Since Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” was published in 1818, it has become a cornerstone of Western culture and has inspired an endless number of adaptations. One of them, Universal’s monster movie from the 1930s, is considered one of the best in the genre. Its sequel, “Bride of Frankenstein,” is considered even more canonical, and since then dozens of titles have appeared, more or less successful.
It takes a lot of courage and audacity to tackle a cultural property like “Frankenstein” again, and to do so with a huge budget, significant financial risk, and in a way that is not faithful to the original. Guillermo del Toro is one of the few who can afford this. The Mexican director has become one of the most prominent filmmakers today thanks to gems like “Pan’s Labyrinth,” and “The Shape of Water,” which won the Oscar for Best Picture about a decade ago, and it was also a monster movie, and “Pinocchio,” which won the Oscar for Best Animated Film two years ago, and it was also a free adaptation of a classic.
Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” had a short theatrical run over the weekend and will arrive on Netflix in about a week and a half. On the big screen, viewers can appreciate the large investment and the lavish design it is currently a clear favorite to win Oscars in production design and hair and makeup categories, but what about the other categories?
Like Shelley’s original, del Toro’s film is a Gothic story combining science fiction, fantasy, and romance, set in mid-19th century Europe. The protagonist is again a young scientist named Victor Frankenstein, here played by Oscar Isaac.
In the original version he came from a loving family, here his father mistreats him, and he develops his obsession with life and death after his mother dies during the birth of his younger sibling.
Wanting to control birth and death, the talented and ambitious scientist manages to assemble body parts from dead soldiers and executed criminals and bring them to life.
The result is “the monster,” often mistakenly called Frankenstein, which is actually the scientist’s name. People also tend to attribute monstrous tendencies to it, although it is gentler and more human than most people.
In the 1930s, Frankenstein’s creation was played by Boris Karloff, who was not exactly a model.
Here, del Toro cast one of today’s hottest actors, Jacob Elordi, who rose to fame in “Saltburn” and is nearly two meters tall.
While his face and muscles are not the focus, the casting is still significant.
In the young star’s performance, the mythical character is less a monster with a heart of gold and more a gentle giant.
This interpretation is more romantic and also more erotic, fitting the current era in which most streaming hits rely on light eroticism for teenagers, men are shown more as sexual objects, and icons usually come from the dark side.
Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is perfect for a generation that drools over handsome criminals on social media.
Another significant change concerns the female character.
Originally, Victor married his childhood friend Elizabeth.
Here, played by Mia Goth, she is the fiancée of his brother, but the scientist is in love with her, and she is repelled by his character and questionable actions.
The love triangle becomes a square when chemistry develops between her and “the monster,” and they discover they are soulmates.
Jealousy drives Frankenstein insane and becomes the main plot motivation.
The love between “the monster” and Elizabeth is impossible, making “Frankenstein” yet another story of unfulfilled love between a delicate young woman fond of Gothic themes and a character from the dark side.
This new adaptation seems personal, original, and subversive, but in reality, it fits perfectly into an era where such dark romance is the hottest cultural product, in literature and cinema.
While watching, the feeling is that we have seen this movie before, but not as one of the previous adaptations of Mary Shelley’s original. It feels like a cycle of “Nosferatu,” the hit released last year.
More precisely, del Toro’s “Frankenstein” answers the question: what if Tim Burton directed that “Nosferatu”? Similar to some of Burton’s recent works, there is something slightly childish or at most teen-like in the current “Frankenstein.”
This is not surprising Netflix is behind it, and it is expected that they will adapt Mary Shelley for the “Wednesday” generation.
There is no sex here. There is violence, as Frankenstein’s ambition and jealousy lead him to a dangerous and unstoppable spiral, and there are graphic images of body parts and similar. But if those are removed, this “Frankenstein” remains at the level of a high school prom.
There are a few moments where the characters raise philosophical questions about humanity, divinity, ethics, and creation that seem particularly relevant in the AI era. There are also beautiful moments describing the emerging bond between “the monster” and Elizabeth, but all of these are so marked, they feel forced and ineffective.
Like “On the Edge,” also a recent Netflix release, this “Frankenstein” chooses a Rashomon structure we see the story from Frankenstein’s perspective and then from the creature’s. Besides stretching the plot and making the film longer, it is unclear what this adds. At two and a half hours, it also includes additional characters not in the original, such as an arms dealer who initially funds the scientist’s projects, played by Christoph Waltz.
All the actors here are part of the “usual suspects” club, currently cast in everything. Sometimes, it is easy to forget if it is Jacob Elordi or Austin Butler, Mia Goth or Lily-Rose Depp. So yes, the film overall receives great reviews, will win awards, and will likely top Netflix’s viewership charts soon, but for me, it was disappointing and mostly boring. If allowed, I estimate Mary Shelley would have reacted like me.
Another difference from the original is that here, both Victor and his creation are cursed for similar but different reasons. “The monster” cannot be with Elizabeth because she is not human, and the scientist cannot be with her because he is human but monstrous. It would have been easy to use this dynamic to deliver a message that humans are the real monsters, but del Toro avoids the misanthropy present in some recent films.
Unlike them, the kind-hearted Mexican director offers redemption for his heroes. In the end, he says, there is still a future for humanity, and life can continue even with a broken heart. It is unclear where this journey will lead, but given the hope left here and the film’s anticipated success, it is almost certain that within a year or two, Netflix will also release a new adaptation of “Bride of Frankenstein.”