Frankenstein

[Work in progress!] Guillermo del Toro’s filmmaking niche combines familiar fairytale stories with modern ideas, often incorporating elements of horror. Therefore, it’s no surprise that he masterfully executed Frankenstein, paying homage to Mary Shelley’s classic novel by the same title while still allowing his version to become its own story. Much like the creature that Victor constructs, del Toro’s film is synthesized from the various adaptations that came before it, but imbued with fresh life and ingenuity. Del Toro has discussed his connection to stories of lost sons and disappointed fathers on numerous occasions; it was his attachment to this motif that led him to construct his own variation on Frankenstein. In my analysis of his adaptation I primarily want to focus on what went wrong, since I think a 4.5 star rating speaks for itself on my appreciation of the film and its intricacies. I could point out a multitude of observations, each a more pretentious reading than the last, but I’ll refrain for the brevity of this review and for my own sanity. Frankenstein does a lot right, but, like many contemporary films, it struggles to allow its audience to deduce things for themselves. So much of what makes a film entertaining, in my opinion, is the personal connection it can have. Despite the fact that the fiction may be entirely different from real experiences people have had, it can also be strikingly relatable. A very real bond can be formed between fictive characters and viewers. I should know, one of the reasons I am so drawn to Frankenstein, (Shelley’s original text and the various media that came after it), is my relation to Victor Frankenstein as a character. Allowing viewer participation in film is a dying art. Part of Mary Shelley’s intention was to take her readers for a ride. There are numerous ways to read Victor’s actions and their consequences, but everyone can agree that he is no hero. His actions result in the destruction of his family, himself, and his creature. In del Toro’s film, these nuances are completely brushed over. The finger of blame is pointed at Victor from the first moment he appears on screen and follows him until his dying breath. There is no evolution, no ability to see him and his choices as a reaction to his environment and his situations. In fact, William, Victor's brother, looks Victor straight in the eye and tells him that he is the monster, in case that point wasn’t driven home enough before. These aspects of the film feel lazy and like they underestimate the audience's involvement. While it is irrefutable that Victor should not be seen as a “good guy,” this does not mean that he is a full villain. Painting the characters of Victor and the creature in black and white like this removes a huge point that Shelley was trying to make about human nature and psychology. Much of the criticism I’ve seen surrounding this film regards its special effects and CGI. Personally, this aspect didn’t draw me out of the story or bother me much at all. Perhaps this is due to my love of films that are typically regarded as having bad effects (the majority of 80s B-rated films and many cult classics), but I have never been harsh on a film because of its CGI, and I’m not about to start now. If people have so much issue with this, I suggest that they watch Frankenstein: The Anatomy Lesson (2025), which shows all of the behind the scenes work that happened to bring the film to life. It’s really interesting and a quick watch!