Books2Movies Club discussion
This topic is about
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Quick Reads
>
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
date
newest »
newest »
Fantastic collection of movie posters here. I prefer the old ones to the modern. Surprised to see Ingrid Bergman on one of them. My friend Maria and I finally read the book late last year and we both loved it. Its such a familiar tale that its easy to forget what a fantastic story it is and I'm not surprised there have been so many adaptations. This You Tube video features 16 of them, old and new.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMvPcb...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMvPcb...
Mod
My two natures had memory in common, but all other faculties were most unequally shared between them. Jekyll (who was composite) now with the most sensitive apprehensions, now with a greedy gusto, projected and shared in the pleasures and adventures of Hyde; but Hyde was indifferent to Jekyll, or but remembered him as the mountain bandit remembers the cavern in which he conceals himself from pursuit. Jekyll had more than a father's interest; Hyde had more than a son's indifference.
No surprise then that this story is in the core of the most - if not every - subsequent multiple personality disorder story and movie.
As for movie adaptations, hadn't much time, seen only a few. Last night I really tried hard to watch Kirk Douglas' musical Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1973), with Susan George and Donald Pleasance. Yes, Kirk Douglas sings! But I fell asleep after half an hour – sorry. Was too tired for er... cheery Mary Poppins kind of Victorian England. But it looks like the cast enjoyed filming this for telly.
The first two links below are YouTube links for public domain movies.
John Barrymore's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1920) -- has very interesting special effects, considering this is a movie from the beginning of the 20th century! and very good, even amusing with Disney's Evil Queen kind of Jekyll-Hyde transformation :-)
Climax! Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1955) ---was a
Gore Vidal's adaptation! I watched the version that includes all the TV commercials – rather amusing, if you are interested in the way television functioned in 50s). Although female characters were ridiculous, (view spoiler)this version of the story is I guess... what would be an appropriate word... more dignified and respectful to the author. But the effects were I think better in John Barrymore's version.Dougray Scott's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (2008) --- was weak and the acting lousy. Set in the modern world, with modern man's temptations and obstacles, fell flat in making the other characters in the movie convincing and interesting. The trial against dr. Jekyll was laughable - I am not a lawyer but as a jury I wouldn't be convinced a bit. It was a TV movie, but that cannot be a justification for such a bad script. Maybe I am too harsh.
Was tempted to take a look at the BBC series, Jekyll (2007), but no time for it now. Has anybody seen it, was it any good? Would like to see Sherlock (2010) too.
Joe wrote: "Fantastic collection of movie posters here. I prefer the old ones to the modern. Surprised to see Ingrid Bergman on one of them. My friend Maria and I finally read the book late last year and we..."
Terrific video, Joe. Which if any of the adaptations have you seen? Do you recommend one in particular?
Terrific video, Joe. Which if any of the adaptations have you seen? Do you recommend one in particular?
Zeljka wrote: "Wow brilliant video! And the song too :-)
My favourite Hyde isn't there, though...
but it would spoil the conception then ;-D"
Ha, ha, ha! Very funny, Zeljka. I like your sense of humor.
My favourite Hyde isn't there, though...
but it would spoil the conception then ;-D"
Ha, ha, ha! Very funny, Zeljka. I like your sense of humor.
Zeljka wrote: "I've read the story in a couple of days. I agree, without even previously seen any of the onscreen adaptations, the images story provided were quite vivid and convincing, and time did no harm to th..."
Zeljka wrote: "I've read the story in a couple of days. I agree, without even previously seen any of the onscreen adaptations, the images story provided were quite vivid and convincing, and time did no harm to th..."
