«Frankenstein»: a myth beyond science fiction movies
Abstract Since the publication of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus in 1818, the idea of life creation and the guests of the novel have arise a lot of interest, both in the literary and cinema fields. The present paper reviews the historical background in which the novel was written, as well as the medical context of the time in order to better understand its main features. Among the more than hundred of films that were inspired by the Shelley’s work, we have chosen Frankenstein (James Whale, 1931) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh, 1994), as the most pertinent examples to discuss the ideas of the novel and because they are clearly different in showing the Frankenstein myth. The Whale’s movie clearly depicted horror elements and the crazy scientist role. By contrast, Branagh preferred to follow Shelley’s original ideas and introduce the ethical controversies associated to Frankenstein’s experiments. Finally, we discuss the contemporary importance of the Frankenstein myth still has, as well as the interest of the films to show it, with special focus in the discussion around genetic engineering.
- Referencias
- Cómo citar
- Del mismo autor
- Métricas
Back KW. Frankenstein and Brave New World: two cautionary myths on the boundaries of science. Hist Eur Ideas 1995; 20:327-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-6599(95)92959-X
Baños JE, Aramburu JF, Sentí M. Biocinema: la experiencia de emplear películas comerciales con estudiantes de Biología. Rev Med Cine. 2005; 1:42-6.
Barns I. Monstrous nature or technology? Cinematic resolution of the ‘Frankenstein Problem’. Science as Culture 1990; 1:7-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439009526278
Barns I. Monstrous nature or technology? Cinematic resolution of the ‘Frankenstein Problem’. Science as Culture 1990; 1:7-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439009526278
Behrendt S (ed.). Approaches to teaching Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Nueva York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1990.
Behrendt S (ed.). Approaches to teaching Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Nueva York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1990.
Bishop MGH. The making and re-making of Man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. J Royal Soc Med 1994; 87:749-51.
Bishop MGH. The making and re-making of Man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. J Royal Soc Med 1994; 87:749-51.
Bishop MGH. The making and re-making of Man: 2. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or, the modern Pandora, and gene therapy. J Royal Soc Med 1994; 87:751-3.
Branagh K. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: the classic tale of terror reborn on film. Nueva York: Newmarket Press, 1994.
Butler M (ed.). Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometeus: The 1818 text. Londres: Pickering, 1993.
Butler M (ed.). Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometeus: The 1818 text. Londres: Pickering, 1993.
Campbell CS. Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein. Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics 2003; 12:342-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180103124048
Curtis J. James Whale: a new world of gods and monsters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1998.
Curtis J. James Whale: a new world of gods and monsters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1998.
Davies H. Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? J Med Ethics; Medical Humanities 2004; 30:32-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2003.000153
De Prada FJ. Manipulación genética: el nuevo monstruo de Frankenstein en el cine. Rev Med Cine 2007; 3:68-75.
Finger S, Law MB. Karl August Weinhold and his “science” in the era of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: experiments on electricity and the restoration of life. J Hist Med Allied Sci 1998; 53:161-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/53.2.161
Finger S. Luigi Galvani. Electricity and the nerves. En Minds behind the brain. A history of the pioneers and their discoveries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; p. 101-17.
Finger S. Treatments and therapies: from 1700 to World War I. En Origins of neuroscience. A history of explorations into brain function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; p. 429-39.
Gawande A. ‘Final cut: medical arrogance and the decline of the autopsy’. New Yorker 2001; 19:94-99.
