A scenario I've thankfully never seen filmed...

...because it vitiates the entire concept of the story is the idea that Victor was in fact a psychopathic murderer who only created the idea of the Monster as a way of pretending not to be guilty of the murders of those surrounding him. I've had people express that to me as the scenario of the novel, but the logic behind it is a stretch to say the least. The argument is that no one in the story other than Frankenstein ever sees the Monster. Well, we don't know that to be true as far as the European scenes go because Frankenstein alone provides testimony for those events (except when the Monster relates his story to Frankenstein). We do know Walton sees the Monster twice. The first time, he sees an abnormally shaped man on a dog sled significantly before ever meeting Frankenstein. Then after Frankenstein dies, Walton sees the Monster pay his final respects to his Creator. The rather fuzzy justification I've seen by those arguing this point of view is that Walton may mean the Monster's disappearance as some kind of metaphor. Why he would lie to his sister in his letter to her and claim to have seen a character who never existed is a rather noteworthy point to get around in this alternate scenario. Overall, while this argument may have merit as a subtext to the literal events of the novel, I'm unimpressed with it as the legitimate version of the story's events. It makes little sense in light of what Shelley has Walton--a detached, disinterested auditor to both Frankenstein's and the Monster's final testimonies--relate to us and vitiates entirely the themes of the novel and the points Shelley tries to make. As such, while I find it mildly intriguing to contemplate, I discard it entirely and thank Heaven Shelley was good enough to make very clear on the page the Monster is a literal character in universe she created for her most famous story.

Carthago delenda est.