Skip to main content

Promethean Myths of the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Frankenstein Film Adaptations and the Rise of the Viral Zombie

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Frankenstein

Part of the book series: Studies in Global Science Fiction ((SGSF))

Abstract

This chapter traces the development of the Frankenstein myth in twenty-first-century cinema to reach two main conclusions. First, it argues that the poor critical reception and box-office performances of post-millennial adaptations of Frankenstein suggest this myth may be on the wane, at least in cinema. Mainstream adaptations persist in turning Frankenstein’s creature into a hero and victim in a move that betrays a modern preference for the sympathetic monster. Second, the chapter argues that the Frankensteinian decline in cinema may be connected to the rise of the similar figure of the viral zombie. Zombies, as the sources of artificially engineered pandemics, readily channel contemporary anxieties regarding the dangers of unbridled scientific and technological advances and prod the boundaries between death and conscious life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 37.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the plurality of interpretations of the Frankenstein monster in the twentieth century, see Svehla and Svehla (1997).

  2. 2.

    The film acknowledges Shelley’s novel as source text.

  3. 3.

    Hence, cinema’s focus on the reanimation scene, which does not feature as significantly in the novel. See Schor (2003).

  4. 4.

    The reboot of Universal’s horror films as superhero films from 2017 onwards is indicative of this move towards action and adventure . For more on the superhero phenomenon, see Hassler-Forest (2012).

  5. 5.

    This can be explained by the fact that Nispel’s Frankenstein started as a pilot for a television series. The project did not take off.

  6. 6.

    It should be noted that not all elements are kept intact, even in the film’s brief summary scenes: the monster is thrown into a river, something that does not happen in the novel, and Victor is the one to pursue the monster, a scenario that reverses the one found at the end of Shelley’s text.

  7. 7.

    The film made $71 million on a production budget of $65 million. It currently holds a score of 3% in Rotten Tomatoes (averaged from 89 reviews), which indicates a very poor reception. BoxOfficeMojo.com. Accessed October 13, 2016. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ifrankenstein.htm; RottenTomatoes.com. Accessed October 13, 2016. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_frankenstein/#contentReviews

  8. 8.

    The critical consensus in Rotten Tomatoes is that the film ‘ultimately offers little of interest that viewers haven’t already seen in superior Frankenstein films’. RottenTomatoes.com. Accessed October 13, 2016. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/victor_frankenstein_2015/

  9. 9.

    Even the most successful of these, Frankenweenie , only made a modest profit. The film is listed in the website Box Office Flops: A Database of Films that Failed at the Box Office, where its ticket sales are described as ‘c[oming] in far below expectations’. BoxOfficeFlops.com. Accessed October 13, 2016. http://www.boxofficeflops.com/yearly-breakdowns/2012-2/frankenweenie

  10. 10.

    See also Rushing and Frentz (1995).

  11. 11.

    From a microbiological point of view, these films also engage with debates on whether viruses themselves are forms of life. See Woodard (2012: 18).

  12. 12.

    In this respect, they also echo work carried out in the area of philosophical zombies and identity politics. See, for example, Kirk (2005) and Aldana Reyes (2014).

  13. 13.

    See Luckhurst (2015).

  14. 14.

    In films like Frankenstein’s Army (Richard Raaphorst 2013) and Army of Frankenstein (Ryan Bellgardt 2014), it is actually quite difficult to separate Frankenstein monsters from traditional zombies.

