JacintaLeax
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 9
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
Frankenstein is so shit. i dont get it at all. Blade Runner is alrite i suppose.
hate english
hate english
Frankenstein/BladeRunner (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Aerath
- Start date
s2-gemzy-s2
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 5
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
we are just doing our first Module A assesment and its a lecture with a question about what ideas about humanity are raised in blade runner of frankenstein when studied together.
its pretty interesting but so hard to narrow down to 8 minutes.
i found this on some site, i find it interesting and helpful. not so much for the humanity thing just the module study in particular.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Through Shelley’s presentation of Frankenstein’s Monster we can view the age of the industrial revolution, and how this new wave of technology, as well as its social repercussions, was perceived by the society it transformed. Because of the narrative comparability of both texts, a textual analysis of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] should grant us contact with a society transformed by computer technology, which ultimately led to such a huge change in the nature of many jobs and the communication habits of the western world, that it can in many ways be seen as a revolution in its own right. Given the historical placement of both texts and through our analysis of them, we hope to witness a fulfilment of the hypothesis that stories and films are cultural constructs, and that within such texts remain the prevalent views of technology in the time in which they were made. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Frankenstein's full title “the modern promethus” [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]tells us a great deal from the outset about the danger of science and technology being given to man before God sees fit. Prometheus, a Titan from Greek myth, bestowed upon man the gift of fire and a knowledge of science that Zeus, the king of the Gods, did not believe humans should possess. Through his gift, Prometheus also bestowed upon humanity Zeus’s wrath, which took the form of a flood, to wipe out those cities and people who had begun to worship their newfound technology as an alternative for their Gods. It also details the ultimate demise of the human race as a result of this knowledge. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However it should be noted, and is perfectly plausible to suggest, that Shelley did not have in mind the original Greek myth, but Ovid’s later Roman tale when constructing her work. In this myth, Prometheus moulds man out of clay and is consequently the forefather of a new race of beings, much as Frankenstein desires to be at the beginning of the novel. Where then does Shelley’s criticism lie? For one of these stories offers us a stark warning against mixing technology with human beings whilst the other celebrates the creator of the human race. Given Shelley’s education and journal which details her reading of Ovid’s work, it seems that Shelley would have had knowledge of both these myths and, through them, created a story before the story; the first indication Mary Shelley gives us about the dangers of those people who place themselves above the Gods in an attempt to create man or who, like Prometheus, see fit to confer on civilisation knowledge men should not possess.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] gives us no such warning within its title; a ‘Blade Runner’ is something that cannot be associated with any other thing until the viewer has gained knowledge of the film itself. The first clues in [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] are more likely to be found in its first foray into something resembling a post-apocalyptic world, calling on similar religious imagery but that more commonly associated with Christianity than Greek legend, We see in our first shots of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif], a world in which it is neither night nor day; a sprawl of dark buildings and light surrounded by images of fire, cracks of lightning and, an eye reflecting all these things. In this eye (a reoccurring motif throughout the film) we find, perhaps, the eye of God looking upon the Hell on Earth that has been created by men made in his image. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By utilising these metaphoric techniques both texts take advantage of the preconceived knowledge of the reader to place their beings into a wider circumstance, one in which technology and science have for the most part displaced God as our source for knowledge Such imagery can only have been employed to remark on the evolution of man, from the created to the creator, and to establish the results of such irreverent manufacture, seen most clearly through Tyrell and Frankenstein who supersede the traditional role of a higher power as the creators of man and who are rewarded by the end of their own subsistence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One of the most remarkable similarities between these two texts is their use of the technological other to explain their position within society. Shelley’s novel ends with a soliloquy from the Monster, a figure traditionally used to warn or teach, whilst Roy Batty’s final moments before death reveal a soul and weight of conscience not witnessed in his human forebears. If we take a closer look at these two equally eloquent finales, what do they tell us about the nature of the story at hand and the message they send forth? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In his final altercation with Walton, Frankenstein’s Monster is described variously as “loathsome”, “unearthly” and “wild and incoherent” his rhetoric demonstrates a creature far removed from these assessments. What we must bear in mind for this reason is that the epistolary style of this novel gives us three narrators, three differences of opinion. The story told within [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Frankenstein[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] is ultimately that of Walton, writing to his sister in England, and within this narrative structure we find Frankenstein’s story and, within his own, the Monster’s. The final chapter is the only instance of direct communication between Walton and the nameless creature, which has affected the appropriation of the Monster’s persona through his creator/destroyer as our main source of information.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Frankenstein’s creation goes against many preconceived notions about the text, by seeking to evaporate with the ashes of his funeral pyre so that “its remains may afford no light to any curious and unhallowed wretch who would create such another as I have been. “ The creature extols the virtues that death may surrender to him before he leaves Walton’s boat and disappears into the darkness and cold of the ice flow.