The Monster of Adaptation: Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein

By Conor Mallon

2/5 Stars

Guillermo Del Toro, like many before him, has endeavoured in making an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s infamous 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. He is not the first and will not be the last to offer up his version of the seminal novel. There are over 400 known feature films based on Shelley’s story, as well as 204 short films [1]. To say the original concept has been done to death would be a huge understatement. What is interesting, however, is how these adaptations can be seen as statements about the societies of their time. William Levey’s 1973 blaxploitation horror Blackenstein depicts the white oppression of mainstream media and Hollywood. This version aims to highlight the racial prejudice of adaptions and culture as a whole. Jim Sharman’s 1975 cult classic The Rocky Horror Picture Show presents a spin on the classic tale that encompasses all elements of high camp. Both movies offer an insight into the growing Civil Rights movements and LGBT equality movements that were happening in the real world at the time. They use the novel as a metaphor for the ugliness of their own creation and how, as a social group, they are being shunned by mainstream society.

The Faults of Variation

An integral part of adaptation is faithfulness to the original. Emerald Fennell’s upcoming spin on fellow Gothic classic Wuthering Heights has faced major backlash over its decision to cast Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff, a character in the novel who is described as a “dark-skinned gypsy” [2]. Del Toro’s Frankenstein makes the same mistake as all adaptations before it. Like his predecessors, Del Toro deviates from the original template in order to add his own gory Cronenberg-esque body horror spin on the novel. In doing so, he omits key plot points and falls victim to adapting the hodgepodge of a story that has slowly blended together over time.

Guillermo Del Toro, known for his distinct visual style, has opted to pursue visuals instead of substance or story, leading to a movie that lacks any semblance of character. The absence of Henry Clerval is particularly notable, as is the added violence of Victor’s childhood and the alteration of Elizabeth from the adopted child of Alphonse and Caroline to the wife of Victor’s brother William. Del Toro creates a story stripped of the romance of the original novel. Naivety, ambition, and sweet familial relationships are replaced by wrath, lust and body horror. This results in an end product that is itself a monster combined from different artistic ideologies, a smorgasbord of tripe that lacks any real substance.

Performances: Ambition versus Altruism

The film does have some redeeming factors. Mia Goth plays an elusive Elizabeth, her natural beauty and genuine kindness towards The Creature perfectly align with the benevolent description of Elizabeth in the novel. Jacob Elordi brilliantly plays The Creature. A massive part of the novel is the sensory imagery involved with The Creature’s introduction to life. Elordi perfectly captures the original innocence and fear of The Creature that eventually turns into wrath and rage due to his constant rejection at the hands of humanity.

Christoph Waltz’s talent is wasted; his usual style of unnerving charm and intellectually dangerous authority is replaced by a pompous portrayal of a rich man desperate to assert his own superiority whilst constantly wallowing in self-pity. Ambition versus altruism is the key theme of the novel. Is Victor’s creation of The Creature for the advancement of science/the preservation of life, or is it for his own fame and glory? This central question is totally absent from the film. Oscar Isaac portrays a Victor that is entirely undeserving of any form of sympathy. Instead, he portrays an arrogant villain, reminiscent of his other measly performances as Apocalypse and Moon Knight, his inability to act and overreliance on shouting clearly visible upon viewing.

Societal Scepticism

As previously mentioned, any adaptation of Frankenstein can be seen as both a political and societal commentary of the time. Del Toro’s remake is a gritty and raw comment on scientific ethics and the dangers of ambition. In a world where our governments only care about the advancement of the money in their kitty, this Frankenstein can be seen as a depiction of Western apathy. Blind eyes are turned towards genocides in Sudan, Palestine, China, and Myanmar. The lack of news coverage and direct action taken by our weak governments is parallelled by the overambition of Victor in achieving his goal by any means, regardless of its effects on others.  

References

[1] JÁUREGUI, P. (2018). ‘Hideous Progeny’: the myth of Frankenstein, 200 years on. [online] Fundación BBVA. Available at: https://www.fbbva.es/en/noticias/hideous-progeny-the-myth-of-frankenstein-200-years-on/

[2] Brontë, Emily. 1847. Wuthering Heights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Del Toro, Guillermo, director. Frankenstein. Demilo Films, 2025. 2 hr., 29 min.