The more I read for research, the more I have to rewrite

Unlike my earlier movie books, all the films I’m writing about in Jekyll and Hyde stem from the same single source. That’s not the case, with say, aliens or time travel.

While my initial perceptions about ETs-on-Earth films changed as I watched and compared more films, with everything in Jekyll and Hyde rooted in Stevenson’s novel, the level of interaction is higher. Rereading the book made me see the 1932 movie version draws even more from Stevenson than I realized. Reading the script for the Richard Mansfield stage adaptation gave me a similar reaction.

First up, I reread THE ESSENTIAL DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (edited by Leonard Wolf) because the footnotes about Jekyll and Hyde’s relationship, Stevenson’s themes and the plot holes are great help to my book. The core of the reading though, is still Stevenson’s novel.

Rereading (I reread it for Questionable Minds too as Jekyll plays a large role in the plot) I find myself annoyed by people who describe it as an allegory. While yes, Jekyll and Hyde are hypocrisy and sin made flesh, they’re not mere symbols the way Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress is. They’re flesh and blood characters with distinct personalities even if Stevenson’s vague on details — what is Jekyll’s charity work? What crimes have made Hyde so infamous?. Other characters such as Utterson and Poole are clearly not allegorical.

This reread (probably not my last between now and submitting the manuscript) also has me reflecting how Jekyll/Hyde isn’t really a split personality. Up until late in the story, Jekyll doesn’t suffer a break in consciousness when he becomes Hyde — the whole point of the transformation is that he can sin without feeling any guilt or worrying about being identified (“Look, isn’t that the respected Dr. Jekyll having sex with an underage girl?”).

It does, however, make a good analogy with addiction (not an original thought, I freely admit). Like some alcoholics, Jekyll can see the transformation into Hyde has horrific effects but he can’t bring himself to give up the good parts of his double life. He even assures Utterson at one point that he can cut off his connections to Hyde at any time, no trouble at all! He can quit whenever he wants …

I bought another edition of Jekyll and Hyde because it had Vladimir Nabokov’s lecture on the book as an introduction. Alas, while he made some good points (how the all-male core cast can read “gay” in a way it wouldn’t have in 1886), the author comes off as a pompous windbag — all movies based on the novel are terrible, the book is definitely not a mystery because mysteries suck, etc. I was more interested in the afterword by Dan Chaon discussing how his son “knows” Hyde (or at least a pop-culture version of him) even though he’s never read the book or seen it adapted.

JEKYLL AND HYDE DRAMATIZED: The 1887 Richard Mansfield Script and the Evolution of the Story on Stage by Martin A. Danahay and Alex Chisholm was an invaluable discovery for its information about Richard Mansfield’s play, which redefined the story by giving Jekyll a love interest — though I imagine the movies would have done the same, even without Mansfield clearing the way.

I can see other ways Mansfield influenced the films, for example giving Hyde’s murder of Sir Danvers Carew a motive other than Hyde’s raw savagery. One thing which didn’t influence films is that Mansfield follows Stevenson in coming in in media res, when Jekyll’s use of Hyde is well under way. Most of the films I’ve seen show the mad-science moment Jekyll develops and then downs his formula.

A rival version by David Bandmann is much less interesting while a third take, commissioned by legendary British actor Henry Irving for his son, throws in an astonishing number of complications. Jekyll’s research is based on mysterious Indian secrets and tampering with them drove his wife blind. He’s also the former lover of Laura, wife of the adulterous lecher Sir Danvers Carew, and now the Carews’ butler is blackmailing her with some of the letters between the lovers. Fortunately Jekyll knows someone who can deal with a backstabbing servant …

A very specialized book but worth the time.

#SFWApro. All rights to images remain with current holders. Questionable Minds cover by Samantha Collins.