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If we take a similar premise and section of narrative from [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif], that of Roy Batty’s final moments before death, what can we glean about the nature of technology within a complex tale where replicants are manufactured to be “more human than human?” And what distinct technological advancements can we see as the basis for the narrative at hand? The narrative is ultimately told through Rick Deckard, in a play upon earlier film noirs, but the movie’s use of the genre is frequently punctuated by model images of post-industrialisation; the LA presented in [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] is a city that “rots with the waste products of its over technologized, over commercialized culture” . From the genetic engineers working off market stalls on crowded streets, a city of moving, talking billboards and neon signs, an Asian dominated America with ruined buildings and billowing smoke stacks – it combines new and old technology as much within set design and props, as within the film style itself. This drastic disparity has been employed to bring forth earlier times, contrast them with futuristic technology, and to demonstrate the inconsistency of such advances, much as Shelley used the Gothic mode as a way to comment on the modernity of the moment in which she wrote.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]After Deckard and Roy Batty’s final struggle, we find that in death the replicant Roy Batty, much like Frankenstein’s nameless creature, is calm, controlled, accepting; his near-naked state adds to his vulnerability and has connotation of birth and helplessness, for although he appears dignified and peaceful, he is helpless in preventing his death, and feels the need to ensure that someone remains to tell his story – of “Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion…. C-beams (which) glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate” of beautiful and remarkable events that will be lost forever “like tears in the rain” ). However, Roy has accepted his fate, his place in the world, unlike Deckard who fully clothed lies powerless in the rain, watching these events unfold, but who is still in darkness, literally and figuratively, for the scene has been lit so that Deckard crawls away into the shadow of a pillar, whilst Batty sits almost haloed in the neon glow of a TDK logo, still a symbol of technology even in death. But his death reveals the light to Deckard, as the dove is freed from his now un-clasped hands into the first blue sky we see throughout the film, the slow motion of this event having the dual purpose of heightening the emotional power of the scene whilst also allowing the viewers time to realise the significance of events. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally, the director shows us a cross dissolve between Deckard and Batty and it is here, so close to the end of the narrative, that Deckard begins to show human traits and vulnerabilities for this is a key irony of the text: that its presentations of human characters often reveal, uncaring, cold motivations but the replicants care deeply for each other; they love and attempt to protect each other and, like Frankenstein’s’ Monster, exhibit traits that are considered to be inherently human. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The character through which [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner’s[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] message is confirmed is ultimately that of Roy Batty, the Aryan ideal who shares remarkable similarities with Frankenstein’s Monster in his lack of parental guidance, his technological creation and his command of rhetoric combined with a contradictory lust for revenge.[/FONT]
its pretty interesting but so hard to narrow down to 8 minutes.
i found this on some site, i find it interesting and helpful. not so much for the humanity thing just the module study in particular.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Through Shelley’s presentation of Frankenstein’s Monster we can view the age of the industrial revolution, and how this new wave of technology, as well as its social repercussions, was perceived by the society it transformed. Because of the narrative comparability of both texts, a textual analysis of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] should grant us contact with a society transformed by computer technology, which ultimately led to such a huge change in the nature of many jobs and the communication habits of the western world, that it can in many ways be seen as a revolution in its own right. Given the historical placement of both texts and through our analysis of them, we hope to witness a fulfilment of the hypothesis that stories and films are cultural constructs, and that within such texts remain the prevalent views of technology in the time in which they were made. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Frankenstein's full title “the modern promethus” [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]tells us a great deal from the outset about the danger of science and technology being given to man before God sees fit. Prometheus, a Titan from Greek myth, bestowed upon man the gift of fire and a knowledge of science that Zeus, the king of the Gods, did not believe humans should possess. Through his gift, Prometheus also bestowed upon humanity Zeus’s wrath, which took the form of a flood, to wipe out those cities and people who had begun to worship their newfound technology as an alternative for their Gods. It also details the ultimate demise of the human race as a result of this knowledge. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However it should be noted, and is perfectly plausible to suggest, that Shelley did not have in mind the original Greek myth, but Ovid’s later Roman tale when constructing her work. In this myth, Prometheus moulds man out of clay and is consequently the forefather of a new race of beings, much as Frankenstein desires to be at the beginning of the novel. Where then does Shelley’s criticism lie? For one of these stories offers us a stark warning against mixing technology with human beings whilst the other celebrates the creator of the human race. Given Shelley’s education and journal which details her reading of Ovid’s work, it seems that Shelley would have had knowledge of both these myths and, through them, created a story before the story; the first indication Mary Shelley gives us about the dangers of those people who place themselves above the Gods in an attempt to create man or who, like Prometheus, see fit to confer on civilisation knowledge men should not possess.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] gives us no such warning within its title; a ‘Blade Runner’ is something that cannot be associated with any other thing until the viewer has gained knowledge of the film itself. The first clues in [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] are more likely to be found in its first foray into something resembling a post-apocalyptic world, calling on similar religious imagery but that more commonly associated with Christianity than Greek legend, We see in our first shots of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif], a world in which it is neither night nor day; a sprawl of dark buildings and light surrounded by images of fire, cracks of lightning and, an eye reflecting all these things. In this eye (a reoccurring motif throughout the film) we find, perhaps, the eye of God looking upon the Hell on Earth that has been created by men made in his image. