Same lesson, different reason

I think the most noticeable difference in the film and novel depictions of Frankenstein’s monster is that the portrayals give a different message to the audience. The message I want to focus on is the one concerning caution with regard to science and the creation of life.

In the novel, the monster is depicted as human in everything but its appearance (A strange thought, seeing as the body tends to be made from humans). The monster is shown as intelligent, he has emotions, it is eager to learn about society and language, he is shown as human. This is best shown by his conversation with the De Lacey family, especially the old man. Due to his blindness, when approached by the monster, the old man treats the monster as he would any other guest. This is starkly contrasted by the reaction of the people who can see the monster, whether it be the rest of the De Lacey family attacking him when they return, or the man that shot the monster after the monster saved the young girl, the people who see him cannot look past his appearance to see the humanity inside of him. While his actions are not justified, the monster’s revenge against Dr. Frankenstein and pursuit of a companion, along with the center of the story where the monster is given a chance to speak, we realize that Dr. Frankenstein failed the monster as his creator through his irresponsibility. He brought life to a sentient being in a form that would be rejected by society, and ignored the needs of the monster for companionship and understanding.

And then we have the film adaptation. In this, the monster is robbed of its humanity and the audience’s sympathy, instead preferring to blame the actions of the monster on a criminal’s brain instead of the failings of Dr. Frankenstein. While there is still a message of responsibility of science, it is no longer one of compassion, responsibility, and morality, instead the focus is misplaced on the dangers the monster presents. Instead of compassion from the audience, the monster is presented as something to be afraid of. Instead of rescuing a drowning girl, the monster is shown to be throwing the child into the lake, expecting her to float. The monster reacts in fear to the torch, and so it is decided it is a menace or a hazard to society. The monster is still responsible for murdering people of course. The monster kills Fritz because Fritz was scaring him with a torch, and the doctor because the doctor was dissecting him, thinking the monster dead. But we are never shown the monster’s humanity. It is shown as lesser, as animalistic, as inhumane. And so when the monster is in the windmill as the villagers light it on fire, they were removing a danger, they were afraid, they were justified. It was a flawed experiment.

And that is what changes the message for me. In the novel there is no doubt to me that Dr. Frankenstein was responsible for the monstrous actions, it was his failures in morality and compassion that led to the monster’s actions. In the film, it is just a lab accident, Fritz brought the wrong brain. Instead of raising the question of responsibilities and moral obligations to creations and scientific progress, we are instead given a reminder to read the label.