While watching Jekyll
in class, one difference between this adaption and the book particularly stood
out to me. This is the physical stature of Hyde. In the book, Enfield describes
Hyde as having “something wrong with his appearance; something downright
detestable” (Stevenson 5). He is further described as being hunched over.
Conversely in the adaption, Hyde is two inches taller than Jekyll and has a
more forward hairline. He also is
socially conscious, displayed through his ability to manipulate people (ie:
Jekyll’s wife’s fondness of Hyde), whereas he is not socially conscious in the
book.
4 comments:
Whilst watching the adaptation, your point had not crossed my mind; as it was a comparison I failed to notice. I assume it was because I was thinking of it as a whole new alternate story, since some of the smaller details like his appearance seemed to sway from the original text. But after you mentioning it, I found it interesting that the producers of Jekyll chose to make Hyde a more attractive counterpart, opposed to grotesque.
I like the idea you discuss of Hyde in the Jekyll adaptation being socially conscious as compared to the Hyde in the novella, because although this Hyde still seems to just do whatever he likes, he does seem to be more tactful about it than his counterpart, maybe due to the fact that his appearance doesn't change that much from Jackman's? Although he doesn't seem to care what may happen to Jackman's reputation, he doesn't really function as the cloak that the original Hyde does for Jekyll, so that social part of him may need to develop if he wants to continue to go out into the world so that Jackman isn't force to find a cure.
I noticed the same thing as I watched the film adaptation. Perhaps his increased height is a way to portray his power over Jekyll, or his strength in general.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.