Oscar-winning director Guillermo del Toro's new film, *Frankenstein*, was officially released online last Friday (November 7th). The film is an adaptation of the 1818 novel of the same name by Mary Shelley, the "mother of science fiction." Del Toro, who describes himself as a longtime fan of Shelley's work, stated that this was not intended to be the most faithful adaptation.
Hollywood star Oscar Isaac plays the mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, Jacob Elordi (of Euphoria fame) plays the artificial life form The Creature, and Mia Goth portrays the reconstructed female character Elizabeth.
Dietaro redefined the novel's characters and backgrounds, removing characters like Henry Clerval and Justine Moritz, and focusing instead on humanity and forgiveness. In a previous interview, he stated, "This isn't a story about science going out of control; it's about the human spirit, focusing on the importance of forgiveness, understanding, and listening."
According to Variety, Julie Carlson, an English professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), claimed after watching the film that De Toro's version "is closer to the soul of Mary Shelley than any other film," and affirmed that the film retains the novel's "dual narrative" structure, allowing both "Victor" and the "creature" to tell their own stories.
Carlson points out that in the film, Victor's father is portrayed as an abusive doctor, shifting the theme of the work "from pride to shame." "It is no longer just a pursuit of knowledge, but a struggle against failure, shame, and patriarchal pressure." In addition, Mia Goss's character Elizabeth is transformed from a passive fiancée in the original work into an independent entomologist.
She believes this echoes her "insect-like agility" imagery in the book, and the film concretizes this metaphor, allowing her to confront "Victor's" self-deception and narcissism. The film also establishes an emotional connection between "Elizabeth" and "creatures," something never seen in the original book. "Both are misunderstood by society, and her first words to him are, 'Are you hurt?' This isn't romance, but rather a sympathy for the vulnerable."
Compared to the imagery of female oppression implied in the original novel, De Toro's version focuses more on the structural critique of war and power. "The film downplays the oppression of appearance and gender by society, but strengthens the reflection on authority and the responsibility of creators." She particularly praised the film for retaining the segments about "biological beings" and the family of the blind old man "De Lacey," which are often omitted in adapted versions.
Carlson argues that the "Drace" episode brings the film back to the themes of "friendship and understanding," rather than simply a horror narrative. Overall, Carlson categorizes Dietaro's *Frankenstein* as "Gothic" rather than "horror." She states, "It's closer to the multi-layered structure of the original work, attempting to capture the shared spirit of Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, Shelley, and other figures in the Romantic circle."
Differences between novels and films: plot and characters
Oscar Isaac's portrayal of Victor in the film is described as a "show-off tech entrepreneur," sharp and self-centered, a departure from the "mad scientist, explorer" image in the original work. The film also enhances the dynamic between Victor and the character played by Christoph Waltz, placing the motivation for creating the monster within a context of technology and financial resources.
Furthermore, in the original work, Elizabeth is Victor's adopted cousin/fiancée, a passive and emotionally dependent character who is ultimately sacrificed by Victor's ambition. The "creature" in the original work, upon birth, possesses advanced language and thought abilities and can recount his abandonment; after murdering William, Elizabeth, and several other characters, he disappears into the Arctic.
"Victor" then pursued the "creature" northward, traversing ice fields and blizzards, and was eventually rescued in the polar seas by the ship of explorer "Robert Walton". By this time, "Victor" was extremely weak and kept warning the "Waltons" not to overstep the boundaries of creation.
After Victor's death, the monster quietly climbs into the cabin and stares at its creator's corpse. It confesses to Wharton that it was not born evil, but became cruel because it was isolated and hated. "I destroyed my creator, and I destroyed myself." The plot argues that Victor was punished by the gods for challenging the natural order, symbolizing the backlash from the excessive expansion of human rationality, and that the monster is not purely evil.
In response, The Washington Post film critic Travis M. Andrews pointed out that while the film boasts excellent visuals and emotional ambition, its focus shifts from the scientific ethics of the creators "challenging the natural order" to "the humanity, emotions, and redemption of the created." This change is considered to alter and weaken the sharp confrontation between "creation and destruction" in the original work.
Mary Shelley: Gender Role Differences?
It is understood that male characters in the novel possess a dominant, exploratory, and creative function, while female characters are often depicted as passive and serving men. Some scholars point out that Mary Shelley wrote this novel from a "female perspective," but chose to use a male narrator to tell the story, reflecting the suppression of women's voices in society at that time. Female characters often become passive recipients or victims of male behavior.
This argument is also closely related to Mary Shelley's circumstances. The novel was originally published in January 1818, with no author credited on the cover or inside pages. The preface was written by her husband, the romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. As a result, most readers mistakenly believed that the novel was written by Percy Shelley, and Mary was regarded as "his wife and assistant" or "source of inspiration".
In their 1979 book, The Madwoman in the Attic, British literary critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar wrote that this history of "erasing" signatures symbolized the "invisibility" of 19th-century female authors within the patriarchal literary system.
In addition, the creative acts discussed in the novel are mostly carried out by men, implying a substitution or "plunder" of the "female" role of "pregnancy and creation." Some scholars have pointed out that this constitutes a metaphor and challenge to motherhood. For example, when "Victor" destroys his plan to prepare a "female spouse" for the monster, it is interpreted as "men's fear and control over women's creative/pregnant power."
According to the original work, although Justine does not appear in the film, her fate symbolizes the institutionalized sacrifice of women. She is a servant of the Frankstan family, adopted at a young age and deeply loved by Victor's mother. The "creatures," seeking revenge on humanity, kill Victor's younger brother William and pin the evidence on Justine, framing her as the murderer.
Scholar Anne K. Mellor argues that Justine represents "the scapegoat sacrificed by women in a male-dominated society," and her experience forms a parallel structure of "double victimization" with Elizabeth's. Her trial is also Mary Shelley's critique of contemporary judicial and religious authority; she is forced to "confess" in exchange for spiritual redemption, symbolizing how belief systems oppress women's subjectivity.
While many critics believe the work contains feminist critiques, some scholars have also pointed out that it does not fully provide a model for the re-empowerment of women. Nic Helms, an associate professor at Plymouth State University (PSU), stated that although women are portrayed as oppressed or neglected, their space for self-action, transformation, or proactive resistance remains relatively limited.
Nevertheless, some reviews have explicitly stated that the film itself also fails to give female characters sufficient agency, and the shift in the film's thematic focus has been heavily criticized. Peter Bradshaw, a film critic for The Guardian, praised the overall style but bluntly wrote, "Hopefully Miagos's character will have more room to develop," implying that female characters in the film are underestimated and lack sufficient screen time and agency.
Los Angeles Times film critic Amy Nicholson noted that the original novel's "female power" primarily stemmed from its narrative design, while the film focuses more on "Victor/the creature," reflecting a weakening of the female perspective and resulting in female characters remaining largely supporting roles. The film also diminishes the gender oppression and institutional critique implied in the original work, potentially making it less compelling than the source material.
