the human genome in ways that could lead to unforeseen consequences.

So, is the search for knowledge inherently dangerous? The answer is not straightforward. Knowledge itself is neutral—it is how we apply that knowledge that matters. When knowledge is pursued for the right reasons and with the right safeguards in place, it can lead to progress and positive change. But when it is pursued blindly, driven by ambition, greed, or a lack of foresight, it can lead to disaster.

The danger of knowledge lies not in its existence, but in how we use it. And that is where the responsibility of the seeker comes into play. In Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein’s blind ambition and disregard for the consequences of his actions result in suffering and death. His creation was an unintended byproduct of knowledge pursued for its own sake, without consideration for its moral and ethical implications.

4) Do You Think Victor Frankenstein's Creature Was Inherently Evil, or Did Society’s Rejection and Mistreatment Turn Him into a Monster?

In Frankenstein, the creature is often seen as the "monster" because of his violent actions. He is abandoned by his creator, shunned by society, and treated with cruelty by those he encounters. But is he inherently evil? Or is he a product of society’s rejection and mistreatment?

The creature, initially, is innocent and curious, seeking connection and understanding. He is born with no knowledge of the world and is entirely dependent on others for guidance and care. When he first emerges into the world, he doesn’t understand the concepts of good and evil, and his primary goal is survival. However, his attempts at reaching out to others are met with fear, hostility, and violence.

It is this rejection that shapes the creature’s transformation from an innocent being to a figure of violence and revenge. He seeks acceptance and understanding, but instead, he is met with cruelty, hatred, and fear. His monstrous acts—killing William Frankenstein, his creator’s brother, and others—are borne out of deep frustration and hurt. He becomes a monster not because of his inherent nature, but because of the way society treats him.

This brings us to a crucial philosophical question: Are people inherently good or evil, or is their behavior shaped by their environment and experiences? In the case of Frankenstein’s creature, the latter seems to be true. The creature’s monstrousness arises not from his intrinsic nature, but from the rejection and cruelty of those around him.

In society today, we can draw parallels to how marginalized or oppressed individuals may be driven to extreme behavior when faced with constant rejection and mistreatment. Is a person who turns to violence because of years of neglect and abuse a “monster,” or are they simply a product of their circumstances?

The creature in Frankenstein is a tragic figure, not an inherently evil one. He is a reflection of how society can turn a vulnerable being into something monstrous when it fails to offer empathy and compassion. And in this light, the true "monsters" are those who perpetuate the cycle of neglect and mistreatment.

5)Should There Be Limits on Scientific Exploration? If So, What Should Those Limits Be?

The question of whether there should be limits on scientific exploration is a pressing one, especially in the modern age of rapid technological advancement. Science and technology have the potential to revolutionize every aspect of our lives, from healthcare to communication to space exploration. However, the pursuit of scientific knowledge can also be dangerous, especially when the potential consequences of new technologies are not fully understood.

Take genetic modification, for example. The ability to edit genes has the potential to eliminate genetic disorders and improve human health. But it also raises the possibility of “designer babies”—children who are genetically engineered to possess certain traits or abilities. This opens up the door to eugenics and the potential for creating a society where certain traits are deemed more desirable than others. Should we allow this kind of genetic manipulation, or should there be limits on how far we can go in altering human DNA?

Similarly, the development of artificial intelligence presents both exciting possibilities and dangerous risks. AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, improve healthcare, and solve complex problems. However, AI also introduces the risk of deepening inequality, exacerbating job displacement, and eroding privacy. Furthermore, there is the possibility that AI could one day surpass human intelligence, leading to unpredictable consequences.

The question is not whether scientific exploration should continue—it undoubtedly should. But there must be limits, particularly when the consequences of a given technology are not well understood, or when it poses a risk to human dignity and well-being. These limits should be based on ethical considerations, societal needs, and respect for fundamental human rights.

For example, there should be strict regulations surrounding genetic engineering, particularly in humans, to ensure that it is used only for therapeutic purposes and not for creating genetic inequalities. Similarly, AI should be developed with strong ethical frameworks that prioritize transparency, fairness, and accountability.

Ultimately, the responsibility for setting limits on scientific exploration lies with society as a whole, including scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public. The goal of scientific progress should be to improve the human condition, not to put it in jeopardy.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Frankenstein

https://galter.northwestern.edu/news/northwestern-victor-frankenstein