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By utilising these metaphoric techniques both texts take advantage of the preconceived knowledge of the reader to place their beings into a wider circumstance, one in which technology and science have for the most part displaced God as our source for knowledge Such imagery can only have been employed to remark on the evolution of man, from the created to the creator, and to establish the results of such irreverent manufacture, seen most clearly through Tyrell and Frankenstein who supersede the traditional role of a higher power as the creators of man and who are rewarded by the end of their own subsistence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One of the most remarkable similarities between these two texts is their use of the technological other to explain their position within society. Shelley’s novel ends with a soliloquy from the Monster, a figure traditionally used to warn or teach, whilst Roy Batty’s final moments before death reveal a soul and weight of conscience not witnessed in his human forebears. If we take a closer look at these two equally eloquent finales, what do they tell us about the nature of the story at hand and the message they send forth? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In his final altercation with Walton, Frankenstein’s Monster is described variously as “loathsome”, “unearthly” and “wild and incoherent” his rhetoric demonstrates a creature far removed from these assessments. What we must bear in mind for this reason is that the epistolary style of this novel gives us three narrators, three differences of opinion. The story told within [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Frankenstein[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] is ultimately that of Walton, writing to his sister in England, and within this narrative structure we find Frankenstein’s story and, within his own, the Monster’s. The final chapter is the only instance of direct communication between Walton and the nameless creature, which has affected the appropriation of the Monster’s persona through his creator/destroyer as our main source of information.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Frankenstein’s creation goes against many preconceived notions about the text, by seeking to evaporate with the ashes of his funeral pyre so that “its remains may afford no light to any curious and unhallowed wretch who would create such another as I have been. “ The creature extols the virtues that death may surrender to him before he leaves Walton’s boat and disappears into the darkness and cold of the ice flow.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If we take a similar premise and section of narrative from [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif], that of Roy Batty’s final moments before death, what can we glean about the nature of technology within a complex tale where replicants are manufactured to be “more human than human?” And what distinct technological advancements can we see as the basis for the narrative at hand? The narrative is ultimately told through Rick Deckard, in a play upon earlier film noirs, but the movie’s use of the genre is frequently punctuated by model images of post-industrialisation; the LA presented in [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] is a city that “rots with the waste products of its over technologized, over commercialized culture” . From the genetic engineers working off market stalls on crowded streets, a city of moving, talking billboards and neon signs, an Asian dominated America with ruined buildings and billowing smoke stacks – it combines new and old technology as much within set design and props, as within the film style itself. This drastic disparity has been employed to bring forth earlier times, contrast them with futuristic technology, and to demonstrate the inconsistency of such advances, much as Shelley used the Gothic mode as a way to comment on the modernity of the moment in which she wrote.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]After Deckard and Roy Batty’s final struggle, we find that in death the replicant Roy Batty, much like Frankenstein’s nameless creature, is calm, controlled, accepting; his near-naked state adds to his vulnerability and has connotation of birth and helplessness, for although he appears dignified and peaceful, he is helpless in preventing his death, and feels the need to ensure that someone remains to tell his story – of “Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion…. C-beams (which) glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate” of beautiful and remarkable events that will be lost forever “like tears in the rain” ). However, Roy has accepted his fate, his place in the world, unlike Deckard who fully clothed lies powerless in the rain, watching these events unfold, but who is still in darkness, literally and figuratively, for the scene has been lit so that Deckard crawls away into the shadow of a pillar, whilst Batty sits almost haloed in the neon glow of a TDK logo, still a symbol of technology even in death. But his death reveals the light to Deckard, as the dove is freed from his now un-clasped hands into the first blue sky we see throughout the film, the slow motion of this event having the dual purpose of heightening the emotional power of the scene whilst also allowing the viewers time to realise the significance of events. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally, the director shows us a cross dissolve between Deckard and Batty and it is here, so close to the end of the narrative, that Deckard begins to show human traits and vulnerabilities for this is a key irony of the text: that its presentations of human characters often reveal, uncaring, cold motivations but the replicants care deeply for each other; they love and attempt to protect each other and, like Frankenstein’s’ Monster, exhibit traits that are considered to be inherently human. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The character through which [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Blade Runner’s[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] message is confirmed is ultimately that of Roy Batty, the Aryan ideal who shares remarkable similarities with Frankenstein’s Monster in his lack of parental guidance, his technological creation and his command of rhetoric combined with a contradictory lust for revenge.[/FONT]
ChrisCryptic
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
We just finished this module (Moving into Shakespeare now....) and I didn't find it all too demanding. I had seen the movie previously (Harrison Ford buff =D), so I had a pretty good understanding of it. Glad to see some* people are enjoying the film as much as I do every time I see it.
