A Comparative Analysis of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Kenneth

Branagh’s Film Adaptation

Milko Kirilov

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which was originally published in 1818, is what we call a

foundation in not only Gothic literature, but the world of Gothic as a whole. It is one of the

first texts which prompts and challenges its readers to confront the ethical boundaries and of

scientific creation meddling in human life principles as well as some moral dilemmas and

thresholds that even today can be present in the human ambition (Shelley 84). The film

adaptation of Kenneth Branagh in 1994, which is called "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein,"

makes a complex reinterpretation which simultaneously does honour to and reimagines the

original narrative, albeit deviating from it with its own intricacies and artistic visions. It also

reveals the evolving cultural understanding of Shelley’s seminal work across nearly two

centuries of scientific, philosophical and human discourse.

The origins of the novel are deeply rooted and embedded in Mary Shelley's personal

experiences and intellectual growth. Born to revolutionary intellectual parents William

Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley conceived the story during a memorable gathering

in Geneva in 1816, where she, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, and John Polidori challenged each

other to write some ghost stories. Thus, the novel emerged from a dream where Shelley

envisioned a “pale student of unhallowed arts” creating a horrifying creature which would

become a central metaphorical exploration for her (Shelley).

experience of Shelley’s readers for the modern times, but also by diverging significantly from

some earlier cinematic interpretations, e.g. James Whale’s iconic 1931 version. In it, as well

as others, the creature was shown as a simple monster, reduced to nothing, but a mute,

lingering creature that would be striking horror and terror all around it. So with Branagh’s

adaptation, he attempted a more fleshed-out portrayal that more closely aligns with Shelley's

original idea. The film effectively and actively challenges the lessening representations that

had dominated popular culture in the past, while simultaneously seeking to restore the

creature's original complexity and emotional depth – to the best of its ability.

One of the main key differences between the two artistic creations is the actual

structure and the narrative itself. Shelley’s phenomenal and unfathomable talent in story-

telling is exceptionally visible in this novel. The frame narrative begins with the letters that

build the groundwork for a great and thrilling experience. The kind which creates the feeling

of being present and distant at the same time within the story – as if something will happen or

has already happen - particularly close to reach, but also out of your control. And the multiple

perspectives splits the vision to give a more realistic and understandable myriad of events.

Just like life – nothing is one-sided and has more than one way to look at it. Shelley

masterfully displays that not only through Viktor’s and Robert’s point of view, but

specifically from the Creature’s as well. The story as such is layered more naturally, allowing

for time of repose and reflection, as in the calm before the storm, whilst coming slowly, but

surely to the conclusion that, horrors are soon to come.

On the other hand, the film simplifies this heavily by focusing on just Viktor

Frankenstein’s point of view – giving its viewers a narrower, but detailed view of the horrors

that come one after another without a stop. In a sense, it’s presenting the actual horror of the
human psyche – not knowing what would follow and stripping the viewer from some of the

omniscient qualities, which perhaps some readers might feel an attachment to. Although it

serves as a better cinematic experience, it definitely takes away from the Creature’s inner

character and its exploration – how we come to follow its progression or more correctly –

degradation. Still, the explosive approach in the film is surely a different, but nevertheless

enjoyable experience. After all, in the likelihood of such events occurring in real life, it is

very unlikely anyone would have time for self-reflection, much less an actual time of mirth.

The characters themselves undergo a change in the cinematic vision. Viktor, for

instance, is portrayed as deeply flawed and introspective, who is driven by hubris, but

haunted and plagued by regret and guilt. His initial and primal ambition lies within the desire

to advance human knowledge and bring to life a proactive development for the human race,

however, this obsession blinds him and to the consequences of his actions that follow

(Shelley 39). In contrast, Branagh’s Viktor, played by the director himself is more

emotionally volatile and needlessly heroic, becoming the representation of an unstable man

of passion and determination, sometimes at the expense of subtle moral ambiguity, present in

the novel. For instance – in the movie, the character might have a loud emotional outburst,

while in the novel it is more of a reflective inner dialogue.

The Creature in Shelley’s portrayal evolves over time from an innocent being seeking

love and compassion to a vengeful figure consumed by rage, hatred and rejection. Shelley’s

vision elicits sympathy for the Creature at times, underlining his suffering and human side

(Shelley 102). In contrast, Branagh’s Creature, portrayed by Robert De Niro, retains some of

these characteristics, but is more visible grotesque and less articulate, which diminishes his

philosophical depth. Shelley’s Creature learns the human language as well as their literature,

citing works such as Paradise Lost and The Sorrows of the Young Werther, which contribute
to his overall moral and intellectual growth (Shelley 113). Such literary references are mostly

absent from the film, reducing the Creature’s general depth and complexity and making him

appear more monstrous, rather than misunderstood. One portrays psychological and

emotional complexity, while the other focuses on physical horror, exemplified by both

appearance and violent actions.

If an analytic approach is taken, it reflects on broader late 20 th century interpretations

of Shelley’s work. Feminist critics have long read Frankenstein as a profound meditation on

reproduction, scientific ethics, and the male appropriation of the female creative power.

Branagah’s adaptation much to the effect, simplifies such themes, particularly through its

treatment for the female creature’s “birth”, which becomes a more explicitly necrophiliac and

psychosexual sequence than in the original text.

Scientific sources also provide a crucial background for understanding both the novel

and its adaptation. Shelley’s work was without a shadow of a doubt, influenced by

contemporary scientific discourse, particularly experiments made by Luigi Galvani, who

attempted to prove electricity is a life force for reanimating dead frogs with electrical surges.

Branagh just updates such scientific origins by embedding the narrative within late 20 th

century concerns about genetic engineering, biochemical technology, artificial intelligence,

which we all come to criticise and the ethical boundaries of scientific experimentation.

Finally, Branagh’s “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” presents more than just a simple

adaptation of a one of a kind novel. It is a critical reinterpretation which reflects on the

contemporary anxieties about scientific progress, artificial life as a whole as well as human

responsibility and parenting horrors. The film continues the novel’s tradition of using the

Frankenstein myth as a powerful allegory for humanity’s complex relationship with

of a late 20th century audiences.

Both works share a fundamental critique of scientific passion for progress and the

ethical responsibilities of creation – not just biochemical or technological, but such of human

nature as well. They interrogate the moral implications of the potentially deadly

consequences of creating life without considering the emotional and social needs of the

creation itself as a whole. Shelley’s novel remains a focal point for the Gothic world even

today and for centuries to come, delivering lots of topics to reflect one, in a variety of fields,

be it technological, philosophical or just ethical. Both the novel and the film share a plethora

of similarities in regards to the key elements of the story as well as notable differences when

it comes to the underlining of certain points throughout the timeline. Both focus on the ethical

balance in our world as well as the scientific progress which can be seen throughout time and

places. The human mind, bathing in the exultation of its creations – be it for better or worse

can reach lengths which may not necessarily be acceptable to the masses. Both works

interrogate the moral implications of scientific ambition and the potential consequences of

creating life without considering the emotional and social needs of that creation. They will

forever be printed into the memory of both cinema and literature fans alike.
Works Cited

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818.

Shelley, Mary. "Author's Introduction to the Standard Novels Edition." Frankenstein, 1831.