A Name Without a Soul: Why Victor Frankenstein (2015) Fails as an Adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Novel
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) has long stood as a foundational text in Gothic and science-fiction literature, exploring themes such as the dangers of unchecked ambition, the ethics of creation, and the profound loneliness of being misunderstood. The 2015 film Victor Frankenstein, directed by Paul McGuigan, presents itself as a reinterpretation of the novel; however, it diverges so dramatically from Shelley’s narrative that it can hardly be considered a true adaptation. While the film borrows names and a few conceptual elements, it abandons the philosophical depth and emotional intensity that define Shelley’s work. As a result, the movie feels more like a flashy re-imagining than a meaningful retelling, and these deviations significantly weaken its impact.
One of the most striking differences lies in the story’s narrative perspective. Shelley’s novel is intricately layered, shifting between Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the Creature, which allows for a multifaceted exploration of guilt, ambition, and humanity. The 2015 film, however, centers the narrative on Igor, Victor’s fictional assistant, who does not exist in the novel at all. This shift not only alters the story’s focus but also reduces the philosophical dimension of the plot. Instead of grappling with the moral implications of creation, the film frames the narrative as a dramatic friendship between Victor and Igor, pushing the Creature to the background until the final act.
Similarly, the characterization of Victor Frankenstein is radically different. Shelley’s Victor is tormented, introspective, and crushed by the consequences of his obsession. In contrast, the film portrays him as an eccentric, almost charming genius whose dark impulses are softened by Igor’s loyalty. The moral weight of Victor’s actions ,central to the novel, is diminished in favor of action-driven sequences and exaggerated emotional conflicts. As a result, the film loses the tragic dimension that makes Shelley’s protagonist so compelling.
The Creature itself also suffers from oversimplification. In the novel, he is articulate, sensitive, and tragically aware of his own abandonment. Shelley invites the reader to empathize with him, suggesting that monstrosity is not inherent but created through neglect. The 2015 film reduces the Creature to a nearly voiceless brute, appearing only at the climax as a violent threat. Without the Creature’s narrative voice, the story loses its central moral question: Who is the true monster?
Ultimately, Victor Frankenstein fails as an adaptation because it strips away the novel’s emotional and philosophical core. While it offers visually striking scenes and energetic performances, these cannot compensate for the loss of thematic richness. For viewers familiar with Shelley’s work, the film feels hollow, more spectacle than substance, and its detachment from the original text makes it an unsatisfying and often frustrating experience.