Gaylin W. Frankenstein factor. N Eng J Med 1977; 297:665-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197709222971211
Gaylin W. Frankenstein factor. N Eng J Med 1977; 297:665-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197709222971211
Ginn SR. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Prog Brain Res 2013; 204:169-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9
Ginn SR. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Prog Brain Res 2013; 204:169-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9
Goulding C. The real Doctor Frankenstein? J Roy Soc Med 2002; 95:257-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.95.5.257
Goulding C. The real Doctor Frankenstein? J Roy Soc Med 2002; 95:257-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.95.5.257
Guinan P. Bioterrorism, embryonic stem cells, and Frankenstein. J Religion Health 2002; 41:305-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021118308862
Hellsten I. Dolly: scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein’s monster? Journalistic and scientific metaphors of cloning. Metaphor and Symbol 2000; 15:213-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3
Kaplan PW. Mind, brain, body, and soul: a review of the electrophysiological undercurrents for Dr. Frankenstein. J Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 21:301-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.WNP.0000139782.16070.68
Kaplan PW. The real Dr. Frankenstein: Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein? J Roy Soc Med 2002; 95:577-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.95.11.577
López-Piñero JM. La constitución de la fisiología como disciplina durante el siglo XVIII. En La medicina en la historia. 1ª ed. Madrid: La Esfera de los libros,
2002; p. 344-352.
Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. Londres: Routledge, 1990.
Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. Londres: Routledge, 1990.
Porter R. Enlightenment. En The greatest benefit to mankind. A medical history from the antiquity to the present. Londres: Fontana Press, 1997; p. 245-303.
Reese D. A troubled legacy: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the inheritance of human rights. Representations 2006; 96:48-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.2006.96.1.48
Rose C. How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understand Sci. 2003; 12:289-96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123007
Seymour M. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. ix-xviii.
Seymour M. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. ix-xviii.
Seymour M. Mary Shelley. Londres: John Murray, 2000.
Seymour M. Mary Shelley. Londres: John Murray, 2000.
Shelley MW. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. xix-xxv. [El texto pertenece a la edición de 1831].
Shelley MW. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. xix-xxv. [El texto pertenece a la edición de 1831].
Top 25 Horror Movies. Time Entertainmen. [Consultada el 18 de octubre de 2013.]. Disponible en: http://entertainment.time.com/2007/10/29/top-25-horrormovies/slide/frankenstein-%201931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-6599(95)92959-X
Baños JE, Aramburu JF, Sentí M. Biocinema: la experiencia de emplear películas comerciales con estudiantes de Biología. Rev Med Cine. 2005; 1:42-6.
Barns I. Monstrous nature or technology? Cinematic resolution of the ‘Frankenstein Problem’. Science as Culture 1990; 1:7-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439009526278
Barns I. Monstrous nature or technology? Cinematic resolution of the ‘Frankenstein Problem’. Science as Culture 1990; 1:7-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439009526278
Behrendt S (ed.). Approaches to teaching Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Nueva York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1990.
Behrendt S (ed.). Approaches to teaching Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Nueva York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1990.
Bishop MGH. The making and re-making of Man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. J Royal Soc Med 1994; 87:749-51.
Bishop MGH. The making and re-making of Man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. J Royal Soc Med 1994; 87:749-51.
Bishop MGH. The making and re-making of Man: 2. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or, the modern Pandora, and gene therapy. J Royal Soc Med 1994; 87:751-3.
Branagh K. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: the classic tale of terror reborn on film. Nueva York: Newmarket Press, 1994.
Butler M (ed.). Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometeus: The 1818 text. Londres: Pickering, 1993.
Butler M (ed.). Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometeus: The 1818 text. Londres: Pickering, 1993.
Campbell CS. Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein. Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics 2003; 12:342-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180103124048
Curtis J. James Whale: a new world of gods and monsters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1998.
Curtis J. James Whale: a new world of gods and monsters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1998.
Davies H. Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? J Med Ethics; Medical Humanities 2004; 30:32-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2003.000153
De Prada FJ. Manipulación genética: el nuevo monstruo de Frankenstein en el cine. Rev Med Cine 2007; 3:68-75.
Finger S, Law MB. Karl August Weinhold and his “science” in the era of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: experiments on electricity and the restoration of life. J Hist Med Allied Sci 1998; 53:161-80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/53.2.161
Finger S. Luigi Galvani. Electricity and the nerves. En Minds behind the brain. A history of the pioneers and their discoveries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; p. 101-17.
Finger S. Treatments and therapies: from 1700 to World War I. En Origins of neuroscience. A history of explorations into brain function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; p. 429-39.
Gawande A. ‘Final cut: medical arrogance and the decline of the autopsy’. New Yorker 2001; 19:94-99.
