فرانکنشتاین؛ اقتباسی از رمان مری شلی

by Nick Dear, Farshad Rezaei (Translator)

Slowly I learnt the ways of humans: how to ruin, how to hate, how to debase, how to humiliate. And at the feet of my master I learnt the highest of human skills, the skill no other creature owns: I finally learnt how to lie.

Childlike in his innocence but grotesque in form, Frankenstein's bewildered creature is cast out into a hostile universe by his horror-struck maker. Meeting with cruelty wherever he goes, the friendless Creature, increasingly desperate and vengeful, determines to track down his creator and strike a terrifying deal.

Urgent concerns of scientific responsibility, parental neglect, cognitive development and the nature of good and evil are embedded within this thrilling and deeply disturbing classic gothic tale.

Frankenstein, based on the novel by Mary Shelley, premiered at the National Theatre, London, in February 2011.

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Horror, Classics, Science Fiction, Drama, Fiction

113 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Nick Dear is a British playwright and screenwriter. His best-known plays include The Art of Success and Frankenstein; among his many screenplays are Persuasion and Agatha Christie's Poirot. He lives in London, England.

Reviews

[Kenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible adaption!

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

An Even More Modern Prometheus

It’s been a long time since I last read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and so I do feel doubtful about comparing her novel with Nick Dear’s adaptation for the stage, although my dim recollections of that 1818 masterpiece prompt me that there are some differences that should be mentioned.

For a start, whereas Mary Shelley tells the story mainly from the perspective of Victor Frankenstein (as reported by the captain of the ship which saves Frankenstein), Nick Dear gives us the point of view of the Monster from the very start, which makes us more ready to sympathize with the Creature – at least for the first part of the play – and to look askance at Frankenstein himself. In the course of the play, it becomes more and more obvious that the young scientist is a deeply flawed man – unable to feel real love for his fiancée Elizabeth, whom he shuns, and haunted by the burning ambition to discover the secret of life and prove himself a genius. It even seems as though it were not his keen interest in science that keeps Frankenstein aloof from Elizabeth and his family but, rather the other way around, his inability to show any real emotion that makes him take refuge to science. Paradoxically, the Creature itself, although ugly and ungainly, proves capable of love and is driven by a need for company and affection – and had not Victor Frankenstein abandoned him to a world in which he would be made to suffer for his terrifying outward appearance, but had he shown a true Creator’s interest in his Creature, all might have ended differently.

However, Victor Frankenstein is a vain, power-hungry and heartless man – probably, and that is the second difference, much more so than in Mary Shelley’s novel, and maybe there’s the major message of the play: Science as such is neither good nor bad, but we should not forget that it lies in the hands of flawed human beings, which means that its results can both prove harmful and beneficial. At least, I’d like to think it that way since after all, we can witness both the positive and negative effects of technological and scientific development.

There is yet another difference between the play and the novel, and this is the scene in which the Creature rapes Elizabeth. This is a detail which cooled off my enthusiasm about this new approach to the old Frankenstein tale considerably because I think that it does not really serve the purpose of the story and may – here I am just trying to make an educated guess – have found its way into the plot mainly on the grounds of it being dramatic and gross. Let’s take one step back and consider: The Creature wanted Frankenstein to give him a female companion, and Frankenstein at first complies with this request – not least because he senses a chance of even excelling his first creation. Then, however, when the scientist notices that the Creature is apparently more capable of genuine affection than he himself is, he destroys the female Creature. The original Creature then vows to have his revenge – but this would have lain in killing Elizabeth and not in raping her before. Somehow the Creature’s going to such extremes of viciousness is out of character in that however infuriated he might be after Frankenstein’s second treason, his hatred is always directed against his creator and not against the people in his creator’s entourage. In the case of Elizabeth, this additional streak of viciousness is even less creditable since, in Dear’s version of the story, she is the first person (apart from the blind old man) who ever sympathized with him.

