This post contains affiliate links
Recently I sat down and watched Guillermo Del Toro’s latest film offering, his take on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. And here is a review.
Shelley’s Frankenstein was never part of my school ciriculum and oddly enough I’m not much of a horror/sci-fi fan to have read it on my won, so a critique this film on its adhesion to the novel is not something I can fully comment on maybe someday but as now I have a backlog of reading*. That being said I have read other reviews and takes on Del Toro’s Frankenstein to know that this is very much his take and more of spiritual interpretation of the novel that an adaptation of Shelley’s novel. Though it seems none of the movie adaptations actually do a by the book version with its theme but an approximation.
So what was my take or impress of Del Toro’s Frankenstein based solely on his vision? Also Spoilers
Lukewarm Musings on Del Toro’s Vision
wanted to enjoy this movie as I do appreciate Del Toro’s cinematic vision and while I do 100% concede that the movie is visually well made and acted ,I also know that it’s not really for me pretty costume and vintage beetle necklace not withstanding.
The dialogue overly eloquent to convey both a sense of depth and intelligence. This writing style in it of it sense is fine but it worn very thin and it betrayal two problems. One is the every character speaks like that even the Jacob Elord’s creature eventually speaks in the manner.
Secondly if the film wants to play at this style of writing than it devaluing the theme of who is the monster and who is the man sentiment so directly weakens the poetic writing style thus destroying any pretense of subtext. And while some movies also throw the theme directly at the viewers, they are not writing at eruditely. Like Disney’s Hunchback does this though not as directly since its thesis posed as question in a song. Also that movie is for a wider audience so it’s more forgivable.
Another massive nitpick was Elizabeth. She was quite flat and inconsistently written. She works as a foil to Victor but there is not enough of her after the creature is brought to life so it more inferred her connection to the creature and fate rings a hollow in the end. I felt very little at the end and that could be more of pacing issue because this movie is very slow especially when the narrative shift preceptive to the creature.
Honestly this movie felt like a very much like other Del Toro’s movies, like the fascination with the monster as well as commenting on mortality. This movie despite its flaws is for the most part well made and it’s not shocking the people either love it or hate it. It also will not be shocking if it gains some traction for technical awards come awards season. I respect more it than I enjoyed it. It’s a glad I watched once but will not rewatch to again type movie.
If Del Toro Likes Gothic Monsters Some Much…
All that being said Why hasn’t Del Toro done a Hunchback version? It’s right up his alley. Just take this quote of his:
“I love monsters. If I go to a church, I’m more interested in the gargoyles than the saints. I really don’t care much about the idea of normal – that’s very abstract to me. I think that perfection is practically unattainable but imperfection is right at hand. So that’s why I love monsters: because they represent a side of us we should actually embrace and celebrate.”
He seems the idea pick for a Hunchback version. But perhaps the theme of “What makes a Monster and what makes a man” as directly stated in this movie is now out of Del Toro system? As well as a man scaling the heights of a Gothic spired tower flanked by gargoyles? A tragic empathic beauty and the creature who adored her?
Unfortunately that seems to be the case, Del Toro has long wanted to make his version of Frankenstein and upon fulfillment of that dream he said something changed. He now wants to do grittier movies and is very inspired by 1970s. So it sounds like Del Toro’s take on Hunchback is not in the stars. And while Del Toro never implied he wanted to do a version it seems like he could have been a great fit. Though just because his sensibilities have shifted doesn’t mean he couldn’t do a version of Hunchback in said style. He does seem talk about Hunchback movie versions. Specifically the 1939 version and the 1956 version. So who knows maybe he will maybe he won’t be in the meanwhile there is his version Frankenstein, a pretty cinematic films that matches it’s fanciful visual with flowery words and added shades of an Oedipus complex for good measure.
6 bells out of 10
* Currently reading Pride and Prejudice and up next I think is The Chronicle of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Going with the publication order.
