Richard's Online Journal

Greetings and salutations. In case you were wondering, Richard Cobbett is a writer and journalist and producer of many other things involving words. He likes cats, hates spiders, and plays a lot of games. This is his website...

[29/07/07] The Strange Series of Dr. Jekyll

"Ahem, Mr Hyde, eyes up- Uh. That's... that's quite a stare. Quite... unco... hey, look! Breasts!"

If you haven’t been watching this on BBC 1, and haven’t got a good excuse, shame on you. The ratings have been awful, but as a show, we haven’t seen a better bit of adult-focused fantasy in aeons. Don’t anyone dare mention Torchwood. There’s just no comparison, in any way, shape or form.

I heart Steven Moffat.

Jekyll is one of those shows that’s almost impossible to describe, not because it’s desperately complicated, but becase of its nature, and the need to avoid saying too much. In terms of personality, it’s as split as its main character - a little comedy, a little horror, and a whole lot of uncertainty. The first episode sets things up like an American drama; a clever premise, simple rules. Communication via dictaphones. All kinds of surveillance equipment. A pretty assistant. It almost seems like this version of Dr. Jekyll is going to be out solving mysteries; a House, Monk, or Dexter, with a split personality.

The second promptly throws almost all of that out of the window. In the third, everything spins again. The narrative is twisted, atmospheric, non-linear…

...and absolutely captivating. It almost feels like stream of consciousness plotting, with characters appearing and disappearing almost at random, plot threads constantly looping, and Hyde’s powers and characteristics all the more powerful for being utterly enigmatic. He’s a fired-up Joker; the malicious grin and joie de vivre of a born killer who’s just discovered the God Mode cheat.

The Jekyll side - Dr. Jackman - suffers from the usual flaw of being a complete dullard, but a dullard who grows quickly. James Nesbitt does a great dual-performance as the pair of them, shackled only by some of the plot devices in the early episodes. No matter how subdued Jekyll and manic Hyde, there’s no chance that anyone’s going to mistake them for different people. As soon as the show develops the confidence to let his two sides stand alone, things improve dramatically - he carries it off with panache, using little more than his eyes and a gleeful grin. Gina Bellman takes a bit longer to get comfortable, but is firmly in her stride when her character starts taking a proper part in the story. And Denis Lawson and Meera Syal are terrific as a wry lesbian detective and sinister businessman.

Wait. Wrong way round there…

With my reviewer hat on, yes, the story definitely has its weaknesses. It’s very slow paced, and while that helps to build atmosphere, you do get to the end of episodes and realise that not all that much has actually happened, especially compared to how much has been set up. Without wanting to spoil anything, too many of the characters are sidelined early on in favour of a frankly embarassing Ancient Evil Conspiracy that really should be sent to its room and told not to be so silly. Powerful they may be, but competent? No. Fox Mulder would have chewed the whole organisation out in one season; Angel could probably have done it in an episode or so.

And the less said about Mr. Hyde’s scary teeth prosthetics, the better.

But really, most of that stuff doesn’t matter. As a whole, Jekyll’s a flawed gem, but the gem bit is the important part of that description. It’s a character and atmosphere piece more than anything else; one with some great acting, and more than a few outright ‘punch the air’ moments. Like much of Moffat’s work, it’s not afraid to both show a lighter side and play with the genre. Moreover, unlike most of the genre right now, it’s not afraid to finish its story. All but a couple of major questions raised in the course of the series are answered by the time the final credits roll - and you get the clues to piece them together long before the big reveal, if you want to be a bit Jonathan Creek about it.

This is a complete show, and one I don’t plan to spoil by posting too much about the story or the individual episodes. Suffice to say, it’s not what you’ll expect when you start the first. Embrace that. Go into it knowing as little as possible, on the sofa, and in a darkened room to better enjoy the atmosphere.

Do so now. The DVD’s out on Monday. If you’ve missed seeing it on TV, go buy or rent. While I don’t know if I want a second series - I think it’s a show that stands best as a one-off - it’d be nothing short of heresy for Moffat and co not to at least be offered one. Not after Hyperdrive and Torchwood getting a second crack at the whip.

