All Fauxn Up

Runtime: 1 hr 36 min

Starring: Michael Caine, Cheryl Ladd, and Joss Ackland

Director: David Wickes

I don’t think I shared my process for the Jekyll & Hyde project. Every Monday, I sit down, watch a new movie, and wait to post until Sunday. This gives me some time to contemplate whatever the fuck I just watched. The problem is that in that time between movie and post, the forgettable movies I, well, forget. That’s not to say I forget everything about this particular movie!

I remember thinking that I’ve heard of Michael Caine plenty of times, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him in a single movie. Ever. He was quite enjoyable as Dr. Henry Jekyll! If I compare all the actors who have played this role, I would say his performance as Jekyll is the most natural. He has natural charisma on screen, which begs the question: why haven’t I seen Caine in more movies? Do I just live under a rock?

Here is the basic story: my guy Utterson (Utterson, ya’ll!) learns that a woman named Sarah Crawford has rights to Jekyll’s estate. So, he goes in search of her and finds her in some small town, living with her young son. She clearly wants nothing to do with Jekyll’s estate, and all she says is that she doesn’t want anything to do with it because of what happened with Hyde. We are transported back a few years, when Hyde is already stirring up trouble.

I’m trying not to give away too much, but here is the gist: Jekyll was married to Sarah’s sister, Louise, and the sisters’ father (Dr. Lanyon) blames Jekyll for Louise’s death. But how is he to blame for Louise getting pneumonia and not making it? I don’t know. The real problem is that the two doctors have different views on medical matters, and Dr. Jekyll is challenging Dr. Lanyon’s expertise. Apparently, being progressive is a no-go for Lanyon? Though, to be fair, Jekyll being able to fuck up his experiments and become Hyde doesn’t put much faith in his point of view, right?

And let’s just say that something else comes up that really pisses Lanyon off. Since I don’t want to spoil the twists and turns this movie takes (and there aren’t many), I’ll just say that, yeah, I kind of get it. I mean, I don’t want to judge, but given the fact that this was in the 1800s? Everyone was all kinds of repressed! How and why do you think Hyde made his appearance? Hyde is one giant ‘fuck you’ to the repressed, uptight bourgeoisie. But I won’t judge, because I might find back-in-the-day Michael Caine a quandary/temptation, too. I’m just saying.

The one thing I did not like was Caine’s portrayal of Hyde. So, this is a pattern. I seem to enjoy portrayals of the good doctor more than his alter ego when I’m watching these films. This one was too monstrous for me. I also didn’t love the transformation/make-up (see picture above). I have a very specific portrayal in mind, and I’m not sure I’ll get it in any of these films. I won’t share just yet. I kind of just want to wait and see, but I’ll let you know if I do come across what I’m picturing in my head.

Fun note: there is a prostitute named Lucy in this version who, if you’re familiar with the musical, also makes a major appearance in that stage version. Was the Lucy in the musical a direct pull from this movie? I’ll have to research that when/if I decide to watch the musical.

And, guys, there was a will, but apparently Sarah is getting everything.

I’m upset about it, but you know what? The Phantom of the Opera takes place around the same time period. I’m going to head over to Paris and steal a few of Erik’s candelabras. He can spare a few!

7.1/10

Siemelle