Thanks for the links, Zeljka. I will try to watch one of the adaptations when I get home from vacation. In the meantime, here is what I thought of the story. I wrote this last November after Joe and I read it together:
Overall, I found this story to be exceptional. I appreciated Stevenson's writing style, the quick and concise text, and exact vocabulary that evoked just the precise emotion. It is such a great skill and talent to be able to present exceptional word choice. Also, I really loved the fact that I was a participant in the story. Stevenson left things open enough so that I had to use my imagination continuously. I was fully engaged. There was no limit to where I could go using his words and my thoughts. The emphasis today is on using social media so that people can participate fully in things like television shows creating endings to plots and developing commercials. And, of course, the producers of social media audience participation events think they are novel and innovative. Clearly, they haven't read DJMH nor are they familiar with Stevenson's style of engaging his readers imagination fully to create his stories - he certainly was an author ahead of his time.
No wonder there are so many film adaptations for this story. Stevenson has clearly engaged many people's imagination and inspired them to interpret his work. A great testament to his ability to move readers to active participation.
Zeljka wrote: "I've read the story in a couple of days. I agree, without even previously seen any of the onscreen adaptations, the images story provided were quite vivid and convincing, and time did no harm to th..."
Thanks for the links, Zeljka. I will try to watch one of the adaptations when I get home from vacation. In the meantime, here is what I thought of the story. I wrote this last November after Joe and I read it together:
Overall, I found this story to be exceptional. I appreciated Stevenson's writing style, the quick and concise text, and exact vocabulary that evoked just the precise emotion. It is such a great skill and talent to be able to present exceptional word choice. Also, I really loved the fact that I was a participant in the story. Stevenson left things open enough so that I had to use my imagination continuously. I was fully engaged. There was no limit to where I could go using his words and my thoughts. The emphasis today is on using social media so that people can participate fully in things like television shows creating endings to plots and developing commercials. And, of course, the producers of social media audience participation events think they are novel and innovative. Clearly, they haven't read DJMH nor are they familiar with Stevenson's style of engaging his readers imagination fully to create his stories - he certainly was an author ahead of his time.
No wonder there are so many film adaptations for this story. Stevenson has clearly engaged many people's imagination and inspired them to interpret his work. A great testament to his ability to move readers to active participation.
Mod
Great insights, Maria, really like them! Exactly my thoughts of the book. I admit I was a bit dissapointed when Stevenson didn't toward the end uncover more of Hyde's character and mischief, but now after thinking about it more, maybe it's better that way. The dark side of human nature reveals to each person in different ways, so there would probably be more complaints of detailed descriptions had Stevenson provided them. The only real trouble of the story is that no film adaptation can give it enough merit. Or I haven't found that one. Stevenson knew his craft really too well :-)
Maria wrote: "Terrific video, Joe. Which if any of the adaptations have you seen? Do you recommend one in particular?"
Actually, Zeljka's favourite is fast becoming mine too. I've watched it five times today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFa5JA...
Actually, Zeljka's favourite is fast becoming mine too. I've watched it five times today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFa5JA...
Zeljka wrote: "I've read the story in a couple of days. I agree, without even previously seen any of the onscreen adaptations, the images story provided were quite vivid and convincing, and time did no harm to th..."
I've seen the BBC adaptation Jekyll, Zeljka, but I didn't think a lot to it. I'm not a fan of James Nesbitt and I didn't like the story idea of his character being a descendent of DJ and suffering the same problem. It seems to have quite a high rating on that IMDB link you provide, though, so perhaps I'm on my own with this one.
I've seen the BBC adaptation Jekyll, Zeljka, but I didn't think a lot to it. I'm not a fan of James Nesbitt and I didn't like the story idea of his character being a descendent of DJ and suffering the same problem. It seems to have quite a high rating on that IMDB link you provide, though, so perhaps I'm on my own with this one.
Joe wrote: " Maria wrote: "Terrific video, Joe. Which if any of the adaptations have you seen? Do you recommend one in particular?"
Actually, Zeljka's favourite is fast becoming mine too. I've watched it f..."
What? Only five times? Ha, ha, ha......I love it! Thanks for sharing, Joe.
