Frankenstein 2025: Trading Nuance for Novelty

Warning: This article contains many spoilers for both the movie and the novel. Read at your own discretion.

Having written my thesis on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the announcement of a 2025 film version of Frankenstein truly struck me. Since Guillermo Del Toro, the film’s writer, director and producer, is widely regarded for his work in dark fantasy and horror films, I was quite hopeful for his rendition of the classic story. As I sat down for my highly anticipated first watch, I promised myself I wouldn’t get too upset about the modification of certain details or plot points as long as they weren’t fundamental to the story. I tried my best to keep my reactions reasonable, but 20 minutes into the film, I already found myself losing hope. 

I could go on and on splitting hairs about character changes (was it really necessary to rename Robert Walton as Captain Andrews?) or general continuity errors (there’s no way Victor’s medical journals survived a literal explosion), but all of us would end up with a headache if I decided to indulge in every grievance I have with this film. I would like the record to show, though, that Del Toro does deserve some props for certain character choices, such as the general approach to the Creature and the writing of Elizabeth. 

The film places a particular emphasis on Del Toro’s frequent exploration of misunderstood creatures, a hallmark of Shelley’s original text. I will say, his movie does a great job of humanizing the Creature in a way I haven’t seen before. Jacob Elordi’s portrayal of the Creature was genuinely moving, sparking many people online to empathize with the Creature. Reading the novel had the same effect on me, which is why I was so pleased with this version of the Creature.

That being said, there is a reason the Creature has commonly been referred to as “Frankenstein’s monster.” The Creature’s story in the novel follows a consistent stream of violent rejection, originating from his own creator, that informs his own violent actions. Del Toro’s creature faces a significant amount of hate and neglect, sure, but it doesn’t fuel his own villain streak the way Shelley’s does. I fear the lack of a significant outlash against humanity and the creator who doomed him to be outcast by society removes the nuance of Shelley’s Creature.

One of the biggest themes from Shelley’s novel is that monsters aren’t born, they’re made. The Creature’s mistreatment turns him into a monster, while Victor becomes a monster at the hands of his own reckless ambition and pride. While Del Toro’s Frankenstein communicates Victor’s madness and monstrosity quite well, it lacks the proper exploration of the Creature’s monstrosity and how it manifests. 

Victor’s monstrosity begins to develop as a result of his troubled father-son relationship in Del Toro’s film. The time jump from Victor’s childhood resentment of his younger brother and blame towards his father for his mother’s death to his adult obsession with playing “god” makes him feel one-dimensional. Aside from anger and the potential of an undiagnosed personality disorder, Victor’s story and motivations don’t come across with as much depth as the novel. In book-to-movie adaptations, it’s normal for minor characters to lose their dimension, but the fact that the main character has lost his dimension takes away many crucial layers to the plot.

Shelley’s Victor’s motivation comes from the intense grief that shakes his family as a result of his mother’s death. His obsession with reversing death consumes him as he spends sleepless nights succumbing to his scientific ambitions. Additionally, it’s notable that he’s driven to madness through the solitary nature of his experiment. Victor keeps the Creature a secret from everyone he knows. Had he shared knowledge of his experiment with literally anyone close to him, almost every death in the novel could have been avoided. Unfortunately, this aspect of Victor’s character cannot be explored in the film as his experiment is the result of a public presentation, outside funding and a team of people aiding in his success. 

Trust me when I say I am the last person to defend Victor Frankenstein, but I do think some of the redeeming qualities Shelley offers him create a complex character that opens up broad discussions surrounding monstrosity, personhood, ambition and more that’s lacking in Del Toro’s adaptation.

All that being said, I frankly encourage everyone to watch the movie as it does take an interesting look at parenting themes and responsibility for the life you create. Aside from that, in traditional Del Toro style, the film is a visual masterpiece between the cinematography and costumes. Overall, I can’t say the film was bad, but if you’re looking to explore the story of Frankenstein as Mary Shelley intended, I recommend picking up a copy of her 1818 version and diving into the text. 

By Grayson Morris, EIC