New Take on Jekyll & Hyde

[3113]

Sooo, being a big Dr. Who fan I usually try to catch the new episodes currently showing in the U.K. Now, I'm in the U.S. (Thank you World Wide Web!) The reason I note this is because it means that I'm rarely aware of new British shows until they appear on BBC America or KCET a year later. Thanks to the latest episode of Dr. Who, however, which, during the credits, mentioned a show coming up "next," I was made aware of a new BBC series: "Jekyll"

Well! That sounded intriguing. Intriguing enough that I didn't want to wait a year to see it. Though, honestly, I wasn't expecting much; most new takes on the J&H story are unremarkable. There's rarely anything new or imaginative. I decided to check this out anyway. So with a little help from the WWW, I got the episode...

WOW!

Written and, I assume, created by Steven Moffatt, a fave writer of mine, it is fantastic! The opening alone is worth the price of admission. I think what I love about it is that it does what most modern J&H takes have never yet done--it really puts the story into the modern world with it's computers, cameras, cellphones, etc., without losing the spirit of the original story. Stars James Nesbitt and he is amazing.

Here's the official website: Jekyll

One warning, the download I did was verrrrrrrry slow. Worth it, but it took forever.

P.S. the "bad guys" are Americans. I can live with that.

 

[neonlyte]

Watched the first episode in UK at the weekend. Nice twist, quite chilling in the portrayal of the seperate identities.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Most writers seem to tend towards Hyde being a monster created from a potion instead of the simple psychopath that he was.

I won't be downloading it, but I'm curious though. Which route does this take?

 

[neonlyte]

Most writers seem to tend towards Hyde being a monster created from a potion instead of the simple psychopath that he was.

I won't be downloading it, but I'm curious though. Which route does this take?

The latter

 

[3113]

Most writers seem to tend towards Hyde being a monster created from a potion instead of the simple psychopath that he was.

No potion. One of the mysteries that the series is going to delve into is why Dr. Jackman, as he's called, suddenly started having this other personality, who appeared pretty much without warning.

So exploring why it's happening is part of the story. As for monster...if by monster you mean does he change into something weird and ape-like (as in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), then no. There are subtle changes in looks and he does become significantly stronger, faster and more agile.

Personality-wise, Hyde is more sociopath than psychopath (granted that's splitting hairs). They're going for animal metaphors with him; he's not compelled to murder people, like a serial killer, but he does like playing cat-and-mouse and if he can get away with it, he'll hurt or kill and enjoy himself while doing it. He certainly has no morals or conscience.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Ah, now that is what I wanted to hear. It sounds like they are doing a good job. I might have to keep my eye open for that one.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Watched the first episode in UK at the weekend. Nice twist, quite chilling in the portrayal of the seperate identities.

It was really quite good. I found my self sitting on the couch wincing and saying no dont let him come in the house etc ect.

Saw the commercial for the next one last night and it looks a bit spookier. Will have to see if we can get the inlaws to tape some stuff for us!

 

[smotp]

I saw the first episode and I get the feeling that they may take a biogenetic track. Jackman is a lookalike for Dr Jekyl who is being portrayed as the real life contemporary of the orginal author RLS? in Scotland in the 1800's.
The Bad guys (godawful American accents!) are tracking Jackman I guess for the usual cliche BioWeapon/Super soldier plot?

However, the Hyde character is great, screws anything and everything if he doesn't kill it first.

I saw the interview with James Nesbitt on a chat show called Parkinson and he says Hyde is portrayed by him standing more upright, an altered hairline and a slightly longer nose. I think he wears black contacts as well. Nesbitt says Hyde looks the way he would like to look!

It was pretty tense and well worth watching.

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

Unfortunately due to an cock up with scheduling of one programme in a blue moon i want to sit down and watch in my household, i missed the first 20 minutes.

Every minute after that made up for it, i really love the portrayal and the route they are taking this.

Don't care for the 'baddies' touh perhaps i'll give them more of a chance once i know what they've been casted in for (needless to say im not impressed by them just yet).

James Nesbitt is a wonderful actor, so that helps.

It comes every saturday? or am i thick and have missed more parts?

~~ as an aside, sitting through that reference to Meera Syal and The Blonde being a pregnant lesbian couple, did nothig but make my skin crawl in the presence of my parents, i hate lesbian references in their presence, i get paranoid at what they might say or do.

 

[3113]

Unfortunately due to an cock up with scheduling of one programme in a blue moon i want to sit down and watch in my household, i missed the first 20 minutes.

You *MUST* get those first 20 minutes. They are terrific! Hooked me instantly. And I think they'll be important for next episode as I'm guessing that they're going to show the same scene from the other side (aka, Hyde's).

as an aside, sitting through that reference to Meera Syal and The Blonde being a pregnant lesbian couple, did nothig but make my skin crawl in the presence of my parents, i hate lesbian references in their presence, i get paranoid at what they might say or do.

I can understand if you were watching with your less-than-understanding parents, but frankly, I *loved* the lesbian detective couple. I loved the fact that no big deal was made about them, that they're having a baby, and that they're detectives. In the hands of a less talented writer, these three things might have been too much (too many notes, as it were), but he pulled all three elements off as a given. They were different and colorful without anyone pointing fingers at them and saying, "Look! Look! Different and colorful!"

I shudder to think how clumsy they'd have been on American tv, which seems to believe that that gay characters need to wave rainbow flags every time they make an appearence. I don't know if this is to alert anti-homos not to watch the show or alert pro-homos that this is a gay-friendly show

 

[Chantilyvamp]

oh bloody hell thats what i forgot to ask the inlaws to tape while we were on vacation!

