bbc.com
Del Toro's Handsome Frankenstein Monster Muddies the Classic Story
Guillermo del Toro's new Frankenstein adaptation, starring a strikingly attractive monster, deviates significantly from Mary Shelley's original novel, resulting in a muddled and confusing film.
- What are the broader implications of Del Toro's creative choices?
- Del Toro's decision to prioritize visual spectacle and a conventionally attractive monster over fidelity to the source material's core themes results in a film that lacks the emotional resonance and thematic depth of Shelley's novel. This highlights the complexities of adapting classic literature, particularly when deviating significantly from the original's core ideas.
- What is the central issue with Del Toro's Frankenstein adaptation?
- The film's biggest problem is its casting of a conventionally handsome actor, Jacob Elordi, as Frankenstein's monster. This directly contradicts the monster's defining characteristic in Shelley's novel—his ugliness—which is crucial to the narrative's themes of societal rejection and the monster's descent into violence.
- How does the monster's appearance impact the film's plot and themes?
- The monster's attractiveness fundamentally alters the story. Instead of the rejection and abuse that fuel his rage in the novel, the film depicts a more ambiguous response from characters like Elizabeth, who shows him tenderness. This significantly weakens the narrative's core themes and undermines the monster's motivations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The review frames Del Toro's interpretation as a deviation from the source material, focusing on the monster's appearance as the central flaw. The headline itself, while not explicitly stated in the provided text, likely emphasizes the film's failure due to the monster's handsomeness, setting a negative tone from the start. The repeated emphasis on the monster's attractiveness and its contrast with the original character's ugliness guides the reader's interpretation towards a critical viewpoint.
Language Bias
The language used is largely subjective and opinionated. Terms like "ridiculously good-looking," "muddled film," "over-the-top," and "fatally muddled" express strong negative opinions rather than objective assessments. The comparison to a "vegetarian Count Dracula" is hyperbolic and dismissive. Neutral alternatives would include descriptions focusing on the visual choices and their impact on the narrative, avoiding value judgments.
Bias by Omission
The review focuses heavily on the visual aspects and the deviation from the source material, potentially omitting other aspects of the film that might be considered positive or contribute to a more nuanced view. While acknowledging Del Toro's creative liberties, it doesn't delve into how these choices might have been intended to affect the story's themes or interpretations. The review also might have benefitted from discussing audience reception or critical response beyond the author's opinions.
False Dichotomy
The review presents a false dichotomy between the monster's appearance and the film's success. It implies that a handsome monster automatically makes the film a failure, neglecting the possibility that other elements might contribute to the overall quality. The review doesn't consider that Del Toro's adaptation might have been aiming for a different kind of interpretation than a direct, visually faithful rendition.
Sustainable Development Goals
The movie's alteration of the monster's appearance removes a key element of the original story: societal rejection due to physical difference. This alters the narrative's exploration of prejudice and discrimination, diminishing its potential to promote understanding and empathy towards those who are marginalized because of how they look. The film's focus shifts from the monster's struggle against societal prejudice to other themes, thus lessening the impact on viewers' awareness of this critical social issue.