Gaylin W. Frankenstein factor. N Eng J Med 1977; 297:665-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197709222971211
Gaylin W. Frankenstein factor. N Eng J Med 1977; 297:665-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197709222971211
Ginn SR. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Prog Brain Res 2013; 204:169-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9
Ginn SR. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Prog Brain Res 2013; 204:169-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9
Goulding C. The real Doctor Frankenstein? J Roy Soc Med 2002; 95:257-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.95.5.257
Goulding C. The real Doctor Frankenstein? J Roy Soc Med 2002; 95:257-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.95.5.257
Guinan P. Bioterrorism, embryonic stem cells, and Frankenstein. J Religion Health 2002; 41:305-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021118308862
Hellsten I. Dolly: scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein’s monster? Journalistic and scientific metaphors of cloning. Metaphor and Symbol 2000; 15:213-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3
Kaplan PW. Mind, brain, body, and soul: a review of the electrophysiological undercurrents for Dr. Frankenstein. J Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 21:301-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.WNP.0000139782.16070.68
Kaplan PW. The real Dr. Frankenstein: Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein? J Roy Soc Med 2002; 95:577-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.95.11.577
López-Piñero JM. La constitución de la fisiología como disciplina durante el siglo XVIII. En La medicina en la historia. 1ª ed. Madrid: La Esfera de los libros,
2002; p. 344-352.
Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. Londres: Routledge, 1990.
Mellor AK. Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. Londres: Routledge, 1990.
Porter R. Enlightenment. En The greatest benefit to mankind. A medical history from the antiquity to the present. Londres: Fontana Press, 1997; p. 245-303.
Reese D. A troubled legacy: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the inheritance of human rights. Representations 2006; 96:48-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.2006.96.1.48
Rose C. How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understand Sci. 2003; 12:289-96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123007
Seymour M. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. ix-xviii.
Seymour M. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. ix-xviii.
Seymour M. Mary Shelley. Londres: John Murray, 2000.
Seymour M. Mary Shelley. Londres: John Murray, 2000.
Shelley MW. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. xix-xxv. [El texto pertenece a la edición de 1831].
Shelley MW. Introduction. En Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Londres: The Folio Society, 2004; p. xix-xxv. [El texto pertenece a la edición de 1831].
Top 25 Horror Movies. Time Entertainmen. [Consultada el 18 de octubre de 2013.]. Disponible en: http://entertainment.time.com/2007/10/29/top-25-horrormovies/slide/frankenstein-%201931
Baños, J.-E., & Rodríguez, G. (2014). «Frankenstein»: a myth beyond science fiction movies. Journal of Medicine and Movies, 10(1), 37–44. Retrieved from https://revistas.usal.es/cinco/index.php/medicina_y_cine/article/view/13628
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Fèlix Bosch, María Luisa Ferrándiz, Josep-E. Baños, «The faithful gardener» (2005) and the complex debate on drug research , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 10 No. 3 (2014)
- Gemma Rodríguez, Josep-E. Baños, Replicas and human perfection: «The Brazil Boys» and «GATTACA» , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 10 No. 2 (2014)
- Irene Cambra-Badii, Elena Guardiola, Josep-E. Baños, From Marcus Welby, M.D. to The resident: The changing portrayal of physicians in TV medical dramas , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 16 No. 2 (2020)
- Josep-E. Baños, Gemma Rodríguez, Genetic engineering in film: the case of chimeras , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 10 No. 3 (2014)
- Gemma Rodríguez, Josep-E. Baños, The fear of the biological effects of radioactivity: «Humanity in danger» and «Japan under the terror of the monster» , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 10 No. 4 (2014)
- Josep-E. Baños, Irene Cambra Badii, Elena Guardiola, From movies to medical tv series, through literature , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 15 No. 4 (2019)
- Josep-E. Baños, Elena Guardiola, Medicina y Literatura: el valor de las palabras , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 11 No. 1 (2015)
- Josep-E. Baños, La larga relación entre medicina y literatura (y viceversa) , Journal of Medicine and Movies: Vol. 11 No. 4 (2015)
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
+
−