<< Warcraft: The Mage Class Guide

Goth Panda Will Devour Your Soul >>

Very mixed feelings on this one. I know what you’re saying, but I’m as unsettled about praise for this show as I am about criticism. Almost, if you will allow it, a Jekyll and Hyde mindset. I have been glued, but I got lost.
1. Is Nesbitt really a good actor?
2. Is the plot too involved, with the writer being allowed to fill his boots without criticism?
3. Saturday evening is just plain wrong.
4. Why am I glued to this?
5. Was the twist at the end really of any value?

I think it will take me a while to work all this out. But I do know that I will miss it. Pure Jekyll, pure Hyde.
But it definitely had a quality something. Maybe in 10 years time we will all be dewey eyed as we talk about it. My fondest memories will be of Hyde - at least the moments when I felt Nesbitt wasn’t over conscious of the dark character he was playing. My worst will be of the times when I just simply thought ‘why am I watching this strange show at this time on a Saturday?”

All in all, I honestly can’t say if it was great or not. Or crap. My personal jury is out. But it was, shall we say, interesting… and that counts for a lot in terms of UK TV drama these days. Because, frankly, most of it is shit.

Posted by JJ on Sunday 29th July

That’s largely why it’s so interesting. I could write as long a post on the stuff that doesn’t work as I could on the stuff that does - it just doesn’t seem as appropriate for a show I’ve been hooked on for the last month or so.

Nesbitt seemed fine to me. Much like David Tennant in Doctor Who’s Human Nature/Family of Blood, he got two almost identical looking characters on screen with very different, immediately effective personalities.

Jackman is pretty easy; tired, scared, confused. Hyde is ridiculous in Episode 2, but improves a lot when he starts dealing with characters on a human level instead of just prancing around and throwing lions at people.

The actual plot’s really not that complicated. Twisty, yes, but pretty well spelled out in the final episode.

I don’t think the twist at the end was a good idea, but mostly because of the HORRIBLE PROSTHETIC TEETH AARGH STOP IT THEY LOOK SILLY. But it did round off the last real unanswered questions the series had, so ultimately I’m okay with it. I’d guessed the big reveal anyway.

Posted by Richard on Sunday 29th July

Yep, fair enough. There is a straight line through the plot, but it was at times seriously overdressed. No first time writer would have been allowed anywhere near as much playfulness, and rightly so.

In terms of the average Saturday viewer, it had the values of something like Dr Who (which was clearly the launch pad) but was over egged. There was something experimental about it - which can’t be bad - and I think perhaps they were looking for guinea pigs. There will be lots of talks behind closed doors about off-centre drama. This guinea pig is all for it, but says sharpen it up a bit. I think we have witnessed the beginning of something. But, as you say, things like the teeth… please…

But, you know, there were little moments I thought were just brilliant. Hyde wasn’t easy for me to come to terms with, but when I did, I really did. I don’t think Nesbitt enjoyed it as much as he might say, but it still did work in some cases. In some cases he became a shade boring as Hyde, and in some I couldn’t wait. I think he might have had an extra ounce in him that he didn’t play. But it was brave of him all the same and I hope he takes from it what he hoped he might.

Would I watch repeats? Probably not.....or probably. Was it a good idea? Yes. Did it work? Still not sure. But, oddly enough, I think I really enjoyed it. Sadly and slighly pathetically, I haven’t been at this much of a TV loss since, while at a tender but critical age, Blake died in Blake’s 7 and I thought ‘what’s the point?’ and went on, in later years, to realise the massiveness of that series. It was two minds stuff there too. If I have to reach that far back for a comparison, I suppose I’ve not got that much to complain about. Jekyll out of ten? Right now I’m saying a cautious six.

Posted by JJ on Sunday 29th July

I loved Jekyll. So much that I bought the DVDs today. Steven Moffat can do very little wrong, in my eyes, and the rumour that he is to be offered the reins of Doctor Who after this next (likely disastrous) series was met with joy and happy tears.

Posted by Andrew Dunn on Saturday 4th August

Oooh. Shiver down the spine…

Posted by Richard on Sunday 5th August