Wash me down...
I have now seen the whole of Jekyll.
It could have been so great. Duality. Responsibility. Repression. Universal themes that always hit close to home. They had a budget, they had capable actors (I especially loved Denis Lawson, Meera Syal and Fenella Woolgar, but then, I tend to love them in everything.) They had a fantastic (but flawed) writer. Why is it always the ones that could be so great that end up being so disappointing? It's the curse of potential. It sets you up for a fall.
There were lots of things I liked about the series. Lots of things I thought weren't capitalised on enough. Lots of things I'd do very, very differently. But in the end, I'm mostly saddened by how silly it was. I think it's manipulation of the viewer, again. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of writers stringing audiences along, having that be the entire basis of the story - create an impression, but not a lasting one, just one that holds for the week until the next episode airs. Whatever happened to trying to create something that meant something? And the messages you could tell, with Jekyll and Hyde. Fuck, it's a goldmine. But no, we end up with shock of the minute television. Fun, but ultimately pointless.
The idea of Hyde as love was not something taken from the text upon which the series is based. I think anyone who's read Jekyll and Hyde are well aware that love doesn't factor into it. Absence of love, maybe. But I did like the notion, although I found it contrived. It added another dimension to it all, anyway, one I hadn't exactly seen before. I only wish I had remotely liked Claire Jackman for it to work for me. I disliked her intensely. I spent a lot of the time wishing Hyde would slit her throat. That would be me as opposed to a flaw in the concept.
So, yes. Watchable. Enjoyable. But flat. Devoid of depth and tenor. And that's a shame.
It could have been so great. Duality. Responsibility. Repression. Universal themes that always hit close to home. They had a budget, they had capable actors (I especially loved Denis Lawson, Meera Syal and Fenella Woolgar, but then, I tend to love them in everything.) They had a fantastic (but flawed) writer. Why is it always the ones that could be so great that end up being so disappointing? It's the curse of potential. It sets you up for a fall.
There were lots of things I liked about the series. Lots of things I thought weren't capitalised on enough. Lots of things I'd do very, very differently. But in the end, I'm mostly saddened by how silly it was. I think it's manipulation of the viewer, again. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of writers stringing audiences along, having that be the entire basis of the story - create an impression, but not a lasting one, just one that holds for the week until the next episode airs. Whatever happened to trying to create something that meant something? And the messages you could tell, with Jekyll and Hyde. Fuck, it's a goldmine. But no, we end up with shock of the minute television. Fun, but ultimately pointless.
The idea of Hyde as love was not something taken from the text upon which the series is based. I think anyone who's read Jekyll and Hyde are well aware that love doesn't factor into it. Absence of love, maybe. But I did like the notion, although I found it contrived. It added another dimension to it all, anyway, one I hadn't exactly seen before. I only wish I had remotely liked Claire Jackman for it to work for me. I disliked her intensely. I spent a lot of the time wishing Hyde would slit her throat. That would be me as opposed to a flaw in the concept.
So, yes. Watchable. Enjoyable. But flat. Devoid of depth and tenor. And that's a shame.