How close is Guillermo del Toro’s film to Shelley’s book?

Spoiler alert: This article contains spoilers for Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, now available on Netflix.

Guillermo del Toro has often said that Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is like the Bible. Now, he’s brought his vision to life with the release of his own film adaptation on Netflix, starring Oscar Isaac as the mad genius Victor Frankenstein and Jacob Elordi as the Creature.

Of course, Shelley’s story is one of the most adapted stories of all time, and was the inspiration for classic monster movies like the 1931 film directed by James Whale. The creature was perhaps best known as a green monster with a flattened head and bolts around its neck. It also spurred more faithful retellings of the original text, such as Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 film The Story of Mary Shelley. Frankenstein. ”

Director del Toro has made it clear that his Frankenstein may not be the most accurate adaptation, but the character of Elizabeth (played by Mia Goth) has been essentially recast, Victor has been given a new backstory, and characters like Victor’s friend Henry Crevalle and servant Justine Moritz have been eliminated – and he has instead strived to capture the heart of the novel.

“A common discourse about Frankenstein has to do with science failing,” del Toro told Variety in an August cover story. “But to me, this is about the human spirit. This is not a cautionary tale. It’s about forgiveness, understanding, and the importance of listening to each other.”

So how closely does del Toro’s version match Mary Shelley’s original novel?We asked Julie Carlson, an English professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an expert on the British Romantic period and the Wollstonecraft-Godwin-Shelly family, for her thoughts.

What was your initial reaction to the film? Did you enjoy it?

I did that. I always like to see serious artists take their work seriously. Indeed, compared to other performances, I felt there was a real love for this book and Mary Shelley’s talent. It was more true to the framed story and the way Victor and the creatures told their own stories. I also thought it captured the words in the book very well. The Creature is very lyrical at times – not as lyrical as this book, but it’s still clear that all sorts of philosophical statements are being made.

Del Toro’s film further explores Victor’s backstory by setting up Victor’s father as a doctor who abused him (possibly causing his mother to die during childbirth for human experimentation). How does this change affect the theme of the story?

Of course it is, but it’s not about arrogance, but rather shame. I think it’s interesting how the father hits[Victor]when he doesn’t learn his lesson, and when the creature doesn’t learn as quickly as he expected, he hits the creature. It seemed to me that it was a little less Faustian about knowledge and power and more about knowledge and shame and not living up to Victor’s name or his father’s reputation. And that’s what he says (to the father): You failed, because the mother will die, and I’m going to beat you (cheating death).

One of the characters del Toro takes the most liberties with is Elizabeth. Instead of being engaged to Victor as in the book, she is engaged to his brother William, who is grown and not a young child. What do you think about this?

Elizabeth’s work is quite different. Of course, in this day and age, I think we have to go in that direction. She is quite passive in this book. She doesn’t have much to do. Here she is very independent, she is a scientist and an entomologist herself. This seemed to me to be one of the moments in the book where[del Toro]really comes into play, because there’s kind of a throwaway line where Victor describes Elizabeth as “playful as an insect.” So it was very interesting that that was her passion in this movie. Generally, people gloss over that line and say it means she was flying around (like an insect). But that’s another point in the book that the movie touches on, and Shelley goes into more detail about how[Victor]lies to himself and to others. And Elizabeth points that out several times in the movie, especially when he comes to wish her and William well in their marriage, and she basically says, “No, it’s not that.” Therefore, she clearly expresses in the film a kind of paranoid nature of Victor, in the sense of his need to express himself in a certain way.

There has also been a lot of discussion about the relationship between Elizabeth and the Creature in del Toro’s film. In the books, they never meet until he murders her in revenge on her wedding night with Victor. Over the course of the film, they interact several times, and she is the only one who shows empathy for him and ultimately dies protecting him. Did you think their relationship was romantic and do you think it weakens Shelley’s message in any way?

I think she empathizes with him. One of her first words was: “Are you hurt?” her first words were: “Are you hurt?” Yes, there is a real connection, but it’s not that erotic for me. As she dies, she says, “Love is short, and I’m glad I met you.” So maybe, yeah, it gets around those edges. But I think she said a few times, “I’m a weirdo.” Because she’s an entomologist and no one understands her. So I think there is an empathy between Creature and Elizabeth in that they are subordinate beings. It’s hard to take that seriously in the movie just because she’s an aristocrat, but I think it’s more relatable. For Mary Shelley, the world of this book is truly a patriarchal world. Mother, Elizabeth, Justine, all women are basically just victims of patriarchy. And I like that del Toro doesn’t try to make it all that heavy-handed. But I think that’s part of their connection.

As you mentioned, a major theme in the book is deep-rooted violence against women and the injustice of oppressed people. Did you think that was conveyed in the movie?

I think this movie downplays what was so strong in Shelley’s Frankenstein: social criticism. (This film) is a structural critique. It’s more about war, militarism and capitalism, which is fine, but what we need to worry about. But in the books and other movies, the sympathy for the creature is about how no one can stand him because of his appearance. It’s about how people read you. And this movie, of course, doesn’t do that from the beginning. In the book, Victor runs away in fear as soon as the creature opens its eyes. (In the movie) he becomes a parent for a while and only leaves home when he gets frustrated. So, in some ways, that may not be true for this book, but it is (true) in that Shelley is thinking seriously about motherhood, fatherhood, and her responsibility to her offspring, whether it’s books or babies. However, “Frankenstein” is often read as a story about socially oppressed people. I don’t think (this movie) depicts women’s oppression or slavery very explicitly. It’s an issue, but it’s not really a concern.

Del Toro’s film features one of the most human-like creatures ever, but we don’t see him go on a murderous rampage like in the original, which makes it more sympathetic. What do you think about this difference?

I really like how he humanizes the creatures and does more with face-to-face communication. In this respect, he is similar to (French philosopher Emmanuel) Levinas. You can’t kill them when you see their face. But I think it avoids some of the liability issues that Mary Shelley was already wondering about even at 19 years old. People keep trying to shoot him (in the movie), but it doesn’t mean we have to be afraid of him. And we must fear him. It’s not because he’s ugly, but for Shelley, when something is lost in the world, it’s terrifying.

One part of the book that is not normally shown is the time Creature spends with the De Lacy family and the blind old man. What did you think about this content?

I think that’s one of the things that is truest to the book. I’m very interested in the concept of friendship in my work, and it really brought that to life. That was very interesting to me. He emphasized this as a way to go beyond the transference of, for example, heterosexuality or even homosexuality. This movie is never sexual, so I don’t really feel like that’s a big concern, but at least in that scene friendship was important.

How does del Toro’s work compare to other film adaptations of “Frankenstein” overall?

It is close to the multi-layered nature of Shelley’s text. We actually break up the movie the same way as the book and frame it the same way. And it’s not really a horror movie, it’s a gothic movie. I think some of the other film versions are also interested in big issues, but they seem to deal with them sequentially or primarily about something, whereas this film tries to get at different elements of what the book is exploring, but it doesn’t always succeed. I don’t think many of the movie versions try to be faithful to Mary Shelley. Admittedly, I think this is more like the book, and I’m trying to pay homage not just to the book, but to Mary Shelley and the whole group (Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, etc.).

This conversation has been edited and condensed.