The Adaptation

To adapt means to modify something to make it useful for a new purpose.  Adaptation refers to the process of adapting or being adapted.  In biological terms, adaptation is the process of change in an organism or species to become better suited to its environment.  I personally believe that this process of change is an ongoing one for most organisms.  Environments change, so organisms do too.  Can you think of a time in your life when you had to adapt to a new environment?  Maybe you moved to a new house or a new apartment.  Maybe you lost something or someone that meant a great deal to you.  Maybe you developed a disease, or maybe something happened to you that was out of your control.  Would any of these situations cause the person, or human, to no longer be human, as in human species?  No.  No matter what happens to us, or what changes we go through, we would still be human.   We don't just suddenly change species because some of our characteristics change or adapt.  So, we could say that we are still recognizable as human.

If we apply this logic to book-to-movie adaptations, how do we view it?  What is the standard, or rather our own standard?  The reason I write about this is because something very profound happened to me recently that caused me to think very deeply on this.  I recently studied Mary Shelly's masterpiece Frankenstein....Then I watched the new movie on Netflix......and I'll say, I was not impressed!  I was actually quite frustrated.  Okay, then shortly thereafter I hopped on social media and was there met with nothing but praise and love for the movie!  The movie was touted as a wonderful piece of art, brilliant writing, and this would be the version most true to the book.  I have to say, I was excited for it.  I'm not someone that usually watches R rated movies, or Mature rated movies.  I stay away from all of that.  I'm not enticed, impressed, or entertained by gruesome violence, nudity, or excessive vulgarities or expletives in entertainment.  Of course, after reading the book, there was no way a movie version would be anything less than R rated.  I debated a great deal about whether I would watch this or not.  As a general rule, I don't watch anything I would feel uncomfortable showing my kids......I stick by that rule pretty well most of the time.  When I'm at work, I make an exception with true crime documentaries......and an occasional movie, but most of the time at work, I'm doing more listening rather than watching. Okay, so, long story short, I halfway, watched.....and listened to Frankenstein by Guillermo Del Toro.

This movie should have at the very least carried the director's name in the title.  I was told on social media that that would have been too presumptuous and not have given proper credit to the author.  I expressed that there would be little presuming since this movie was not Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.  It looked nothing like the book.  I'm not talking about little changes.  I'm not super picky about needing the movie to look exactly like the original book.  I get that there needs to be changes when adapting books to movies or theater.  If there aren't any changes, then we would have a lot of 5, 6, 7, plus hour movies, or maybe no movies at all because we couldn't afford to make them.  I had several conversations with people on social media about how I felt about this movie. I have a very unpopular opinion on this movie; some might classify it as a hot take, but I don't think so.  As someone who has a true admiration for the book, and made a pretty logical argument, I don't think I have a hot take. When I said it was an insult to the book and Mary Shelly's work, people just could not handle it.  People immediately questioned my intelligence.  When I told them I had just finished studying her book, taught it to home schooled teenagers, and defined in detail what adaptation actually is, the conversation was over......or it continued like this after asking several people to read my previous comment so they could better understand me......

"I read all that you wrote, and I disagree with everything you said!  You do realize that the majority of people agree with me?"

"It sounds like you are using your own definition of adapt, or adaptation.  You are defining it how only you want to see it.  Can you give the actual definition?"

To the first response, I expressed how it was perfectly fine if she disagreed with me and that all those who agreed with her either had not read the book or did not understand its original message.  There was much more to this conversation.  She had expressed how the movie got all the main points of the book and that it had the same messages.  I went on to describe in detail how the original messages were there in a very weak sense, but Del Toro had changed the main focus, the character's motivations, resolutions, the entire storyline, and the entire point of the book.  I did this a few times with different people.  She did not want to go on after I pointed out that those in agreement with her did not know anything about the book and thus could not give a fair assessment. To the second, I gave this person what they wanted.  I gave them the exact definition and how I was using it.  She did not continue the conversation.

