Gómez 1

Lucía Gómez Durán

Prof. Dr. Elly McCausland
Literature in English: Older Period III
June 15, 2022

Frankenstein’s influence in the audiovisual field: does the film Frankenstein (1931) really
respect the original book?

Despite being just over 200 years old, many writers and researchers still consider
Frankenstein (1831) or The Modern Prometheus to be one of the greatest literary works of
English literature. This book was anonymously first published on January 1st, 1818 and then, a
revised edition text in 1831 by the English writer Mary Shelley (August 30th, 1797 – February
1st, 1851) was published, and with it, she inaugurated a new genre called modern science fiction.
To be regarded as such, Shelley tells in her work the story of how a scientist called Victor
Frankenstein creates a "monster" from different parts of a dead body during an experiment. It
deals with major themes such as man's quest for knowledge and new scientific discoveries,
leaving many open questions about human ethics. Being a book totally different from what the
society of the time was used to, it marked a before and after in both the worlds of literature and
science. As it was a book with several striking themes, it drew the attention of a wide public
over the years and in different social aspects. Popular culture has been one of the fields that
have been most influenced by Frankenstein, in particular, the audiovisual field. Many great
works of literature have been a source of inspiration when creating audiovisual content. Most
commonly, these works are transported to the screen in the form of "adapted" films. This
phenomenon, although quite popular, is not always successful. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is
probably one of the major works of literature that have generated the most audiovisual content.
There are hundreds of different audiovisual versions of this book including some TV series and
it has even inspired to create music. Not so many critics and writers have given their opinion
on the "adaptations" to the screen of a world-famous work such as Frankenstein but generally,
opinions on film adaptations tend to be negative because they can lower the story (Hutcheon
3). But before criticising, it is necessary to know what "adaptation" means and what film studios
want to achieve with it.
This essay will consist of two parts. In the first one, I will try to argue, from an objective
point of view, what the word "adaptation" means, how literary works (in this case,
Frankenstein) are carried out as "adaptations" to the screen and why they are "versions" based
 Gómez 2

on the work Theory of Adaptation (2006) by Linda Hutcheon. After engaging with the theory
of adaptation, I will connect it to the novel itself and immediately with some of its most famous
film adaptations but without going into too much detail. Then, in the second part of this essay,
I will analyse in-depth the film adaptation in question, which is the popular version of
Frankenstein (1931) directed by James Whale. Moreover, I will define as clearly as possible
what I mean when I say that this film respects the original book. As a conclusion, I will try to
answer the question of whether the film adaptations respect the books or whether it only serves
to mislead or confuse readers. To sum up, this paper will argue that adaptation theory is still a
growing field and that it is important to consider, before creating a film, whether it is really
going to be worthwhile with respect to the complex content of a book like Frankenstein.
One of the most influenced fields by literary works has been the audiovisual one. In the
field of commercial cinema, most of the plots and characters in films are taken from literature,
especially from novels and, also nowadays, from comics. This phenomenon, although not
recent, has been increased during the 21st century by the popularity of literary sagas and best-
sellers that have been transformed into films, creating an almost need for the spectators and the
critics of comparing the audiovisual version with its original. The famous work Frankenstein
has been no less. In Adapting Frankenstein (2018) we can see how its authors declare that
"clearly, Frankenstein is more than a text. It's more than a novel, more than a film, and even
more than a series of films. And this continuous and ongoing popularity demands scholarly
attention." (Cutchins and Perry 31). There are several different adapted versions of this famous
book. From children’s Saturday-morning show featuring a Frankenstein Jr. (Cutchins and Perry
39) to films such as the 1931 version by James Whale or the 1994 version by Kenneth Branagh.
It is said that Branagh's version is much closer to what the original book tells even if it has its
own twists (Heffernan 136) but still the version best known in popular culture is Whale's one.
Perhaps because it was the first time this book was brought to the screen after Peggy Webling's
1927 theatrical version, which in turn was based on Mary Shelley's book (Heffernan 135).
Whale's film is therefore an adaptation of an adaptation. But first, it is essential to know and
understand what an adaptation is.
The field of adaptation is still growing as it is a relatively new phenomenon and there
are very ambiguous ideas about it. Linda Hutcheon presents in her work Theory of Adaptation
(2006) a fairly clear idea of what an adaptation is, how they are created, how they are usually
received by the audience, and much more. Hutcheon explains that the term "adaptation" means
"[...] a kind of extended palimpsest and, at the same time, often transcoding into a different set
 Gómez 3

