The first time I read Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, I was in college in 1988, reading it as part of a Romantic Literature course at Fordham University. My only knowledge of Frankenstein up to that point was informed by the 1931 James Whale movie and reruns of The Munsters.
I was completely blown away, and it remains, decades later, my favorite novel of all time. Starting in the 1970s, feminist literary criticism had begun a reappraisal of Shelley’s work, reinvigorating her reputation as a key literary figure in her own right rather than a mere footnote to that of her poet husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley. (One of the papers I wrote for the class in question compared Frankenstein’s use of the setting of Mont Blanc with that of Percy’s eponymous poem about the mountain.)
Shelley was still a teenager when she wrote the novel that, unbeknownst to her then, or indeed at all in her lifetime, became an enduring and pioneering work in the genres of science fiction and Gothic horror.
Reading the novel also engendered annoyance in me, because the novel that Shelley wrote would make a great movie—but we’re still waiting for that particular movie to arrive…
Perhaps Guillermo del Toro’s about-to-be-released adaptation will finally be the film that captures the entirety of Shelley’s novel. In the meantime, here are five movies that took a shot at it, with varying degrees of success.
Frankenstein (1931)
Yes, I’m including this, because you kind of have to. It’s iconic, and has informed—and often distorted—every adaptation since.
Rewatching it again for the first time in ages, I realized that James Whale’s film has many of the same themes as Shelley’s novel, in particular the title character’s lack of ethics, self-centeredness, and general cruelty toward the monster. I still really hate that the monster’s brilliance and eloquence has been replaced by Boris Karloff grunting a lot, mind you.
Then again, it’s obvious the filmmakers weren’t too concerned with fidelity to the novel, given that the adaptation credit for the movie is “Based on the novel by Mrs. Percy B. Shelley,” as well as the theatrical play by Peggy Webling that was produced in 1927. Indeed, several theatrical productions were made of Shelley’s novel, some in her lifetime, and it’s clear that screenwriters Garrett Fort and Francis Edward Faragoh were far more influenced by Webling’s play than Shelley’s novel.
Probably the worst sin committed by this movie is that it makes excuses for the monster’s behavior, having Henry Frankenstein (named Victor in the novel) use body parts from criminals to make his creature (which is not the case in the book). This revision—delightfully parodied in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein with the “Abby Normal” brain—would continue to dog future adaptations.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Produced by Francis Ford Coppola in the wake of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, directed by (and starring) Kenneth Branagh, this film does follow the plot structure of Shelley’s novel more closely than most. However, while screenwriters Steph Lady and Frank Darabont do ape the structure, they completely miss the point of the novel, making that possessive in the title almost laughable.1
Here’s the thing: Victor Frankenstein is the villain of Shelley’s novel. He is responsible for everything bad that happens in the story, and his mendacity, his ego, and his neglect are directly responsible for all the awful things that befall the monster and the people around him.
But not the Victor played by Branagh. Lady and Darabont warp the novel in order to make Victor more heroic. Branagh’s Victor is motivated by altruism and wanting to better humanity, a goal that is nowhere in Victor’s discussions of the subject of creating life from lifelessness in Shelley’s original text.
Shelley’s Victor falls ill after creating the monster, and when he recovers, the monster is gone. Out of sight, out of mind; Victor assumes all is well before the monster shows up to kill various family members. But Branagh’s Victor is in the midst of a cholera epidemic, to which newborns are particularly susceptible, so in the film Victor assumes the monster died of cholera.
In the novel, Justine Moritz is framed by the monster for the murder of Victor’s brother William. There is a trial and Justine is found guilty and hanged; even though he knows his creation is responsible, Victor says nothing and allows an innocent woman to die because he’s too embarrassed to admit to the creature’s existence. In the movie, however, Victor tries to claim responsibility, but the mob hangs Justine before he can do anything.
When Shelley’s Victor refuses his creation’s request to furnish him with a bride, the monster says, “I will be with you on your wedding night.” Victor does nothing in response to this, figuring the monster will just kill him, and is rather gobsmacked when instead the creature kills his fiancée Elizabeth Lavenza. When Branagh’s Victor refuses to construct a bride, the monster says, “If you deny me my wedding night, I will be there for yours,” and Victor immediately hires guards and is prepared for the monster. It doesn’t help—the monster still kills Elizabeth—but at least he tries.
The movie also refuses to have anyone be appalled by the monster’s repulsive physical form, as apparently 1990s filmmakers thought that would be yucky, and so other excuses are contrived for why people reject the monster. Who, by the way, has been given the brain of a criminal, so once again we’ve got the he-was-made-from-evil justification for the monster’s actions, further sparing Victor any responsibility.