Blade Runner is great, and Frankenstein is decent enough, and they are both much more interesting than some of the other options in the module. There are so many similarities between the two, making it very easy to talk about them in an assessment, that no one should be complaining about having been forced to do them.
I'm actually.....enjoying...English now that I have two texts to talk about that are interesting for once.
I'm actually.....enjoying...English now that I have two texts to talk about that are interesting for once.
How about the notion of human self-annihilation in the face of human nature? It seems ironic that scientific 'progress' in both BR and Frankenstein merely brings humans closer to death and destruction. You could possibly identify the scenes in BR and Frankenstein where the creation overpowers the creator, acting as a didactic conveyance of human blindness/myopia.
wasted_dawn
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
I've noticed that other than the freaky flying cars, and other super-advanced technology, BR dystopia mirrors the common perception of the industrial revolution.
The first time we see the city, with the fire and the chimmneys, the machinery and the grime, it's sort of early 19th century really.
Scientifically, they certianly realise each other - BR dystopia seems to have been created from Shelley's hints at what will ultimately happen if science isn't stopped (?).
But is there an argument in saying that in BR's future dystopia, it has in fact in a way returned to the past - Shelley's context (esque, obviously) ?
More specifically, does Shelley talk about/mention/reference the industrial revolution in Frankenstein, other than assumed background knowledge?
Interested to hear your thoughts on this.
I've noticed that other than the freaky flying cars, and other super-advanced technology, BR dystopia mirrors the common perception of the industrial revolution.
The first time we see the city, with the fire and the chimmneys, the machinery and the grime, it's sort of early 19th century really.
Scientifically, they certianly realise each other - BR dystopia seems to have been created from Shelley's hints at what will ultimately happen if science isn't stopped (?).
But is there an argument in saying that in BR's future dystopia, it has in fact in a way returned to the past - Shelley's context (esque, obviously) ?
More specifically, does Shelley talk about/mention/reference the industrial revolution in Frankenstein, other than assumed background knowledge?
Interested to hear your thoughts on this.
KayJayBird
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
Sorry this will be a silly question, but circular dystopias?
Sorry this will be a silly question, but circular dystopias?
hermand
je t'aime.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,432
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
i think br goes further than f'stn, as f'stn is still all natural, because science, as unnatural as creating a body from dead parts could be, it's still using natural things, whereas in br, everything is artificial. so, i see where you're coming from, not sure if i agree, because i think that nature vs articifiality is a key element in the comparison of the texts.
umm, i don't think the industrial revolution is mentioned in f'stn.
sorry, i'm quite bad at expressing ideas in a coherent manner right at the moment, so apologies if this doesn't make sense.
i think br goes further than f'stn, as f'stn is still all natural, because science, as unnatural as creating a body from dead parts could be, it's still using natural things, whereas in br, everything is artificial. so, i see where you're coming from, not sure if i agree, because i think that nature vs articifiality is a key element in the comparison of the texts.
umm, i don't think the industrial revolution is mentioned in f'stn.
sorry, i'm quite bad at expressing ideas in a coherent manner right at the moment, so apologies if this doesn't make sense.
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
By 'circular dystopias', do you just mean that the didactic ideas/issues proposed in BR and Frankenstein are prevalent throughout the epochs of our existence? In other words, that these are perpetual issues which arise time and time again?
wasted_dawn
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
This even seen in the creators - Frankenstein as an individual, Tyrell as a corporation.
Frankenstein is two individuals at war with each other, and other people are drawn in, and have different roles and opinions.
Where as BR is very us vs them, and you can change sides, but only from us to them, or them to us.
