“Less about science, more about soul”: Inside del Toro’s Frankenstein

Guillermo del Toro has long called Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein his “Bible.” With his Netflix adaptation starring Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein and Jacob Elordi as the Creature, the director brings his lifelong fascination to the screen — reshaping the 1818 novel while striving to preserve its emotional core.

“I’ve never seen it as a warning about science,” del Toro told Variety. “For me it’s about the human spirit — forgiveness, understanding, and the need to listen to one another.”

To see how close the film stays to Shelley’s original vision, Variety spoke with Julie Carlson, professor of English at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a leading scholar on the Romantic period and the Wollstonecraft-Godwin-Shelley family.

On her first impressions of the film

“I did like it,” Carlson says.

“You can feel genuine love for the book and for Mary Shelley’s brilliance. It’s more faithful than most versions — especially in keeping Victor’s and the Creature’s interwoven stories and much of the novel’s language. The Creature still speaks lyrically, philosophically, which matters.”

On Victor’s rewritten childhood

Del Toro turns Victor’s father into a violent physician who experiments on his wife’s body and abuses his son.

Carlson notes that this shift changes the story’s focus: “It becomes less about hubris and more about shame. The father beats Victor for failing lessons and later strikes the Creature for learning too slowly. It’s not Faustian ambition anymore; it’s knowledge born of humiliation and the desire to outdo his father by conquering death.”

On Elizabeth’s bond with the Creature

Unlike the novel, the two meet several times, and she dies defending him.

“She identifies with him,” Carlson explains.

“It’s not exactly romantic — more about empathy between outsiders. She calls herself ‘odd,’ and he’s also othered. That mutual isolation connects them. In Shelley’s patriarchal world the women are sacrificed; del Toro softens that without denying it.”

On how the film treats Shelley’s social critique

“The movie downplays the book’s critique of gender and oppression,” Carlson says. “Del Toro is more concerned with militarism and capitalism.

Shelley’s sympathy for the Creature came from society’s rejection of difference — people recoil because of his appearance.

In the film Victor initially nurtures him before abandoning him, which changes that message. Yet it keeps Shelley’s question: what responsibility do creators owe their creations?”

On humanizing the Creature

Carlson admires del Toro’s more compassionate portrayal.

“It’s about recognition — face-to-face contact.

Like Levinas says, when you behold the face of the other, you can’t kill them. But Shelley wanted us to fear him too: to face what happens when you unleash power you can’t control.”

On the De Lacey family sequence

“I loved that inclusion,” she says. “It’s one of the most faithful parts. It emphasizes friendship — not romantic or erotic love, but connection beyond self. The film isn’t very sexual overall; friendship becomes its moral center.”

On how del Toro’s version ranks among past adaptations

“It’s closer to the novel’s layered design,” Carlson concludes.

“It divides and frames the story the same way, and it’s more gothic meditation than horror. It tries to capture multiple strands of Shelley’s thought — not always perfectly, but sincerely. Most films chase spectacle; this one honors the book, and Mary Shelley herself.”