Similar issues, explored in different contexts, may reflect changes in values and perspectives. How is this demonstrated in the comparison of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner?

The concerns that composers challenge in their texts not only reflect the ideals and perceptions of their time, but the same issues are also found to transcend through the decades. This has been demonstrated through the comparative study of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and Ridley Scott’s feature film Blade Runner in which their 150 year contextual difference could not create a barrier in exploring related issues. Despite Shelley’s Frankenstein being written in the early 19th century Romantic era, while Blade Runner was created in the period of late 20th century America influenced by Reaganomics, both texts delve into the concerns of the overpowering need for glory, the dichotomy between humanity and monstrosity, and the lack of parental responsibility.

Through Frankenstein and Blade Runner, the desire for ultimate success is represented through the pursuit of knowledge and the application of science and technology. The underlying intention behind the project is of utmost importance as there will be dire consequences if the purpose of the creation is of a superficial motive. Through Victor, Shelley has portrayed humans as deeply ambitious yet also deeply flawed. Victor dreams of transforming society and bringing glory to his name through his scientific achievements yet his desire also makes him fallible. In writing Frankenstein, Shelley had challenged the Enlightenment ideal of knowledge, invention and discovery being the enabler of social progress. Frankenstein’s initial motive of producing the creation is of an arrogant nature as he only wishes to bring great glory to his name. In a sense, the formation of the monster is a punishment inflicted upon Frankenstein for his unbridled pursuit of knowledge. While being blinded by his dreams of glory, he fails to consider the consequences of his actions. Victor’s hatred towards his creation is highlighted by his use of emotive language “when I thought of him, I gnashed my teeth, my eyes became inflamed” however “for this I had deprived myself of rest and health … but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror … filled my heart”, advancing Frankenstein’s downfall leading to his eventual death from trying to hunt down the monster.

Like Frankenstein, Tyrell’s purpose of manufacturing Replicants is to benefit himself in the economic system of Laissez-faire which reflects the period of Reaganism the 1980s. The unethical process of producing Replicants as slave labour in off-world colonies is challenged by Scott as in the 1980s, the genome project to map human DNA and cell research promised ground breaking prospects in medical science and had created new ethical issues. The idea of genetic engineering is apparent in Blade Runner as the corporate mogul, Tyrell, directed the scientific process of artificial humans in order to create a successful enterprise while disregarding the rest of the population. In Scott’s use of mise-en-scene, the salient figure of the ziggurat like structure of Tyrell Corporation conveys the authority and influence that the firm has over the city. This powerful shot therefore expresses Scott’s concerns regarding the state of the future, which is governed by influential institutions that manipulate and replace the natural world with an industrial and commercialised environment. Regardless of Tyrell’s corporate authority, he lacks physical and mental power over his creations. The Replicants are designed to be “more human than human”, exceeding the most faultless of the human race. As Tyrell did not produce the Replicants out of a moral cause, he suffers death as a result just like Frankenstein.

When the corruption of civilization befalls, the obscure boundary between humanity and monstrosity arises. Both Shelley and Scott question the nature of the artificial race who are described to be “more human than human”. John Locke’s theory of tabula rasa underlies Shelley’s development of Frankenstein’s creature. The creature is born as a blank slate who only becomes corrupted when influenced by his upbringing. Frankenstein’s lack of moral obligations towards his creation transforms it into a being full of hatred. The creation’s longing for social interaction is what gradually manipulates him into the monster that he is. The monster becomes socialised into hatred once “my protectors had departed and had broken the only link that held me to the world.” The creature’s transformation into a monster is shown through the juxtaposition of his emotions when at first he describes his protectors, the De Lacey family, as having “gentle eyes” and “exquisite beauty” but is immediately replaced when “a gush of … anger returned”, displaying his emotionally erratic behaviour.

Scott portrays the “monster” acting in a “more human than human” way through the death of Roy. In the scene of Roy’s death, the gesture of his body shows face bowed down symbolising repentance. At this stage, he begins to develop his own emotions, however this is hindered as Replicants are programmed to eventually retire. In having humans program artificial beings to die once they achieve optimal human characteristics just shows how the Replicants are not the monsters for being a different species, but how humans are the ones who are the monsters as their selfish nature stops them from giving their creations the best life. Roy’s figure in the scene is an archetypal angel, highlighted by his pale skin, light blonde hair and the bright lighting that emits against the back of his figure. This angel motif is also apparent through the subversion of William Blake’s America: A Prophecy where “fiery the angel’s fell” refer to the Replicants coming back to Los Angeles, the city of angels.

The disregard of moral obligations is prevalent in the absence of parental responsibility. Only wanting to seek glory from his creations, Frankenstein fails to realise how animating his creature is bound to lead to many responsibilities. After turning himself into a god like figure, a creator, by bringing his monster to life, he becomes completely incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities that a creator has to its creation. Frankenstein thinks he will be like a god, but ends up the father of a devil. Horrified by the physical appearance of his creation, he completely abandons the monster to fend for itself. In turn, the monster begins to take vengeance on Frankenstein, killing his family off one by one before it leads to Frankenstein’s eventual death. This just shows how in the end, the hunter became the hunted where the original “hunter” failed to meet their moral obligations.

For most of Scott’s life, his father was absent as he was an officer in the Royal Engineers. From this, Scott has drawn parallels from his life to his movies which often feature strong conflicts between father and son that usually end with the latter killing the former. This is evident in Blade Runner when Roy kills Tyrell . Despite Tyrell being a very successful man, he is afraid to face the power of his creation. When Roy seeks Tyrell in order to gain more life, Tyrell starts distancing himself from the moral obligations towards his creation, reluctant to engage in responsibility for the creation - He responds to the acquisition of a longer life by referring to himself in third person asking “what can he do for you?” The subversion of the biblical allusion to the “Prodigal Son” shows Tyrell’s paternal stance in Roy’s life. Instead of welcoming him back with open arms, Tyrell rejects Roy’s request of extended life. Just like Frankenstein, the roles of Tyrell and Roy turn as the hunter becomes the hunted. When Tyrell failed to provide an alternative solution to additional life, the creation ended up killing his creator.

Through the comparative study of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, it has demonstrated how contextual barriers of over a century is not even able to hinder similar issues that are critiqued by composers. Although the concerns are influenced by their respective times, the basis of the matter is the same, showing how the discussed subjects are not only limited to distinct periods but transcend through the years.