I had a wonderful time writing it, so I hope it's worth the time to read. Enjoy!
A Tale and the Foibles of its Film
Pink potions, murderous monsters,
obsessive occupations, and a literal split personality: If any of these
elements possess something in common, it would be found in a Gothic novella,
namely Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
The novella's popularity has never diminished since it was published in
1886, mainly because of its gripping suspense, dark mystery, and horrifying
discoveries the characters make. Because
of its popularity, the novella was used to produce different film
versions. However, because the film produced
by Dan Curtis emphasizes various other themes while altering main plots and
characters, Stevenson's novella remains the better. Why? Not only does the film
and novel evoke different conflicting feelings, but the evils of the character
of Hyde contrast, and Hyde's appearance is left no imagination while a love
interest leaves viewers giving Jekyll more sympathy than is healthy.
Stevenson's Gothic novella evokes
feelings that differ from Dan Curtis' production of The Strange Case of Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. While the
original story is intriguing, the film is painful to watch not only because of
the clanging, dissonant, pounding, musical themes but also because of what is
portrayed in the film. I felt
uncomfortable while watching certain scenes because they had not been in the
book, scenes such as those of Hyde carousing with the dancers in the pubs (MPI
Home Video 2002). These conflicting
feelings drawn from the book and film are obnoxiously mixed and accounted for
because I prefer to have some elements left to my imagination. When a film fills in all the blanks and
leaves no room for imagination, it loses a certain attraction which cannot be
replaced. In the novel, when two characters, Enfield and Utterson, talk about
Mr. Hyde, the descriptions are vivid, but because Hyde is not seen when
reading, the mind creates more of a horrific idea of Hyde by using imagination
(Greenblatt, 1679).
While
watching, reading and imagining, I analyzed. Which was more evil, the film's
Hyde or Stevenson's original Hyde? Both are quite evil, but they are different
evils. While the film portrays Hyde's
evil in the form of debauchery and extreme anger, Stevenson's Hyde carries
events or affairs off like Satan with an air of “black, sneering coolness,”
which translates as a sneakier, secretive, albeit hiding character (Greenblatt,
1679). The movie attempts to make
viewers sympathize with Hyde even if it was for a few minutes of the show. His
character remained unafraid of others as he embraced the ideas of wild living,
especially with an added love interest.
It is human nature to love, and the film strategically placed a love
interest in Hyde's life to make viewers sympathize, but he did not really love,
he lusted. The Mr. Hyde Stevenson initially crafted was a hunched, hissing,
slinking character that trampled a young girl and killed a member of parliament
(1678, 1688). The film, however, painted Hyde as one tall, guffawing, sinister,
macabre fiend who slept carelessly and killed more than those initially fated
so by Stevenson.
If
Stevenson had doomed a woman to be in the story as the film did a character
named Gwnyth, I would have accepted it, but the fact that the film took the
liberty to add a love interest to expound on a part never mentioned in the
novel was quite unconventional. Although
I did not agree with the addition of such a woman, I realized that Mr. Hyde's
character was being explored in a new way, for even in the original story, Dr.
Jekyll had never had relations with a woman. In the film, Hyde drinks in the
pubs and doles out money and even himself to a woman. In a way, the film made a
statement that perhaps since Jekyll had always been such a good man his entire
life he wanted to experience the bad and the ugly, not just the good. The effect the added love interest had on the
film is extremely interesting, as when the two were together, the producer wants viewers to be
happy for them, but I knew it was wrong and would not last.
Cries
of anguish and screams of pain were often heard by Jekyll, but, like the
temporary happiness of Hyde and the film's added woman, these cries did not last, for he either
turned into his alternate, or his alternate reverted to Jekyll. The novella never led the reader through the
process of Jekyll's transformation into Hyde, and consequently, Jekyll forever
held my sympathies. In the film, though,
I did not even once sympathize with Jekyll because I saw him running to his
obsessive occupation and his pink potions only to turn to a murderous
monster. Just as when one sees an
alcoholic returning to drink after he or she has promised to cease the
addiction, so was Jekyll, and because I witnessed his disgusting impulse to
experience evil, I could not sympathize. I would not sympathize, except for one
detail; the love interest. When Dr.
Jekyll left his home to make a Doctor's visit on the woman Hyde had beaten, she
overtly aimed to seduce him. She had
paid him visits to his home and they had met on other occasions, but he had
always remained the dignified and upright Doctor Jekyll, never stooping to
accept her overtures. It was when he gave in to her pleas and sad faces that I
felt all was lost, and soon it was, for it was almost immediately that he
turned into Mr. Hyde once again.
Apart
from the blaring orchestra and old musical themes, Dan Curtis' production of
Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde was not just a surprising
film edition of the novella. While the
film leaves no room for imagination and strips one from sympathizing with
Jekyll, it endeavored to insert scenes that would evoke more emotion by adding
a love interest. Films should not strip
books, they should enhance them. This film made this mistake and hoped to
camouflage that mistake by adding other elements. Stevenson's classic is reliable. It is his
creation, and it is a novella which tells the story of a literal split
personality, pink potions, obsessiveness, and murderous monsters in a way that
surpasses that of any film.
Sources:
Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed. Vol. E. New York: Norton, 2012. Print.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dir. Charles Jarrot. Prod. Dan Curtis. Perf. Jack Palance, Denholm Elliott, Leo Genn. MPI Home Video, 2001. DVD.
On a lighter note...
The same year this strange film was released, somebody messed around and fused a Camaro and Chevrolet for a project.
The name of their project? Jekyll and Hyde. How fitting.
The things people do.
No comments:
Post a Comment