I did have a great interaction with another woman who disagreed with me.  She loved the movie and explained her stance.  I explained mine, and we really started to consider each other's position.  She genuinely thought I brought up some good points and some interesting ideas.  We began discussing plagiarism and what that is versus expressing same ideas in different ways.  We came to agreement on many things.  At some point she felt comfortable telling me a very personal story about her husband passing, loss in her life, and how this movie moved her so much that she had watched it 27 times.  I am grateful she shared this with me.  I thanked her for sharing her perspective and experience, and that I never wanted to downplay anyone's experiences.  I let her know that I enjoyed the conversation and appreciated her view.  In the beginning of these conversations, I was being a little dramatic, or so others thought....I used the word "travesty" to describe this new movie.  Well, by definition, it is in my mind if we are to compare it to the book.  My argument started out as a mere comparison to the book, but it led me down a much deeper path.  I started thinking more as I was writing out my feelings on the matter.  I think the crux of my argument came down to the meaning of words, mainly, but also about changing someone else's work and still claiming it is theirs.  

Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein is a beautiful movie, visually.  As a standalone story, it is fine.  I take issue with calling it "based on Mary Shelley's book", or "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein."  It is unequivocally not Mary Shelly's book. This is a whole new story.  Three fourths of the movie was never in the book.  Now, is that fairly an adaptation? I don't think so.  In another social media conversation, a woman eventually admitted what it was.  She vehemently disagreed with me at first but later described the movie as ".....He took the bones of Mary Shelly's book and wrote a father son story....a new story....it's okay to have something new."  I gladly told her that her words were perfect, and I agreed with her.  I assured her that what she had just said was exactly what I was getting at.  I never said no one should or could like this movie.  I never said it was a bad movie.  I will admit that what was done with this movie was beautiful and even unique at times.  On the other hand, it's not so brilliant as they say.  It boils down to a trope that has been recycled and exhausted in movies for 15 years.  I do think that the creature is depicted accurately in this movie better than any others.  

The creature is quite beautiful in its own unique way.  There are two things that matched the book.  The beginning scene of the movie with the ship, the captain, the ice, Victor, and the monster.  It looked stunning!  It looked like what I would have imagined while reading the book.  The other thing they got right was Victor's process in creating the monster.  Some of the messages of loss, and the warning of unchecked ambitions are there in a weak sense, but I feel that the real point of the book was missed.  This movie turns Victor Frankenstein into a very evil villain.  His motivations are not that of loss, love of science, and pure ambitious curiosity about life and death.  In this movie his motivations are turned to resentment toward an abusive father and the ambition to prove himself to be better than his father.  Part of the motivation comes from the fact that his all-powerful doctor father could not save his mother from death.  Victor sets out to outdo his father on this; that he can bring life back from the dead.  In the book, Victor is motivated by the loss of his mother seeking a way to overcome death, but his father really is not abusive.  

The movie makes the plot all about the father son dynamic between Victor and his father, and then between him and the creature.  Victor is abusive to the creature and that is why the creature is angry.  He is motivated by the way he is treated.  Now, some elements from the book do exist here as the monster is not accepted and has an identity crisis.  The monster does want Victor to create for him a companion, someone like himself.  The book really focuses on the identity crisis and that is really the motive for revenge on Victor, not that Victor is abusive to him.  The unknowing purpose of the monster drives him to resent his entire creation.  The entire time the creature wreaks havoc in Victor's life killing his brother, best friend, and wife.  Victor's father and adopted sister die as a result of the monster's actions. This results in Victor's desire for revenge on the monster which ultimately ends in tragedy.  None of this takes place in the movie. Victor's love interest in the movie is engaged to his brother, and she is killed while saving the monster from Victor.  Victor is turned into the real monster.  Although the monster kills people in the movie, many of them are just bystanders. The people that do die don't really matter all that much to Victor because they have not shown any closeness with any of them except for Elizabeth who rejects him in the end.  Victor is the raging monster driven by vanity and many die as a result of his actions.

