Despite being a well-known film classic from 1931, the celebrated adaptation of Frankenstein does not adhere to the original novel written by Mary Shelley.
Even though the portrayal of a futuristic laboratory captivates viewers in movies featuring the deranged Dr. Frankenstein and his loyal assistant Igor, this depiction is not present in the original novel. The scene is a product of twentieth century imaginations and interests, rather than the author’s intention. Instead of commencing with the chilling event on a gloomy November night, the novelist made a deliberate choice to start her narrative with a collection of letters penned by Robert Walton.
Both the protagonist of the text and Victor Frankenstein are motivated by their desire for recognition and their fascination with the unknown. The protagonist embarks on a voyage of discovery in order to be credited with expanding humanity’s knowledge and control of the universe, driven by his obsession with fame. Similarly, Victor Frankenstein is captivated by experiments with the unknown after reading about alchemists and early natural philosophers during his education. He becomes fixated on harnessing the power of electricity to elevate mankind to god-like status. However, unlike in popular films, there is no loyal assistant aiding him in grave-robbing or working in a futuristic laboratory.
In the novel, Frankenstein conducted his experiments in secrecy and worked alone. The novel does not provide details about the actual experiment, including the process of finding, obtaining, and transporting body parts. Instead, it simply states that the creature is composed of dead body parts. A crucial aspect of Victor’s research is his focus on death itself – he believes that by examining death, he can recreate life and overcome the limitations of being human. Without Walton in the story, there is no audience left for the important lines, and the wider implications of the scientific experiment fail to impact the reader. The film loses the parallel narratives of the protagonists’ quest to uncover the secret of life and their attempt to force nature to reveal its secrets to humanity.
The events depicted on screen feel distant to the viewer, as Walton’s absence dilutes the cautionary message about the consequences of scientific exploration and experimentation. While the readers of the book uncover the perils of defying natural laws, the audience of the movie witnesses a monstrous creature roaming in the rural areas. The film portrays the creature as a sinister and mute entity, reflecting the recklessness of a young scientist who invents a formidable creation but fails to establish any means for supervision and regulation.
Victor appears to be unjustly persecuted by the dreadful creature he brought to life. The emphasis is on Victor’s initial aspirations of helping mankind and creating a grateful race, rather than on his own disdain for his creation. Throughout the novel, readers’ sympathy for the monster grows when he confronts Victor and demands reasons for his abandonment and hatred. What is even more surprising is the monster’s remarkable variety of ideas, precise language, and understanding of justice and responsibilities.
In this passage, the articulate figure created by Frankenstein confronts its maker and points out the fairness of its demands. Both the reader and Frankenstein acknowledge the legitimacy of the creature’s pleas. As the story progresses, sympathy for the creature grows as it becomes evident that it has been abandoned and ill-equipped to navigate the world. Despite its lack of knowledge and innocence, the creature is rejected by its creator. As an entity without a rightful place in existence and devoid of a name, it deserves a response. Unfortunately, this significant and dramatic moment is disregarded by filmmakers in their adaptations of the story.
As the story progresses, reader response undergoes a shift from advocating for the creature’s ability to communicate to feeling pity and possibly outrage for the injustices he endured. Mary Shelley does not attribute the monster’s murderous nature simply to an error in brain choice; instead, it is the outcome of his neglect. The monster portrayed is not the typical one that wanders the countryside in search of its next victim. Rather, it is a wretched and lonely being that has no place in society and is rejected even by its creator. The movie’s monster exhibits a hatred for its existence and the people who shun it. The significance of an unattended scientific creation capable of destroying innocent lives gains prominence in the final decade of the twentieth century.
The book raises ethical concerns about Frankenstein’s endeavor to defy mortality, a concept that resonates strongly with contemporary society. Was he justified in bringing the creature into existence and then forsaking it? Mary Shelley’s novel anticipated the predicament of a destructive entity crafted by humans, one that lacks any true form of restraint. Despite being the inspiration for numerous horror films, these adaptations often overlook the creature’s intellect, its initial well-intentioned nature, and its capacity to discern between good and evil.