Actually, Zeljka's favourite is fast becoming mine too. I've watched it f..."
What? Only five times? Ha, ha, ha......I love it! Thanks for sharing, Joe.
Mod
Haha you made my day, thank you for this clip :-D
Mod
True, the story doesn't seem really plausible. And Nesbitt does leave some unlikable impression. At least that was what I felt watching him in Canterbury Tales. On the other hand, the character there was supposed to be unlikable! I wonder how he would interpret Bofur from The Hobbit, in the pic looks quite fitting :-)
I may not be a fan of Nesbitt but he's a quality actor and I'm sure he'll do a good job on any character he plays. To be honest, I barely recognised him from that photo.
I recently watched the BBC series but did not think much of it either. It is very modern and strays quite far from the novel. The transitions took place with a little shake of the head and dimming of the lights lending a silliness to it. I did watch it all the way through and it is better than most of what is on television but that's not saying much.
Mod
Haha you are totally right. I've seen recently another Nesbitt's series, BBC too, The Deep, where all the actors (him included) were quite solid, but the script was horrible. I was puzzled at how it is possible that it turned to be so lousy, given they had pretty interesting premise at hand. But I watched it till the end, hoping it would somehow rise above its bad points, but of course, it didn't. Each episode just went further, more deeply to disaster...
Mod
And here's one public domain oldie-goldie, YouTube too: Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde (1925)
:)
Zeljka wrote: "BTW, I got reminded of another funny cartoon spoof of Jekyll and Hyde, here's the YouTube clip: Hyde and Hare (1955) Thanks for that trip down memory lane. I feel like calling in sick and watching Looney Tunes all day.
Books2Movies Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (other topics)Mary Reilly (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Gore Vidal (other topics)Douglas Adams (other topics)
Robert Louis Stevenson (other topics)
Valerie Martin (other topics)
What amazes me with this book, that it inspired over 123 adaptations – yes, wikipedia says 123! And for all, or almost all, I haven't seen but one, there are complaints of them being unfaithfull to the original source. I'll mention here a couple of them I think are interesting to see. As for you, I'll be more than happy if you would see and comment one adaptation of your choice.
There is one movie that is linked to the Stevenson's novella, Mary Reilly (1996), but I wouldn't consider it for this thread, as it is actually based on the novel inspired by the story in question,
First feature length movies were made in 1920, and both are in public domain, therefore obtainable for free online. The more popular one is with John Barrymore, the other is with Sheldon Lewis. If not a movie itself, you may check an interesting review of the latter one at The Devil's Manor.
There is also public domain version of the story with Fredric March in the main role(s), made in 1931. They are all silent movies, but I like the posters, might understand the appeal of them :)
Spencer Tracy did also try to depict the ambiguity of the human nature, in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) alongside the most beautiful actresses of that time, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner.
Interesting movies from 60's would be The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960) with Christopher Lee in the supporting, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) with Jack Palance in the main role.
Don't know what to think of Dr Jekyll & Sister Hyde (1971). I guess just the same what I think of Dr Jekyll & Ms. Hyde (1995), Julia Jekyll & Harriet Hyde (1995) and The Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Rock 'n Roll Musical (2003).
The only version of the story I've seen when I was just a kid (so to be honest I do not remember a bit of it), was Michael Caine's Jekyll & Hyde (1990).
I am curious about recent adaptations of the story, martial arts version (yes, that's right, no clue how they've sold that...) made in the year 2000 with Adam Baldwin in the main role, the second one with John Hannah, made in 2003, and the third with Dougray Scott, made in 2008. They have lousy ratings, but the actors are decent. Well, Baldwin I like simply because of Firefly. My bad.
So. Many choices here! It would be great to take a look at one silent version of the story, and then to take a look at one of the modern adaptations, whichever available. I hope only that the story isn't really too lengthy one, but no pressure. Remember Douglas Adams's quote: "I love deadlines. I like the wooshing sound they make as they fly by." :)