For the longest time, even probably since his dream of becoming a filmmaker came true, Guillermo del Toro has wanted to make a film about “Frankenstein.” The tale about the mad scientist who is willing to defy the gods by creating life from the dead–delivering us a monster, who aches for connection in a world rejecting him, deeming him an abomination, even by his creator. Although he has tried, Del Toro hasn’t had the right moment to do so. There have been attempts, with many productions coming to a close and actors leaving their respective roles. In fact, his obsession with Mary Shelley’s creation has been stamped into many of his feature films.
If you scroll through his filmography, you will see elements and themes that resemble Victor Frankenstein and his monster’s tale, from his version of “Pinocchio” and “Hellboy” to “Pan’s Labyrinth.” “Monsters have become my personal belief system”, Del Toro has previously stated. In each film, the love and devotion he takes upon his mad creations are taken from Shelley’s words and constructs. He bases himself on ‘Frankenstein’ to create new monsters in cold, brutal worlds, and whether or not they can adhere to the cruelty to make way for love. Now, nearly thirty years into his career, he finally managed to make his passion project. And a part of him, whether he wants it or not, has gone with it. When you have been preparing yourself for such a long time to make something, once it is released into the world, you change because of all the time spent.
Guillermo Del Toro’s Decades-Spanning Passion Project
At a Netflix event, he called this film “the culmination of a journey that has occupied most of my life.” His time has come now to express his thoughts and feelings on this story, which has been retold thousands of times, yet there’s massive intrigue in seeing this version because of how devoted Del Toro is to it. However, unfortunately, his version of “Frankenstein” is a disappointing one, with weak interpretations of the conceptualizations and notions that made Shelley’s work fascinating and somewhat timeless. You feel the Mexican filmmaker’s passion and attachment towards the book in nearly every scene. His knack for detailing the background, setting, costumes, and everything in the scenery shows the viewer how inspired and researched Del Toro is. Nevertheless, it is that very adoration that keeps his version stale.
Guilermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” begins with a ship, stuck on an icy brink in the Wadden Sea. The men aboard the boat are striking the ice to continue their sail, right until they hear an explosion nearby, with a man, later revealed to be Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), severely wounded and bleeding. He’s rescued and taken care of. But something, or someone, has its eyes on Victor, rushing towards them. As spectators, we already know who it is: Frankenstein’s monster (played by Jacob Elordi, all caked up in impressive prosthetics), but the men aboard do not, and are scared to death, as he cannot die, no matter how many bullets he takes.
The Tale of Victor Frankenstein and His “Abomination”
All the giant wants is Victor; it wants to punish him for his crimes, faults, and everything he has committed but hasn’t owned up to. After a near escape from the monster, Victor reveals to the ship’s captain the origins of his creation, which he made from the body parts of deceased soldiers. And so he tells his own story, and how he ended up in that predicament, teetering between life and death. From a young boy, living with his psychologically abusive father upon the death of his mother, to his life’s goal of “cheating death” through bloody scientific explorations, we hear the tale of a man who ought to belive created a gift that defied existence and God, now becomes a devil–slowly revealing that he is the monster, rather than the one he made.
That key theme from Frankenstein’s story is elaborated upon thoroughly through easy-to-read metaphors as well as blunt phrases by some of the characters. The line “No, Victor… you are the monster” is said not once, but twice, in a very frantic manner. One might argue that such a line is needed in an adaptation of ‘Frankenstein’, much like when a “King Kong” movie must contain the line, “It was beauty that killed the beast.” However, there have been many adaptations of Shelley’s book without these obvious remarks. It adds a sense of vulnerability and weakness for Victor. Yet he can have that moment via a different expression or method.
Robbed of a More Complex Reading
Rather than exploring the intricacies of Victor as a character, both in his role as creator and as a monster, Del Toro simplifies the whole ordeal as being caused by “daddy issues” and abandonment, which robs the film of a more complex reading. Each chapter centers on an abandonment or loss, whether the death of a mother and the birth of a brother in the first act or the separation that science has created, which is crucial to Victor and the monster’s respective arcs. After that, their arcs must develop into something fruitful or meaningful. Victor blames the monster for things he can’t fathom to embrace or accept, all the while the beast looks into the cold world with a sense of shattered endearment.
These are fascinating tales with many layers to peel and dissect. Unfortunately, Del Toro can’t take advantage of it because he circles the same thematic thread. He’s too careful and devoted to his monsters to cast a curse on them, letting damnation simmer into their views on the world. His affection becomes a creative shield. Del Toro refuses to let his monsters truly suffer or descend into moral decay. He sanitizes the very anguish that once gave his creatures depth. To put it simply, his adaptation is too sentimental. It lacks a beating heart at its core and is overly sympathetic to Victor, failing to say anything worthwhile. Because of this, there is no emotion to be felt as each scene comes and goes.
Del Toro Refuses to Leave His Characters in Darkness
Previously, Del Toro created these dark images that struck a chord with the viewer. He employed a fairy-tale aesthetic to create a melancholic, sometimes nightmarish frame that encapsulated the film’s core. However, for the past few years, his works have been declining in their poetic imagery. Now, his looks are too clean, too dreamy, and too suave. Darkness can’t be approached in his films anymore. It is all bathed in the light, even amidst tragedy and cruelty. What was once an artist wrestling with darkness has now become one decorating it. Hence, why “Frankenstein” is visually alive but thematically lifeless.
