"WILL BYERS, 12, playing as a wizard." Dustin, "She's basically a wizard." El was always meant to parallel Will, to be his stand-in. Mike transfers his feeling for Will on to her. It's not a coincidence.
Sydcarmy vs Clairecarmy shot type, script, and relationship differences.
I was watching some clips I had for an edit I was working on and then I realized some interesting things about the shot sizes and types used In Carmen's interactions with Claire and Sydney, and the differences between u which can be argued to further push the Sydcarmy agenda. So... Let me cook.
Claire and Carmy
Their INFAMOUS close up shots are often talked about among the fandom. These scenes are often viewed as imposing, absorbing, intrusive and sharp. This shot type is often in their scenes together after medium double shots or over the shoulder shots.
Their initial meeting is quick-cut to these close ups, mirroring how their relationship and connection is brought about. A simple accidental meeting (alternating single medium shots) straight- almost immediately - to these really intense close-ups that, even to people who don't like to analyze these things, felt really affected by.
The cinematography regarding their connection is quick to be close, some would even say too close, and I believe this is meant to reflect their exact relationship.
Let's discuss their "intimate" or "cute" scene at the party in season 2 episode 5. (I cut off the rest of their dialogue because I wanted to discuss/analyze the shot and cinematography choices mostly
- slow push in during initial dialogue about Carmens fake party persona, Logan. (Whom @yannaryartside has discussed EXTENSIVELY and always eats about so I won't go too deep about that just yet but check 'em out.)
- cut-to close up after Carmen attempts to make a genuine observation about Claire's character.
What's the effect?
The initial choice to start this scene off with a slow push into their dialogue gives a personal, real feel. Like you're really there at the party. This makes sense with their topic of discussion at the time, Carmen going along with this fake persona he's adopted at this party.
Then, Carmy changes the subject, trying to make a 'genuine' observation about who Claire is, who he thinks he is.
Carm: "With Kelly, you're really good at that."
Claire: "good at what?"
Carm: "uh... Listening"
But let's think about that observation real quick, it was pretty much fed to him, just like everything else he has ever known about Claire. He sees the image of her his family laid out of her, and now he's seeing this image of a caretaker and listener that she has put out for him. Or, rather, literally made a whole outing with him about, basically saying "lets go to a party so you can watch me comfort my sad friend."
I digress, paired with this dialogue, the slow push in is intentional, to set that kind of real connection and build up a good relationship would have. But then...
Cut to a close up of Claire at his observation. She goes on further to tell him about how in college she was the one that everyone went to and that she would take care of when intoxicated. Not only does this jump straight into the image that's been created and upheld by others of Claire for Carmy, but it also skips a good chunk of the way they could have gotten there from continuing its slow push in. The cut to Claire’s close-up feels like it’s reinforcing the manufactured, performative aspect of her persona. She’s always already presenting an image of herself and the one that Carmy’s been fed by others, and now he's seeing her perform it for him. There’s no real room for them to discover who each other truly are beneath the surface. They get pushed(heh) into that “perfect” intimacy too quickly, (hence the ungodly amount of close ups) and everything gets rushed and artificial. The choice to make their interaction so loose and slow and intentional, to tight and suffocating, cutting to close-ups where Claire is the one “listening” or “comforting,” reinforces how his perception of her has been shaped by external factors rather than his own emotional processing. (Also, kinda wanna talk about how in the clip above you hear the inflection of Carmy's line when he says "listening" goes up, sort of sounding like a question. Does he really know if she's good at listening or is that just what he's been told? Is that just what he's been shown? It sounds like he's questioning whether she is really a good listener or not)
The nature of Clairecarmy cinematography is supposed to be rushed, invading and almost immature, just like them.
As opposed to
Sydney and Carmy
For Sydcarmy, we'll talk about The Table Scene (cue the "oh brother"'s) - sorry I had to speed it up it's a VERY LONG SLOW PUSH
The table scene features a (very) long push-in on Carms and Sydney's interaction under the table with no cuts or major changes in their positions. This scene is often seen as one of the most intimate within this show. It's a real intimacy, as opposed to the contrived "intimacy" we see in clips of Claire and Carmy, where even their dialogue doesn't serve their connection and deepening it as much as the shot types they get do.
Let's discuss the differences between the table scene and the party scene.
That table scene is a chef’s kiss example for tension* in cinematography.
