A Frankenstein for Our Time

Each generation gets a cinematic Frankenstein made in its own image.

Now, as I, Frankenstein is released, we have ours.

On a wet night, I stood in line and bought a ticket, almost 200 years after Mary Shelley had created her work of fiction, one that has re-incarnated in the cinematic age to become a modern myth.

This movie is not going to trouble the Academy Awards.  A 3D extravaganza aimed at a young audience, Frankenstein’s monster stands between the warring Demons and Gargoyles. Unlike the novel, he is no longer a nightmare of our subconscious, a warning to all of the danger of lives lived without moral parameters; instead he has became a Superhero, of sorts. Set aside from mere mortals by powers both innate and preternatural, he is a leader, a fighter, a better ‘man’ than us. Completely self-sufficient, he faces the threats posed to the world with greater acumen than we could ever do being a true son of what created him: scientific rationalism.

For this creation: knit together in the womb of a laboratory, cloned from corpses and animated by natural, not supernatural powers has no need to acknowledge any higher authority being no mere man but a Nietzschean “superman”—and one that battles the Underworld on its own terms.

I Frankenstein suggests that, two centuries later, what Shelley really created was not a monster but a “savior.”

frankenstein-1931-original-posterMy mind drifted back to the first time I saw Universal’s Frankenstein (1931), with the gentle humanity of the Boris Karloff monster—the embodiment of pathos.  Audiences of the 1930s identified with his sad wanderings in a world that both rejected and hunted him; the perennial outsider of Modernism come to life. This was a being that science alone had animated, and therefore one who would only know loneliness. Karloff’s creature’s battered face becoming a mirror for those left bewildered in a society of rapid technological advances—in seeming isolation from what it meant to be human—with a general populace increasingly left to fend for itself as the former philosophical underpinnings of society were demolished and the wolves of “Progress” circled. By the end of the decade, the evidence for all this would be strewn across Europe and beyond in devastation never before seen. The lack of humanity was nowhere more evident than in death camps, hidden from view, where scientists played “God” with other human beings, forgetting that they too were mere creatures and that all so called “gods”—whether national or ideological—were not God, but demons.

The 1950s gave us a revamped version of Shelley’s tale in Hammer’s The Curse of Frankenstein (1957). The focus now changed, however, from the silent creation to the man who had created it. Peter Cushing’s Victor Frankenstein discarded anything and anyone who came between him and his quest to be God-like. Here we had a scientist without morals, driven by his own obsessive desire for knowledge—at any price.

By then, the backdrop for this was a science that had produced weapons that could eliminate whole cities, and potentially the planet. Unrestrained, a sinister view of scientific progress prevailed, just as in the Hammer production it was one that suggested if it were possible then it must be tried—whatever the cost.

Scientific marvels were to become the “wonder” of the following decades as humanity was able to do things and go places only previously dreamed of. And yet, it all rang hollow. As flags were planted on a far off globe, on our own tons of napalm was poured over forests; more effective ways were found to kill as the contraceptive pill was doled out in the Third World to mothers who asked for food to feed starving children—and so on and so forth, to name but a few examples of more “progress.” Even if science had no moral compass, increasingly it did possess the ability to do whatever we asked of it, and like our ancestors in the Garden inevitably we were tempted to play at Creator.

Frankenstein movie poster 1957So what of this latest incarnation? What does it tell us of our present age?

What is represented appears to be what Pope Francis pointed to in Lumen Fidei:

In contemporary culture, we often tend to consider the only real truth to be that of technology: truth is what we succeed in building and measuring by our scientific know-how, truth is what works and what makes life easier and more comfortable. Nowadays this appears as the only truth that is certain.

In this latest movie, in a world at war with evil, Frankenstein’s monster, the strange fruit of our scientific endeavors, is the only “truth” we can cling to: a saviour. As fiends attack, our best defense is something made by our own hands. In this movie universe, there is no God. We are alone save for this reflection of ourselves: something shaped in our own image—now seemingly strong enough to protect us from Hell itself.

