Frankenstein is one of the most misunderstood tales in existence. The heaps of wildly inaccurate movie adaptations that have accumulated since the early 1900s have completely turned the novel’s central thesis on its head, so dramatically that the widespread idea of Frankenstein has become its own legend, totally separate from its source, sharing only a name.
Which is not to say that adaptations cannot or should not assume lives of their own. In fact, I believe the best adaptations are those that do put unique spins on classic tales, like Clueless, which is based on Jane Austen’s Emma, Amadeus, which draws upon Alexander Pushkin’s play Mozart and Salieri, or Lion King and 10 Things I Hate About You and the endless string of movies that draw upon Shakespeare’s plays.
Specifically, I have a bone to pick with adaptations that attempt to directly transfer the content found on the pages of classic literature to the screen, especially ones that assume the name of the original tale to directly connect themselves with the story. For example, Anna Karenina (2012), while interesting in its use of theatrical staging to frame the movie, would make Tolstoy furious. If the movie had no association with the Russian author’s amazing work, I would have greatly enjoyed it, but the very fact that it claims to be Anna Karenina upsets me, as it misses everything that is actually important in the novel, following the tiniest sliver of the work’s plot while disregarding entirely the philosophy it communicates. It simply saddens me to see beautiful, philosophically complex creations simplified and misrepresented. (And don’t even get me started on the new Wuthering Heights adaptation…)
And, too often, it is into the latter category of adaptations that most Frankenstein movies fall, purporting to be connected to Mary Shelley’s work while straying so far from the novel’s central purpose that they barely (to be generous) resemble it. However, two new adaptations are scheduled to preview soon: Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein and Maggie Gyllenhaal’s The Bride! Will these two takes on the 1818 Gothic novel redeem the pursuit of transforming the work into a movie? For now, we only have the trailers to inform us…
There will be spoilers of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in this article, so if you haven’t read the novel, you should go pick it up now!
Past Frankenstein Adaptations
Before diving into the two recreations, I want to take a quick step back and review perhaps the most famous string of Frankenstein adaptations, which shaped our current conception of the “monster”: Universal Pictures’ Frankenstein series that stars Boris Karloff as the creature. These adaptations are flawed in innumerable ways, but perhaps the most crucial divergence from the novel is the productions’ depictions of Victor’s progeny. The being is portrayed as a soulless, dumb, bloodthirsty monster that kills aimlessly and ruthlessly, while in the novel, he is actually “born” innocent, in need of love like any child, and incredibly intelligent and well-spoken (yes, he not only doesn’t merely grunt, like in the movies, but he reads and eloquently communicates). This crucial discrepancy thus eliminates almost all traces of the novel’s importance in the movie, as Victor’s refusal to care for his creation is removed from the screen, and the Paradise Lost parallels that Shelley deftly weaves are entirely lost.
- “Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me nothing? They spurn and hate me.”
Guillermo del Toro’s take
When I heard that Guillermo del Toro would be creating the new Frankenstein for Netflix, a flame of hope sparked within me. Guillermo del Toro is such an incredible, unique filmmaker. His storytelling ability is unparalleled in cinema: his Pan’s Labyrinth almost feels like a novel in that it expertly weaves a dual narrative and deftly employs metaphor and allegory to produce an amazingly impactful film. I was fascinated to see how this artist would approach Frankenstein, as he does a phenomenal job of preserving and utilizing ambiguity, exploring human cruelty and hubris, and framing narratives, all of which are crucial to Shelley’s novel. True to the dual narrative approach that he employs in Pan’s Labyrinth, del Toro has given us two trailers for his Frankenstein adaptation, one that Victor Frankenstein narrates and another that the creature narrates. And I can already tell that the filmmaker has done an immeasurably better job of bringing Shelley’s story to the screen. So, let’s now dive into each in more detail…
Upon watching both trailers, I immediately discerned the problems I would have with the adaptation and what I would appreciate about the retelling.
What I took issue with:
Victor displaying his partially completed creation to others at the university
One of the novel’s most important themes is isolation; when constructing his progeny, Frankenstein locks himself up in his room at Ingolstadt (the university he attends), refraining from fraternizing with peers, neglecting his family, and avoiding nature (which is crucial, given that the work comes from the British Romantic period, which emphasized the significance of nature). In the novel, Victor tells no one about his work, and to be honest, I think it should have stayed that way in the movie.
- “In a solitary chamber, or rather cell, at the top of the house, and separated from all the other apartments by a gallery and staircase, I kept my workshop of filthy creation; my eyeballs were starting from their sockets in attending to the details of my employment.”
- “The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit. It was a most beautiful season; never did the fields bestow a more plentiful harvest or the vines yield a more luxuriant vintage, but my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature. And the same feelings which made me neglect the scenes around me caused me also to forget those friends who were so many miles absent, and whom I had not seen for so long a time.”
- “Winter, spring, and summer passed away during my labours; but I did not watch the blossom or the expanding leaves—sights which before always yielded me supreme delight—so deeply was I engrossed in my occupation. The leaves of that year had withered before my work drew near to a close, and now every day showed me more plainly how well I had succeeded.”
The violence the creature perpetrates at the end of the trailer
I don’t like that the trailer’s closing shows the creature as a ruthless killer that murders dozens of people — it makes the murders he actually commits in the book less potent. Also, the creature’s violent approach gives the impression that the creature is hunting Victor at the end, when it’s actually the other way around, which is the final, eternal punishment the creature bestows upon his creator.
- “And do you dream?” said the dæmon. “Do you think that I was then dead to agony and remorse? He,” he continued, pointing to the corpse, “he suffered not in the consummation of the deed. Oh! Not the ten-thousandth portion of the anguish that was mine during the lingering detail of its execution. A frightful selfishness hurried me on, while my heart was poisoned with remorse. Think you that the groans of Clerval were music to my ears? My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy, and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture such as you cannot even imagine.“
- “Scoffing devil! Again do I vow vengeance; again do I devote thee, miserable fiend, to torture and death. Never will I give up my search until he or I perish; and then with what ecstasy shall I join my Elizabeth and my departed friends, who even now prepare for me the reward of my tedious toil and horrible pilgrimage!”
The lightning bolt as the means for bringing the creature to life
Can we please get a historian or British Lit specialist on the set? Frankenstein greatly draws upon the historical, specifically the scientific, context it belongs to — it plays upon the vitalist-materialist debates, replicating (successfully, however) Luigi Galvani’s and Giovanni Aldini’s attempts to generate life using electrical currents. (Of course, the actual technique Victor uses to spark life in the creature is omitted, but this can certainly be inferred from the text.) Although the lightning bolt does preserve the allusion to the scientists’ use of electricity, I think it is just an unnecessarily dramatic, done-to-death method, and I was expecting del Toro to be more creative when choosing how to animate the creature.
- “With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet.”
What I appreciated:
“Some of what I will tell you is fact. Some is not. But it is all true”
As I mentioned when discussing del Toro’s strengths, the filmmaker is adept at making the viewer question the reality of his films, which is so important to Frankenstein. The novel is constantly teasing out the ostensible divide between scientific and supernatural reality — Victor obsesses over causality, frequently reasserting his ardent belief in material efficient causality and induction and scoffing at divine causality and deduction, although he himself recognizes that what he has done is beyond the bounds of explanation.
- “Remember, I am not recording the vision of a madman. The sun does not more certainly shine in the heavens than that which I now affirm is true. Some miracle might have produced it, yet the stages of the discovery were distinct and probable. After days and nights of incredible labour and fatigue, I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter.”
- “I saw how the worm inherited the wonders of the eye and brain. I paused, examining and analysing all the minutiae of causation, as exemplified in the change from life to death, and death to life“
“What manner of creature is that? What manner of devil made him?” and “Only monsters play God”
Finally, someone who is focusing on this central part of the novel! It is absurd how many Frankenstein adaptations have missed this point, which is absolutely key to understanding the novel. These lines introduce Shelley’s fascinating play on Milton’s Paradise Lost, as well, which gives the novel layers of intriguing complexity.
Shelley’s work is one of the best literary pieces that explores the “could you?” vs. “should you?” theme, which grows more potent with each passing day…
- “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.“
Victor tells Walton his story
The trailer shows Victor on Walton’s Antarctic voyage, so we know that del Toro is using a framed narrative, like the book. This is another essential element of the novel that is often neglected in adaptations, which frequently ditch the entire Walton storyline to focus solely on Victor’s tale, thus making the retelling infinitely less rich and intriguing. It is so important that Victor relates his story to warn another man who is committing the same (albeit a less atrocious act) folly as him, blindly following pride and insatiable, dangerous, Machiavellian curiosity. Further, this framing renders a recognition of point of view indispensable to the novel, as we listen to Walton’s voice, Victor’s voice, and the creature’s voice.
- “One man’s life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire and transmit over the elemental foes of our race. As I spoke, a dark gloom spread over my listener’s countenance. At first I perceived that he tried to suppress his emotion; he placed his hands before his eyes, and my voice quivered and failed me as I beheld tears trickle fast from between his fingers; a groan burst from his heaving breast. I paused; at length he spoke, in broken accents: “Unhappy man! Do you share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? Hear me; let me reveal my tale, and you will dash the cup from your lips!”
“An idea took shape in my mind. Inevitable… unavoidable”
I am so glad that del Toro is exploring the theme of fate in his adaptation. Victor constantly uses determinism to explain his hubristic actions, stating that forces beyond his control compelled him to commit his creation crime, thereby excusing himself from all culpability.
- “Natural philosophy is the genius that has regulated my fate“
- “Such were the professor’s words — rather let me say such the words of the fate — enounced to destroy me. As he went on I felt as if my soul were grappling with a palpable enemy; one by one the various keys were touched which formed the mechanism of my being; chord after chord was sounded, and soon my mind was filled with one thought, one conception, one purpose”
“In seeking life, I created death”
As I previously stated, Frankenstein plays upon Milton’s Paradise Lost, and Victor’s lines in the trailer, “In seeking life, I created death,” beautifully echo the first lines of the Englishman’s great epic.
Of Man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful seat,
Sing, Heavenly Muse, that, on the secret top
Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire
That shepherd who first taught the chosen seed
In the beginning how the heavens and earth
Rose out of Chaos …
What I took issue with:
Is the creature both human and animal?
Something a lot of people miss in the novel — and it seems that del Toro might have missed, as well, from what I’ve seen in the trailers — is that Victor uses human and animal parts to construct the creature. The fact that the creature is a chimera places him in an utterly unique position, as he fits into no single category: he is truly, utterly alone.
However, I must say that, overall, the creature’s look is much more accurate than the classic stitches and bolts look. And, of course, the movie is not out yet, so maybe del Toro does reference the creature’s animal makeup.
- “The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion.”
- “But it is even so; the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone.“
What I appreciated:
The overall treatment of the creature
I would be remiss if I didn’t at the very least mention that Guillermo del Toro’s treatment of the creature is probably the best yet. The creature doesn’t just speak in this adaptation, but he clearly displays the emotional depth and need for love that trigger his murderous, vengeful ire. I’m glad that we’re finally getting to see the creature in all of his complexity, which is what makes the novel and his character so fascinating.
- “Once my fancy was soothed with dreams of virtue, of fame, and of enjoyment. Once I falsely hoped to meet with beings who, pardoning my outward form, would love me for the excellent qualities which I was capable of unfolding. I was nourished with high thoughts of honour and devotion. But now crime has degraded me beneath the meanest animal. No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparable to mine. When I run over the frightful catalogue of my sins, I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty of goodness.“
“My maker told his tale, and I will tell you mine”
Just as Mary Shelley incorporates chapters told from the creature’s point of view, del Toro, too, ensures that the creature shares his experiences. This is not just interesting because we get to hear about the creature’s life after he leaves the lab, but because this narrative approach creates a conversation instead of a condemnation; we see that the creature is not a born monster, and that the destruction he wreaks is not a product of a sociopathic inability to love but a desperate, denied desire to love and be loved. This structure also adds to the novel’s focus on justice and the law, with the creature turning the knife in the question of precisely who the law protects, inquiring what/who exactly counts as a “citizen” in Enlightenment legal philosophy. (To read more on this theme, explore Diana Reese’s “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights.”)
- “Listen to my tale; when you have heard that, abandon or commiserate me, as you shall judge that I deserve. But hear me. The guilty are allowed, by human laws, bloody as they are, to speak in their own defence before they are condemned.“
Victor studying dead bodies
In the first trailer, Victor states, “In seeking life, I created death,” and in this preview, we jump to the beginning of this idea: that in seeking to create life, he studied death. Thus, these dual clips provide us with perfect parallels.
- “To examine the causes of life, we must first have recourse to death. I became acquainted with the science of anatomy, but this was not sufficient; I must also observe the natural decay and corruption of the human body.”
- “I collected bones from charnel-houses and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame … The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion.”
Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Take
I have seen movies that Maggie Gyllenhaal acts in, but I had no idea that she has produced and directed several movies, the newest of which will be The Bride, which will hit theatres on March 6, 2026. I haven’t heard much about this recreation, and I don’t know what Gyllenhaal’s usual style is, so it will be interesting to see where she is taking her radically different version of Frankenstein.
What I took issue with:
The main issue I currently have is that the movie (as presented in the teaser) doesn’t have a clear purpose: is this adaptation just for entertainment, or is there some commentary being made through it? I just wonder because, while unique within the context of Frankenstein movies, it’s not unique within the larger context of movies in general. Unhinged, murderous duos like Bonnie and Clyde and Joker and Harley Quinn (and after seeing Christian Bale’s look as the creature, it seems clear that his costume is Joker-inspired) have dominated the entertainment scene for some time, so if this is just meant to be a thrilling production, what will set it apart? And, if this is the case, why choose Frankenstein? Hopefully Gyllenhaal will answer these questions in the movie, but for now, all we have is the trailer…
What I appreciated:
I like that Gyllenhaal is exploring the Frankenstein story in an entirely new way, and if she is able to pull it off (it will really depend, for me, on what the answers to my previous questions are), it will be quite a feat.
Concluding Thoughts
I know I spent a lot of time nitpicking, pointing out the differences between the movie and the novel, but I truly do believe filmmakers should take some artistic license when adapting, as that can be the best way to actually transmit the meaning of the novel using a different medium. The divergences I’m pointing out are merely those that transgress important themes in the work. Additionally, I of course haven’t seen the movies, so what I have critiqued may actually not be valid. However, I am sure that both filmmakers have produced interesting adaptations that would, at the very least, pique Mary Shelley’s interest.