MovieChat Forums > Frankenstein (1931) Discussion > A "criminal brain" did NOT make the crea...

A "criminal brain" did NOT make the creation a "monster"

posted 9 years ago by gizmomogwai
12 replies | jump to latest

As ominous as Fritz stealing a "criminal brain" might be, the film itself doesn't use that as the basis of the monster's destructiveness. All of the creature's scary actions are either accidental or self-defence. Most notably, he didn't mean to drown the little girl, he wanted to play with her. He killed Fritz because Fritz was tormenting him; he killed the Professor because the Professor was going to kill him. Arguably, the only significance the "criminal brain" has on the plot was that it was why the Professor wanted to kill the creature.

In a way, it's vindicating to see a "criminal brain" doesn't make the monster evil, because really, the whole idea is nonsense. It's phrenology, a pseudoscience. A brain doesn't necessarily make you evil- nurture has more say in that.

[–] kbarada 9 years ago

A brain doesn't necessarily make you evil- nurture has more say in that.

What kind of nurturing do you think the criminal brain that was transplanted had? What ever it was, it turned out criminal. Why would the same brain be any different in another body? I think Dr. Frankenstein knew that nothing good would ever come from a brain that was not well nurtured.

[–] gizmomogwai 9 years ago

Dr. Frankenstein looked concerned at first, then brushed it off as dead tissue. I think that implies the old memories and habits had been wiped out by death.

[–] moundshroud 9 years ago

Frankenstein and Waldman represent two different sides of the argument. Waldman is very much of the "nature" side, insisting that the criminal brain is inherently evil. Frankenstein represents "nurture" as his quote about the brain being "only a piece of dead tissue" suggests that he believes the creature is starting with a blank slate.

In regards to this argument, Frankenstein appears to be correct. Karloff once stated that he and Whale had agreed that he was to play the creature as an innocent. Unfortunately he was shaped by his interactions with others (Fritz's taunts, Waldman's attempt to put him down, the torch-carrying townspeople, etc.). Frankenstein himself was obsessed with bringing the dead to life and its implications, but he hadn't considered the responsibilities of being the proper nurturing father-figure to his blank-slate child. He was like the dog who chases a car, but doesn't know what to do with it once he's caught it. So Waldman's warning that "Your health will be ruined if you persist in this madness" turned out to be prophetic, even if Waldman was on the wrong side of the scientific argument.

As a side note, the whole "criminal brain" element was a holdover element from the original script, which was written by Robert Florey and pitched to Universal as a project for him to direct with Lugosi starring as the creature. The studio instead gave the project to Whale while Florey and Lugosi were assigned Murders in the Rue Morgue. The windmill scene was another holdover.

[–] CovertThunder 8 years ago

Very true. From what I can recall from reading the book (it's been several years) there was never any mention of the Monster's brain previously belonging to a criminal. Unless the brain had some physical deformity or some similar issue that would cause a mental problem, then I don't think Dr. Frankenstein really cared who the previous owner was. This all ties in with the "nature vs nurture" argument.

In fact, early on in the movie when Dr. Frankenstein and Fritz are gathering parts for the Monster, one of the bodies Frankenstein attempts to utilize was hanging from a noose, indicating he was a criminal whose misdeed warranted execution. Dr. Frankenstein ends up passing because the broken neck rendered the corpse's brain useless, but otherwise the brain would've come from a criminal regardless and Frankenstein didn't seem to mind.

Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.

[–] gizmomogwai 8 years ago

I just read the novel last year. Not only is there no reference to the brain coming from a dead criminal, there's nothing in there whatsoever saying that the monster's parts came from dead bodies, period. It says nothing about how Victor Frankenstein did what he did.

[–] joe_538 8 years ago

"Materials" is the closest the novel comes to describing body parts, and that may have been describing scientific equipment or ingredients of alchemy.

I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionably large. After having formed this determination, and having spent some months in successfully collecting and arranging my materials, I began.

[–] snickz 8 years ago

Finally fed up with the persecution it was facing, and the abandonment of it's creator, the Monster did indeed seek revenge, as evidenced by it going after Frankenstein's soon to be bride.

[–] liscarkat (16552) 3 years ago

There are many criminals who have psychological defects that have made made them or allowed them to do evil regardless of how they were nurtured, and many law-abiding, kind people who had horrid childhoods. There most certainly is such a thing as a defective, "criminal" brain. To believe otherwise is naive nonsense.

[–] kenburke (2280) 3 years ago

Oh yes it did!!!

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) 3 years ago

I will say I love this movie. Someone in this topic mentioned Henry saying the brain of the hanged man was useless cause being hanged did damage to the brain. But when you get down to it, for all Henry knows the criminal brain in Waldman's classroom may have come from a hanged man too. Or he might have been shot to death. I myself don't get why that would make it useless though. I mean, a dead brain is a dead brain no matter how someone died.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

"In a way, it's vindicating to see a "criminal brain" doesn't make the monster evil, because really, the whole idea is nonsense. It's phrenology, a pseudoscience. "

You can't say that for sure, because even now nobody understands the origins of sociopathy or "Anti-Social Personality Disorder" as it's now called. Some people seem to have an innate lack of conscience and empathy, and even with all the modern brain scans and microscopic and chemical analysis of brains that have been done over the years... the question of "does nature or nurture create these monsters" is still out.

That said, I wouldn't call Frankenstein's Monster sociopathic. He's innocent, immature, angry at the world, and doesn't know his own strength, I've always though the monster was a metaphor for the sort of teenaged boy who gets into trouble.

[–] SandyR (7360) 3 years ago

Disagree.