Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll

Can you cut evil out of man with a scalpel, Henry?

Hammer's Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll concerns the scientist dealing with a dark side that overtakes him in personality and physically changes him from an older man to a young handsome buck with vitality and unrestrained by any consequence of morality. Could this lead to Jekyll's destruction?

 

 

The nicest surprise of October 2013 for me personally has a unique Hammer retelling of the oft-filmed Jekyll/Hyde Robert Louise Stevenson novel, directed by Terence Fisher, about a reclusive, morose scientist’s experiments in “splitting” the good and evil of man, using himself as a guinea pig and paying a major price for doing so. This is quite adult and has the salacious elements of gaiety and decadence in London as Jekyll’s lecherous playboy buddy, Paul Allen (Christopher Lee, who himself would portray Jekyll/Hyde in the, in my opinion, underrated I, Monster)—for whom he would often give money for gambling debts—has an affair with Jekyll’s neglected (and fiery redhead) wife, Kitty (Dawn Addams, giving her character a bite and independence). Paul lives a wild life of booze, clubs, cards, women, dancehalls, and opium use. Kitty loves to negotiate money for Paul while seemingly against him when in the presence of Jekyll! She’s incorrigible. But she loves Paul and is devoted to him, never giving in to Hyde’s desires to bed her (the only time they share a bed is when Hyde rapes her), but Kitty is unwilling to leave Jekyll because he offers a comfortable existence and social standing (even though Jekyll is a shunned scientist and professor whose belief in the separation of good and evil is considered nonsense by his peers).

Paul Massie (whom I am unfamiliar) was a pleasant surprise as the embattled Jekyll, unable to resist the powerful influence of the carnivorous Hyde; like a parasite that eats away at his personality, identity, and humanity, Hyde wants total control, hoping all of Jekyll will be eviscerated and he is in command of the body and soul. There’s one scene towards the end where Massie (while in the graying hair and beard, along with the aging make-up) speaks in both the voice and attitude of his pathetic, weak Jekyll and force-of-nature, antagonistic Hyde. I just thought the novel concept of Jekyll being this rather sad sack, an anti-social misfit (vocally against attending balls and luncheons with people of a certain pedigree and wealth, considering them contemptible) and Hyde as this handsome, confident, aggressive, vivacious life-of-the-party type was refreshing and interesting. It flies in the face of the usual adaptations (although, for my money, Hammer’s Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde is the most unique, even turning Jekyll into Jack the Ripper!) which I wholly embrace.

I have to admit, Paul’s demise thanks to a snake is highly improbable considering there was room for him to find an object to defend himself, and that fact Kitty would proper herself through a glass ceiling out of despair for losing her true beloved a bit hard to swallow (she is just too full of herself and self-absorbed to do something like that, in my mind). But seeing Hyde in action so much was kind of a shock to me; he really does have a good bit of the screen time while Jekyll sort of comes and goes in small increments to remind us how pitiable he is.

Perhaps what goes against this film (critics consider this film boring and plodding; with a script that isn’t that captivating, what I’ve read is that this is a slog for many) is that the appeal of the Jekyll/Hyde story is the ugly monster that represents man’s evil side made manifest. The fact that this film dares go in a different direction where evil has qualities that appeal and charm which is why “there’s a life full of sin for a reason” seemed rather a fine change of pace. Of course, I can always retreat back to Rouben Mamoulian directed Fredric March version for the monster if I so wish, so all is good.