You'll have to take it up with the Baron for his rationalization of having the priest die in his stead, as I don't personally condone it. Yet what I wrote points to the obvious: His work was paramount to him, which couldn't be accomplished if he were dead. So he viewed the priest's life as "collateral damage," a "necessary evil," in a challenging life-or-death situation. To him, it was the only way to survive and carry on his work which he no doubt believed would benefit humankind. In his arrogance he likely felt that the world couldn't live without his remarkable achievements. Hence, the clergyman was expendable.
As for the poor people that he mutilated for the sake of his experiments, I plainly said it was selfish and even evil. The issue isn't what I think about it, but rather what Dr. Frankenstein thinks. He's the interesting character that we're discussing here. He likely justified his actions on the grounds that way more poor people in the region were freely benefitting from his skilled work compared to the relatively few who were unknowingly sacrificing body parts.
His work with Hans' soul and Christina's resurrection in "Created Woman" were entirely experimental and so there was no way for him to accurately predict the outcome. But that's a constant theme in Shelley's original tale, as well as the more faithful sequels: His "becoming God" to create new life with all the justifications thereof inevitably results in tragedy.
I don't believe that Victor's bringing back Hans in Christina's body and fixing her deformity was out of the goodness of his heart
I never said he did it out of the goodness of his heart. I simply pointed out that it bespoke of his extraordinary talents and that preserving someone's life/soul (Hans) and resurrecting someone else & fixing her deformities (Christina) is ITSELF good or, at least, arguably good.
As for "Evil of," it fits into the chronology with a little imagination, as observed in this post
https://moviechat.org/tt0058073/The-Evil-of-Frankenstein/58c725395ec57f0478ee0e80/Is-it-the-same-continuity-It-can-be.
This Frankenstein in EVIL actually showed some empathy and concern for his creation, Hans and the deaf/mute girl. He even tried to warn the constable of the danger to the town once he loses control of his creature (thanks to the hypnotist) and after the creature's murder of the hypnotist.
This agrees with my point in this discussion: Victor isn't a paragon of unadulterated evil, like Freddy Krueger or Christopher Lee's Dracula, he's somewhere in between black and white, which makes him a more interesting character IMHO.
To be clear, I don't view Victor as a good person. The proverbial "there is no one who does good" applies. However, I have no doubt that he has good intentions about the work he passionately endeavors to develop and offer to the world, at least in the grand scheme of things. For instance, his techniques for the 'fixing' of Christina's deformity and partial paralysis could be used to heal other people in decades & centuries to come. The evil or morally questionable things he does he obviously justifies so he can live with himself and carry on his work.
This is not consistant with his behavior in the other movies
The films in the series that I've watched recently (and therefore are fresh in mind) are "Revenge," "Evil," "Created Woman" and "Must be Destroyed," which all testify to Victor's good, bad and ugly sides. In short, they don't make him out to be one-dimensionally evil.
He's the worst in "Must be Destroyed," for reasons already noted, yet -- even then -- he heals Dr. Brandt's mind and preserves his life by successfully transplanting his brain into a healthy body. Moreover, he reveals his beneficial goal -- to preserve the brains of brilliant people so their knowledge doesn't go to waste in the grave, but rather will be accessed by people in future generations for the good of humanity.
reply
share