The way I read Victor talking about destiny and how he had no choice but to create the monster is him wanting to avoid responsability of what he did, because doing so, he would have to accept that he was responsible for the death of everyone he loved, even when he is lecturing the captain about the dangers of going too far, he still wants to paint himself as the victim. It would make sense that a man who believes himself to be worthy of creating life would have the ego to go "it wasn't me, it was destiny"

I've always felt that the decision to make the change regarding Elizabeth's relationship to the family adds to the theme of "nature v nurture" in the story. With Elizabeth as a blood relative, the decision to bring her in and raise her so well is (somewhat) obvious - we take care of our own, familial ties, etc. But by making her a total stranger, there is a juxtaposition between Frankenstein's parents raising a young stranger with as much love as their own sons and the complete abandon of the Monster whom, though physically made by Frankenstein and therefore his "blood" son, was cast aside because Frankenstein didn't understand the true consequences of creating life.

I've only read the 1831 version, but I interpreted all of the destiny/fate discussion as another way for Dr. Frankenstein to distance himself from his own choices and actions/to escape responsibility and justify his abandonment of the monster. When reading it this way I feel it makes Victor more complex and reinforces the themes of nature v. nurture and just because we can doesn't mean we should

I completely agree with your thoughts on the new Frankenstein movie (which I loved, personally, though I'm a sucker for everything Guillermo del Toro directs). He wrote an article in The Atlantic that I thought was really eye-opening as to why both a) the film feels so divergent from Shelley's novel and b) why he chose to make it that way. These portions stuck out to me in particular:

"Mary Shelley was painfully young—a teenager, in fact—when she wrote Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus, and into the monster and his tale she was able to pour all her contradictions and her questions—her essential pleas and her feelings of disfranchisement and inadequacy.

While reading the novel as a child, I was arrested by the epistolary form Shelley had chosen, because it felt so immediate. I was overtaken by the Miltonian sense of abandonment, the absolute horror of a life without a reason. The tragedy of the tale was not dependent on evil. That’s the supreme pain of the novel—tragedy requires no villain. Just as Poe will prefigure the ambiguities of psychiatry, Shelley utilizes the most cutting-edge science and philosophy to drive her existential discourse home. Galvanism, chemistry, and surgery provide the alibi for the monster to gain life, to arise and question all of us.

The Faust-like thirst for knowledge and the arrogance of science are embodied in the character of the monster’s inventor, Victor Frankenstein. He becomes an uncaring god who can force dead flesh to be reanimated but cannot calculate the consequences of his creation. This leads to the infinite sorrow of his creation, who will experience the hunger, the loneliness, and the burden of existence, far removed from its creator. The Creature, like the wolf of Saint Francis, wanders through the world, encounters mostly evil and hatred, and learns of rage and pain. He becomes hardened and lonely. And I, at age 10, in a comfortable house in a suburb, felt exactly the same way.

… I have been blessed with the chance to create two films that echo each other and that came in rapid succession after decades of impossible obstacles. Both presented themselves when I was old enough and I had lived enough to identify themes that weigh heavily upon my soul. Pinocchio and Frankenstein are both stories of fathers and sons, the lineage of pain, and the eternal possibility of redemption. I read both books before I became a teenager, and both struck me as travelogues of the soul—the wanderings of a lost Adam who fell out of grace and had to search for truth in the madness of our world. May they, in some way, guide you like a North Star and make you believe again.”

That's FRAHN-KEN-STEEN!

I feel like the end was due to the conversation between the blind man and the creature, where blind dude says you have to forgive and forget essentially.

Total side note but I love how GDT’S Pinocchio and Frankenstein essentially end in the same way. Immortal creature is alone and walks off into the sunset after their creator/father dies, the man who made them in a fit of madness. It was a funny parallel. GDT has a TYPE 😂

7:06 POV: you are Margaret Walton and your brother just sent you a BRICK of a letter

(I know it's not super long as a book, but to just get that on the mail would be BONKERS)

I find what makes an adaptation so interesting, like what points of a story are necessary for it to be considered an adaptation or retelling compared to just being inspired by. Especially when you look at stories from mythology and folktales that change over time and with different groups of people. Even if you look at the movie Clueless being an Emma retelling, it’s so wildly different but it still hits the same plot points that it is still clearly a retelling.

I really love your critique of the new movie. When I watched it, I was completely caught off guard when I realized it wasn’t a book adaptation. It took a minute for me to switch my brain away from seeing it as an adaptation and simply enjoying it as a movie I went out to see. I concluded that this was clearly a GDT monster lover movie rather than an adaptation of Shelley, and I audibly laughed in the theater when Elizabeth confessed her love.

Really enjoyed this video! Thank you for your passion and spreading love for such a beautiful story and its long history!

I really took away a very different interpretation of Elizabeth. I did not at any point see her as being in love with him, but rather having love FOR him the way a mother does a child. I thought in the themes of family dynamics, she was clearly the loving mother figure to Victor's cruel father figure. A representation of how love and nuturing could break the cycle of abuse, but is limited in her ability to properly intervene because of her role in the world. Her proclamations of "you saved me" I interpreted not as his love saving her, but as death releasing her from the cage that is life. Which is other of the reasons they see themselves in eachother, because he sees his inability to die as a curse.