All in all, the rape scene spoilt the play considerably, although I would not say that Nick Dear’s interpretation of the Frankenstein tale is completely without its merits.

[Amy H. Sturgis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nick Dear's play condenses much of the action of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (entire main characters such as Henry Clerval are missing), but I think it does an admirable, at times truly chilling, job of distilling some of Shelley's major themes. I was particularly impressed with the way this play handles the question of original sin (it's clear that the Creature is "born" innocent, with an innate desire to be good, and only learns evil from humans) and considers the Frankenstein/Creature, God/Creation relationship as one quite possibly of bad, even "unnatural" parenting (using Milton's Paradise Lost, as Shelley did, to great effect). The play is at its best when using Frankenstein - with his artificial ambition and emotional and physical frigidity - as the foil for the Creature, who seems to understand love, loyalty, and even innocent lust far better. I was genuinely moved by the play, and although it does have its weaknesses, I recommend it to those who love the novel.

I'll be anxious to see what changes have been made to the play between its original publication and its current run at the National Theatre. (I'm most excited about seeing the performance!) Some theater critics mentioned a few moments of ill-timed humor, and I didn't see them in the published script. Others mentioned a lack of chemistry between Frankenstein and his cousin/bride-to-be, but that most definitely was part of the point: Frankenstein spends years of his time shut away, attempting to create artificial life (and then abandoning it), with no connection to his fiancee or her desire to create natural life (by becoming a mother), to the point that she asks why he never speaks to her. The Creature, on the other hand, converses and connects with her immediately (and proves far more motivated about getting into her bed). This fits well with the theme of the work as a whole.

If the current production reflects this play at its strongest, it will be very powerful indeed.

Edit after seeing the National Theatre performance: I noticed only a few changes between the published script version and the adaptation as performed. Victor's last words to Elizabeth on their wedding night changed from "I will try to love you, Elizabeth" to "I do love you, Elizabeth," although the delivery made it clear that the original meaning remained. Also, the Creature's comment after the deeply poignant rape/murder scene changed from the rather weak "That was good" to the far more wrenching "I am a man"; not only had the Creature experienced sex, but he had lied, brutalized, stolen, and killed - in short, he was like other men now.

[William Gwynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great play adaption of the classic story of Frankenstein

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This play, while based on Mary Shelly's story, has a much more different focus. A lot of the characters that were in the oriignal story got trimmed to make way for Frankenstein and his creature. It is much more fast-paced that leaves me wanting for more. Definitely looking forward to the actual stage play now.

[Jobie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, well, well.

I'll tell you what "the play" seems to do and/or on what journey (effect it could have) it could take the audience.

***SPOILER ALERT***

The play is told from the viewpoint of the Monster. This contrasts the novel which is told from Victor's point of view (for the most part) through the Captain of the ship who rescues him. The 1st half of the play, follows the story of the book. Since I had just read the book, I found this redundant and boring. I will admit, I was hoping for a twist or a new perspective on the original telling of the story. We get this, somewhat, at the opening of the book since it is told from the Monster's point of view. However, it still seems like a twice told tale.

The same questions seem to apply. Does Victor truly have a God complex? Will anyone have compassion on the Monster? Who is the REAL monster?

Mid-way our senses pick-up a twist. One desire, "Will anyone have compassion on the Monster?" seems to about to be requited in the scene with Elizabeth and the Monster (not found in the book). She seems not only capable but willing to have compassion on the Monster and intercede for him to her husband, Victor. The Monster abruptly apologizes, rapes her and kills her.

But here we are, as an audience, lulled into a sense of "the same" (that is assuming you know the story well; there would be another effect if you do not), even slightly familiar with the story you feel that a sinister cloud is about to erupt.

I will save the retelling of plot points, but we see the Monster devolve into a sadistic task Master, teetering between devotion and loathing for Victor. We continue to ask about the nature of Monsters even more through to and especially at the end of the play. There is no redemption, no hope. Mankind is left, like this creature with is God, to devolve and God (ie, Victor) is at the mercy of it's own creation.

