The piece examines deeper questions the movie touches such as social acceptance, the creation of good and evil and family dynamics in shaping society and vice versa
Many of us have been raised by parents such as Baron and Victor Frankenstein.
Parental ambition and control is very common in Indian homes like other parts of the world
English Author Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a Gothic horror story written in 1818, has repeatedly been the plot in the cinematic imaginations since the classic Frankenstein (1931) of James Whale. The recently released Frankenstein (2025), directed by Guillermo del Toro and released on Netflix, has again been in the headlines with nine nominations in different categories in the upcoming 98th Academy Awards. However, the talented director has added a more humane touch in the adaptation of Mary Shelley’s original story. It became less of a horror movie, but more of a story of familial conflict, imperfect father-son relationships and birth and sustenance of family trauma. When ‘trauma’, ‘emotional wounds’, ‘toxic parent-child relationships’ have become buzzwords and everyone has become an expert in the social media, the movie touches the fine chords of the pain of internal conflicts and the burden of parental expectations and eventual abandonment across generations and highlights how madness is created within the four walls of home, not just in a science lab. It delves into a deeper existential question of social construction of good and evil.
The story and the fantasy
Most of us are aware of the original story of Frankenstein (1818), a mad scientist of early 19th century named Victor Frankenstein, who created a grotesque creature (‘the Creature’) by conjuring different human body parts. Unhappy by the outcome, Victor abandons the Creature and left him in the wild to let him survive on his own. Being different and scary as per social standards, the Creature, despite having good intentions, was rejected by mankind and attacked at the very site. In the original story, the Creature demands Victor to make a female companion for him, so that he gets finally accepted by its own kind. When Victor realises the probable outcome of the procreation between these creatures, he stops the experiment. In rage, the Creature kills Victor’s family members including Victor’s wife Elizabeth. Later, Victor chases the Creature to the Arctic and dies in the process. In the original story, the Creature is a mortal being and decides to die in the pyre of his creator Frankenstein.
Del Toro’s movie adaptation deviates from the original story where the Creature is an immortal being, who decides to stay in the wilderness, away from the mankind. Similarly, the 2025 film imagines Victor Frankenstein not only as a mad scientist, but an extremely cruel, and selfish being. Oscar Isaac, casted as Victor Frankenstein is a good fit. A cameo appearance of Charles Dance as Baron Leopold Frankenstein, Victor’s father deserves a mention as he finely depicted the role of a cold and ambitious father, yet his potential is under-exploited in the movie. We could see the glimpse of Baron’s coldness and cruelty with young Victor, but the horror of a controlling father could have been portrayed in an explicit way. Followed by the announcement of its nomination in nine different categories for Oscars 2026, reviews of the movie started flooding the media. To specify, writing a critical review of its cinematic rigour is not the purpose of this piece. Rather, it discusses the deeper question it touches, the social acceptance, creation of good and evil and family dynamics in shaping the society and vice versa.
The Frankenstein in our homes
Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel portrays Frankenstein as a mad scientist, coming from an aristocrat Genevian family. The 2025 movie gives the glimpses of Victor’s childhood, a loving mother with whom he was closely attached and a cold, controlling and absent father, a factor of fear in his life. Baron’s (Victor’s father) ambition, cold and controlling nature has led to not only a dysfunctional family dynamic, but a disturbed father-son dynamic. Sadly, Victor lost his mother, his only source of affection at a young age and left with his father and younger brother William. Guillermo del Toro carefully portrays the loving dynamics between Baron and William, quite opposite to his elder son Victor. The director carefully portrays the core character of a toxic family, different parent-child relationships for different children, where William becomes the golden child and Victor becomes the scapegoat. Victor Frankenstein was his father’s unfulfilled ambition, a tool for carrying his family name as a reputed surgeon of his time. Victor only learnt that his achievement as a successful surgeon/scientist is the only way to prove his worth in the world, the only way to earn attention, love and respect in the society. His ambition turned into a madness to create an immortal creature using parts from the bodies of different humans. He always believed that success is the only way, which can make him considered as a genius in the eyes of the world, which drove him to the height of madness, became his reason for existence.