Eh... I'm also have trouble being coherent.
Do you think there is any hope at the end of BR?
Nature vs articifiality is a key contrast, but I think more importantly is individual vs mass.
This even seen in the creators - Frankenstein as an individual, Tyrell as a corporation.
Frankenstein is two individuals at war with each other, and other people are drawn in, and have different roles and opinions.
Where as BR is very us vs them, and you can change sides, but only from us to them, or them to us.
Eh... I'm also have trouble being coherent.
Do you think there is any hope at the end of BR?
hermand
je t'aime.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,432
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
not really, no. the quote "it's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" kind of sums up the whole movie, and even though deckard and rachael leave together, seemingly with hope to get away from it all, it seems to be doomed anyway.
you?
yeah i agree with that, also that frankenstein also only created one monster, and tyrell created many replicants. also ties in with the romanticism elements/smallness of mary shelley's society vs capitalism and globalisation.
not really, no. the quote "it's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" kind of sums up the whole movie, and even though deckard and rachael leave together, seemingly with hope to get away from it all, it seems to be doomed anyway.
you?
wasted_dawn
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
If Deckard is a replicant, then everyone dies, pointless lives wasted, no acknowledgement of humanity, the corporation wins, all that jazz.
If Deckard is human, then it shows humans can have feelings for replicants/replicants can have feelings for humans.
Connects can be made - even if Rachael and Deckard fail, then there's still hope for the future.
Like Batty's dove.
Was that dove even real, or genetically modified?
I think it depends on whether you think Deckard is a replicant or not.
If Deckard is a replicant, then everyone dies, pointless lives wasted, no acknowledgement of humanity, the corporation wins, all that jazz.
If Deckard is human, then it shows humans can have feelings for replicants/replicants can have feelings for humans.
Connects can be made - even if Rachael and Deckard fail, then there's still hope for the future.
Like Batty's dove.
Was that dove even real, or genetically modified?
wasted_dawn
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Re: Frankenstein/BR - circular dystopias?
Although more specifically, I meant that blade runner's conception of a dystopic future had a lot in common with Shelley's present - with the industrial revolution full of chimnies, black smog, and nature being destroyed.
Sort of...
Although more specifically, I meant that blade runner's conception of a dystopic future had a lot in common with Shelley's present - with the industrial revolution full of chimnies, black smog, and nature being destroyed.
superfly8692
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
does any1 have any notes on the cyclic structure of Frankenstein and how it affects the readers view?
anything would b helpful
anything would b helpful
It's pretty much based on your opinion the answer. And as for the creator being the "monster", although he might be considered so by the reader, most of the book is told from his perspective and he usually is whinging about how he is so unfortunate, and I don't remember him ever suggesting that he himself is a "monster"
Never heard about anything like that, soz
Are you kidding? Bladerunner is an AMAZING movie. Especially considering it was made in the early 80's. I thought it'd be as dodgy as the first star wars movie.
Bladerunner makes you think. I love that in movies.
I have to complete a speech based around the following statement:
In spite of different contexts and values, both Shelly and Scott are concerned with the question of what constitutes true humanity.
I have a few ideas but would love some other in put!
Not really sure where to start!
In spite of different contexts and values, both Shelly and Scott are concerned with the question of what constitutes true humanity.
I have a few ideas but would love some other in put!
Not really sure where to start!
whoever wrote that question sounds bloody spiteful themselves... but i digress
both frankenstein and blade runner, to some degree; juxtapose, and subsequently challenge, what is human and what is inhuman. shelley's frankenstein begins solely from the point of view of victor (essentially. sure, theres robert walton and all, but you're only getting a one sided view of the tale regardless) and the monster is established as this inhuman thing (which, physically, he is) before he is given the chance to speak. now; the monster has the chance to speak he relates his tale and his struggles (such as his encounter with the de lacey family; who for some reason i find bloody pretentious) and his emotions on the events. in this light, the monster seems more human than his creator victor, who merely "infused the spark of life" upon the monster and then let the monster learn the ways of life through the 'school of hard knocks' so to speak. the monster's developed emotional framework shows that he has, indeed, become human - he shows the need to love, and to be loved, and to be some way accepted, hence his willing to have a female creation. such a request may even seem reasonable to the reader at this point; you could see it as a challenge to "true humanity" - whilst the monster is physically inhumane, his narration of experience warrants a human response.
this same thing is in blade runner. replicant is born. replicant learns of the ways of life. replicant develops emotions. replicant desires more of life because they have attained a sense of humanity.
i hope that my hastily written, ill-punctuated notes have helped you. i really need to stop being on the computer at 12:30 am :burn: