By William Deaver

Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is considered to be one of the first science fiction novels ever written. For me, it was one of the first full novels I ever read, I adored this book the first time I read it. Naturally, when the adaptation lead by Guillermo Del Toro was announced, I was ecstatic. I wasted no time watching it the second it was available on Netflix. 

All the marketing leading up to the release of the film portrayed it like a faithful adaptation of the 1818 novel Unfortunately, this is not the case. The film plays out more like a retelling with all the core themes and elements sewed together just different enough to not be considered an adaptation.  

Themes such as parenthood are still present but tweaked ever so slightly. For instance, in this version, Victor’s father was abusive. Of course, in the book he has a fantastic home life and two loving parents until his mother falls ill with scarlet fever. His mother still dies in this version, but instead it’s through the birth of his brother William.  

This isn’t a terrible change, but it embodies themes being present just slightly different. Making this adjustment at the beginning of the film gets the audience noticing the relationship Victor has with parenthood as soon enough he will be bringing the creature into this world. He is also only ever seen drinking milk, hinting at his parental issues even more. 

Victor’s Story –  

Off the bat, the movie is visually stunning. It is a crime that it was only shown in theaters for a couple of days. Del Toro always has fantastic sets, but these were on a different level. The colors were stunning and fit the characters well; Victor is exclusively seen in red accents throughout the entire movie. Notably he only starts wearing red after his mother dies. 

For the most part, Victor’s story isn’t changed too much from the book. Elizabeth is his brother’s fiancée instead of his sister. Victor is doing his experiments with money from an investor and not his family’s wealth. Nothing too crazy changes until we get to the birth of the creature. Instead of getting scared of it after waking up to see it standing above his bed, he chains it in his basement and abuses it. This is an unnecessary change that seeks to make the audience absolutely sure that Victor isn’t a great person. Personally, I feel this is indicative of a larger issue, that being the dumbing down of media. The audience didn’t need Victors wrong doings spoon fed to them; the book did it perfectly fine by showing his decent into evil. 

Victor’s story is my favorite part of the movie, it looks exactly like how it did in my head when reading the book, Oscar Isaac gives an incredibly strong performance as Victor Frankenstein, andwhile rough around the edges, the film hits all the important themes and scenes from the book. 

The Creature’s Story –  

This is, unfortunately, where my issues with this movie really start to pick up. In an attempt to bury his work, Victor sets his laboratory ablaze with the creature still in it. The creature is able toescape through the disposal chute Victor had in place for the remains of his work; I like the symbolism of the creature being disposed of as just another one of Victors failed projects. As he awakes in a pile of human remains, we see the movies version of the creature’s biblical first day in the wild. In the book this is a incredibly symbolic scene, as the creature wonders a very Eden like landscape and plunges his hand into a lone campfire, we get the religious themes and the “Modern Prometheus” title explored. 

The film throws away a lot of what made this scene so impactful and thematic. The creature still explores the wilds and interacts with nature, but the creationist’s themes of the creature starting cold before cloaking himself and falling asleep in the Meadows is cut into just one afternoon for the creature. He is interrupted by some hunters shooting at him while he feeds a deer. This leads him to flee and hide beneath the DeLacey family’s cabin. The movie plays out the same as the book for a while here with the creature learning to read and helping the villagers out in secret, but once it’sjust him and the blind man left in the cabin, Del Toro makes his next change to the story.  

Instead of the family coming home to find the creature with the blind man, the creature himself comes back to the cabin to find the blind man had been attacked and killed by a pack of wolves. As the old man dies in his arms, of course, the rest of the family comes back. Mistaking the creature for the one responsible for the old man’s death, they shoot at him instantly. In the book, this attack is completely out of nowhere and is meant to extenuate the cruelty of man, this change to have the wolves murder the blind man make the villagers shooting at the creature a somewhat reasonablereaction. To them this 8-foot-tall patchwork man is standing over his victim. 

I find this to be another example of Del Toro meddling and making strange changes that serve no real use other than spectacle. The climax of the movie is the only part I would say is wildly different from the source material. The creature still asks Victor for a companion, but Victor just shoes him off practically. Elizbeth encounters the creature at her wedding and in a panic, aiming for the creature, Victor shoots Elizabeth in the stomach killing her instantly. After a brief send off for Elizabeth and a scene with Victor and his creation reconciling, the movie ends. 

Conclusion –  

Overall, I liked this movie. Though with all the marketing I was disappointed when it wasn’t a full direct adaptation of the book. I’m sure the people that haven’t read the book will have a good timewith it, as most of my complaints were in comparison to the book, which is considered a masterpiece by many. That being said, I do think that a lot of the changes muddle the themes to the point that some plot points do not matter at all in this version, leading to a lackluster ending.