[ Post a Response | EVEN DeepER Blurting! ]
Posted by Kenneth Morgan
on 1/15/2008, 11:55 pm
Today, Kenneth Morgan looks a good movie with a split personality.
*****
Well, here’s my first review for 2008, and I’ll start with a bit of an apology. Last year, for a variety of reasons (ranging from procrastination to personal matters), I let a bunch of deadlines slip past me. It’s my own fault and I apologize. This year, I’ll do my best not to fall behind. With that, I figure I’m going to start this year with a positive review of a good movie. (Don’t worry; much worse movies will follow soon enough.)
Thus, our subject for today: “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, produced for the CBC (that’s the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, eh?) in 1968. I know the vast majority of you already know the basic story, but I’ll go over it anyway for the six or seven of you who don’t, poor souls.
The story opens in a lecture hall in a London hospital. There, a number of learned medical professionals are listening to a presentation by mild-mannered, brilliant Dr. Henry Jekyll (Jack Palance). It seems Jekyll has devoted himself to a study of man’s dual moral nature and is convinced that humanity is being held back from great progress by the primitive, immoral aspects of itself. He has even gone so far as to develop a drug that, he believes, will rid a man of that baser nature and allow it to develop to the greatest heights of scientific and social perfection.
However, his colleagues rudely dismiss his ideas and seem ready to have him locked up. Stung by this rejection, Jekyll refines his potion at his home laboratory with the help of a rather low-rent chemist called Stryker (Oskar Homolka). Finally, the formula is ready and Jekyll, wanting to show up his doubters, tests it on himself. Initially, it has a painful effect on him, but we don’t see what happens next.
Some time passes, and we learn that Jekyll has taken on a new associate to help in his work: a mysterious man called Edward Hyde. We also learn that Jekyll’s friend and solicitor Devlin (Denholm Elliot) is concerned over Jekyll’s financial support of this man and reports that Hyde is a very unsavory character. Jekyll, though, is unconcerned about this, and we soon learn why: Jekyll is Hyde. The potion causes Jekyll’s primitive, passionate, unrestrained side to take control of his body, allowing him to indulge in behavior that the repressed doctor would never even contemplate. A second formula allows him to return to his Jekyll identity with no one the wiser.
At first, when we finally see Hyde (also played by Palance), he’s pretty much the Victorian equivalent of a party animal. He spends his nights carousing in the seedy areas of London (mainly Soho), boozing it up, having a grand old time and taking up with a number of women of rather ill repute, particularly pretty Gwyn (Billie Whitelaw), who greatly enjoys his attentions. People seem to like him a lot, since he’s always the life of the party and is totally uninhibited. And we also see that Jekyll himself seems to get a kick out of letting his bad side emerge, while he remains a highly-respected, morally upright figure. But, of course, it doesn’t last.
Hyde’s behavior soon grows worse, showing a decidedly angry and possessive streak. He wants what he wants when he wants it, and he won’t tolerate those who get in his way, even Gwyn. Simultaneously, Jekyll seems more stressed and nervous, as well as seemingly afraid of Hyde’s influence, even to the point of changing his will to make Hyde sole beneficiary. Finally, Hyde’s attempts to satisfy his increasingly lustful desires (and protect Jekyll from scandal) result in violence, then even murder. Jekyll is horrified by this, and vows to put a stop to the matter. He destroys his chemistry equipment and the Hyde formula, locks away the last of the re-agent, and promises Devlin to give up such research and return to the practice of medicine. He tells everyone that Hyde has gone away for good, and even believes it himself for a few months.
He’s wrong, of course. Hyde has no intention of staying away for very long…
As I noted, this story has been adapted countless times over the years, in both direct (the classic John Barrymore silent film) and indirect (the TOS segment "The Enemy Within”) fashion. This one, as it turns out, is one of the better ones. One could expect as much, since it was produced by Dan Curtis during his “Dark Shadows” period (though before the original Kolchak movies). Adapted by Ian McLellan Hunter and directed by Charles Jarrott, it’s a pretty literate treatment, changing the original story but still presenting a good treatment of its theme of the inner struggle of good vs. evil. Made on videotape and primarily in a studio, the movie does have a look reminiscent of 1970’s “Doctor Who”, but features some impressive production and set design and some fine camerawork. There’s also a good music score by Curtis’ frequent composer Robert Colbert (who, I’m pretty sure, recycled some of the music for the later movie “House of Dark Shadows”). Another good point is the Hyde makeup by Dick Smith, who makes Hyde look memorably devilish, but doesn’t go overboard into making him look like a gorilla (like in the Frederic March version) or the Hulk (like in “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”). Still, it is odd that almost no one notices the resemblance between Jekyll and Hyde.
As for the acting, Palance dominates the story and is very good. He’s quite restrained and respectable as Jekyll, until the character begins to fall apart under the strain of his secret life. As Hyde, he’s appropriately over the top, since the man has no sense of decorum or restraint, and quite scary when his tastes turn towards more menacing practices. Billie Whitelaw is also good as Gwyn, a fairly complex character who keeps us guessing for a while about her true nature, while Elliot provides a good portrayal of Devlin, who tries to provide Jekyll with reasonable counsel and later finds himself appalled at what his friend has accomplished, leading to an interesting revelation of his feelings at the story’s conclusion.
All in all, “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde” is a fairly good adaptation of a very familiar story. I recommend giving it a look. And, as a bonus, Palance doesn’t have to wear any goofy hats or play second fiddle to CabotCabotCabotCabotCabotCabot. No one-armed push-ups, though.
Well, that’s one down for 2008. As noted, I’ll try to keep up the pace and not miss deadlines. And, in tribute to the ill-fated Jekyll, I won’t resort to chemical assistance in that endeavor.
Well, nothing illegal or evil-releasing, anyway…
CONNECTIONS NOTE: Producer Dan Curtis and composer Robert Cobert both worked on the previously-reviewed “The Night Strangler”. And Jack Palance appeared in the MSTed “Outlaw” and “Angels Revenge” and the previously-reviewed “Gor”. He even got an Invention Exchange item based on himself.
RELEASE NOTE: You can find this movie on a double-feature DVD paired with the later Curtis/Palance production “Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’” from 1973. It’s also a good movie and should not be confused with that bad Coppola flick of the same name.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
Watch out for snakes.