At least Robert De Niro’s monster gets to learn language and becomes well-spoken and stuff…
Frankenstein Unbound (1990)
Brian W. Aldiss was one of the more vociferous advocates for Shelley’s title as “the mother of science fiction.” His 1973 novel, Frankenstein Unbound, was a fictional manifesto for that viewpoint, which featured a twenty-first-century scientist travelling back in time to the turn of the nineteenth century, only to encounter both the events of the novel Frankenstein and also Shelley herself, along with Percy Shelley and Lord Byron, positing that Shelley wrote the novel based on real events, presented as fiction. Both novel and film are somewhat incoherent and ridiculous, with a really bizarre-ass ending.
The movie adaptation was the last film directed by Roger Corman, who co-wrote the screenplay. It has a magnificent cast. John Hurt plays the scientist from the future (not that far in the future, now—Dr. Buchanan travels back in time from 2031), Bridget Fonda plays Mary Shelley, Jason Patric plays Byron, Michael Hutchence plays Percy Shelley, Nick Brimble is the monster, and the great Raul Julia portrays Victor. Julia’s performance makes the movie, truly, as his Victor is passionate and eloquent and tortured. Fonda, Patric, and Hutchence are less successful at recreating the most famous literary gathering of the turn of the nineteenth century. Also, Brimble’s monster has nowhere near the eloquence of Shelley’s, sounding more like a toddler, only a bit removed from Karloff’s infant-like creature.
Van Helsing (2004)
I can see the looks of disbelief on all your faces, but hear me out.
This movie had all the makings of a huge hit. You had writer/director Stephen Sommers, fresh off the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies, and stars Hugh Jackman, fresh off the X-Men films, and Kate Beckinsale, fresh off Underworld. It was, instead, an unmitigated disaster, a bombastic mess of a movie that reveals that Sommers managed to live for four decades on this planet without noticing that full moons usually only happen once a month (we get two in a week in this movie). Various Universal monsters are slammed together with little regard for common sense, and this picture also provides us with the worst Dracula ever in Richard Roxburgh’s weak-tea performance.
But! We also have in Shuler Hensley’s magnificent portrayal of the monster the screen version of Frankenstein’s creation that reminds me most of the one in the novel. The eloquence, the tragedy, the mourning for what he could have been, and the resignation to his outcast fate—just a letter-perfect performance that is straight out of Shelley.
Poor Things (2023)
It wasn’t until I was on a panel on Mary Shelley at WonderCon in 2024 that I realized that this Yorgos Lanthimos movie—and the Alasdair Gray novel it’s based on—is inspired by Frankenstein. And indeed, of the five films I’m covering here, it’s the one that feels like it engages most significantly with Shelley’s text.
Poor Things asks the question, what if Victor had actually taken responsibility for his creation and tried to raise and nurture it? Bella (Emma Stone, who won the Oscar for Best Actress) is being raised by Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe), a mad scientist who looks like Frankenstein’s monster, though it seems Baxter was born in the usual way and “merely” experimented on significantly by his father. Bella’s body is that of a woman who died by suicide while very far along in a pregnancy. Baxter took the fetus’ brain and put it in the woman’s reanimated body.
In Bella, we see the monster’s journey from Frankenstein, but under controlled conditions, at least at first. Eventually, she strikes out into the world, accepting the invitation of a Lothario (a lawyer played to sleazy perfection by Mark Ruffalo with a comedic British accent). Watching Bella’s journey is fascinating as she matures and learns and experiences—it’s a fascinating look at the journey of a being created in an adult body but with the mind of an infant, initially.
Indeed, this is one of the few movies—and the only one in this set of five—that truly captures the sense of wonder that we get in Chapter 11 of Frankenstein, the journey of discovery that the monster undergoes as he learns about fire and cold, night and day, animals and the moon, and so on. That was the chapter, back in 1988, that sold me on Frankenstein as a great work, in fact: learning that the monster that I’d always associated with Karloff’s grunting behemoth—and that, up until that point in the novel, is only seen through Victor’s eyes as an evil wretch who’s going around killing people—was in fact this brilliant, glorious, complicated, tragic creature.
Poor Things is a magnificent reimagining of that chapter, and truly one of the finest avatars of Shelley’s work.
I could easily have made this a list of ten movies or even twenty movies, as there have been so many adaptations of Shelley’s work, but I thought these five were the ones that particularly were worth revisiting as we wait for the del Toro movie to drop on Netflix (or see it in theaters starting on Friday, October 17th).