*fun, emotional, and genuine tension, maybe even sexual and romantic, but not malicious
The slow push-in during the Sydney and Carmy's conversation is such a stark contrast to the Claire-Carmy moments. Where Claire and Carmy’s shots are invasive and rushed, Sydney and Carmy’s are carefully measured, building that slow tension that just eats at you. Which is deliberate, of course, as everything with this show is. (Also remember how I brought up the questioning infliction in Carmy's 'observation' he made about Claire? Here, he makes a standing observation about Sydney without any unknowingness. "You like taking care of people." It's resounding. It's real. It's not contrived intimacy, it's natural.)
It's a direct contrast to any scenes of "intimacy" between Carmen and Claire. Just thinking about any scene of them together, there are quick cuts, quick close-ups and shot types that read intimacy parked with dialogue that... Doesn't.
Sydney and Carmy's scenes usually feature these slow push in's, but especially so for the table scene. Just like mentioned with the previous scene, this is supposed to be a reflection of their connection and relationship.
There's a lot of distance in the beginning, a slow, slow push in is like their slow connection building. Not only is this deliberate to bring us as the viewers closer to them, but to bring these characters closer together as well. These cinematography choices are made along with dialogue that is actually intimate rather than cheaply contrived to trick the viewer into believing it is real intimacy (like with almost every Claire and Carmy scene)
Then, there's a still moment in the middle of the push inwards, around when the wide shot becomes a medium. This may be supposed to signify that for them to grow closer, there will be some resistance to face there. Stagnation. This period could possibly be equivalent to season three? That was Carmen's stagnant and regressive state where he began to relive and react his traumas, making Sydney step back. In this moment as the shot stills Carmen's eyes are on Sydney. Just as he always keeps an eye on her. Reminds me of something from season three...
Then the still is broken and we get more of a push in, into an almost close-up, until they both exit from under the table.
This could mean a lot of things in the context of the cinematography reflecting their relationship. But the one that makes the most sense, (and that we pretty much already know) is that
They're both resistant to getting close. But they still want to be there for each other.
Cinematography and shot speaking, the moment ending mid-push felt abrupt. It felt like it could have gotten closer, but it didn't. The intimacy of the moment caught up with both of them, making their clean transition to a more stable position and a still shot type. (Above is a double cowboy shot - waist up, more comfortable[?])
But, script wise, it was a fully realized and well executed moment, that had a beginning middle and end. Their talk was real and cherished, transitioning to another moment where they share that they are not alone. This idea of leaving each other alone is, and becomes a very important motif throughout the series.
The flow of the cinematography differing from the flow of the script is not a mistake or a fluke. I believe that this is all completely intentional.
To us, we hear and we see the intimacy and the connection between these two. We heard their professions, and reassurances and their devotions to one another. What we're shown through the cinematography is a slowly building connection, that takes pauses at times, that has moments of stillness, but continues to push grow and learn alongside each other. We know, just as they know, that there is something there between them, and the transition from under the table to over it is reflective of their resistance. We don't really have those sort of close-up moments between Carm and Syd.
This is sort of saying, if we want to get them to let themselves get close to each other, they need to let it happen.
SO. To sum it up...
Clairecarmy scenes are feigning intimacy and faking the "build" to their connection - really just cutting straight to it
Sydcarmy scenes are real and hold a genuine intimacy between the two, but the only thing keeping it from being a fully realized relationship or connection is themselves. They need to let the build-up happen (because it does) and they need to let each other in(close-up to each other)
I've been watching the text of Liz Duffy Adams' Born With Teeth evolve as a director with an interest in mounting the show in Canada. I did not get to see the RSC production, but, that said, I read the original script before the RSC rehearsals began and was fascinated to see some of the changes emerge from that collaboration. In particular, Will's final speech shifts and, with it, the tenor of the relationship between him and Kit —
Reading the original version made me gasp out loud. I didn't see it coming, and I could see a variety of ways that callous ending could be played. Honestly, it thrilled me and was part of the ongoing interest.
When the RSC production's version of the script came out, I ordered the Nick Hearn books version from England rather than wait for a Canadian edition because a hyperfixation is a hyperfixation, lol.
There was an interesting disclaimer at the beginning of the text, though:
This — and reading people's discussions of the previews and the shows — had me intrigued as to how things switched up. Between the text of this version —
— and, again, the fan reviews, I got an impression of a much softer, more romantic take on the dynamic. Honestly, I was a little disappointed. It felt like the 'teeth' had been pulled.
