Jekyll and Hyde, again and again

[my_daroga]

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

Comments

[holyschist]

It's definitely one of my favorite stories, although I haven't sought out a lot of different versions (agree with you on Mary Reilly, though). I did see the touring version of the musical a couple times, and it was great fun, although I'm not sure it managed much deep commentary.

But Jekyll/Hyde being about control/impulse (or some other dichotomy less obvious than good/evil) definitely seems to be a recurring theme; I remember a lot of discussions about this back when I was on a y!group for the musical (and a lot of Hyde/Lucy fanfiction, mostly not nearly complex and ambiguous enough).

[my_daroga]

Yeah. I didn't mean to say the ambiguity is never explored--I think the musical does a little--but that it's never to my satisfaction.

[holyschist]

Oh, I agree--I just meant that I think the ambiguity is a lot of the appeal for other people as well.

[lettered]

Oh, I have Thoughts about your Thoughts. Mostly about how it's interesting my Thoughts are different than your Thoughts when really they are the same. IT'S NOT A BINARY IT'S A CONTINUUM. Hopefully I will come back and be able to articulate what I mean by this? Right now I feel my meaning won't come across

[my_daroga]

IT'S NOT A BINARY IT'S A CONTINUUM

Is this our new motto?

Hopefully I will come back and be able to articulate what I mean by this? Right now I feel my meaning won't come across.

Well, we could discuss in person later.

I agree that it pushed buttons without really going anywhere, or far enough anyway, which is why I sort of felt euphoric at those things being addressed at all but not "omg this is the best play/J&H ever!" One thing the Tracey film/J&H musical do is put the Elizabeth-y character, Lucy, in contact with both of them. Jekyll, depressed over his failure in front of the board of directors, pops in for a drink. Lucy, a dancehall girl, meets and is intrigued by this polite doctor guy, who gives her his card though he declines her favors. Hyde, of course, takes her up on the latter, and then she goes to see Jekyll when Hyde hurts her. Cheap, maybe, but nice.

Oh also I think that if we'd liked Mrs. Jackman at all you'd feel a little better about Jekyll.

But mostly what I'd do if I started with Stevenson is do something

[my_daroga]

See, I have never seen Nesbitt as anyone but Jackman/Hyde, so I did not have that problem and I thought he was brilliant. I adored him, in fact. And I haven't seen either Van Helsing or LXG. But I am always confused by Jekyll-less Hydes, or vice versa. Since I'm not actually interested in the "horror" elements of the story, or the special effects of the transformation, I just sort of want a drama about duality and human nature and stuff.

Which is why it's sad that Mary Reilly sucked SO BAD.

They'd never heard the names? The story? That's just sad.

[my_daroga]

I like Nesbitt because he is rather ordinary-looking but very intense, so I think as long as I don't see him in anything else I'll continue to like him as Jekyll. But I totally see your point.

I'm worried that the sort of silliness of Van Helsing would not be the type I enjoy. See, one problem I have with big movies these days is that stuff that ought to be fun and silly has enough special effects and a huge budget and I cannot personally see it as anything but seriously intended. I know that's just me. But I prefer my silly to look a little more home-grown or something. I guess I have to know they're joking, or I'll just think they really mean it.

I read the LXG comic and was convinced early on that I wouldn't be seeing anything I liked about it in the film.

As to your final point, yeah. I have a terrible memory in general, but I do have a vast cultural repository. Some of that, sure, is due to reading and watching old films/tv. But I'm sure I didn't learn "Jekyll and Hyde" from Stevenson.

[scarletsherlock]

I love reading your thoughts on this.

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

[my_daroga]

Frankenstein is interesting, too, for the ambiguity that doesn't often come out in the adaptations. I can't stand Dr. F. He's awful. I mean in the book. He's a terribly hypocrite and I find no excuse for him whatsoever--which is what makes the book more interesting, I guess. That, the fact the creature is actually intelligent.

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!

[tinyholidays]

Oh, hey. Have you seen this?

[my_daroga]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Reeves can barely act one role, let alone two in the same film.

[tinyholidays]

I think you mean

WHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Hahahahahahahadiesinside.

[my_daroga]

No. I most decidedly DO NOT.