- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Tonight we finally got Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’s backstory–to mild mannered scientist to robust alpha male. What did you think of how the show spun this classic tale, making Jekyll the villain? And was he really a villain? Does this make Hyde a hero?
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I think, for the moment, that a pro/con list is safer for me because I’m feeling all manner of conflict.
PRO: Both Hyde and Jekyll were well portrayed by their actors. Hyde’s been the better of the two all along, but Jekyll really brought his A-game this week.
PRO/CON: Classic OUAT twist that the story is more complicated than what you think–though this is not the first time the villain’s story is “because of a love interest.”
PRO: Good costumes
PRO/CON: There was so much to explore about society and how it dictates how we present ourselves to the world and how it can feel like we are leading a double life. They did a decent job with the amount of time allotted but it’s a gold mine.
CON: Mary’s entire backstory. If this was the first time the show were to have women be sexually aggressive and then be punished for it or explained that this is part of villainy, I would be willing to discuss the point but Mary is not the first case, not even by a long shot. When they want women to be “bad” and given traits that are deemed “bad” and need to be corrected, it’s aggressively sexual. From the EQ to Zelena to Lacey to Emma…it’s not…pretty. And, yes before anyone says it, I know that it’s Victorian England (well, Fictional) and that it’s upholding certain mores about that society in that time, but…again, Mary isn’t the first case where sex is used to distinguish, for wont of a better trope, Madonnas and Whores.
PRO: The flashbacks felt relevant and for more than just the current plot. Again, there’s a lot there and not just about the serum. Society, science vs magic, repression, emasculation….all good thought-provoking, conversation worthy elements.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"CON: Mary’s entire backstory.
I am going to talk this out a bit more in hopes that I can explain it further. I should probably classify it as a PRO/CON because, like some other aspects, there’s a gold mine to explore here. Mary is leading a double life like Jekyll only her’s isn’t manifested by way of a literal split. She’s vacillating between what society wants her to be–the dutiful Victorian daughter, all proper and virtuous–and what she wants–a life of passion and desire. That’s heavy! And relevant! And should be explored in a lot of way but because Mary is a one-off it’s never going to so the end result is less than ideal.
All of this–Mary being torn–is apparent in the way she’s written and her actual dialogue but none of it is actually explored. Instead, Mary makes a choice–the life of passion and desire–and then is promptly killed for it by a man who feels emasculated because he’s likewise oppressing his own sexual desires. And then he gets called the villain not just for killing Mary (obviously that’s a no-no) but because of his repression!
The show seems to suggest the following: A) If Jekyll had not been so repressed and so determined to squash his own inner sexual desires (what he calls the beast and what Hyde manifests as, all swagger, confidence and virility) then he would not have killed Mary, he would not have created his serum and no one would be in this situation (including our heroes). Men of the world: be more like the Hyde persona!
But at the same time, B) If Mary had chosen her duty over her own sexual desires, Jekyll would have gotten what he wanted–Mary–and while their union would have been miserable, Jekyll’s would have manifested in affairs which the show goes to a weird length to show as common in Victorian England while Mary’s would have manifested in personal misery because she’s denying an aspect of herself. Women of the world: Don’t make the wrong choice like Mary did!
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The show seems to suggest the following: A) If Jekyll had not been so repressed and so determined to squash his own inner sexual desires (what he calls the beast and what Hyde manifests as, all swagger, confidence and virility) then he would not have killed Mary, he would not have created his serum and no one would be in this situation (including our heroes). Men of the world: be more like the Hyde persona!
My interpretation is quite different. Although Hyde is supposed to be the beast, I thought he was surprisingly gentlemanly in his scenes with Mary. Not once did he come across as agressive (correct me if I’m wrong, as I’ve only watched it once). He was simply himself, and Mary found that attractive. I actually found Jekyll more creepy – his comment about “owning” Mary rang alarm bells. So, what did I take to be the message in all of this? That repressing part of yourself, whether it’s sexual desire or something else, is more harmful than the impulse you are trying to repress. That’s not to say that any desire can be acted out indiscriminately; learning to control and express these feelings in a healthy way is the ultimate goal here.
But at the same time, B) If Mary had chosen her duty over her own sexual desires, Jekyll would have gotten what he wanted–Mary–and while their union would have been miserable, Jekyll’s would have manifested in affairs which the show goes to a weird length to show as common in Victorian England while Mary’s would have manifested in personal misery because she’s denying an aspect of herself. Women of the world: Don’t make the wrong choice like Mary did!