Also, I had noticed that for this major production in England by the Royal Shakespeare Company, some of the language around Queen Elizabeth I was considerably softened.
Compare Will's exposition speech in scene one from the original script vs the RSC version —
I was left wondering which version would be available for licensing, and was honestly pleased when Adams announced another revision on January 3rd, 2026.
This version splits the difference beautifully, I think, and restores some of the ambiguity really well—
—and brings back the "the man who wrote Iago" reference that makes me feral. Your mileage may vary, but I'm very pleased with this version.
In an earlier draft of the Attack of the Clones screenplay, Scene 51 (which I've already talked about here) ends with this comment by Mace, where he explains what Yoda is doing up in his quarters, followed up by Scene 52, showing Yoda meditating:
And it turns out, this is actually a mini plot point in this draft!
Since Qui-Gon's death, the Jedi are actually on the lookout for the remaining Sith Lord, waiting to sense even a trace of him... but then this happens.
And, like, nobody saw it coming! What the hell!
So that leads to this other cut scene (originally set right after Obi-Wan tells Anakin that Padmé "was happy to see us"), Scene 12, which features an evening conversation between Mace Windu and Yoda.
When Yoda says "the dark side of the Force clouds everything", that's not just an expression to say 'he doesn't know'.
The Dark Side has tainted everything around the Jedi, and THAT'S why the Sith have an advantage. Because they're used to it. They were 'born in the dark, molded by it'.
As a result... in this situation, they're the only ones who can foresee the possibilities of the future, while the Jedi are pretty much walking blind, in a fog.
It's not just that the Sith Lord is a master politician and the Jedi are politically inept. It's that, right now, he's the only one who can truly see the future and roll with it, while the only thing the Jedi can do is go forward, have their guard up and hope for the best.
Which a concept explored in the non-canon comic Sithisis from Star Wars: Visionaries (which, if I recall, was created by Derek Thompson after his regular interactions with George Lucas and a 45-minute interview with Ian McDiarmid)!
2. "Sifo-Dyas", aka Sidious
Okay, so some of y'all probably already knew this tidbit. I did, but didn't know it was in this draft of the script so it was a fun surprise:
Sifo-Dyas was originally a pseudonym used by Darth Sidious.
Throughout the script, his name is spelled "Sido-Dyas" (which sounds a lot more like "Sidious").
And when it comes to the mysterious Sido-Dyas, the Jedi talk about him like they've never heard of him before and full-on say he's an imposter.
At some point, there ended up being a typo in the scene where Obi-Wan talks to Lama Su, and the word was mispelled "Sifo-Dyas" and eventually Lucas decided to make him a different character.
Also the Tyranus who hired Jango Fett is referred to as "Darth Tyranus", in this draft, which I guess was changed because it was gonna be to obvious.
But it does indicate that after TPM, they concluded that Darth Maul was the Master, not the Apprentice.
3. Are Yoda and Padmé friends...?
Okay so there's this moment here:
Yoda taps Padmé with his cane!
Thus CONFIRMING that poking/tapping/hitting people with his cane is Yoda's love language!
Seconds later, there's also this line where Yoda tells Padmé to reign the selflessness and politics back and accept their help:
First off, I'm just picturing Padmé just casually kneeling so she can be at Yoda-height and I'm dying!
But also, like... he calls her "Padmé". They're on a first-name basis!
To me, that's gotta be an implication that in the 10 years between TPM and AOTC... I dunno, Padmé visited the Temple while Anakin was off-planet or just met Yoda at a meeting, and now they've formed a bond and they're pals.
If that's the case, then their Ilum mission in Clone Wars (2003) takes a whole new aspect.
And if we're rolling with this idea... how much of Padmé did Yoda see in Luke?? None? Some?
I think it's a case of when Luke is screwing up royally "he's just like Anakin ffs" and then the few times he's actually listening "nice to see you inherited some of your mother's sense!"
Bear in mind, these bits of dialog never made it on the screen but they did make it to the "final" version of the screenplay published in The Art of Attack of the Clones. So if I had to guess the reason for deletion, it was probably for pacing purposes.
Bonus:
Yoda introducing the younglings in his care is such an adorable thing.
