Jekyll: An interpretation. Part three

Many paths to enlightenment talk about integrating the two opposites within. From yogic texts, through alchemy and into Jungian Psychology and one of my interests the grail mythology. It is the aim for all those who wish to attain the enlightened state to integrate the opposites male/female, negative/positive. It is the yin/yang symbology, the hermaphrodite, the anima/animus.

Jekyll and Hyde always had this aspect at the heart of its story. Written at a time when the metaphysical and romantic poets had been challenging the Cartesian worldview of the enlightenment, where Gothic fiction had taken up this baton and continued to question the logical and the rational. It is a man divided, disparate, lacking this enlightened integration. The result: Death for both characters.

For further discussion on this aspect please see link to grailquesting

Steven Moffat’s Jekyll has taken the original story and introduce so many layers.

Last night’s episode five was one of the most tightly written and inspired pieces of drama I have witnessed in a long time. Something Jekyll said last night could be appropriated to sum up a lot of programming on TV these days. Speaking to the character Claire he said something along the lines of most things in this world bore me. I would say that was pretty true of the world of TV at times, with the unreal or stagnatingly depressing soaps, mindless quiz games, unfunny sit-coms, viewer votes programmes (won’t go into that too much…), etc.

This is writing of the highest quality though. Not only because it is well written but because it engages the viewers’ mind and it contains archetypal truths concerning the human condition. It is mythology in the true meaning of the word. The view of the Hyde aspect has always been, solely, as evil, no redeeming qualities at all. Bad and must be destroyed. Steven Moffat has brought more texture to this idea. There is no fixed line in the sand. To survive the two sides of the personality must be resolved, not buried, ignored or exiled to the deepest recesses of our unconscious, but seen, recognised and integrated into the personality.

Okay, I am reading a lot of crazy mumbojumbo into a piece of entertainment. How many hours of it do we watch, what do children grow up on? A lot of TV is about dysfunction, adults screaming at each other, arguing, distress, violence….dis-integration. (see myself climbing up on my soapbox about soaps here). A lot of TV seems to me to send out a negative message about what it is to be what we are, the human condition. The really good writers, and I would include Steven Moffat among them along with people like Dennis Potter and a few others, they create work that can change our view, make us think, become aware; entertain and educate, as the now much maligned and ignored Reithian ideal once championed.

The BBC do it again

Talking about Jekyll. I see the BBC have done it again. Generate interest in a prime time series only to interrupt it half way through. In this case for a lengthy concert to “save the planet” and re-vitalise a few fading pop careers. If I had a fiver for every time the BBC does this it would pay for the licence fee.

They do not deserve to have decently made series’ or the following that such programmes generate if they are prepared to mess around with the schedules with a complete lack of concern for the viewers.

Jekyll: An interpretation. Part two

We could view this in reference to the crisis of masculinity that has occurred over the last thirty or so years. The rise of the feminist movement fighting for equal rights in the face of a male dominated and chauvinistic society, the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction with emasculated and ineffectual new men of the 1980’s, the backlash of laddishness and the more considered response of the mytho-poetic men’s’ movement headed by such people as Robert Bly, seeking a balanced view of the masculine. Hyde, the pre-feminist “old” man and Jackman/Jekyll the sensitive, emotional “new” man.

It would be interesting to discover which aspect women find most attractive? Jackman the family man in a sexless marriage devoid of joy, interest or energy, or Hyde, the unreliable, potential lover promising mystery, danger and erotic pleasure.

Ultimately it is the character of Claire that is acting as the catalyst. In the first episode she was almost incidental to the plot, (though Gina Bellman’s onscreen presence can never be described as incidental), just the wife at home, a background character (in some ways, similar to the role of female leads in pre-feminist, pre-equality horror cinema, just there as a love interest, to scream and be rescued). She is, however, potential in waiting. Episode three contained a pivotal scene as Claire confronted Hyde for the first time and we began to see the strength and resolute belief ready to explode. I have the feeling that Gina Bellman’s portrayal could be a bit of a tour de force: I always considered that she did most in developing her character in the comedy series Coupling (also written by Steven Moffat), so we could see a transformation worthy of Jekyll and Hyde himself as she switches from meek wife to…..well, we shall have to wait and see! Link

BBC Jekyll homepage

Jekyll: An interpretation. Part one

Steven Moffat’s Jekyll (BBC1 Saturday 9.00pm), does seem to be taking the story into new and interesting places, incorporating new aspects, ones that have been presented in the werewolf mythology, and re-telling the story for a contemporary audience. It looks as if there is an institution, sinister in intent, with whom the individual must battle. Rather than be a posse, representing civil law abiding citizenship, intent on destroying the “monster” they represent an institution that can not be trusted who desire to capture, contain and exploit him for their own nefarious and greed/power driven ends: The corrupt officialdom. This concept is a new departure in the Jekyll and Hyde story.

It is also fascinating to follow the way Steven Moffat is developing both aspects of the persona, allowing them to, increasingly, dialogue with each other, a crossing over of memories, thoughts and ideals, almost to the point of some integration of the two distinct aspects of character and personality. It could almost be seen as some bi-polar dysfunction, a purely split personality, were it not for the actual visible and physical changes, more subtle than in most portrayals, but enough to signal to the audience that it is not, merely, a mental aberration, played with a fine balance of nuance by James Nesbitt. So we still have the conflict of inner archetypal personalities but presented in a contemporary framework of reference.

Another aspect to this is the fact that both personalities are necessary. The separated and extreme aspect of Hyde is immoral, a murderer (though not without provocation). He does seem to represent all that is taboo in civilised society, but he alone has protected the family unit. One feels that Jackman left to his own devices would be reasonably ineffectual at combating the evil corporation that seeks to harm and exploit him. He will do “the right thing” in the eyes of society, go to the police, turn himself in…to the very powers who are his enemy.

For more about Jekyll & Hyde and werewolf analogies please click here