of conventions. Sometimes but not always, this transcoding entails a change of the medium.
Although my main focus is on adaptations' different modes of engagement, the medium-as the
material means of expression of an adaptation is crucially important" (33 and 34). Taking this
into account and the purpose of this essay, I would define "adaptation" or, rather, "film
adaptation" as the version of a text, generally from a literary work, into a script for the making
of a film, which would be the material as the means of expression of the literary work. In order
to bring a written work to the screen, several factors must be taken into account. A book is
designed so that the reader delves into a story in a progressive way until reaching an ending.
Cinema works in much the same way, but the reader needs to spend more time with a book,
whereas a film takes between an hour or two. Hutcheon shares the thoughts of the novelist John
North in his work, considering the above comments, "A film has to convey its message by
images and relatively few words; it has little tolerance for complexity or irony or
tergiversations." (Hutcheon 1). It is impossible for film adaptations to contain in a limited
amount of time what a novel of several chapters contains. If the reader knows the text
beforehand, it will be more evident how its presence directly overshadows what they are
experiencing (Hutcheon 6). Moreover, adaptions are generally always considered superior to
literature "because of its seniority as an art form" (Hutcheon 6). Most of the comments that film
adaptations receive are negative, in short, it "is in negative terms of loss" (Hutcheon 38). What
is meant by this is that it is a simple reduction of the full extent of a book. Hutcheon then asks,
if according to these statements, adaptations are both inferior and secondary creations, why are
they present in our culture and why are their numbers constantly increasing? Why, according
to statistics from 1992, do they say that 85 percent of all Oscar-winning Best Pictures are
adaptations? Why do adaptations make up 95 percent of all miniseries and 70 percent of all TV
movies that win Emmy Awards? (4). Without any doubt, this has to do with the number of new
media, digital and streaming platforms, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime or HBO (among others)
that keep emerging nowadays. This has led to a demand for different kinds of stories with the
repercussion being a clear advantage for a more modern audience to somehow keep traditional
literature alive.
Adaptations have got their own aura (Hutcheon, 6) and they produce a peculiar
satisfaction. That kind of satisfaction is produced by the fact that one does not end up leaving
one's comfort zone, since the spectator is exposed to something he or she is already familiar
with. It is true that something changes, and that is the funny thing about adaptations, the parts
that catch the viewer by surprise, that were not written and not expected, or they find something
 Gómez 4

new that they had not read before. Remembrance and change are two kinds of pleasures that
combine very well in adaptations (Hutcheon 4). Both combine adequately in this way because
they produce totally different feelings that counteract each other. Hutcheon argues that much
of the appeal of this versions are “the combination of the two extremes.” (Hutcheon 173).
Remembrance comes from seeing in the film what you have previously read, probably key
moments of the written work, as everything in detail is complicated to bring to the screen. The
audience will watch that scene with affection, without practically leaving their comfort zone,
as well as being attentive to its representation in order to be able to compare both representations
at the end. However, the change comes as a surprise. I would go so far as to say that the change
even attracts more attention than the moments of remembrance, because of the slyness that
these moments contain. Change is a way of experimenting in an adaptation, which is subjected
to the risk of the audience liking it or not. In the end, “adaptations fulfill both desires at once.”
(Hutcheon 173), being a plus point for them. The theory of adaptation shows these versions
have both good and bad points. Nevertheless, even though they are totally extreme points, they
counterbalance each other very well, and perhaps that is why they attract the attention of such
an enormous and diverse audience.
Nowadays, the transformation of a literary work into a film is not limited to either the
literary or the cinematographic world. Any work can be adapted even when it seems to be
apparently not very adaptable, because, after all, the interest of the film creators (producers,
scriptwriters, creative team, etc.) determines the creation of the adaptations. Therefore, the
literary genre of the work does not consider the likelihood of being adapted. Nonetheless,
Hutcheon argued that science fiction “may be particularly difficult to adapt” (Hutcheon 127)
and that leads to the disappointing reaction of the audience, specifically the fans. Both Mary
Shelley's novel Frankenstein and its screen adaptations belong to the genre of science fiction.
As I mentioned earlier, Shelley did not introduce conventional themes for her time, but quite
the opposite. She introduced complex themes, inspired by new science experiments. To write
science fiction you need, above all, imagination. However, not everything imaginable can be
created. Therefore, to bring it to the screen, something simply similar has to be invented to meet
the needs. The phenomenon of adaptations has been changing as new technologies have been
being developed. These technologies offer to create as close to the imagination as possible, but
this has taken time. The different film versions of Frankenstein show this evolution. To do so,
we must first present them. The most remarkable version is Frankenstein from 1931 by James
Whale, which will be the focus of analysis later on for being the most famous one. Four years
 Gómez 5

