Imagine a 400-year-old anatomical display, its intricate web of human nerves and veins splayed across a wooden table, inspiring one of literature’s most iconic monsters. Guillermo del Toro’s latest film breathes new life into Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, but this isn’t your typical retelling. Del Toro’s version is a meticulous homage to the 1818 novel, complete with an icebound ship opening and the deliberate absence of the oft-misquoted line, “It’s alive!” But here’s where it gets fascinating: the film doesn’t just reimagine the story—it resurrects the very science and history that inspired it. And this is the part most people miss: the film’s eerie anatomical displays, inspired by real 17th-century artifacts known as the Evelyn Tables, are more than just props—they’re a window into the macabre world of Victorian medical research.
The Evelyn Tables, now housed at London’s Hunterian Museum, were created in the mid-1600s by a German anatomy professor’s assistant. These four wooden panels, collected by John Evelyn, meticulously display human nerves, arteries, and veins extracted from cadavers, dried, and arranged to mimic their natural positions in the body. Each table serves as a diagram of sorts: the first showcases the spinal cord and central nervous system, the second the aorta and arteries, the third the vagus and sympathetic nerves alongside lung and liver veins, and the fourth the intricate distribution of veins throughout the body. Bruce Simpson, a senior curator at the Hunterian Museum, explains their historical significance: “These weren’t just art—they were teaching tools, a portable and permanent way to study human anatomy when cadavers were scarce.”
Del Toro’s team didn’t just stop at historical accuracy—they pushed further. For the film, they imagined a fictional fifth Evelyn Table, this time focusing on the human lymphatic system. Production designer Tamara Deverell insisted on handcrafting the prop, rejecting digital methods to ensure an organic, tactile feel. “We used thin threads to mimic connective tissues and sculpted lymph nodes,” she reveals. The result? A hauntingly beautiful recreation that blurs the line between art and anatomy.
But here’s the controversial part: while the film celebrates the educational value of such displays, it also raises questions about accessibility. Simpson argues, “Knowledge of our own anatomy shouldn’t be guarded by a professional elite.” Is he right? Should the intricacies of the human body be democratized, or is there value in preserving the mystique of medical science? And while we’re at it, let’s not forget Jacob Elordi’s standout performance—did he steal the show, or is that just me?
Del Toro’s Frankenstein isn’t just a gorgeous film; it’s a thought-provoking exploration of science, history, and humanity. Streaming now on Netflix, it’s a must-watch for anyone curious about the intersection of art, anatomy, and the enduring legacy of Shelley’s masterpiece. So, what do you think? Is del Toro’s reimagining a triumph, or does it tread too far into the macabre? Let’s debate in the comments!
P.S. If you’re as fascinated by the science behind pop culture as we are, subscribe to our monthly newsletter, ‘Science Goes To The Movies,’ and dive into the surprising science behind your favorite films and shows.