A note about the rape scene

While I'm going to admit that I'm sensitive about rape scenes, this is not an apology. On the contrary, it's a call for everyone to re-evaluate their view of rape scenes in art and story.

My first problem, the rape scene does not move the story forward - that's my "artistic" problem with the rape scene. It also doesn't augment the character (except for maybe the worse). Maybe it makes him more despicable. In the end the Monster beats Victor to the brink of death, mourns him, then revives him. Wouldn't we be more torn about our feelings for the Monster if, when we arrived there, we had a smidge more sympathy for him?

We are creations and we wrestle with God. What makes other's wresting with God heartbreaking is their virtue, not their vice. I want my heart to break for the Monster as it had so many times before when I felt his actions were almost justified. Neither way did Elizabeth deserve to die. You could argue that killing her was almost solely an act against Victor - it was quick, it was without malice toward her. However, it is much harder to argue the rape being anything other than a violation of Elizabeth herself. Why is this necessary?

Why is a rape scene necessary here or anywhere? To me it's indicative of two things. One, it's a collective reminder of the power men/society/evil (I am loathe to blame just men here - there is something else at work) over women. The majority of rape scenes we see are men over women (though other's are becoming prevalent). It has started to make me sick (and this sickness makes me tired) to constantly see women's no's not taken seriously (as in "Game of Thrones"), their sympathies used against them, and their choice to GIVE their passion stripped from them. This latter idea makes me the most sad. Why can't Elizabeth be allowed to give her passion to the Monster in whatever form that will take? Why can't we as artist tell that story? As a writer, I understand that you tell the story that is in you. But why does this story settle in our collective conscience and then come out at will?

Two, what does it say about men? The Monster's raping of Elizabeth solidifies his "Monter-ness." There is no going back now. He is nothing other than a monster. Whatever sympathy that I could have had for him in gone and I will be hard-pressed to retrieve it. I wanted to love the Monster; I wanted to freely open my love to him. I cannot do it now for it has been ripped from me. I want my men good, as good as they can be and be freely themselves. I no longer want men in my stories to take from women what women want, can and would passionately give. But, from the Monster, that was stripped; he can no longer allow himself to open up to the free give because he took. I would challenge that a rape scene isn't just about taking power away from women, it robs men of the gift of being men of honor and passion. It makes us look as them as if they are no more than monsters. I'm tired of men being monsters in my stories.

[Emilie · Rating 3 out of 5]

…what?😀 the ending……

[norrell · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.25/5
Absolute dogshit that in my opinion fundamentally misunderstands or willfully misinterprets Frankenstein's themes and characters

[Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nick Dear has created an amazing play from Mary Shelley's novel.
There were so many wonderful moments in this play. I felt such pity for the creature and also anger at some of his actions. He was driven by revenge against his creator.
I felt so much less sympathy for Victor Frankenstein. He is just as arrogant here as he was in the novel. He created a living being and then abandoned it to the cruelty of the world.
The most heartbreaking scene was the last when the creature is pleading with Victor not to die. You see what could have been a son's love for his father.
I recommend this play to all.

[Liz · Rating 5 out of 5]

RTC.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Actual rating: 4.5 stars
CW: rape, death of a child

{General spoiler warning ahead}

I was fortunate enough to have read Frankenstein for the first time in October 2019, so when I heard the National Theatre was live streaming their 2011 performance of "Frankenstein" with the Nick Dear adaptation script, I knew I had to see it.
Due to the combination of the fantastic acting, the amazing set design, and the excellent adaptation script, it is by far one of the most powerful plays I have seen in my life. (I'm putting it up there with Sarah Ruhl's Eurydice and the first time I saw Macbeth performed live.)
In fact, immediately after watching the performance, I sought out Dear's script and read it, which is what the rest of this review is based on. (And I'm probably going to watch the performance at least one or two more times before it's taken down.)

