No one likes a movie adaptation that doesn’t do justice to the book they love — especially when it’s their favorite.
Usually, movie adaptations land somewhere in the middle. Some fans love them; others don’t. And adaptations are usually close enough to capture at least a little of the book’s essence.
Unless you’re “Frankenstein.”
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has become a monster of its own — and not the one she created. Hollywood took a handful of details from her manuscript and warped it into what “Frankenstein” has come to be primarily viewed as today. If you decide to read “Frankenstein” and are expecting bolts and stitches, magic lightning and Igor, you’re going to be very disappointed. There is barely even half a page that resembles Hollywood’s iconic image of “Frankenstein.” (Also, fun fact: Igor is not even a character in Shelley’s novel.)
“Frankenstein” has been adapted and spun off hundreds of times. How many times has it been told with the true heart of Shelley’s manuscript? Once — when she wrote it.
While most modern audiences are burnt out on remakes and retellings, it strikes me as funny that one of the most remade stories of all time doesn’t have those same audiences asking, “Who asked for another ‘Frankenstein’ remake?” Why? Because not a single adaptation has gotten it right.
That’s right — one of the most adapted stories of all time has never been adapted properly.
This has been a pretty devastating reality for me to come to terms with, since “Frankenstein” is my favorite book of all time. I’ve had pretty much no hope for there ever being a film adaptation that captures what I love so much about the story.
Yet a tiny glimmer of hope appeared when I found out that Guillermo del Toro — known for “The Shape of Water,” “Pan’s Labyrinth,” “Crimson Peak” and many others — was adapting it, with Oscar Isaac as Victor. And every little teaser that’s been dropped since then has only built my hope.
The final trailer dropped on Oct. 1, with the film set to hit select theaters later this month, on Oct. 17, before its Netflix release on Nov. 7.
The trailer felt very promising in terms of getting the aesthetics of “Frankenstein” right. The scenery and the gothic elements serve as an incredibly important backdrop in the story of “Frankenstein.” This is another huge element adaptations often get wrong. Even the smallest details from the trailer have left me hopeful and felt true to Shelley’s vision: the arctic scenes, the look of Jacob Elordi’s Creature, just the right balance of sci-fi magic and 18th-century grounding, the gothic perfection of Mia Goth as Elizabeth in that ghostly, haunting wedding dress and the elements of horror undeniably present.
What most adaptations get wrong is that they miss the heart of the story, and I’ve always felt that the heart of this story is the monster’s to reveal. What does this trailer do?
Seconds into the trailer, the first thing we hear is:
“My maker told his tale. And I … will tell you mine.”
Immediately, yes. Tears almost filled my eyes upon hearing this — because this is what people always get wrong about “Frankenstein.”
You think you know this tale. But you don’t.
Some of my favorite chapters of the book and, arguably, the most important, are from the monster’s point of view. Something you may not know about the story of “Frankenstein” is that, yes, Victor creates a monster, but he also immediately abandons that creation after it comes to life. It is entirely infuriating. The monster has been created by chapter five, leaving the vast majority of the book to deal with the aftermath.
The monster is left alone to navigate the world and grapple with his abandonment. The creation is sad, lost and lonely, and those emotions eventually give way to rage. He’s lonely and abandoned. He has such a human desire for love. He is broken by being abandoned and despised by his creator.
When he finally finds Victor, he’s accepted that his creator will not show him love, and instead demands that Victor create another companion for him. The trailer features the monster’s threat: “I demand a single grace from you. If you are not to award me love, then I will indulge in rage … ” The monster’s response to his creator is the heart of “Frankenstein.”
My link to this story is the vast thankfulness I have that my Creator didn’t abandon me. Though my sin makes me an imperfect and ugly creature, my Creator made me in His image, calls me His and will never abandon me.
The trailer even nods to the idea that Victor is the true monster in the text that flashes on the screen between shots, “Only monsters play God.”
The “Frankenstein” novel is technically in the horror genre, and ironically, I don’t typically do horror. So, correction— I don’t do horror movies because I can’t stomach gore. More than likely, this movie will have some gore; Frankenstein’s monster is like Chewbacca in that he can rip ligaments off with ease.
But I will be watching this film because:
A. How can I not? This adaptation might finally do my favorite book justice.
B. The horror elements are not what this story is about.
The fact that del Toro has said that about this adaptation, too, gives me vast hope that he gets the story. I think we’ve been waiting for the perfect person to adapt this story, and I think del Toro is that person. In an interview with Deadline Hollywood, del Toro reflected on this idea that his “Frankenstein” is not truly a horror film.
“I think nominally and generically, it is a horror movie. But I think horror movies, after 30 years of making fantasy films, you know, that they can be something on top of that,” del Toro said. “There is sort of the level of emotion after 200 years for the book and the story to still provoke compassion and fear of crossing a boundary. Those are things that I think we renovated in a beautiful way.”
I hope that people go in expecting horror, expecting what they know of “Frankenstein.” And, instead, I hope they walk away finally getting it.