Yes, this is a disturbing message, although my initial reaction was to just see Mary as a victim, rather than infer any meaning from her actions and their consequence, since the focus is on Jekyll and Hyde.
I liked everything except Jekyll going from accidental killer to full blown trying to murder Belle. It was a fast jump but the twist was great and the flashbacks were the best so far this season.
Hi people! I know I didn’t comment here for a while but I was lurking all this time… Anyway I just had to comment because I have a lot to say about this Jekyll and Hyde thing.
It was really good, I enjoyed it. It was a nice twist, one that everyone saw comming but not in a bad way, more in a ‘that’s what a show that gives classic fairytales new twists would do’ kind of way and they didn’t dissapoint which was nice. And the having Rumple there was fitting, I mean sometimes it feels like they’re just sticking Rumple into other stories because why not but here it felt natural. But, i did come out of this episode really confused.
Who is the good half and who is the bad one? Rumple said that the good half can still grow the darkness back and he said that refering to Jekyll, I think, but Hyde wasn’t bad at all until Mary’s death like sure he blackmailed someone but Jekyll killes someone and framed his other half for it so…
Interesting to note though that the good half can grow darkness bit probably hints about the Evil Queen, that she can learn to love.
But there was one thing that confused me the most. That was the guy from OUATIW. WHAT THE HELL??? I don’t understand! Just one episode ago they didn’t include Anna as one of Cinderella’s sisters! And yes I know that they never actually stated that as fact, but it was inferred! The point I’m trying to make is that A&E had the opportunity to include OUATIW and they deliberately chose not to. And I assumed it was because they were finished with it and didn’t want to touch it anymore. But now this episode they’re suddenly including this guy from the asylum and setting the story in Fictional England? And they could easily not do that, they could set it in the Land Without Color. It would even be more fitting. And I know they remember it because just the previous episode they included Frankenstein!!! They made this choice to refer to OUATIW. And I have no idea what is the messege that they’re trying to convey, especially when you remember the Aladdin storyline and Jafar…
You know what I can't continue with the dead people brought back to life list I'm out of space in the signature and now we have an underworld arc this is to much I quit why do you bring so many people back to life OUAT WHHHYYYY
Although Hyde is supposed to be the beast, I thought he was surprisingly gentlemanly in his scenes with Mary
Gentlemanly, yes, but…a different sort. It’s like (struggles to think of an example…) Sheldon Cooper vs James Bond. One of those characters screams “sex.” It’s just part of their make up because of how they are presented and how the world perceives them. It’s a very masculine and raw (if that makes sense) sort of potency. There’s a casually sexual ease to him…Mary is certainly drawn to him because he embodies all the passion and desire she’s looking for.
ETA: just to clarify I’m not condoning that sort of mind set that dictates classically handsome men automatically are automatically labeled as sexy or invoking sexual feelings, but it’s certainly apparent in media (James Bond really is the best example here)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I find it interesting that a protection spell to keep Hyde off of the Jolly Roger would have allowed Jekyll on board. Especially as they are the same person.
CON: Mary’s entire backstory. If this was the first time the show were to have women be sexually aggressive and then be punished for it or explained that this is part of villainy, I would be willing to discuss the point but Mary is not the first case, not even by a long shot. When they want women to be “bad” and given traits that are deemed “bad” and need to be corrected, it’s aggressively sexual. From the EQ to Zelena to Lacey to Emma…it’s not…pretty. And, yes before anyone says it, I know that it’s Victorian England (well, Fictional) and that it’s upholding certain mores about that society in that time, but…again, Mary isn’t the first case where sex is used to distinguish, for wont of a better trope, Madonnas and Whores. PRO: The flashbacks felt relevant and for more than just the current plot. Again, there’s a lot there and not just about the serum. Society, science vs magic, repression, emasculation….all good thought-provoking, conversation worthy elements.
Last spring I had turned over some interesting thoughts/amateur analysis of the fictional stereotype of the evil sexually aggressive woman thing and thought about starting a thread on it, but never got around to it. I have to assume it has been brought up here before 🙂 Whether it got its own thread or not, I wouldn’t know. Usually I just see people decrying the depiction without analyzing it further, from what I’ve seen (not here, I haven’t been on this board long enough to see how it is treated here).
The topic ‘Strange Case of Jekyll and Hyde’ is closed to new replies.