Just in general, this scene is great. George Lucas had this to say in the AOTC commentary track:
"This is a chance for me to play with that more mischievous side of his character and get away from the 'official, serious Yoda' that ends up [...] on the Jedi Council, where he really isn't allowed to be as fun and tease people. In this environment with the kids, he's able to lighten up a little bit, which I really wanted to do for his character. It's much more what his character is in the other movies, especially in Empire Strikes Back."
But also... like Yoda is hyping up the younglings! Is that a thing?
Did Dooku & Yoda have competitions and introduce their respective clans like hype men? I'm picturing a scene where Yoda's like:
Yoda: "To a competition, the mighty Bear Clan challenges the Thranta Clan!"
Bear Clan younglings: "GROOAAAAH!"
And Dooku is like:
Dooku: "The gallant Thranta Clan is ready to clean the floors with the Bear Clan whenever you want!"
Thranta Clan younglings: *POSE MAJESTICALLY*
Lucifer's Speeches to Sam and Castiel in Abandon All Hope
Both of these speeches are so good and are revealing in how Lucifer not only sees himself but his relationship to these characters. As well as how he's leaving out key information in his story depending on how it suits him.
First he speaks with Castiel after trapping him in holy fire.
This is Lucifer's take on fallen angels. Rebellion = falling. Which is absolute and how heaven sees it. He sees a part of his much younger self in Cas, the beginnings of falling.
The emphasis in this speech is rebellion. The fact that Lucifer rebelled and was cast out. It lacks specificity, because the reason for rebelling is relevant for both angels. It's similar but Cas in this moment wouldn't see it this way so he leaves things vague.
And he's right. After Lucifer is locked back up Castiel does become the fallen angel and heaven's main target for YEARS.
The final part of this interaction always gets me because yes, Lucifer is the repeated death of Cas. Most importantly in Swan Song but later as well. This is where that was foretold.
Then he speaks to Sam during the grave ritual scene.
This is the speech where we get some detail. Still omitting a few key points, but this is where we actually get the sense that this was deeply hurtful to Lucifer. This is where he speaks about how close he was with his family and how personal this betrayal was.
I think the biggest line that we really don't appreciate until much later in the show is "All because I was different" Lucifer was different, he was the one God trusted with the mark to seal Amara and it changed him, and after that surely God and the others did look at him differently. They viewed him as a lost cause. Also the "I had a mind of my own" is interesting because it does make me wonder if that meant his mind couldn't be reset or fixed by god or the other angels, did they try?
The rest is a specific appeal to Sam's emotions, pulling on words he knows Sam will react to like "Freak" which he got from Sam in 5 x 03 when Sam confesses to him that he knows he's a freak, and he saw how upset Sam was about that term, so here he applies it to himself to strengthen the connection.
But we see he's very intentional with his use of words, telling the same story to a slightly different tune, all to make sure he is the most relatable and sympathetic to whomever he's speaking to.
With Cas it's words like "rebel" "cast out" "public enemy"
With Sam it's words like "freak" "begged" "of my own" "different" "monster"
Then I think another key thing here is "who I loved" first of all, directly implies to Sam that he is capable of love. Which for angels is very different than the human concept. Second, past tense in reference to Michael.
In both speeches he uses his past to relate to the audience and then takes it a step further to imply that similarities in their stories mean they will share the same fate. "I rebelled, and was damned. So if you rebel they will damn you too" "I was called a monster by my brother and he turned on me, well your brother has called you a monster, so how long before he turns on you?"
Anyway just a look at how Lucifer uses words to very quickly relate and manipulate his audience to his purposes.
saltburn review please ? it’s very important to me to know your thoughts
i’m so sorry i took forever to answer this, i wanted to really dive in and needed the time/headspace to do it in. it’s not the best movie i’ve ever seen by any means but there’s so many dynamics/themes/motifs that i can’t stop thinking about.
spoilers and me rambling endlessly under the cut
the relationship that has the most meat is obviously between oliver and felix. i’ve been ruminating on how love and hate are often not opposites but rather two ribbons dancing entwined with one another. both are an obsession. i can’t stop thinking about you. i loathe you. i wish you were dead. i can’t live without you. i need to be you, a part of you, inside you. i need to consume you. i can never get close enough. it infuriates me.
i want to fucking destroy you and then kiss and cradle every broken piece. i want to wear your skin. i have to get rid of you forever. i’ll never let you go.