The lesson that Victor learns in the end of the movie goes back to the father son dynamic.  He learns that he was wrong and that the monster is his son.  He tells the monster that "if he can't die, then he must live." Yes, somehow this monster is indestructible and self-heals faster than Superman.  The monster then goes out to live on in the world after Victor dies.  In contrast, the book tells a story of loss, identity crisis, and how dangerous it is to create life with no purpose.  "Be careful what you wish for" is a main moral of the story.  Victor learns his lesson at the bitter end in the book.  His unchecked ambitions lead his life down a dark path littered with death and more loss until he and his monster succumb to death as well.   Victor is a type of villain in the original story, but I do think he changes as he sees everything dear to him taken by his creation.  Once Victor dies, the monster has nothing left to live for, no purpose, and no identity still.  The one person that could create a companion for him is now gone.  So, the monster goes off to die alone.  It is a tragedy.  A true horror story.  Mary Shelly saw herself in both Victor and the monster.  She suffered much loss in her life.  I think you get a real feel for her sorrow through these characters.  Some say that this movie honored her book and her.  I disagree.  Nearly the entire thing was changed with a light nod given to her original meanings and messages.  I found this to be disheartening.  

This brings me to the deeper part of the argument I came to: Should we be changing these classics to this extent when we adapt them for the movies?  Do we have a right to?  We can get into the legals of it all, but some of these old writings don't have rights to be haggled with.  For me, this movie was not recognizable as its original source at all.  The changes were too drastic.  Some might call it character assassination.  I wonder if we did the same thing to Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, or Van Gogh's Starry Night, if we would feel the same way we do about this movie.  No one takes Van Gogh's art re-painting it into something entirely different and then demands the museum put it on the wall with Van Gogh's name on it.  Then I started thinking about music.  When we adapt music or write an arrangement of a piece from Beethoven, Bach, or Chopin, we don't completely change it, so it is unrecognizable from its original.  We can still hear its source material ringing true through the notes of the newest adaptation . If humans adapted to living in the arctic long term and started going there to live, do we suddenly turn into polar bears, emperor penguins, or seals?  No, we don't.  We are still recognizable as humans, but now we have the ability to withstand subzero temperatures.

This reminded me of the Beyond Van Gogh exhibit I went to a few years back.  The art was adapted for digital media in order to display it as an immersive experience.  All of his art was still true to him.  Nothing was tampered with other than some animation effects were added.  The animation effects were amazing!  It made it feel as if you were inside his creation.  I felt that it really honored the artist and his art in a very meaningful way.  They brought it to life in a way that was beautiful and inspiring.  Sometimes movies or TV shows can do this with their many adaptations of books. They can stay true to the original story and characters while adding their own signature twist.  I'm not against this at all.  You can take an idea and express it in a new way.

I have so much respect for classic literature that I think all of these books deserve to stand on their own as they are and be respected for what they are.  Take A Christmas Carol for example and Pride and Prejudice.  There are so many versions and adaptations of these stories, it's crazy, and hard to keep track of them all.  I've seen many of them, but all that I have seen still resemble the source material in a respectable manner.  I just watched a Hallmark movie recently that was a parody of A Christmas Carol.  They have done this many times with their movies and all of them still look very much like the original story.  So, why do we never dare fundamentally change these stories?  They are among the most beloved stories of all time.  We speak of them with a reverence.  We truly respect their messages and morals.  They are still very much relatable for today's audience.

This brings me to another point: changing, or rather adapting books for the modern audience.  Yes, this is a great argument most people take, but it really doesn't hold up.  It falls apart by simply looking at the many adaptations of A Christmas Carol and Pride and Prejudice.  Have those two stories really been brought into the modern era for the modern audience?  We can make them look modern and tell the story in a modern setting, which has been done many times, but like I said the core story remains true to the predecessor.  It's almost like we really truly honor those masterpieces.  I've seen A Christmas Carol in movies, tv shows, and live theater and I can't say they are all the same, but they do all honor the original message of Dickens.  I don't think any version I have seen of these two tales has ever had the characters fundamentally changed as they are in the new Frankenstein movie. 

The truth is, humanity really hasn't changed all that much in two hundred years, three hundred years, or five hundred years.  The truth is, these stories that we classify as classic literature, still carry fundamental truths, and morals with them that are timeless.  We haven't changed Dickens' magical tale of three ghosts and a Scrooge because we don't need to.  We haven't changed Jane Austen's brilliance because we don't need to.  These can apply to all people no matter what time you live in.  I feel the same about Mary Shelly and many others.  Their stories are great the way they are, and we would be wise to heed their message and learn from them.  

