Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein premiered on Netflix, offering a fresh but deeply respectful take on Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel. Starring Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein and Jacob Elordi as the Creature, del Toro’s film presents a vision that, while not strictly faithful to every detail, captures the emotional core of Shelley’s work in a distinctive way.
A Unique Interpretation of a Classic Tale
Shelley’s Frankenstein has inspired countless adaptations over the centuries, ranging from the iconic 1931 film by James Whale, which introduced the enduring image of the green, bolt-necked monster, to Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 version, which closely followed the novel’s events. Del Toro acknowledges that his adaptation diverges in important ways: significant characters like Henry Clerval and Justine Moritz are omitted, Victor Frankenstein’s backstory has been reinvented, and Elizabeth, portrayed by Mia Goth, is fundamentally reimagined. Yet, rather than aiming for strict accuracy, del Toro emphasizes the novel’s deeper emotional truths.
Del Toro explained to Variety,
“The usual discourse of Frankenstein has to do with science gone awry, but for me, it’s about the human spirit. It’s not a cautionary tale: It’s about forgiveness, understanding and the importance of listening to each other.”
His interpretation seeks to explore themes of empathy and connection rather than solely focusing on scientific hubris or horror.
Expert Insights on Del Toro’s Adaptation
To evaluate how well del Toro’s film reflects Shelley’s original novel, we spoke with Julie Carlson, an English professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who specializes in British Romantic literature and the Wollstonecraft-Godwin-Shelley family. Carlson praised the adaptation for its thoughtful engagement with the source material.
“I did. I always like when serious artists take serious work seriously. I did feel, certainly in comparison to other renditions, there was real love for the book and for Mary Shelley’s brilliance,”
Carlson noted. She pointed out the film’s faithfulness to the novel’s framed narrative technique, where both Victor and the Creature are given their perspectives, as well as its efforts to approximate Shelley’s lyrical language. Although the Creature’s speech is not as poetic as in the book, it still conveys complex philosophical reflections.
Shifting Themes: From Hubris to Shame
Carlson observed that while del Toro’s film retains some elements of hubris, it places greater emphasis on themes of shame and familial conflict. For example, the movie portrays Victor’s harsh father physically punishing him when he struggles in his lessons, and similarly, the Creature is subjected to violence when he fails to meet expectations. This focus on personal shame contrasts with the more traditional “Faustian” themes of knowledge and ambition often associated with Frankenstein.
She explained,
“It’s less about hubris, although of course that’s there, and more about shame. The way the father slaps [Victor] around when he can’t learn his lessons, and then he strikes the Creature when the Creature doesn’t learn as quickly as he wants him to — I think that’s interesting. It seemed to me there was a little less Faustian stuff about knowledge and power, and more about knowledge and shame and not living up to the name Victor or his father’s reputation.”
Reimagining Elizabeth as an Independent Scientist
The character of Elizabeth undergoes one of the most substantial changes. Carlson noted that, unlike Shelley’s original portrayal of Elizabeth as a passive figure, del Toro’s film depicts her as a self-sufficient entomologist passionate about her work. This choice draws directly from a subtle passage in the novel where Victor describes Elizabeth as “playful as an insect.” By highlighting her scientific pursuits, the film adds depth to her character beyond her traditional role as a love interest.
Elizabeth’s agency also creates a dynamic with Victor that exposes his self-deception. Carlson said,
“Elizabeth in the film points that out a couple times, especially when he comes to wish her and William well at the marriage and she says basically, ‘No you don’t.’ So she, in the film, articulates Victor’s kind of delusional qualities in the sense of the need to present himself a certain way.”
Exploring the Connection Between Elizabeth and the Creature
The film suggests a parallel between Elizabeth and the Creature based on their feelings of social isolation. Both characters experience marginalization; Elizabeth due to her unconventional scientific interests, and the Creature due to his physical appearance. Carlson perceives a subtle bond between them rooted in subordination and misunderstanding.
She explained,
“I think she identifies with him. One of the first things she says to him is, ‘Are you hurt?’ Yes, there’s a real connection, but it’s not so eroticized for me. … I think there is a sympathy between the Creature and Elizabeth that is about being a subordinated figure.”
Carlson also emphasized the patriarchal context of Shelley’s original story, where female characters such as Elizabeth, the mother, and Justine are largely sacrificed to the male-dominated society. The film, she noted, avoids a heavy-handed critique of this and instead allows more subtle layers of meaning to emerge.
The Film’s Approach to Social Critique and the Creature’s Humanity
While Shelley’s novel presents strong social commentary—especially regarding how the Creature is judged by his appearance and excluded from society—del Toro’s film broadens the critique to include systemic issues like war, militarism, and capitalism. Carlson points out that the film softens the focus on social rejection, showing Victor caring for the Creature initially rather than fleeing in horror immediately upon his awakening.
Carlson remarked,
“The film downplays what was so strong in Shelley’s Frankenstein: the social critique. … In the book, Victor runs away as soon as the Creature opens his eyes because he’s so horrified. [In the movie], he parents for a while and only leaves when he gets frustrated.”
This shift reframes the story’s concern about parental responsibility and creation.
Del Toro’s humanization of the Creature also emphasizes communication and empathy. Carlson likened this to the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, stating,
“It’s almost like [French philosopher Emmanuel] Levinas in that way: when you behold the face of the other, you can’t murder them.”
This element highlights the importance of recognizing the humanity in others, even those who seem monstrous.
Friendship, Structure, and Genre Elements in the Film
Carlson appreciates the film’s emphasis on friendship, which serves as a meaningful alternative to romantic or homoerotic interpretations frequently discussed in other versions. She notes,
“I think that’s one of the most faithful to the book. I am very interested in the notion of friendship in my work, and it really played that up.”
Structurally, the film respects the complex, layered storytelling format of Shelley’s novel, dividing the narrative into multiple perspectives and framing it accordingly. Carlson stresses that this adaptation leans more towards gothic drama than traditional horror, focusing on philosophical and emotional questions rather than fright alone.
She concludes that compared to previous adaptations,
“it really does divide the film like the book and frames it in the same way. And it’s really not a horror film, it’s a gothic film.”
Del Toro’s version aims not only to honor Shelley’s text but to pay tribute to her circle of contemporaries, such as Percy Shelley and Lord Byron, reflecting the rich intellectual context of the novel’s origins.