Works Cited

  • Abbott, Stacey. 2016. Undead Apocalypse: Vampires and Zombies in the 21st Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldana Reyes, Xavier. 2014. Nothing but the Meat: Posthuman Bodies and the Dying Undead. In We’re All Infected’: Essays on AMC’s The Walking Dead and The Fate of the Human, ed. Dawn Keetley, 142–155. Jefferson: McFarland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, Stuart. (dir.). 2014. I, Frankenstein, film. USA/Australia: Hopscotch Pictures, Lakeshore Entertainment, Lionsgate and SKE Films.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellgardt, Ryan. (dir.). 2014. Army of Frankensteins, film. USA: Six Stitches Entertainment and Boiling Point.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, Kyle William. 2010. How Zombies Conquered Popular Culture: The Multifarious Walking Dead in the 21st Century. Jefferson: McFarland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botting, Fred. 2009. Monstrosity. In The Handbook of the Gothic, ed. Marie Mulvey-Roberts, 204–205. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branagh, Kenneth. (dir.). 1994. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, film. USA/Japan: The IndieProd Company, American Zoetrope and Japan Satellite Broadcasting Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Thor, film. USA: Marvel Studios.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, Tim. (dir.). 2012. Frankenweenie, film. USA: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, Francis Ford. (dir.). 1992. Bram Stoker’s Dracula, film. USA: American Zoetrope and Osiris Films.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denson, Shane. 2014. Postnaturalism: Frankenstein, Film, and the Anthropotechnical Interface. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferland, Guy. (dir.). 2010. ‘TS-19’, The Walking Dead, television. USA: AMC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Lester D., and Allison B. Kavey. 2016. Monstrous Progeny: A History of the Frankenstein Narratives. London/Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassler-Forest, Dan. 2012. Capitalist Superheroes: Caped Crusaders in the Neoliberal Age. Alresford: Zero Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jancovich, Mark. 2016. Frankenstein and Film. In The Cambridge Companion to Frankenstein, ed. Andrew Smith, 190–204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, Robert. 2005. Zombies and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohnen, Matthew. (dir.). 2007. Wasting Away, aka Aaah! Zombies!!, film. USA: Shadowpark Pictures and Wasted Pictures.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBruce, Bruce. (dir.). 2008. Otto; or Up with Dead People, film. Germany/Canada: Jürgen Brüning Filmproduktion, Existential Crisis Productions and New Real Films.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Jonathan. (dir.). 2013. Warm Bodies, film. USA: Mandeville Films.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckhurst, Roger. 2015. Zombies: A Cultural History. London: Reaktion.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAloon, Jonathan. 2015. 2015’s Biggest Box Office Flops. The Telegraph, November 12. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/what-to-watch/2015-box-office-flops. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.

  • McCarthy, Colm. (dir.). 2016. The Girl with All the Gifts, film. UK: Altitude Film Sales, BFI Film Fund and Poison Chef.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuigan, Paul. (dir.). 2016. Victor Frankenstein, film. USA: Davis Entertainment Company and TSG Entertainment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nispel, Marcus. (dir.). 2003. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, film. USA: Next Entertainment, Platinum Dunes and Radar Pictures.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Frankenstein, film. USA: Flame TV, Flame Ventures, L.I.F.T. Production and USA Cable Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picart, Caroline Joan S. 2003. Remaking the Frankenstein Myth on Film: Between Laughter and Horror. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raaphorst, Richard. (dir.). 2013. Frankenstein’s Army, film. USA/Czech Republic/the Netherlands: Dark Sky Films, Pellicola and XYZ Films.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renck, Johan. (dir.). 2010. ‘Vatos’, The Walking Dead, television. USA: AMC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Bernard. (dir.). 2015. Frankenstein, aka FRANKƐN5TƐ1N, film, USA: Bad Badger, Eclectic Pictures and Summerstorm Entertainment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushing, Janice H., and Thomas S. Frentz. 1995. Projecting the Shadow: The Cyborg Hero in American Film. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schor, Esther. 2003. Frankenstein and Film. In The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, ed. Esther Schor, 63–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smight, Jack. (dir.). 1973. Frankenstein: The True Story, film. USA/UK: Universal Studios.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svehla, Susan, and Gary J. Svehla. 1997. We Belong Dead: Frankenstein on Film. Baltimore: Midnight Marquee Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodard, Ben. 2012. Slime Dynamics. Winchester/Washington, DC: Zero Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, Slavoj. 2011. Living in the End Times. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Aldana Reyes, X. (2018). Promethean Myths of the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Frankenstein Film Adaptations and the Rise of the Viral Zombie. In: Davison, C., Mulvey-Roberts, M. (eds) Global Frankenstein. Studies in Global Science Fiction. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78142-6_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics