Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein Serves Up a Creature Mary Shelley Might Not Recognize

by

Frankenstein, please believe me, I was created with kindness and a loving heart. But now, I am utterly and desperately alone. You reject me, and what chance do I have with others who have no reason to care? They turn away from me and treat me with hatred.

Guillermo del Toro’s film adaptation of *Frankenstein* perfectly captures a central idea from Mary Shelley’s original novel: that the true monster is often the one who creates suffering. Throughout his career, del Toro has consistently challenged the notion of monsters as villains, as seen in films like *Pan’s Labyrinth* and *The Shape of Water*. Given his deep admiration for Shelley’s Creature – whom he considers a guiding inspiration – it’s fitting that his film focuses on this theme of misplaced blame and the consequences of cruelty.

However, fans who closely follow Mary Shelley’s original novel might be disappointed that Guillermo del Toro’s Creature rarely acts in truly monstrous ways. Shelley’s story shows the Creature losing his innocence due to his creator’s abandonment and societal prejudice, but she still holds him accountable for his anger and the terrible acts he commits as a result of being rejected.

How is del Toro’s Creature different from Shelley’s?

Throughout Shelley’s novel, the Creature seeks revenge on Victor Frankenstein, and in the process causes the deaths of several innocent people. These include Victor’s young brother, William, and Justine Moritz, who is wrongly accused and executed for William’s murder. The Creature also kills Victor’s close friend, Henry, and his fiancée, Elizabeth. It’s worth noting that the movie version differs, portraying William as an adult (played by Felix Kammerer) and Elizabeth as engaged to him instead of Victor’s brother.

Guillermo del Toro presents the Creature as a sympathetic character. On what should have been Victor’s wedding day, the Creature asks Victor for a companion. However, Victor mistakenly shoots his bride, Elizabeth (Mia Goth), and then wrongly accuses the Creature of her murder – despite Elizabeth being one of the few people who had ever been kind to him.

The Creature experiences suffering from the very beginning of his existence. Interestingly, in the film, his anger is almost entirely focused on his creator, Victor. Though others are harmed – such as the sailors on the Horizon who attempt to protect Victor – he never directs his rage towards Victor’s loved ones.

What about the ending of del Toro’s Frankenstein?

As the movie nears its end, with Victor pursuing the Creature across the Arctic, it’s hard not to sympathize with the Creature. Despite everything, he manages to forgive Victor after they share their stories. Realizing he can’t die – a change from the book where he chooses to end his life with fire – the Creature decides he needs to find a way to live a meaningful life.

At the premiere of *Frankenstein*, Jacob Elordi explained that his character chooses to keep living despite experiencing immense pain and hardship. He said he’s left feeling hopeful by this aspect of the story, and is thankful to director Guillermo del Toro for emphasizing it.

Both Victor and his creation are presented as monstrous figures who fuel each other’s destructive tendencies. Crucially, neither ever truly understands the other’s perspective. Victor dies in the Arctic, regretting that he couldn’t stop his creation. Upon learning of Victor’s death, the Creature feels remorse for his actions and decides to end his own life by building a funeral pyre. This act is his attempt to escape a world that rejects him – a consequence of science pursued without compassion – and to finally find peace.

Guillermo del Toro explained that he chose a more hopeful ending for the film than the book because of his personal experiences. He told the Toronto Star that his version of *Frankenstein* explores how pain can be passed down from fathers to sons, and how difficult it is to stop these repeating patterns.

He explained that if he’d created the work earlier in his life, it would have simply been a story about a son’s complaints against his father. But now, it’s a much deeper exploration of a father seeking forgiveness, a father who once *was* a son himself, and who now feels stuck in a life he isn’t living to the fullest. He admitted this was a very personal reflection, not something from the original story or Mary Shelley’s work, but rather a direct expression of his own experiences.

Read More

2025-10-17 21:47