Guillermo del Toro directed his Frankenstein film (released in 2025) with beauty in mind. As an artist he focused on three parts: casting, costume and set. A parallel reflection to the three part plot of the film: the captain’s narrative, Victor’s tale, and of course the Creature’s. And while he hasn’t gone full Channel, he has intentionally gone Mick Jagger and alt couture.
Now what does this mean in the world of film?
And what does this look like for an adaption of a classic science fiction?
By prioritizing aesthetics Guillermo draws in an audience. He also allows for inaccuracies, and further cements Hollywood’s fear of being ugly. Guillermo del Toro has founded his career upon his alternative style being a Mexican film maker in a world full of eurocentric standards. This is all to say I was not surprised by the casting of Oscar Issac for the lead in del Toro’s Frankenstein. I once more was not surprised when in his 45 minute documentary he spoke of writing with Oscar Issac in mind. How then did we still end up with an all white cast? I worry that in the eyes of beholder diversity starts and ends on the page for del Toro.
However, I can not simply look past his choice in casting when everything about the movie has been shaped around his actors. Jacob Elordi was cast because of the “innocence” and “humanity” in his eyes. (Nevermind the cheating allegations in all his previous relationships. Or current news now of him sending matching rings to the married Margot Robbie. Gold with “whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.”) Costume design was purposefully inaccurate for the time period serving instead to make Victor “flamboyant.” Again in his documentary we watch Guillermo sift through different fabrics and dyes with Mick Jagger as his mantra. And as a result we get to see Victor Frankenstein in sunglasses during the age of enlightenment. (Whether the irony is an ‘artistic’ choice you can decide.)
So with all this certainly ‘interesting’ decision making what does that mean in terms of a payoff? Well it means as viewers we get a pretty film. That’s all there is to it. We get to see Elizabeth in her blood red dress with ‘The Creature’ in the snow. We get to see Oscar Issac in a distressed leather trench coat, and of course the round sunglasses. That it was this all amounts to.
Guillermo states that “knowledge” is The Creature’s torment, it makes his life complex, and allows him to ruminate on his pain. Perhaps this is why del Toro denies us all the complexity that Mary Shelley had originally created. Perhaps this is why there is no Clerval or Justine, perhaps this is why even similar faces look different. What Guillermo has done is made painfully obvious the importance of Fatherhood, and ‘not judging a book by its cover.’ He has once again created a film where a woman quite literally falls in love with a monster (The Shape of Water, 2017) because it is what’s inside that counts. To say I am disappointed that beauty has out weighed substance, minimizes my thoughts and simultaneously sums up what is to be expected of the world we live in.
