The Scientist and the Cinema, Essay Example

Science and the figure of the scientist are integral to the narratives of the films Frankenstein (1931) and Metropolis (1927). In Frankenstein, it is Dr. Frankenstein who wishes to create a new form of life, regardless of the costs. In Metropolis, Rowtang intends to create a robot so as to resurrect his dead unrequited love. Thus, although both films are set in different historical time periods, namely, Frankenstein takes place in the early nineteenth century, whereas Metropolis is a work of futuristic science fiction, despite this difference, there is nonetheless a similar image of the scientist in both films: the scientist is viewed as someone whose desire to expand the bounds of human knowledge and thereby transform the parameters of human life itself becomes a threat to human life. In other words, in both films the scientist is one who does not consider the ethical implications of his scientific discovers.

This similarity between the two films’ image of the scientist, despite the difference in narratives, can perhaps be attributed to the historical context of their production. The films reflect a concern with science from an ethical perspective, as the very scientific process becomes questionable. This is heightened in both films by their attention to the issue of life itself: both Rowtang and Frankenstein are not scientists concerned with mundane technologies, but rather with questions of creation of life and transcending the limits of death. This itself can be viewed as a metaphor, showing how the effects of the scientific industry speak to the very essence of human life itself. Hence, the historical context here is one in which a concern with the rapid technological advances of the industrial and post-industrial society addresses the problem of what it means to be human. Certainly, Frankenstein was originally a novel written in the nineteenth century. However, the filmmakers find characters such as Rowtang and Frankenstein intriguing and also horrific precisely because they lack any ethical dimension to their thought, while also simultaneously representing the apex of scientific thinking.

Here, it could be said that a public apprehension to science informs both films’ portrayals of the scientist. There is a sense in which these films resonate with the public because they address precisely the feel of progress. These films and the scientists of these films speak to the lacking ethical dimension in science: the audience approaches these scientists as the missing ethical half of the scientist himself, thus making the scientist a monster in both films. However, this fear of the unrelenting progress of a science without ethics is perhaps also unconscious to the public: for the public demands for technological products are clearly one of the factors why technological innovations occur, although this is obviously not the only reason.

Rowtang and Frankenstein lack ethics, despite their genius. In this sense, there is an image of science as genius gone mad, not understanding the deep repercussions of science’s own actions. It is in this sense that the image of the scientist is one fascinated by the possibilities of the human mind, while overlooking other aspects of the human being. It is these other aspects, which perhaps can be best understood in terms of ethics: science creates new forms of life, but does not inquire about how forms of life should relate to each other, which is precisely the realm of ethics. Hence, in Frankenstein and Metropolis, cinema serves as a medium with which to challenge the ethical horizon of science, in so far as science itself possesses no such ethical horizon within its method or approach.