I loved Dear's adaptation. I already love Shelley's novel, but I really appreciated the twists that Dear took in his version. While Frankenstein is the focal point of the novel, the narrator who the audience follows, Dear cuts straight to the Creature's tale. Without Frankenstein monopolizing the audience's time, the viewers are more easily able to empathize with the Creature.
While there is still the moral ambiguity of the original novel clearly apparent in the Creature's actions, Dear's take on Frankenstein's character pushes the audience towards a more interesting position of trying to make them take sides. The answer, ultimately, is still the same, stark gray question mark at the end of the play.

I loved it. Oh, I loved this play so much. I desperately want to own a hard copy, though I'm not yet sure where the best place for me to buy it is.
The ending scene was absolutely amazing, hands down my favorite.
Two remarks on the National Theatre's take - in the scene after William's death, they cut short the conversation between Elizabeth and Frankenstein, to its detriment. I thought the original fit her character better. When I was watching, even pre-script reading, I thought she lacked something and gave up the idea of going to England far too easily.
But on the other hand, Dear's script calls for an on-stage rape scene, while the National Theatre cut to black in order to not show it. And honestly, they get much thanks from me. That sequence was difficult enough to watch as it was.

Additional applause to Dear - hearing so many quotes from Milton's Paradise Lost all afternoon finally gave me the push I've been waiting for to start reading it, even after it sitting on my bookshelf for a good six or seven years.

[Jolanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes prior to reading: Yeah... I'm not even going to pretend I'm unbiased when it comes to this version of Frankenstein. I saw the play twice ( okay, it was a live-stream, but it counts ) and I loved it both times. This was my first introduction to the story of Frankenstein, I hadn't actually read the original novel yet, the first time I saw the play. Anyway, I skipped out of the movie theatre, being the happiest person on planet earth on both occasions. I just had to get my claws on the actual script so I could revel in the beauty that is Frankenstein, seeing as we won't be getting a dvd anytime soon, if we get it at all. And when I was in London last year, I found it in a bookstore. Score! Leaving it behind was not an option. I will enjoy this.
Chances are I might become more critical of the actual script, now I can focus more on the actual plot and not be overwhelmed by the scenery, the music and the two amazing actors in the roles of Victor Frankenstein and his monster. Because, to be honest, there were things that bothered me when watching the play, and those issues are centered, for the most part, around the secondary characters. But the scenes between Victor and his monster are so heartwrenchingly beautiful, that I will always love this version of Frankenstein. For the full experience, I do recommend listening to the soundtrack whilst reading. I cannot recommend the soundtrack enough, two years after seeing the play for the first time, I still listen to it on a regular basis and certain songs haven't been off my playlist since. That's saying a lot. Go download that soundtrack, shoo shoo, off you go. Now, here we go.

Food for thought: In one of the scenes between the Creature and De Lacey, De Lacey talks about different views on humanity. One school of thought says that fate is everything, god decides how you're going to turn out and there's nothing you can do to change that. De Lacey, however, subscribes to the theory that all men are born 'good' and it's a person's surroundings that influence a person and eventually will decide whether a person will turn out good or evil. I agree with De Lacey, I am not religious. But ever since reading that particular part of the dialogue between De Lacey and the Creature, I never could shake the thought: Where does the Creature stand in this discussion? What does he believe? The thing is, you don't drop something like that in a play, where every line counts, if it's not somehow important. And I can't shake the thought that the Creature might be the embodiment of the view that God makes us, in every sense of the word.
The Creature's God, of course, is not the entity we view as God. The Creature's God is Victor Frankenstein, who created, abandoned, and cheated him of a normal life. There's a definite love-hate relationship going on between the Creature and his creator, because no matter how much the Creature hates Victor for the above mentioned, he still yearns for recognition and affection from Victor. The Creature tried desperately to be good, but was doomed to be ostracized by society. I think he believes that he can not influence his lifecourse, his path was predetermined the moment he was born, when Victor turned him out. He says as much in the first confrontational scene between himself and Victor: "and I was good, I wanted to be good." There's real heartbreak in those lines, and in a sense I feel he's blaming Victor. He wánted to be good, to be a part of society like any other man, but Victor cheated him of that option. That was not the path he was meant to take.
When the Creature kills Elisabeth, he's finally turned his back on humanity and trying to be good. Elisabeth is the only person to fully grasp what he is and show him kindness in spite of that. It's when the Creature kills Elisabeth it becomes clear, to me, that the Creature doesn't believe he's capable of changing his own fate. He was never meant to be good, the beautiful things in life were never meant to be his. So he finally gives in to the idea that has been ever present ever since De Lacey explained his view of the world to him: he cannot change fate, his God has damned him to wickedness. And wicked he shall be.