later, a sequel to this film was released, called The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). As being a
sequel, its continuity is directly linked to the previous 1931 version and it is not an adaptation
as such of Mary Shelley's work but maintains the book’s approach. The considered most faithful
adaptation of Mary Shelley’s work is the Frankenstein version by Kenneth Branagh from 1994.
This film includes more “visceral” scenes and modern scientific progress. Even so, this is an
example of the fact that the maximum fidelity of an adaptation does not guarantee its
success. Another one is the film based on other contemporary adaptations of the novel, Victor
Frankenstein from 2015. There are many representations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in the
audiovisual field, hundreds and hundreds, each with a different way of visualising Frankenstein
and that’s why it is difficult to please all audiences.
So, with all this in mind, what can James Whale's 1931 version of Frankenstein offer
the academic critics of the novel? Is this film adaptation enough or does it simply confuse
readers? According to Heffernan, in order not to answer these questions without being negative,
one has to consider what cinema can show visually about the life of a creature/monster
represented in the text (Heffernan 136). He argues that "if film versions of the novel ignore or
elide the inner life of the monster, they nonetheless foreground for the viewer precisely what
the novel largely hides from the reader." (Heffernan 136). Whale's popular film version will
therefore have to be analysed in-depth in comparison with Shelley's original work.
To begin with, as I mentioned above, James Whale's film Frankenstein (1931) is based
on a theatrical adaptation of Shelley's classic written by playwright Peggy Webling in 1927
(Heffernan 135). Whale's film can thus be considered an adaptation of an adaptation. Taking
into account that neither the original script of Webling's play nor a film of the theatrical
performance of her play is available, Whale's version will be analysed with reference to
Shelley's original play, keeping in mind that it is not a direct adaptation of it. Although the plots
in both formats are essentially the same, it changes drastically from the beginning. Victor
Frankenstein, the book's protagonist, and his best friend, Henry Clerval, merge and create two
different characters: Henry Frankenstein (the film's protagonist) and Victor Moritz (the
protagonist's best friend). Moving on to the main characters and their portrayal, the film has
included Fritz, a hunchback assistant to Dr. Frankenstein who does not appear in the book. In
addition, Frankenstein's creature is completely denaturalised, as the film focuses on presenting
him as a terrifying monster rather than the result of an abhorrent scientific experiment. Whereas
in the novel he learns to speak, which gives him the ability to reason and, therefore, to express
his feelings (so good at eloquence that he becomes the narrator of several chapters), in the film
 Gómez 6

he only babbles, which accentuates his fearsome appearance, enhanced by the characterisation
and performance of Boris Karloff, the most recognisable "face" of Frankenstein's creature.
Moreover, there is no "it's alive!" scene in the book, even though it is one of the most famous
scenes in the world of cinema. However, there is a similar passage in the book that could
correlate with this scene. In chapter five of Mary Shelley's work readers can read “A flash of
lightning illuminated the object and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and
the deformity of its aspect more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that
it was the wretch, the filthy daemon, to whom I had given life” (47). The moment of "it's alive!"
in the film is related to the "I had given life" (Shelley 47) in the original work. Furthermore,
both "it's alive!" and "I had given life" are connected to the view that both expressions are said
at the time of childbirth in the past (as they were more complex processes) and to Victor/Henry
Frankenstein's role as both creator and mother. Nevertheless, in the novel, the creature is not as
welcome as in the film. While on the screen Henry Frankenstein can be seen repeating "it's
alive!" several times with excitement and happiness, in the book he does not show any pride to
the new creation. Given that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus is written
in the first person and also has three different narrators, the transformation of the literary work
into a cinematic one must emphasise imagery and translate written language into visual
representations. One of the narrators, the explorer Robert Walton, is directly erased in the
cinematic version, as he is never depicted or mentioned, nor are the circumstances surrounding
him (in the book, Robert rescues Victor in the Arctic, as he arrived there in pursuit of his
creature. In this context, Victor tells what happened to his rescuer, becoming the new narrator
of the story). Dr. Frankenstein replaces the creature himself as the narrator, in a meeting
between the two in an icy grotto, since, as mentioned earlier, in the novel he can speak (and
with great loquacity). The fact that Frankenstein's creature does not speak is a plus in terms of
being frightening, but it results in the film being less thoughtful, less profound and less
philosophical than the book (keeping in mind that this was the main joke that early science
fiction film critics made of the genre). The fact that the monster cannot express his feelings,
what is going through his head or why he acts as he does dehumanises him, making it easier for
the audience not to empathise with him and to fear him as the rest of the characters in the film.
It is also affected by the fact that all the action revolves around the chaos of the creature and
his subsequent search, capture and supposed death which takes away space from other matters.
Henry Frankenstein is relegated to the background instead of, at least morally, being the film's
main character. Karloff's representation in Whale’s version of Frankenstein has got such a huge
 Gómez 7

