Starting the Spark

I'm not talking about the lovey-dovey sparks here. Valentines is over. The spark I'll be talking about is the spark of curiosity that should've been started by our science teachers when we were still in grade school – the spark that would have made us look at science in a different – and should I fearlessly say – better way.

Well this is what the Mind Museum in Taguig City is doing. The “mind movers” there are teaching children science in a more interesting way than making them memorize names of scientists and scaring them off with jargons and dates to be memorized. They teach science as if it’s a story that will surely fascinate children and make them hooked to it, really willing to learn more because it is indeed a large field to explore.

When mind movers spoke in front of us, I felt like a 7-year-old kid not only because of the way they talked to us, but also because the things they say gave science a different face, scratching away the scary picture my teachers from the past (I’m really sorry, but they drew a scary image of science in my head.) and this image they imprinted on me is much more colorful and much better than what I used to have way back.

The mind movers performed cool experiments using simple materials and gave explanations to the things that happened in the experiment, which actually happens around us too. They also made us perform activities that were oh, okay, awkward but still fun (if I let out the kid in me) and from all those, I learned. In fact, they were still in my head. Their method made my brain retain more information better.

Given all of this, I wanted to go take my family to the Mind Museum whenever possible. I want to take them to where their curiosity starts and lasts.

Post-modern Museum

The Mind Museum would probably be the closest to a post-modern museum (disclaimer: I was never that exposed to museums as a kid). There were two notable things about it. 

Firstly, I like the way they structured their education program into levels based on scale i.e. atom, human anatomy, and universe. The idea of ignoring the differences between subjects like biology, chemistry and physics and just mixing them was interesting for me. I do agree to some extent in their philosophy that nature doesn't give a damn to the distinctions between different branches hence it's better to just integrate all especially when introducing them to kids. 

Secondly, I appreciate how they constantly emphasized how gaining knowledge is inferior to having the curiosity to seek out answers to your own questions. Obviously, the quality of our questions is more important than the answers. This kind of mind frame would be very vital in crafting more scientifically engaged young people.

In the end, I found their mini program sort of refreshing albeit it being very child-oriented. What were the fun parts? They did some science tricks. They set a paper bill on fire without burning it. They showed visual illusions. The best one would be the imploding water jug!

The Good Guy

Frankenstein and his "bride" or his female counterpart, were two monsters raised from the dead by lightning. They were created by the men who pushed the limits of science and trampled on the moral laws of humans in the process. They were results of such an immoral experiment that they were considered menaces of the society. They were feared by humans as much as they were hated.

What the people didn’t know was that Frankenstein, the one who was created earlier than the female one, can talk to his creator like humans do. He just looks, moves, and speaks like a monster, but he has a mind – and a heart that is capable of sacrificing for others. That was why he blew up the entire place where the mad scientist made his experiments, even if it killed him, letting the other scientist (who was just forced to join the experiment) run away and have a new life.

Yes, Frankenstein was a product of immorality or some kind of taboo, but he has goodness in him that can very rarely be seen - a goodness that is far greater than his creator’s, making him the good guy.

Bride of Frankenstein

John Jason Santillan

2013-03535

There are two conflicting definitions of life: science's definition and that of morality. The book and movie tries to tackle the main contention between the two definitions. Does life only exist when it is naturally created i.e. through birth? Do you consider artificially created beings to have life like Frankenstein? The book and movie definitely left me hanging. What I was able to extract though was this idea that the concept of life is beyond physiology, cells, and tissues. A being has a facet of life the moment it has some form of consciousness when it can feel, think, respond, and aspire. In this film, he desired for a partner.

I believe that there move in making the character dumb was effective. It removed the noise and complications. It made it easier for me to understand the 'monster' and the message being portrayed by the author. I got to see the essence of the film more clearly.

When enough is enough

Ever since the 1900, the amount of knowledge about science has increased exponentially. People have dreamed and written about things that seemed impossible to create but are now existent and have become common and ordinary like cellphones with touchscreens. One can only imagine the things that already exist today but are hidden from the media. In seems quite inevitable that in the near future, science will create many things that are good and useful but it will also create things that will question our morals.

In the movie Bride of Frankenstein, the monster is more "civil" and can actually carry a decent conversation especially with his creator. Throughout the movie, he searches for someone he could befriend so his creator creates a bride for him but the bride rejects the monster. In the end Frankenstein kills himself along with his "bride" saying "You stay. We belong dead." It's quite a sad and touching moment seeing how the monster knows he and his bride do not belong in the world. In a way, I could say that the monster might've been dumb but he was definitely wise for knowing that it was for the best that he died in the end.

The important thing for us to keep in mind is that we should uphold Ethics. Whether we're researching or experimenting, we must always think of what are actions can do to the people, animals, plants, and places around us. At the end of day, it is our job to keep searching for answers to problems but also know when enough is enough.

Beast on the outside, beauty in the inside

I haven’t read the Frankenstein book, nor had I any interest in giving time to read it for I am no fan of horrifying characters. However, personally I am more invested in visuals, more specifically films. The Frankenstein film delivers the ceaseless wonders that science can do to break the grounds of morality. The ability to create man from dust to life only with the intelligence of how electricity can magnify moving matter in the body resulting to a beating heart – it’s classic science over playing god.

Contrary to the original trait of the monster in the book, the movie adaptation of making the monster dumb worked. It showed the morality in the character in contrast to its being – a monster. Making the monster dumb made him express himself genuinely with more sensitivity, emotions; which on the other hand the bride was made nothing less than how others look at the monster.

The last scene in the film carried me away into feeling sorry for the monster – his desire to only have a “friend” that wouldn’t be afraid of him, that would accept him made me think of him nothing less than any normal human being. It was a fantastic adaptation of the Frankenstein, which I then thought could be the scariest creature that could ever walk my imaginations.


Aedriane Celis

Limited. Not limitless.

If Frankenstein’s birth (or lack of a better term) is not enough, the movie brought another resurrection, Frankenstein’s bride.  Frankenstein’s maker, Henry was coerced by Frankenstein and encouraged by Dr. Pretorius to repeat what he did and make another one. 

What I dislike about the idea of resurrection is the fact that science is taking over the role of God (if you believe in such things) and that is to create life.  Coming from a science high school, science truly has its merits.  It makes our life better through its inventions, discoveries and innovations.  On the contrary, I believe that science has its limits, especially when it comes to things concerning life.  Life is something that cannot be experimented or tested upon, it is something precious that we all have to value. Science and morality has a borderline - and this is THE border line.  I think it’s one thing that scientists should keep in mind, science has its limits.  

The monster was made dumb because the director wants to emphasized the mistake done when a scientist plays with the life of a dead person. On a lighter note, the monster was made dumb to make the scenes more genuine.  It shows a lighter (and perhaps a funnier) side of the monster.  It balances out the idea the monsters are violent.  It shows a human behind badly composed physical exteriors.