And what is this image? The eponymous character: friendless and humorless, embittered and murderous, without a conscience as well as indestructible.  He is imbued with special powers and knowledge, although where they come from is never stated. One wonders if the last sixteen centuries of the Christian epoch have simply vanished and the Manicheans returned. For this is a universe where cosmic forces—“good” and “evil”—battle it out, while we watch as helpless spectators. The culture the film depicts is a return to the Pagan darkness prior to the coming of the true Light: thus it is a world without hope. In the end, we are abandoned in a cosmos not ruled by a Creator but instead in threatening chaos.

Leaving the cinema, I noticed that the rain had gone and overhead there was a clear night sky. Looking to the heavens, past the enormous poster of I Frankenstein lit by a gaudy light, I pulled up my collar against the cold and walked away thankful for the real Saviour sent to us not 200 but 2,000 years ago.

K. V. Turley

By

K. V. Turley is a London based freelance writer and filmmaker with a degree in theology from the Maryvale Institute.

  • Don

    This is a very insightful essay and very well written. It helps me pull up my own collar against the cold and look to the heavens with thanks.

  • poetcomic1

    At the end of your fine essay, I couldn’t help but remember Boethius “Look to the heights of heaven, see where the stars still keep their ancient peace.”

  • ColdStanding

    Mr. Turley, I ask you, is it really worth it to become a film maker if you have to endure going to see what the competition is making these days? Evil is not undone by contemplating it. That only feeds it. Makes it grow.

    This is two pieces now where you ponder the desiccate corpses of those caught warp and weft of nequitiam et insidias diaboli. I hope you have a strong, strong devotion to St. Michael.

  • Gail Finke

    “One wonders if the last sixteen centuries of the Christian epoch have simply vanished and the Manicheans returned. For this is a universe where cosmic forces—“good” and “evil”—battle it out, while we watch as helpless spectators. The culture the film depicts is a return to the Pagan darkness prior to the coming of the true Light: thus it is a world without hope. In the end, we are abandoned in a cosmos not ruled by a Creator but instead in threatening chaos.” They have, and a lot of film and television plots convey this message. Moreover, in this view of things evil is always everywhere and very strong; good is elusive, powerful but small, and seems to spring from nowhere and disappear there again.

  • Ruth Rocker

    And thanks to our “educational” system, there are few who will see this movie that even know there was an original story written by Mary Shelly, let alone having read the story. And thanks to our “religious” system, they won’t understand what’s wrong with this movie, either.

  • sparxz1000

    Very Good insightful article.

    Sounds like Hollywood is preparing people for the unveiling of their Animal human Hybrids,
    that God cannot give a soul to an abomination that was not created/made by him.
    I have given much thought to the implications for the World and the Church when they admit
    what they have been doing, also from knowing contractors and service men who worked near
    the DOD/MOD were secret laboratories sites having there working on these projects for many decades.

    It will make the gay agenda promoted to Children look tame, when they enforce these diabolical manufactured entities
    into society. As they are Man Made not God Made, they will products, and have no Natural rights.
    They will be used as social moral and dangerous bio-weapons, who’s biology has been designed
    to infect the human population through sexual intercourse, They and their genetic offspring can be

    eliminated by owners without legal ramifications. the Biological nightmare of Huxley’s Brave New World
    will move from socially applied to actually ‘physically’ and even ultimately spiritually applied.
    Like the herd of pigs that Christ cast the demons into, so with such ease demons be able to inhabit
    entities without souls, with no redemption just the ‘hope’ of final escape to destruction

    Also…
    I saw an interesting documentary about Mary Shelly. In fact her motivations
    for writing Frankenstein was more interesting than her famous book in itself.

    He father did not show her any affection or Love that she craved,
    and instead dragged her as a child to watch what was the entertainment of
    wealthy Men(not shocked women)of the day, and that was the dissection of bodies on open tables,
    also utilising recently discovered electricity to shock the muscles of body’s of
    executed prisoners into movement, implying power to control the dead.

    You can imagine the effect on the Child Mary, where she knew her father was more enthralled
    by macabre playing with dead bodies, than a Living breathing loving Daughter.
    She came to envy the Bodies the on the table, and then was convinced that she
    would get more attention from her father as monster hatched together by loads
    of different bodies, and then shocked into life, and then easily controlled as passive.
    without expectations or dreams to be something more. to be harmed.

MENU