impact on popular culture that it is difficult to remember Henry above him when we talk about
this film. While in the book he is the real protagonist and he can recognise his creature as a co-
protagonist because of the importance he acquires, in the film the audience cannot truly
understand this character. It becomes difficult to investigate more about his psyche and the
reason for his actions since on the big screen he is shown as a kind of mad scientist.
The idea of adapting a literary work into audiovisual content has been around almost
since the birth of cinema. However, not all adaptations are the same. The key factor to
differentiate one from another is the level of transformation between the original and the
adapted work. For an adaptation to be considered good, it must respect the original work and
its author, as well as the essence of the work. This is how Hutcheon defines the term "essence":
"each mode, like each medium, has its own specificity, if not its own essence. In other words,
no one mode is inherently good at doing one thing and not another; but each has at its disposal
different means of expression [...]." (Hutcheon 24). From this definition, I consider the essence
of work to be the properties that are part of that work and that make it unique and therefore
special. However, some books are more adaptable than others, but all of them can be adapted.
Although "some theorists argue that, at a basic level, there is no significant difference between
a verbal text and visual images [...]" (Hutcheon 23), the script is the link between the literary
and the cinematographic, without being able to consider the script today as a literary genre due
to its lack of literariness. Thus, James Whale’s Frankenstein can be considered an adaptation
inspired by Mary Shelley's novel, as there are considerable changes. These changes focus,
especially, on terms of narratology since both works follow a totally different order and
dynamic when presenting the events. While their origins are easily recognisable, the director
included so many cuts and add-ons that there is little resemblance between the two works. So,
keeping in mind the definitions of "adaptation", "essence" and "respect", I would consider the
film version of James Whale's Frankenstein to be a good adaptation in audiovisual terms,
especially considering that it was released in 1931 when the resources to represent science
fiction in a screen were more limited than they are today, but not in respecting completely the
author's original idea. Although it is practically impossible to bring a complete literary work,
from beginning to end, to the screen (due to limited resources or, more importantly, time), at
least the original intentions of the author of the work should be respected and not go so far as
to invent new scenes. Although it can be interesting, it can as well confuse both the audience
and the readers, almost creating two independent works when, generally, they have high
expectations about the film.
 Gómez 8

Unfortunately, the widespread thought that adaptations are predominantly visual

creations "may help to explain why film versions of Frankenstein have drawn so little attention
from academic critics of the novel." (Heffernan 135). What do these film versions of
Frankenstein have to offer to the critics of the novel, apart from being vulgarisations or parodies
of the original work? Generally, the critics' answer is always negative, so Grossman considers
that adaptations "change not only the way we view but also our ideas about what we are
viewing. They “destroy” other texts, even as they create new ones [...]" (Grossman 1). It is
normal for literary critics to maintain a faithful position to the written text, but as I mentioned
earlier, adaptations have their good points as well as their bad. A contemporary view is
necessary to reconsider the value of adaptations and their theory. Although a film adaptation
involves a modification of the original work and may therefore confuse readers and not fully
respect the author of the literary work, adaptations also have their own essence. Moreover, they
have many aspects in common with translation. The translation is a discipline that must
reinterpret a story in order to retell it in another language or, in the case of an adaptation, in a
different way. Unfaithful changes are indispensable in translation processes because they allow
readers to read texts that they would not otherwise be able to read. But that does not mean that
the translation itself is better or worse. The same goes for adaptations. The question "which is
better, the film or the book?" or the statement “the book is always better than the film” is nothing
but a trick. What's more, the audience's answer is something to take into account, I dare say,
more than the critics' opinion since, without an audience, film studios lose profits and therefore,
motivation to keep creating audiovisual content (as with any other film). Finally, James Whale’s
Frankenstein (1931) is an adaptation inspired by Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus
(Mary Shelley, 1818). I say "inspired" as this is not to be confused with "based". Thus, a
contemporary analysis of adaptations of literary works is important since it is a field that is still
growing and needs criticism, both professional and popular, in order to improve. Even so, it
will not be easy to meet all pleasures and expectations.

Word count: 3939

 Gómez 9

Works cited

Dennis R. Cutchins and Dennis Ray Perry. ADAPTING FRANKENSTEIN: The Monster’s
Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2018.

Grossman, Julie. Literature, Film, and Their Hideous Progeny. New York, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York, Routledge, 2006.

James A. W. Heffernan. Looking at the Monster: ‘Frankenstein’ and Film. Critical Inquiry, vol. 24,
no. 1, The University of Chicago Press, 1997, pp. 133–58,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344161

Shellet, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus. London, 1818.