*grabs pen and scribbles note*

 

[3113]

Still Goin' Strong!

Just saw the third episode of this show and I'm still liking it--and still amazed at it's twists, turns and smartness. I *love* smart shows and this is one of the smartest I've seen in a long time. What's really impressive, it hasn't flagged yet. Often a first episode will be great and the next few not so, but this show has been stellar in each of the three episodes I've seen. I'm very, very impressed.

In this episode there was a really brilliant confrontation between Mrs. "Jekyll" and her "husband"--it was wonderfully different from the usual of the scared, weepy wife--sharp, witty, scary, clever. Alas, there's some sort of concert on the station next week so the next episode won't be on for two weeks

 

[3113]

Just watched the latest episode of this show (5th out of 6 episodes)....

Amazing!

I cannot believe this show. Episodes are so *incredibly* good, the writing and acting so fantastic (excepting bad American accents), and the elements of the tale are all so beautifully pieced together like some stunning mosaic...I keep expecting, as with most shows, that there will be an episode where I'll say, "well, that was good but not as good as the others..." and it never happens! Every episode is as extraordinary as the previous episodes. The quality never flags; it stays tremendously smart, the dialogue clever, witty, true, touching, the dilemmas poignant, the characters real, the plot filled with twists, turns and surprises are around every corner; most of them I don't see coming, but even when I do see things coming, they happen in unexpected ways.

Steven Moffat (writer/creator) is my new hero.

 

[gauchecritic]

I haven't seen it ( I avoid things with Nesbitt, he can't act for toffee) but as I always understood the story (think the atrocious or even decent renditions of Frankestein) the point of Jeckyll and Hyde was a simple allegory on the demon drink and I've yet to see a rendition which equates.

 

[3113]

I haven't seen it ( I avoid things with Nesbitt, he can't act for toffee) but as I always understood the story (think the atrocious or even decent renditions of Frankestein) the point of Jeckyll and Hyde was a simple allegory on the demon drink and I've yet to see a rendition which equates.

I don't know what you've seen Nesbitt in, but I think his acting in this is marvelous. But then, I don't know who you find a good actor or bad--maybe I'd say the same about actors you like (that they can't act for toffee) and there's no way we're going to agree on what's good acting. Or maybe you saw Nesbitt at his worse and I'm seeing him at his best. Even bad actors can sometimes hit it right and good actors can sometimes hit it wrong.

As for Jekyll and Hyde, the allegory is indeed fairly simple--man is both good and evil, civilized and a monster (duh). But, THIS show, IMHO, has found a new way to examine that very obvious observation--or at the very least, a way to refresh it so that what is old and tired feels new again.

That's that's what I'm seeing, and my husband is in agreement--and we are two of the harshest critics I know.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I haven't seen it ( I avoid things with Nesbitt, he can't act for toffee) but as I always understood the story (think the atrocious or even decent renditions of Frankestein) the point of Jeckyll and Hyde was a simple allegory on the demon drink and I've yet to see a rendition which equates.

One of the things that gives me such pleasure in this novel is the beautiful multiplicity of the central metaphors. They have so many things that they can say at once. There's fin de siecle fascination with evolution and degeneration writ large in it; the novel's descriptions of the debased and deformed Hyde are so much more interesting than the cinema depictions of him usually are. There's the question of the monde / demi-monde schizophrenia of the Victorians as well - Jekyll's "sinful desires" are a fascinating topic, and there's plenty there to suggest that repression is at least as much to blame for his downfall as liberation. There's the fear of new technology and new science, of course, and the frightening possibility of it running amok, and then there's the dawning of modern psychology and what it has to say about the mechanisms of the human mind - not to mention some hints at homoeroticism and its social role, and London's class topography and the urban wilds. The demon drink no doubt fits in as well, but then that's what I love best about a really rich work of literature - so much fits in!

I'm curious to see this new presentation. I hope that it captures some of the joy and complexity of the original.

 

[3113]

I'm curious to see this new presentation. I hope that it captures some of the joy and complexity of the original.

Thanks for showing that J&H is anything but a "simple" work of fiction. I think what I'm loving about this presentation is that it is using J&H to analyze 21st century concerns rather than try and compete with the original by re-hashing Victorian concerns like, as you said, sexual repression, class differences, and fear of science.

For example, while Jekyll examines our fear of ruthless companies greedy for new scientific discoveries, it also shows science (technology at least) as a useful tool for connecting to our other side, rather than separating it out with disastrous results. Technology allows the two sides to communicate. Likewise, instead of tackling the question of repression (not a big concern in our society), this J&H tackles the opposite: is our modern society too enamored with those who don't repress or check anything? Hyde doesn't emerge from sinful desires so much as from feelings of being powerless and helpless. So it explores the modern world's division not between classes but between those who are seen as prey and those who are seen as predators. It's doing an interesting examination, as well, of what people will fight for, what brings out the best or the worst in us.

I'm seeing, as well, the "potion" as metaphor for those things that make people surrender their morals--a view we've been pondering since WWII. Brutal Hyde is less terrible than those who pretend (as the original Jekyll did) to be civilized, but do evil or allow evil to happen usually because some "potion" has brought out their "Hyde" side. It might be money, or power or fear that is the key, but out comes ruthless, selfish, merciless Hyde.

I'm pleased that this show is it's own story, reliant on the original J&H (it doesn't merely reference it, it uses it) and tipping a hat to it, but going it's own road with the story.