I didn't even think of that reading of Elizabeth while watching GDT's Frankenstein. I am not even trying to be funny but because everything else was so straightforward and on the nose I thought by "freeing" she  meant wanted to die. Not in a straight up suicidal way but more of a  "weird quirky girl" way. But honestly you make points! I figured Elizabeth and the Monster would have some sort of romantic connection because of GDT loving that dynamic but it probably could have been approached in a better way. And now I am wondering if GDT has watched the new IWTV series, he'd probably love it.

I forgot to add my thoughts

I really liked GDT's Frankenstein but I fully agree it does not work as an adaptation as someone who also enjoys the book. I think the reason I was fine with it is because I knew it wouldn't be just based on his other movies and his goal of reimagining classic monsters. Hopefully one day we can get a more mainstream faithful version of this story just because as you said it is one of the most famous stories written by a woman. In turn I would if a woman directed it. If you haven't watched it yet I suggest the play version that the National Theatre did where Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny C Miller alternate shows playing the  monster and Victor.  I am very calm about this but I know I will be just as annoyed as diehard Frankenstein fans are right now when Wuthering Heights comes out in February lol.

frankenstein is one of my favorite books. i came out of the movie thinking "maybe the novel is just too complex to adapt :(" but your thoughts completely assured me that not everyone loved how much differed

I think your points about the 2025 movie are interesting, especially about Elizabeth because I didn’t interpret it that way at all. But I also think its interesting to consider the movie through a cultural lens and see what is says about birth/creation. GTD is very interested in father-son relationships which comes across a lot in his work. I guess the cultural stuff (I'm Latina) is what made the ending make sense to me. It was less about the end of the cycle of abuse and more about the son (the monster) not carrying the same 'love' as the father  which is often actually violence. To me, it wasn't the just physical violence that was horrible to watch but the justification of it as something necessary or just the way a son should make a father proud. It's why GDT's creature ends in the sunlight -- he is replicating his own birth (the scene where Victor shows him sunlight -- also symbolising is pride in his son/creation). Now the creature basks in the son as his own person, no longer Victor's pride or curse, he is himself whatever that means. Which is more GDT own thematic stuff than anything based on Shelley but I still thought it was cool. There's also interesting stuff there on motherhood, although to a lesser degree.

I JUST REALIZED I"M NOT SUBSCRIBED.

Not that i'm into the books you review all that much, but your reviews are so genuine and frankly hilarious and you DO SO MUCH RESEARCH. Absolutely love whenever you upload!

to the liberation of a woman being another man: it's not the man himself, it's the woman's own feeling being taken into consideration and being reciprocated without any ulterior motive or the intention of using it in any dishonest way. all of the men around elisabeth have an agenda with her, but the creature's love for her is free of the scaffolding of social constructs. it's just love, in its purest, most honest, rawest form. and that's the liberating factor, not the fact that it is attached to a man, in my understanding

So in the novel, Victor is an unreliable narrator. What he says (filtered again through the captain) probably isn't the exact truth. This reflects very well in the 2025 film, which also feels like long stretches are unreliable the way Victor tells them. Oh, for context, the German version of Henry is Heinrich, so he is still in the 2025 film, except what was "a really good friendship" becomes more obvious now (only one bed). Then, in all this, it's very important to consider the way Paradise Lost and the Prometheus myth play into both novel and 2025 adaptation. This then is in direct conversation, especially through the visuals, with Alien: Prometheus, which is where I thought del Torros hand came out strongest (and perhaps with Frankenstein being considered the first sf novel, this is appropriate). Where I thought he gave a nod to Shelley's own hurts (or possible hurts) was when we got the lines from Ozymandias, and William living into adulthood unlike her own son. What I'm saying I suppose is that the themes in the novel were never just about the character of the monster (which might shift with time) but about Frankenstein, a lightbringer of sorts, and what the theft of fire costs. Also about who ultimately bears that cost.

I saw the movie without having read the books or seen any other film, I really liked it but my friend who was more familiar really did not. I’m glad you’ve made this video so I have more context!

This was a fun video! I liked hearing ur analysis!

I’m so glad you covered this book! I literally just finished the 1831 version last night and was really hoping to hear your thoughts.

With the destiny thing, I think it serves to characterize Victor as more religious (which tracks because from my understanding Shelley wanted to make the text more appropriate for polite society). And it does work I think to enhance the ideas of “nature vs. nurture” and “is human fate is inevitable or mutable” because Victor is not a reliable narrator. So he believes the monster is inherently evil but we the reader are forced to question that.

As for the adaptation question, that’s really interesting especially because there’s so much conversation about fanfics being traditionally published but not sufficiently changed. This is kind of the inverse of that situation (like how you described it with plagiarism) and that leads me to conclude yes an adaptation can go so far that it’s no longer an adaptation (otherwise no fanfic could claim to be it’s on thing). But I think it also begs the question of what makes a work a “fanfic” vs. a “retelling” vs an “adaptation” vs an “homage”? Does it depend on who’s making it (an award winning producer/director/author vs a high-school student in their bedroom) and how much money goes into it? Or does it just come down to how much it changes the source material? and if so how can we possibly quantify that?