there’s also obviously a possessiveness that oliver has over felix (as well as most of the other characters at saltburn). “i protected him” (you’re mine).
funnily enough, oliver is felix’s pet just as much as felix is oliver’s
more on oliver’s character in general: everyone is a pawn to him and fills some emotional/psychological/financial hole.
when his real self slips through there’s a sociopathic dominance
…..his need to make venetia and farleigh “behave”. his need to keep felix right where he wants him.
on venetia and oliver: obviously i love eroticism with a side of gore. vampiric and disturbingly intimate.
also loved the weird dynamic of control regarding venetia eating, again as if she were oliver’s pet
on felix and venetia: there are DEFINITELY little glimpses of incestuous undertones which were very interesting. they’re attached at the hip. matching tattoos. sharing clothes. venetia sits in her brother’s lap despite them both being adults. venetia seducing all of oliver’s closest friends and him being disturbed by it
…venetia’s shock and horror at finding oliver is wearing felix’s aftershave right after they bury him but also being intoxicated by the twisted perversion
more on venetia: i really liked her character as a whole and the actress’ portrayal of her was enthralling. she’s truly a cold blooded ghost, and a snake at times
finally here’s some miscellaneous sections of the script that i really liked
Analyzing Nick Dear's Frankenstein (and why we should move on to better play adaptations)
Alrighty y'all, its the long-awaited Nick Dear Frankenstein analysis post! This post is focusing specifically on Dear's characterization of the Creature, and why it negatively affects the play overall (plus some adaption theory added in for funsies). For additional context, I am an MFA candidate studying theatre, and I did this research and the accompanying slides for a project in my graduate-level theatrical criticism class. Basically this post is the text version of that presentation, with some of the slides included, and the fluff trimmed. There is a fair bit of academic jargon in here, but I tried to make it as accessible as possible!
And with all of that out of the way, the Nick Dear Frankenstein deep dive is under the cut! (And citations at the end.)
CW: Discussions of violence and SA.
Before I get into the script itself (which if you are interested in reading it, a PDF version is easily found on google), I want to introduce a fun adaptation theory which is specific to studying Frankenstein, called "Frankenstein Complex Theory." This theory comes from Dennis R. Cutchins and Dennis R. Perry in the introduction section to "Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster's Eternal Lives in Popular Culture." (A fantastic read that I recommend to anyone if your school or local library has it in circulation.) This introduction introduces the "complex" theory, as well as some really awesome ideas that get used and referenced by all of the authors included in the book.
Basically Cutchins and Perry assert that traditional adaptation theory is simple not enough to properly study Frankenstein and it's innumerable adaptations. One might also assert that Frankenstein itself is an adaptation, Mary Shelley published multiple editions of her story, and one could argue that the original story is an adaptation of other stories like "Paradise Lost." Linda Hutcheon, another academic in the field of adaptation studies who also wrote a fantastic book (cited at the end), talks about this idea of "palimpsestuous Intertextuality." I want to first argue here that the original text of Frankenstein and its adaptations (the "myth" of Frankenstein) are palimpsestuous.
And when I say the "myth" of Frankenstein is "palimpsestuous," its basically just saying that the "myth" (tall green guy with bolts in his neck who is mostly non-verbal, going around killing people mostly without rhyme or reason) is the predominate cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster, rather than how he actually is in the book. All of the cultural ideas of what Frankenstein's monster is are this giant network which interweaves with itself, references and builds off itself, and constantly creates new things from these connections. The book and it's adaptations are not in hierarchy, one is not implicitly better or more important than another, they all work together to create our cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster. Thus, palimpsestuous Intertextuality.
But what is this "Complex" theory I mentioned earlier, and what does it have to do with Nick Dear? Well, here is a helpful diagram!
Essentially, every piece of Frankenstein media every created, including Mary Shelley's original novel, are all part of the "Frankenstein Network." The complex, however, is personal, it includes anything from that network that you have personally consumed. Some people have a wider complex than others, but nonetheless, most of us have some kind of Frankenstein Complex (if you're this far in the post I'm assuming you have one lol.) I think Cutchins and Perry really popped off when they created this theory, its a fantastic way of studying/teaching adaptation.
