Quote:
Originally Posted by FryeDwight
THE TWO FACES OF Dr JEKYLL (1960).>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SPOILERS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not many people seem to know about this Hammer entry, but it's pretty damn good and I feel it's held up better than many of their offerings. While it's got the bare bones plot of Jekyll trying to find the duality of man, it has many differences. Jekyll is podgy and tired looking, while Hyde is handsome and so jittery that He can't sit still (Good performances by Paul Massie) and maybe it's because He holds a grudge from treatment from former colleagues, his best friend is a drunken gambler constantly hitting him up for $$ to get out of messes He created and said friend is boffing Mrs Jekyll! While Hammer had unpleasant characters in their films, there seems to be an overabundance in this...so many unsavory types here! Also, so much sexual content; they were really pushing the envelope here! Hyde's exotic mistress (where You see some actual nudity and the dance with the snake!), a conga line of dancers constantly revealing their undies and just an extremely misogynistic treatment towards ALL the women here, including a precursor to FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED where Hyde
gets even, as it were, for Jekyll's unfaithful wife.
Christopher Lee is very good here as the friend (although why You would want a guy like this as Your friend escapes Me) and an early appearance by Oliver Reed. ***1/2
|
Thanks for reviewing this one. I have not seen it yet. It sounds like an interesting take. Have you read the novella Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? If so, did you have a take on what you thought the novella was saying?
I've seen Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1931 with Fredric March, the 1941 version with Ingrid Bergman and Spencer Tracy, and neither stick to the story of the novella Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Which is a shame, because it's by far the better story, and would make a great film. The novella lets the reader apply whatever symbolism they see in the story, whereas the movies tend to name a philosophical bent not in the novella or seem to not leave room for there to be one.
I think the 1931 is the superior film of the two, mainly because the creative camera work, effects and pace. The Spencer Tracy version is rather odd, and just doesn't work as a cohesive story. The leads and plot are underdeveloped. I'm not sure what they were trying to say, if anything at all.
Having read the novella, I personally think the intention was to highlight the state of mind some humans descend to with alcohol, notably violent and deranged alcoholics, as an initial specific recognizable marker. The portrayal of "serum" is to note the medium or vehicle is not the focus, but rather an exploration of the destination (perhaps evil), the curiosity and the decision to go there.
Many theories come up regarding the intention of the story, including dualities, id, ego, superego, addiction, etc. One of the theories of the novella (published 1886) revolves around the impact of The Origin of Species (1859). Some interpreted the work to mean humans evolved from (modern) apes. That the work was looking at if man was to devolve into a beast, or what was the layer below "the evolution to humankind". When I read that, I began to think that the film Altered States was actually another Jekyll and Hyde adaptation.
