Today I think I came the closest to seeing Jekyll and Hyde done as I want it to be done. I’ve always been attracted to the story, and aside from the novel (which I always felt held only the kernel of the story, a story Stevenson wasn’t willing or able to pursue) I’ve seen the versions with Spencer Tracey, Mary Reilly (horrible film and novel-I’m
(
Read more... )
I like Jekyll and Hyde also, particularly because of the ambiguity you mention. It's like Frankenstein, which I also love, for me, in that I don't find Jekyll (or Victor Frankenstein) to be all that sympathetic. Hyde IS him, and he IS Hyde, as you say, and I find it interesting on so many different levels, particularly when Jekyll is disgusted with something that Hyde has done.
I loved Moffat's Jekyll too. Have you seen the version with Cushing and Lee called I, Monster? For some reason, they weren't able to use the names from the book (other than Utterson), but it's a surprisingly effective version.
I also enjoyed the Hammer film Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde, which you would think would be a campy gore-fest (and it IS, don't get me wrong), but is also surprisingly well-done. Jekyll in this version (played by Ralph Bates) is more than morally ambiguous: he's a total murderer, and knows that he is. Hyde is Martine Beswick (who looks so much like Bates it's scary) who uses her sexuality to help overpower people in her own murders, unlike Jekyll, who is kind of repressed. Obviously this one is interesting to watch because of the male/female dynamic in matters of sex and personality, but it's also just a lot of fun, I thought.
Reply
I have not seen I, Monster but I'll definitely look it up. As well as the Hammer one, which sounds like a lot of fun. Thanks!
Reply
Leave a comment