Feel free to share your own favorite adaptations of Shelley’s work in the comments!
- This film was so faithful to Shelley’s novel that Random House released a novelization of the film, by Leonore Fleischer. Yes, really. Random House also put out a movie-tie-in edition of Shelley’s original novel, which is in the public domain—and which outsold the novelization by a lot… ↩︎
See also Fred Saberhagen and James V. Hart’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
I saw a meme online the other day that went something like, “Knowledge is understanding that Frankenstein is not the Monster. Wisdom is understanding that Frankenstein is the monster.”
“Poor Things asks the question, what if Victor had actually taken responsibility for his creation and tried to raise and nurture it?”
You could say much the same about Young Frankenstein, which is why it’s not just a spoof but an excellent Frankenstein movie in its own right.
I will die on this hill. Freddie is the exceedingly rare Frankenstein who gets a happy ending, not only for himself but for the monster as well, and it’s because he takes responsibility for his actions. He cares for and raises the monster, yes, but it’s even more than that. His first crucial step is recognizing the humanity in the monster (at first because he was terrified of the monster’s anger and was desperately trying to calm it, but he quickly bought into the truth of what he was saying), but it’s still in the role of creator and master, displaying the monster to advance his own interests. This ends up blowing up in his face when the “Puttin’ on the Ritz” number goes south: the monster becomes frightened by a blown light bulb and angry at the crowd’s reaction, and Freddie yells at him “I will not let you destroy my work! As your creator I command you to come back!” It’s only when Freddie accepts the monster as an equal and puts his own life on the line to calm his “abby normal” brain and save him from the townsfolk that they avoid the tragedy that befalls most other Frankensteins.
Yes to all of this. YF is not merely a parody of Frankenstein — it’s a rebuttal.
Of course, it also fits what they say about Shakespeare plays — if it’s a tragedy, everyone dies at the end, and if it’s a comedy, everyone gets married at the end. Since this is the comedy version, it’s the one that has a happy ending. But it’s an earned happy ending due to Frederick being a better parent than his ancestor.
I always liked “Frankenstein Unbound” and, yeah, the ending is bizarre. But in keeping with the ending of the original which, IIRC, ends in the Frozen Wastes.
No Young Frankenstein?
If it was six things, I would’ve included it.
—Keith
It’s pronounced “Fronkensteen.”
Do you also say “Froderick”?
“You’re putting me on!”
You included Van Helsing but not The Curse of Frankenstein?
Yes because I wanted to give Shuler Hensley his props.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
The first Frankenstein film I ever watched was Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (also my first exposure to Dracula and the Wolf Man). This led me to seek out the 1931 film, which captivated me. You may not like Boris Karloff’s grunting, but he’s so good in that role. Ironically, he was such an eloquent man. I’m sure he also would have been brilliant in a more faithful adaptation of the monster.
My favorite version of the Monster, while not a film, is still Penny Dreadful.
I also came here to write about Penny Dreadful, I loved both Rory Kinnear’s and Billie Piper’s characters in that show, really fun explorations of the Monster
I loved that show, and I agree that its version of the Monster was brilliant.
I’m curious to know what you thought of the TV two-parter “Frankenstein: The True Story” starring Leonard Whiting as Victor and Michael Sarrazin as the monster. It had an interesting cast with James Mason, Jane Seymour, Agnes Moorehead, Ralph Richardson, and Tom Baker. It’s the first version I saw that had the Arctic in it. I enjoyed Brannagh’s version a bit. The creation scene was nicely over the top, but the extended bit of him trying to hold up the monster while slipping all over the floor was just too much. It was like the Simpson’s episode where Sideshow Bob kept stepping on rakes, except THAT was funny. I’m in a minority it seems on Van Helshing. I’ll agree with you that Roxborough wasn’t a good Dracula, but otherwise I completely enjoyed the film. I felt it was a nice homage to the mashups that Universal did with films like House of Frankenstein. I read the Shelly version over 40 years ago, and didn’t care for it. I think that by then I was firmly entrenched with the Universal version, especially the first 3 films. And the Munsters. I saw the series when it originally aired, and saw their feature film when it was in the theaters.
I came to ask the same question about Frankenstein: The True Story.
I always felt that the structure of the novel precluded making an accurate film. Perhaps a miniseries, with each narrator taking a different part.