Why do we think that we can somehow improve upon past masterpieces?  Whenever anyone tries to do this, it is always a failure.  "Millions of people have watched this movie....they made millions of dollars..." Does that mean it was improved upon?  I wonder just how many of those read the book?  How many loved the book?  Some people whole-heartedly agreed with my argument.  Guess what?  They read the book too!  They had a love for it too!  In the end of many of these social media interactions, I came to a place of clarification.  I'm not arguing that this is a bad movie, bad story, or that we can't have anything new.  I'm arguing that this is not an adaptation according to the very definition of the word.  I'm arguing that it is not "based on" the book according to the very definition of that phrase.  I'm arguing that if we are to compare the movie to what it is supposedly "based on", it's an insult to the book simply because it looks nothing like the book.  It can't be "based on" the book but only inspired by the idea and the characters in Mary Shelly's book.  

If they were honest about what this movie was, then I'd have no issue.  The word inspired is much more appropriate here because Del Toro and other writers wrote a new story.  I'm all for creating new stories and new ideas.  I like the movie if I separate it from the book.  I will say the thing I disliked most about this movie was the trope that has been exhausted.  That is making the villain into the hero and the supposed hero into the villain.  This is what they did.  Victor was the monster, and the creature was the hero.  This was called "brilliant writing......a genius twist.....the most amazing story."  You know who the real genius writer is in all of this?  Mary Shelly!   Let me tell you why this isn't brilliant........It was brilliant when Maguire came along and wrote a prequel to The Wizard of Oz that turned into a Broadway hit and now a blockbuster hit!  It was brilliant when they did it in Maleficent.  It was brilliant in Frozen and Frozen 2.  It was brilliant when they did Cruella.  It was brilliant in Enchanted and Disenchanted. It was brilliant when movies like Moana first gave us the misunderstood villain who in the end really wasn't' the villain....SURPRISE!!!!  It was a fun twist to the story for about the first 25 times, but now it's nothing more than a recycled trope.  "What if we make the supposed hero into the villain.....what if we turn the story on its head?"  "OH THAT'S SO MIND-BLOWING!"  Okay, I think it's just tired now and needs to be laid to rest.  It's really not mind-blowing.  

People don't realize that they're kind of being sold a box of rocks.  It's like the girl bossing.  I think most people are officially tired of it now.  Disney is trying to buy IPs that will bring back the men......so, for 20 years they demonized men, dehumanized men, put men down to elevate the woman, they successfully destroyed what made many IPs attractive to the male audience, and even the female audience.  Star Wars- DESTROYED!  Indian Jones- DESTROYED! Pirates of the Caribbean-DESROYED!  Marvel-DESTROYED!  Yeah, what did you expect???  So, when can we have our real villains back?  I'm tired of the flipped around messed up trope!  I'm tired of ALWAYS having to sympathize or understand the villain.  Okay so, sympathizing is one thing, but can't they just be a villain still?  Why do they now have to be our new heroes?  Why does the woman always have to be better, lifted up, and the hero in the end?  Where's all the good male heroes?  Where's all the real villains?

More importantly, where is the respect for the past written masterpieces that are timeless?  I suggested this movie be called Frankenstein's Son or Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein.  Notice Maleficent wasn't named Sleeping Beauty but was essentially that story with a new twist.  Cruella wasn't called 101 Dalmatians because it was a whole new story.  Wicked was not called The Wizard of Oz but was essentially based on that original tale.  Instead of rewriting that tale, Maguire wrote a prequel tale for some of the characters.  Enchanted wasn't named Cinderella, Snow White, or Sleeping Beauty, it was a new story based on old tropes of the past.  The newest Snow White movie was just called Snow White, not Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs because originally the dwarfs were going to be absent, and it was kind of a new story. 

In the end my point really boiled down to word usage and the way we define adaptation and the phrase "based on."  In writing out all of my thoughts and feelings, and being continually challenged on my stance really brought me to something much deeper.  How are we viewing Classic Literature?  Are we seeing them as good stories from the past that need to be modernized?  Are we seeing them as merely an opportunity to improve on their genius?  Or do we respect them for what they are and honor their original message, acknowledging that they are still valuable and applicable in today's society?  Do they still have the power to move us, and stir our emotions like Van Gogh's art can, or Beethoven's music can in their original form? I think so...... but you decide.....