But onto Nick Dear. Why did I just spend so much time covering adaptation theory and teaching you all a bunch of academic jargon? Well firstly, I spent a lot of time on that research for class and I wanted to share. But secondly and more importantly, my thesis for this entire post is that Nick Dear, whose goal with his play was to create an adaptation which humanized the Creature and sticks very close to the novel, created something that was unintentionally more a product of his personal complex and the palimpsestuous "myth" of Frankenstein's monster. He wrote a play that deeply mischaracterizes the Creature, and in turn uses violence and SA for shock value rather than substance.
And maybe this is a bold claim, but I think comparing the plot of the novel (from the creature's point of view) and the plot of Dear's play is a good place to start. And for your visual reference, I created a plot diagram for both so that we can compare the two side-by-side. (Thanks Freytag lol.)
The first thing we can notice about comparing the overall plot structure is that they are indeed, very similar. And this tends to be most people's reactions to seeing this play. That compared to most other Frankenstein media, it is super faithful to the book in terms of setting and characters and hitting important plot points. And I too want to praise Dear for that. I think he was extremely smart about what characters he chose to cut or combine, and the plot points he chose to include. I also personally love that despite the cutting of Walton's character, Victor and the Creature still visit the arctic at the end of the play. Dear made so many great choices with his play, but ends up squandering it his mischaracterization of the Creature.
But how is he mischaracterizing the Creature? Well first, lets look at how Shelley characterizes him in the book, specifically in terms of violence. I argue, that anytime the Creature kills someone in the book, it is a mostly equal/proportionate reaction to the violence done against him. His first murder his killing William, and the subsequent execution of Justine after he frames her for William's murder. All of this comes after Victor's initial rejection of the Creature, and rejection by multiple villages, the DeLacey's and the young drowning girl and her father. Killing William and Justine was his first retribution after all of the rejection and violence against him, which was initiated by Victor creating him and rejecting him in the first place. And this is his only planned revenge at that point, his next move was demanding that Victor create a female creature for him, with the plan to flee and live a peaceful life in South America (whether he actually meant what he said is up to interpretation.) His next murders only come after Victor destroys the unfished female creature. This is when the Creature kills Henry and then Elizabeth. Elizabeth (and arguably Henry) are Victor's partners, and the people he most personally loves. Killing them is direct retribution for Victor destroying the female Creature, who was supposed to be (at least from the Creature's perspective) the Creature's romantic partner. All of the Creature's direct murders are direct mirrors to Victor's transgressions against the Creature. William is killed for the initial rejection and subsequent exiling from society, Henry and Elizabeth are killed for the destruction of his future romantic partner.
Dear takes a different approach in adapting these murders. In his play, the Creature's first murder is not William, but is actually the DeLacey's. After being personally tutored by Father DeLacey for a significant amount of time, the eventual and fated meeting with Felix and Agatha arrives and the creature is rejected by them. Instead of going straight to Geneva, as he does in the novel, he first sets fire to the DeLacey's cabin, killing the entire family inside. To me, this feels like the first instance of spectacle and shock over actual substance. In both Shelley's novel and Dear's play, as the creature learns about humanity and war, he clearly has a distaste for violence and killing. And because of this, I don't understand why the Creature has such an extreme reaction to the DeLacey's, especially in this version where Father DeLacey shows him so much direct kindness, and it is Felix and Agatha specifically who reject him. Why would the Creature decide to kill them all? If Dear wanted to add additional deaths, why not just kill Felix and Agatha and spare Father DeLacey because of his previous kindness? This violence, to me, feels undeserved and does not mirror the violence done against him by this family. From a staging perspective, the visual of the house burning is actually a very impressive collaboration between the set and lighting designers on the giant stage of the National Theatre. But I question why this moment needs to be here, when the rest of the play and it's staging in the premier production already has so much beauty and shock and spectacle. This is also the first moment where I find the Creature unsympathetic, because this action seems overly extreme as a response.