There’s a huge difference between capturing the essence of a novel and adapting it verbatim. A literal, beat-for-beat adaptation can totally fail to capture the spirit and substance of a work — just compare Hitchcock’s Psycho to Gus Van Sant’s word-for-word, shot-for-shot remake that bombed spectacularly. The goal is not merely to imitate the superficial structure of the work, but to distill its essential ideas and tone and style and artistry and translate them into a form suited to a different medium. As with translating language, doing it verbatim will produce something clumsy and uncommunicative, so you need to substitute better ways of expressing the underlying meaning and emotion in the target language.
It sounds to me like what Keith wants is not a scene-by-scene copy of the book, but something that captures what the book established about who the Creature was as a character and what his journey was like and what it meant on a philosophical level, as well as correctly portraying Victor as the jackass who caused everything bad that happened by being an absentee father and an irresponsible, selfish creep. What matters is the substance of what the book had to say, not the surface details of how it was said.
I have high hopes when it comes to the film by Guillermo del Toro, but I have to say that, in my opinion, the best treatment the character received was in the original TV series of Penny Dreadful.
I believe you need to watch Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein again, you incorrectly posted the Creature had a criminals brain, actually he had a criminals head and face but he had the brain of Victor’s teacher and mentor Professor Waldman who was played by John Cleese. Also there were multiple scenes where people were appalled by the creatures appearance, The townspeople are horrified of the creatures appearance, the blind man’s family, and even Victor himself was horrified by his appearance to the point he tried to kill his creation as soon as it was born.
I will watch Van Helsing anytime I come across it, but it’s mostly for the brides of Dracula (as well as Dracula himself.) They’re the best part!
Frank Darabont is on record saying Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the “Best script I’ve written and the worst movie I’ve seen”. You can get his original script online easily, and apparently Del Toro is a big fan of it.
It’s not TV or movies, but in 2011, the Royal National Theatre in London did a play based very faithfully on the original novel. It was gimmicky in that it played two versions: its stars, Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller, playing The Monster and Dr. Frankenstein in turn. But other than that it was very faithful to the book – and was excellent.
The performances were broadcast by special ticket-subscription in local theaters, which is how I got to see it. Not sure if it’s still available for streaming or downloading.
Both versions were available online a few years ago, at least. I’d thought it was a 2-man show, but when I saw them, I was surprised to see that it had a full cast who were all played by different actors on alternating nights.
The interesting coincidence, of course, is that Cumberbatch and Miller both went on to play contemporaneous modern versions of Sherlock Holmes, in the BBC’s Sherlock and CBS’s Elementary respectively. I had the thought that it would be fun if they repeated their Frankenstein schtick and swapped characters for an episode of each, with Miller doing an episode of Sherlock and Cumberbatch doing an episode of Elementary — an otherwise typical episode of each, with no change in how the respective versions of the character were written, just with the opposite actors playing them for a week.
I think Ex Machina does a really interesting job of taking Frankenstein’s concept and themes into a modern sci fi setting
Sadly, none of these (or any others) do the book true justice. Branagh’s film came “closest,” though even IT was far from the mark. I would love to see someone do a truly faithful-to-the-book (no, not line by line) adaptation and really do the book justice. It deserves it.
What can do the book justice better than the book itself? I’m not a fan of the implication that a book is somehow incomplete until someone makes a movie out of it, as if a movie has more value than a book. I think if you want something that’s true to the book, the only thing that can really achieve that is rereading the book, and that should be enough. An adaptation, by the simple fact of being in a different medium, cannot be the same experience as the original, so attempting to copy it slavishly will inevitably be an inferior experience to the original. An adaptation should be different, should find its own distinct way to embody the core ideas. It shouldn’t be competing with the book in some kind of lookalike contest it can never win; it should be an offspring striking its own path.
The 1980 tv movie “Dr. Franken” with Robert Vaughn is a modern telling of the Frankenstein story where the “Monster” is not really the monster but a tragic hero – who is left at the end to ponder his own tragedy.
The movie introduces the “scientific” concept that the eyes actually hold visions of memories – with the “Monster” having the donated eyes of a murder victim.
The murder that is remembered by the “Monster”
subsequently comes full circle leading to a sense of vindication!
The movie “Seconds” with Rock Hudson has elements of the “Frankenstein” story with the main character being remade/reborn into someone entirely different.
Also the 1985 movie “The Bride” with Sting as the arrogant Doctor and the “Monster” is portrayed as both tragic and heroic and has an ending that is usually unseen and forbidden in most adaptations.
Curious as to your thoughts of the National Theatre’s production, as well as the ‘gimmick’ of having Cumberbatch and Miller switch roles, which really adds a layer IMHO.