The Scientist and Cinema, Essay Example

Frankenstein film is an outfit of the American setting and explores the transformations that have taken place in that region over the years especially in the film industry. The environment that the general plot in the movie puts across is highly likely to be desired by the audience since it has a more realistic sense of science in it something that is necessary for the audience to concentrate on it. On the other hand, metropolis is in a way, a documentation of the transformation in science and film industry that took place in Germany. The film is build around an urbanized lifestyle that is much associated with skyscrapers, and sophisticated facilities which give it a test of science meant to entice the audience (Cornea 25).

Science has been used to transform characters in the film to represent the real life situation. At first these characters are slow thinkers but they later transform into fast thinkers is a good contribution of science considering that these transformations took a short while to actualize. The building of the monster by Frankenstein took place systematically since the collection of materials is documented to display the science behind everything that has let to the content of the film. The fact that the story being told in this film is an old story, reality was enhanced by using modern details in the pictures that gave life to it.

It is only scientific that Frankenstein is able to make more than one version of the film to suit the needs of all the audience with respect to age. Occasionally, it is largely a norm that the main actors would stand out and remain alive in the end of the film but for Frankenstein’s setting, the case is different since he succumbs to death by the monster he created (Kuhn 32).

Frankenstein’s film is brought out as having a real context of science more than that of metropolis. This is for the simple reason that, the way characters have been handle in the former shows a more realistic imagery other than in metropolis where the audience have a rejection towards the content for the nature in which they have been featured. As a matter of fact, there is a feeling that there is no effort to make the audience yearning for more content in the latter than is the case in the latter film. This case put the scientist of metropolis as less influential in science.

The metropolis filmsetting has a modern background that is a combination of robots and tall buildings that could be created with the aid of scientific tools. To assemble such a film, scientific advancement is vital through the entire process. In view of the audience, metropolis is somewhat unattainable as city but in some way science has made it an impressive episode to watch. In fact, according to the audience, metropolis is too much of a fiction although it has come to be the current towns of 21^st century which means science has influenced the past and the present.

There is an appreciation of science in the two films that influence the development of the film and the advancement in science. The transformations on the screen were very phenomenal in sparking innovations among the engineers; the development of characters in the film was also influential in changing the attitude of the audience to the film. The other influence that is exclusive of science in the Frankenstein film is the transformation that has taken effect from just picture films to talking picture films (Huda 45).

Work Cited

Huda, Anwar. The Art and Science of Cinema. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2004. Print.

Kuhn, Annette. Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema. London [u.a.:

Verso, 1998. Print.

King, Geoff, and Tanya Krzywinska. Science Fiction Cinema: From Outerspace to Cyberspace.

London: Wallflower Press, 2000. Print.

Cornea, Christine. Science Fiction Cinema: Between Fantasy and Reality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press, 2007. Print.