Having such punitive parents is not uncommon in society, as we have noted in different cases throughout history. Czech writer and novelist Franz Kafka’s letter to his father known as ‘Dearest Father’ is a testimony to his distorted family dynamics and the role of his father in moulding him into a timid person. In fact, many of us have been raised by parents such as Baron and Victor Frankenstein. Parental ambition and control is very common in Indian homes like other parts of the world, when children become the tools for the satisfaction of parent’s unfinished dreams or a tool for their parent’s upward social mobility. Bragging about children’s academic or career success is one of the proud moments of many parents’ lives.
When western society is shifting towards gentle and trauma-informed parenting for fulfilling the emotional needs of the children, Indian parents hardly deviate from the outdated modes of parenting, where children are considered as future investments. In the current society, personal possession and display of wealth has become everything and children are often used as a personal possession, showing parental capability of investment and innovation, in their schooling, clothing and upbringing. We often see parental competition in making their children socially attractive and square, by giving them the best of lessons for music, art, sports, foreign languages, as if they are trying to prove their worth through their children. In the process, we keep creating many Frakensteins throughout generations, who have turned into emotionless cold and achievement machines, as self-worth is primarily derived from achievements. This is particularly true when the society in the era of late capitalism validates nothing but materialities and achievements. Failure is not only a social rejection but brings rejection by parents. We keep reading about students committing suicides in Kota and in other many premier educational institutes in the country and worldwide, as they fail or anticipate their incompetence. In both the ways, society is producing and encouraging more and more mad and self-centred Frankensteins, whose worth is decided by their wealth or achievements. These Frankensteins, create their own monsters in the process and the cycle of abandonment and rejection being carried forward from generation to generations. Rising mental illness among children is testimony of this growing apocalypse.
Self-awareness and internal conflict
What makes del Toro’s Frankenstein different from its previous cinematic adaptations, is the portrayal of internal conflicts of the characters. We see the internal conflict of Victor, though momentary, when he started longing for the tenderness of Elizabeth Hanlander (his brother’s fiancée for whom he developed romantic feelings). Although, we see how Victor’s negative worldview and madness for achievement overpowers his longing for tenderness. We can see his mixed emotions when he saw the Creature for the first time, the joy of creation at one hand and the thirst for control at the other. Although he claimed the Creature as his son, he soon loses his interest and abandons him the moment the Creature fails to meet his expectations.
The Creature set the perfect spot to convey how an empty mind, developing consciousness can be moulded into good/evil based on the parental care and acceptance. Like the Creature, children are the empty vessels, they are created and moulded into specific versions by their upbringing. Simple acts of kindness and acceptance can shape the child into a sensitive being. While the absence of tenderness turns a child into a ‘monster’, filled with rage, anger, awkward silence, poor social skills, lack of emotional control. The parents, who have created these children, often abandon them on the very moment they start creating hurdles for them. In fact, many children are labelled as ‘difficult children’, rebels, antisocial, ungrateful and what not. We never doubt the source that have created these children, until very recently when trauma and emotional wellbeing have flooded the internet and everyone has started talking about therapy. Still, Indian society, while grappling with loneliness and family trauma, resists accepting the dysfunctional dynamics in the family that forces many children to the path of self-harm including suicide, addiction, including workaholism and wrong lifestyles. Many of these children struggle their entire life just for acceptance because they carry a negative self-image and mask their pain behind success, addiction, rage, isolation, and workaholism. The worst burden is carried by the self-aware children, who want to break out of the unhealthy family dynamic, but severely struggle with their guilt of betraying their parents or having rage for their parents. We see the emotional turmoil of the Creature in del Toro’s Frankenstein, where he just wanted happiness.
Frankenstein (2025) is less about horror and visual pleasure, but more about the underlying message of intergenerational trauma transfer, where each generation is producing a monster in their home, with their high standards, ambition as if children are brought to the world for satisfaction of their ego. Rather than declaring Victor Frakenstein as a monster and the Creature a ruthless being, del Toro carefully portrays the creating force and their internal conflicts. They both are victims of parental ambition, control and abandonment, the only difference is that the Creature had better self-awareness and willingness to break the vicious cycle than its creator Victor. Kahlil Gibran in his The Prophet said that ‘Children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they are with you they belong not to you’. The movie conveys a deep message, which is very much needed at this juncture when families are breaking away and loneliness has turned into an epidemic. We have to introspect and reconnect and create safe environment for our children to grow and become whoever they want.
Tania Debnath is Assistant Professor in Geography in University of Allahabad, Prayagraj.
Views expressed are personal.
