The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson doesn't include a romance.No, no, it really doesn't.
The movie versions do--even the (quite good) silent film, starring Barrymore. And nearly every version after that, including Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, does.
Why?
On my main blog, I discuss how the book is really a detective mystery. It is told almost entirely from the point of view of Utterson, Jekyll's attorney, and catalogs his distress at learning that his friend is possibly being blackmailed--or worse--by that nefarious creature Hyde!The movies all move Dr. Jekyll center-stage, which is a pity since he isn't as interesting as he thinks he is--yet there he is, Frederic March or Spenser Tracy, worrying over his potions and threatening the neighbors. And he's got a girlfriend--
Actually, he usually has two girlfriends, the high-class, high-brow girlfriend of Dr. Jekyll and the not high-class but still sweet-natured girlfriend of Mr. Hyde. Since Mr. Hyde is obviously a bad catch, the issue is not about whom Dr. Jekyll will choose. Rather--
Okay, let's be honest. She's filler. The original story is not that long. It makes for a decent one-hour mystery special--and there are enough exciting events to keep the viewer engaged. To cover ninety minutes, a subplot is required.
The problem: the romance subplot is boring beyond belief. I quite like Spenser Tracy--but I can never figure out what Ivy and Beatrix are supposed to be doing in the film--except to supply context for the catalyzing event. The end result is to give Hyde motivation for the murder(s), which he doesn't have in the book.As I mention in the Votaries post, I find the detective aspect of the book far more interesting than a straight retelling. The introduction of a woman's touch doesn't change my mind.
Of course, the original text has nearly no parts for women except for the servants (hence Mary Reilly, which I only tried to read and haven't seen). But early 1900s Hollywood was not exactly worried about the lack of female representation (except as an audience draw). I think, instead, that the introduction of potential romantic partners was (1) a way to expand the story; (2) a way to discuss morality in a comfortable way (comfortable to the time period).
Jekyll and Hyde's mistreatment of women, Jekyll through his horrid experiments and Hyde by being, well, Hyde, becomes short-hand for moral dissolution. It's an idea that postulates women as owners of the pedestal (even the "fallen" woman)--and is yet another reason that women like me read M/M romance. But it does serve as a kind of shorthand: these guys do bad things to holy women. Man, they are BAAAD.
 |
| Woman as killer--not merely victim! Granted, this episode |
| combines the tropes. |
This is a type that current readers/viewers--due to John Douglas and Criminal Minds--fully comprehend. But viewers of the previous century still thought of such characters in terms of cause and effect; even Hitchcock tripped all over himself trying to explain motive in Psycho.
So Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies give Dr. Jekyll nobler intent plus women--at least two of them. Hey, maybe the women will explain everything!