The Creature can't turn his back on Victor, no matter how much he hates him. The first confrontational scene, again, is brilliant in portraying that aspect of the Creature, as is the final scene. The Creature chastises Victor for demanding that the Creature acknowledges him to be his master. He skimped out on his responsibilities, so he doesn't deserve to be called his master. But the second Victor agrees to work his magic once more, the Creature starts calling him master, flattering him, feeding Victor's pride ( if that was even possible ). Yes, of course he's going to appease his master when he's going to make him a bride, but it's also the closest the Creature comes to being accepted by Victor. I think the Creature is genuinely pleased that Victor engages into conversation with him and explains how he views the world.


Victor, on the other hand, is a cruel God. He's in awe of his creation, proud of himself of being able to go where no other person has gone before. He considers himself a god and forgets about his humanity in the process. All that matters to him is the work, there's no place in his world for anything else. He seems to think other humans are tools to him. He's got a fiancé, but he doesn't really seem to care for her, he marries her out of obligation. As soon as life starts intervering with the work, he puts life on hold. Even when he does get married, he has an ulterior motive that's got nothing to do with love. Victor isn't capable of love, he's consumed by pride and guilt. It's ironic and tragic that the creation is more capabale of emotion, love, than the creator, but the creation is the one spurned by society, whilst the other has rank, name and fame and thus can do as he pleases.

Anyway, by the rambling you can see that I love this play. I could read/see it over and over and over again, only for the three confrontational scenes between Victor and the Creature, being the scene on the mountain, the one in the shack and the final confrontation in the arctic circle. Victor and his Creature are two sides of the same coin, their lives are interwoven, one can't exist without the other. There's a tragic beauty in that, and I love all things tragic.
So, what's stopping me from giving the play 5 stars? Well, the secondary characters. By god, I hate most of the secondary characters. Their dialogue feels forced, they're used as plot devices, never as real characters. When William is scared to death of the Creature, he still takes the time to explain that his brother never leaves his room and that William considers him 'dull'. That's not the sort of information I'd share if someone was threatening my life. Same with Elisabeth, I wouldn't be discussing my relationship with my fiancé when my fiancés younger brother has just gone missing. Yes, these things need to be addressed, because they're important to the plot, but there's a time and a place people, and that's definitely not on the pier where you last saw your fiancés brother befóre he went missing.

[Mason Morrow · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this play in preparation to audition for it as part of our upcoming theater season. At least from reading it, most of the dialogue felt weak. Interesting themes about innocence and knowledge of evil sure, but wasn’t jazzed about this one. It wasn’t bad or terrible, but it wasn’t excellent. Again! Just from reading! Staging is a whole different thing oc

[AR · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yeah this was a terrible Frankenstein adaptation. I’ve seen Frankenstein adapted well to the stage before, but I don’t think this adaptation captured the spirit of the book and in fact handled the complex themes rather clumsily.

[Lena · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first I was like ok cool at the end I was like I tf is that kys

[Mariel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely loved this. I ordered a copy after I had the chance to see the plays broadcast through NT Live. Reading Dear's script offered a handful of tiny glimmer moments that both actors Cumberbatch and Miller skipped over in their performances, but also shows the fertile ground that each had to work with. Perfect companion piece reading.