After this moment, the murder of William is different but not too dissimilar in tone to the novel. At it's heart, it is still the Creature's first direct revenge against Victor. After this, our next big departure from the novel is when the female creature is fully brought to life, different to the novel where she is never fully given life. Victor killing her after she has been able to briefly live is a more extreme measure on Victor's part too, which by my own argument, may warrant a more extreme reaction from the Creature. And to be absolutely clear, Victor simply kills/dismantles her, and nothing more. As for the creature's reaction, Henry is a cut character in this adaptation, so we obviously don't see his death. Instead, the Creature kills Elizabeth, but in this version, not only does the creature kill her, he also r*pes her. This is my biggest point of contention with the play. To me, the subtext in Dear's version is that the Creature views both Elizabeth and the Female Creature as some kind of property, and when his property (the female Creature) is taken away by Victor, he takes Victor's property (Elizabeth) away too. Right before her death in the play, the Creature and Elizabeth actually have a really touching conversation, and they seem to genuinely bond. And so when the Creature eventually kills her afterwards, him r*ping her comes completely out of left field. The only explanation to me, is that despite empathizing with her, the Creature ultimately still views her as Victor's property, and needed to take her away from Victor in a way that was more than just taking her life from him. And honestly, it's a really gross interpretation of these characters. And I want to be very clear that I know depiction is not endorsement, and that I also believe there is a time and a place for depicting SA on stage, but this play was not the time nor the place. The creature simply killing Elizabeth is enough to get the point across, the SA seems to have been added for pure shock value, and again, spectacle. One could argue that this action done by the creature is part of his sexual awakening, just as he learns about other aspects of humanity. But again I believe this is not justified by the text of the play, and is written for pure shock value at the expense of another character, specifically a woman. I would call this misogynistic.
And these extreme reactions from the Creature in Dear's play seem to create this hyper-masculinized version of the character and the story. And I think that is a shame considering the original story was written by a woman, and Mary Shelley did a fantastic job of writing a story where the men can exist across a spectrum of masculinity, without needing to be this stereotyped version of hypermasculinity with a desire for sexual vengeance. I mean, Victor creating the Creature is a pretty clear metaphor for motherhood/parenthood, especially considering Shelley's experience with motherhood and the loss of her children and her own mother. And not to say that a cis man isn't capable of writing an authentic adaptation of a woman's story, but here, I think Nick Dear missed the mark, especially in regards to Elizabeth's death and his depiction of Creature/masculinity.
And I don't want to boil this down to, "Nick Dear is a man and therefore his adaption is automatically bad." Because I don't think that's the case, and I think that's an unfair assumption to make. What I do think, is that despite trying to make an adaptation that strove to humanize the Creature better than most other adaptations, Dear instead created an adaptation that fell into the overly-violent monster tropes of the greater Frankenstein Network of adaptations. In essence, Dear may have unintentionally become a product of his own "complex." And unfortunately, that subconscious influence may be partially why we get this interpretation of the Creature, and the unnecessary shock factors added into the story.
So where do we go from here? Chances are, if you see a theatre company putting on a production of Frankenstein, it's probably the Nick Dear version. This was the case for me last October when I accidentally attended a production of this script at a professional theatre company back home in Florida. My hope is that one day we can move on from this script, and find a Frankenstein play adaptation that humanizes the Creature in a way that most audiences (who probably have not read the book) are unfamiliar with, while also not resorting to shock value that dehumanizes the women in the story. My homework for myself beyond this research project, is to read more Frankenstein play adaptations, and specifically ones that are not written by cis men. I think the experiences of women, trans people and disabled people (or obviously any intersection of these communities and identities) could really lend themselves to new and exciting interpretations of the script that bring broader perspectives into context. If you have any suggestions of Frankenstein plays or playwrights who have written Frankenstein plays, I would love to check them out! I also suggest giving the National Theatre world premier pro-shot of Nick Dear's Frankenstein a watch, purely just for the design of the show. Costumes, set, sound and lighting are all really spectacular, and I would love to do an analysis of that aspect of the show one day.
Obviously there was a lot about this show I didn't cover (Cumberbatch, I know), I just wanted to cover the characterization of the Creature at a textual level, because to me that is the most glaring issue with this play. Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks for reading if you got this far!
Citations (I didn't do a great job of referencing these in-text, but all of these sources are great and I highly recommend checking them out!)
Cutchins, Dennis R, and Dennis R Perry. “Introduction- The Frankenstein Complex: When the text is more than a text.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 1–19.
Dear, Nick, and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Frankenstein: Based on the Novel by Mary Shelley. Faber and Faber, 2011.
Hutcheon, Linda. “Beginning to Theorize Adaptation: What? Who? Why? How? Where? When?” A Theory of Adaptation, Routledge, New York, New York, 2006, pp. 1–32.
Jones, Kelly. “Adaptations of ‘liveness’ in theatrical representations of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 316–334.
Pfeiffer, Lee. “Frankenstein: Film by Whale [1931].” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 24 Nov. 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-film-by-Whale.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1831.
