Literature and film have always held a strange relationship with the idea of technological progress. On one hand, with the advent of the printing press and the refinements of motion picture technology that are continuing to this day, both literature and film owe a great deal of their success to the technological advancements that bring them to widespread audiences. Yet certain films and works of literature have also never shied away from portraying the dangers that a lust for such progress can bring with it. The modern output of science-fiction novels and films found its genesis in speculative ponderings on the effect such progress could hold for the every day population, and just as often as not those speculations were damning. Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein and Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis are two such works that hold great importance in the overall canon of science-fiction in that they are both seen as the first of their kind. It is often said that Mary Shelley, with her authorship of Frankenstein, gave birth to the science-fiction novel, breathing it into life as Frankenstein does his monster, and Lang's Metropolis is certainly a candidate for the first genuine science-fiction film (though a case can be made for Georges Méliès' 1902 film Le Voyage Dans la Lune, his film was barely fifteen minutes long whereas Lang's film, with its near three-hour original length and its blending of both ideas and stunning visuals, is much closer to what we now consider a modern science-fiction film). Yet though both works are separated by the medium with which they're presented, not to mention a period of over two-hundred years between their respective releases, they present a shared warning about the dangers that man's need fo... ... middle of paper ... ... rock.” (Shelley, p. 292), and Lang was surely aware that without the marvels of technological progress his visual spectacular would have never graced the screen. However Shelley and Lang, in their works, warn of the dangers of not thinking progress through, of not asking “should we do this?” in lieu of “can we do this?”, and they warn their respective audeinces that sometimes it's better, like Captain Robert Walton, to recognize that the journey to progress can be a dangerous one and to return to safe shores instead. Works Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 1996.
Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein was first published in 1818 in an increasing secular British society, after the French revolution but the beginning of Industrial Revolution and during a period of technological and scientific advancement. Over 150 years later, Ridley Scott released Blade Runner, a film set in the 2019. The influence of the Cold War, capitalism and rising consumerism and uncontrollable scientific developments in areas of cloning, came together to form a dystopian world. Despite the differing contexts, values such as man's fascination with creating life, an obsession with science and discovery and the importance of parental responsibility are present in both texts, essentially representing Mary Shelley in the 1800s and Ridley Scott in the 20thcentury. The universality of such values are how each text broke through boundaries of their time, thus leading to being viewed as valuable. Shelley and Scott’s concerns for such issues lead to not being critically acclaimed at the time.
in Frankenstein: Contexts, nineteenth century responses, criticism. By Mary Shelley. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. Norton Critical Edition.
How can we think of Frankenstein and ignore the film classic of 1931? Yet the celebrated film does not follow the novel by Mary Shelley. Although the scene of a futuristic laboratory entrances movie audiences with the mad Dr. Frankenstein and his faithful assistant Igor, the scene is derived from twentieth century imaginations and interests, not the novel itself.
In Frankenstein, Victor’s monster suffers much loneliness and pain at the hands of every human he meets, as he tries to be human like them. First, he is abandoned by his creator, the one person that should have accepted, helped, and guided him through the confusing world he found himself in. Next, he is shunned wherever he goes, often attacked and injured. Still, throughout these trials, the creature remains hopeful that he can eventually be accepted, and entertains virtuous and moral thoughts. However, when the creature takes another crushing blow, as a family he had thought to be very noble and honorable abandons him as well, his hopes are dashed. The monster then takes revenge on Victor, killing many of his loved ones, and on the humans who have hurt him. While exacting his revenge, the monster often feels guilty for his actions and tries to be better, but is then angered and provoked into committing more wrongdoings, feeling self-pity all the while. Finally, after Victor’s death, the monster returns to mourn the death of his creator, a death he directly caused, and speaks about his misery and shame. During his soliloquy, the monster shows that he has become a human being because he suffers from an inner conflict, in his case, between guilt and a need for sympathy and pity, as all humans do.
In 1816, a time accompanied with great political and industrial revolutions, Mary Shelley wrote the novel Frankenstein. While Frankenstein comments upon some modern anxieties —parenthood, isolation and abandonment— the novel also touches upon the meaning and fears behind bioethics and scientific discovery. The idea of science and discovery develops into this horror story, in which the scientific ambition’s of Victor Frankenstein harms mankind and himself rather than helping it. Tampering with or altering nature also stems from this fear of scientific discovery as well. Through analyzing the journey and aftermath of Victor Frankenstein’s monstrous creation, Mary Shelley questions the sake of scientific discovery and deems its effects to be detrimental.
Works Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
... mind can think of any progressive idea, and the hands can toil to make those ideas reality, but the heart must step back and ask “is this necessary?” Shelley and Lang seem to agree that progress can, indeed, be a good thing. Even after all he's been through Frankenstein still urges others to “be men, or be more than men! Be steady to your purposes and firm as a rock.” (Shelley, p. 292), and Lang was surely aware that without the marvels of technological progress his visual spectacular would have never graced the screen. However Shelley and Lang, in their works, warn of the dangers of not thinking progress through, of not asking “should we do this?” in lieu of “can we do this?”, and they warn readers and viewers alike that sometimes it's better, like Captain Robert Walton, to witness the perilous end of your journey from afar and to return home to safety instead.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Maurice Hindle. Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.
By seeing the cinema pre World War I as primitive the mother of all creation, necessity was utilised and the economic and technological immaturity, did not hold back the creators but the limits freed them. Gunning terms this as a linear evolutionary process. Gunning, T 1993
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Edited with an Introduction and notes by Maurice Hindle. Penguin books, 1992
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, 1999.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "On Frankenstein." The Athenaeum 263 (10 Nov. 1832): 730. Rpt. in Nineteenth-
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Ed. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1994.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Edited with an Introduction and notes by Maurice Hindle. Penguin books, 1992