For anyone interested, I've also written a longer review of the play itself: You Gave Me Life, Now Show Me How to Live

[Arie Bel · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best reads ever (the play is equally delightful). Makes you ponder about your moral compass.

[G Moneten · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderfully written, i can proudfully say that this book has gotten me back into reading after finding it again. Thanks to this amazing depiction of the creature and its story I have been able to get out of my longlasting misery. Very thankful for this ☝🏻

[Stephanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I did not get to see this production live, sadly, but the performances were recorded and broadcasted in theaters around the world. I first saw it in 2012 and then again in November 2013. It sells out fast and was requested to be shown again by popular demand.

I love that Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller alternated their roles each night. It's not something we see a lot and you get a chance to see how each plays the same roles differently from the other and how they play off each other when they switch.

It runs for 2 hours with no intermission.

When BC played Dr. Frankenstein I felt he was very proud. He stood tall, he was eloquent and graceful. He thought he was a god and had this pride about him because he found God's secret. It made me more angry at him for abandoning his creature.

When JLM played the doctor I felt he was more of a mad scientist who believed his scientific breakthrough was better than God. He moved about in an erratic manner and his voice was hoarse. (Though that could have been from the strain from performing. Either way it added to his performance.)

Each way they played the Creature really fit their body types. BC is tall and lean so he studied men going through physical therapy to learn how to walk again. In the beginning he was very floppy and as time progresses he becomes more controlled and his speech more articulate.

JLM studied his 2 year old son and mimicked him for the role of the Creature. He drooled a lot, grunted more, and his speech was more of a stammer. I also felt he was more of an angry and violent child when he committed the murders. JLM was much more aggressive when he snapped the neck of one of his victims.

I really would love to see this on Broadway with the same cast and director (Danny Boyle).
I loved the play by Nick Dear so much I bought the book from amazon UK. (I did read the book by Mary Shelley years ago in high school. While I loved the morality and ethical concepts and the sci-fi aspect, I disliked her style of writing.)

Dr. Frankenstein is a monster himself and he created the Creature in his image. Frankenstein was a prideful man who saw the Creature as nothing more than an equation to solve without considering that he would be a sentient being with feelings and the capability to become an educated man. So out of fear he abandons the Creature, leaving him to die.
Frankenstein takes no responsibility. I may not understand why Elisabeth chose to be with a man who ignores her and then had a nervous breakdown, but she had it right. Frankenstein does not take responsibility for anything and he has defied God. Because of this, their world is in chaos. If he wanted to create life he could have done so with her, but he thought he was better than God and the natural order of life.

So what does the Creature learn in the cruel world? After trying to be part of society he learns he is hated. He is beaten and cast out. He's lonely and unloved. How depressing. So the Creature seeks his creator so that he can make him a mate. He wants a friend to love and who would love him in return.

I think Frankenstein destroyed the female creature out jealousy more than any other reason he debated. He was jealous that his Creature was more capable of love than himself. He destroyed every chance of love that came his way and hatred is what he knows.

The saddest part is that if Frankenstein had not abandoned his Creature, the Creature would have loved him. If he had known love instead of rejection and hate he would have become a good man. But Frankenstein was not a good man. The Creature was made in his image and thus they both know hatred and revenge. That is what drives the forward. That is how they will live out their days.

I really like that concept that we're a blank slate and what shapes us nature and nurture together.

[Lisa Negrini · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it, nothing more, nothing less. Its plot is majestically developed in the live-action (and I think that if you want to enjoy this script you must have seen the play at least once), but this script doesn't really catch the complexity of the props and special effects, nor the way actors moved and expressed feelings on the scene, etc...
I get that it is normal not to see a tedious kind of verbiage in scripts... but this particular theatrical representation needed them. There are a lot of moments in complete silence when either characters are deeply struggling to do something, or when they are infering something about the person they are taling to.
What I mean to say is: the way the script is written is absolutely normal. Dialogues are just dialogues, except for the interesting interactions between Victor and the Creature, which explain the main topic of the original book.
Since I found the descriptions (in italics) absolutely deep and very well written, I would have loved to read something more about the "something" actors showed in the play.

[Jesse · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a beautiful, haunting adaptation of Frankenstein. While the playwright did make some theological and existential changes to what Mary Shelley was originally commenting on with her novel I do not stand with, I cannot deny how expertly crafted this play is and what great decisions were made to tell its story.

The structure is different as we see and follow the creature’s birth and growth for a majority of the play. This instead of the all too prevalent focus on Frankenstein himself is already an interesting choice, but then we get several changes to both the creature’s and Frankenstein’s characterization that, while I don’t necessarily support, make them incredibly complex and intricate. While Shelley was speaking on creation from a theological perspective, Dear seems to be examining the same from a sexual and existentialist perspective. It makes for a fascinating, unique adaptation that I can’t help but utterly love.

[Sydney · Rating 5 out of 5]

After actually seeing the play written by Nick Dear, it was refreshing to read what was actually on the page. The writing is superb--simple, subtle, and powerful. The stage directions really add extra meaning to the words that I did not grasp when watching the play.

I would definitely recommend Nick Dear's adaptation of Frankenstein to any number of people. If you've read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I'd especially recommend it. The play hits key points and brings the themes present in the original novel to the next level, but by analyzing different aspects of those themes.

Frankenstein is a quick read and should be on everyone's must-read list. I guarantee you'll gain something from reading this play whether it be insight to your life or life in general.

[AL أل · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tinc alguns sentiments contradictoris amb aquesta obra de teatre, però al final els tres estels són perquè l'he gaudit.
Nick Dear adapta l'obra de Mary W. Shelley al teatre (no he vist la representació, només l'he llegida) i hi fa canvis notables. El més evident és el canvi de la perspectiva i l'omissió de personatges, segurament, com a conseqüència d'això. La novel·la comença amb intercanvi epistolar que precedeix al primer capítol, que durà a un flashback que durarà quasi tota l'obra. L'inici de l'obra de teatre és diferent i aquí és el canvi de perspectiva: s'inicia amb la creació del «monstre» i amb com aquest percep i sent el seu «naixement». Tota l'obra de teatre és la perspectiva d'ell. Això també passa a la novel·la, però el fet que sigui molt més endavant i menor que la perspectiva de Victor Frankenstein fa que la visió de nosaltres com a lectors també canviï. A l'obra de teatre, no tenim cap possibilitat d'empatitzar amb el doctor, en cap moment. La novel·la ens ofereix això i també empatitzar amb el monstre. De fet, plasma molt més aquest debat intern que podem tenir quan llegim perquè podem arribar a empatitzar amb els dos. L'obra de teatre, penso que ens limita en aquest sentit. Ens dirigeix ja a algunes de les interpretacions possibles de l'obra, tanca i simplifica molt més el debat. Algunes de les morts no apareixen, així com tampoc l'aprofundiment en l'aprenentatge del monstre. Això sí, reflecteix molt bé les sensacions i les etapes de creixement de la criatura. Són molt intenses i ben escrites.
L'aspecte lingüístic, per a mi, és l'aspecte que pitjor surt parat en l'obra de teatre. Entenc que l'adaptació és també lingüística i per a un públic i lectors moderns, però gran part de l'essència literario-lingüística de l'escriptora Mary W. Shelley es perd en l'adaptació teatral. Tot i això, una de les coses que més m'agraden és que s'hagin inclòs versos de Paradise Lost, de John Milton, i que la criatura a voltes parli així, intencionadament, no per a ella però sí en àmbit literari i com a motiu d'aquest. Només menciona les altres obres que el monstre llegeix i de les quals aprèn, però bé.

Això sí, és un bon text, genera tensió i reflecteix bé part de la trama i motius de l'obra original. I és molt recomanable per a tots els fans del Frankenstein original.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's been a while since I read the book Frankenstein, but I remember being incredibly impressed. This play version I wanted to read after watching the National Theatre Live play featuring Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller.

On the whole, the adaptation is fantastic, a couple of plot points differ from the book, which I won't spoil here (apart from one, spoiler notice ahead). This play is told mostly from the perspective of the Creature, even though in the book we get a considerable amount of narrative from Frankenstein himself. I think this works better for a play, however.

In this version Frankenstein is portrayed as a much more psychopathic man, bent on playing god, regardless of the consequences. Some very interesting questions are posed throughout the play, particularly when it comes to the creature's request for a mate. The plot point I didn't like (spoiler and trigger warning) is when the creatures r*pes Frankenstein's wife. The creature also kills her, which works in the plot, however the r*pe seems unnecessary and doesn't fit with the narrative. That's why I have dropped a star on what would otherwise be a five star play.

Of course, the National Theatre version is absolutely worth a watch even if you don't want to read the script.

[Samuel AP · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every-one knows the story of Frankenstein, I heard about the story in secondary school when I was studying Drama but after more than 10 years I decided to pick up the stage adaptation and give it a read:

The book is undoubtedly a classic. Frankenstein is brought into the world artificially by a master who has no empathy for love or empathy. From the offset Frankenstein must find his own way in the world and he does, via an intense period of trial and error - a process scarred with pain as other show him nothing but disgust and contempt towards him, all because of the way he looks. Frankenstein is filled with revenge and hate, however he meets a blind man who teaches him the meaning of life and virtues to hang onto, though he goes on to kill the man, Frankenstein wants to put what he's learnt into practice with someone that can reciprocate love, someone he can relate to, someone who can help him fill up the space loneliness has taken up. In the end his master tricks him and kills the female created specially for him. Frankenstein's reaction is indicative of his true nature: evil and revenge. Frankenstein is a reflection of the world he lives in, he chooses to take revenge in the most vicious manner by raping and killing Victor's (his creator) wife in a frenzied attempt at revenge. In the end Frankenstein and Victor suffer the same fate, as the both lose everything. Frankenstein is clearly chasing love throughout the story from his master Victor more than anyone else only to be turned away because of his outward even though his inward was clearly worthy.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although it omits some characters from the novel that I would have liked to see onstage, speaking Nick Dear's vivid dialogue, this Frankenstein is one of the best adaptations of Mary Shelley's book. It is true to the book's themes, captures the narcissism of Victor Frankenstein, and gives voice to some of Mary Wollstonecraft's feminist ideas through the character of Elizabeth. The National Theatre production starring Johnny Lee Miller, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Naomie Harris was outstanding.

[Janekbook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Przepiękna ponadczasowa opowieść, ktora nic a nic się nie zestarzała. Potwór z opowieści jest przykładem metafory w którym za zadanie było przekazać jak nie odpowiedzialną decyzją można stworzyć ogromną samotność a zarazem okrucieństwo do drugiego człowieka. Literatura którą każdy powinien przeczytać

[Mel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took some interesting liberties with the story that resulted in some gratuitous inclusions. There were some thought-provoking interpretations and readings of the original text that triggered new insights and connections.

[Charlie Lee]

4.5 stars

A great adaptation of a great book. Nick Dear's writing style is very cinematic and yet still classic somehow. I still prefer the original text but I think this will be the best adaptation for a long time. Also, at 77 pages it's a length that can easily be read in one sitting. I plan on watching the production on Drama online and hoping to see it reach the heights of the script's potential.

[Lena]

Thoroughly weird, but a fairly accessible introduction to the source material by Mary Shelley. Strangely descriptive for a play, way more stage directions than usual, probably because it's the script to an adaption. Read for class.