Now Playing

Hello, where can we find the essay of Patrick mc Grath on Jekyll and Hyde ? Thanks

McGrath seems like a nice gentleman, but his observations are a disappointment. The journey--Walpole, Shelley, Poe, Stevenson, etc.--is over plowed ground, and he has very little to contribute that's new or thought-provoking. His interpretation of Jekyll and Hyde is particularly lame. Hyde isn't Jekyll's evil side or an addiction. Hyde is Jekyll's fulfillment, which is the real source of the horror. The best on-screen interpretation was March's. During the transformation scenes March shows us how invigorating and liberating Hyde is to poor Jekyll.

I suppose I should be more charitable to the Storylogue guests. Finding people who can live up to McKee's standard is nigh impossible, I'm sure.

In Buddhist philosophy there is the belief that we are merely perceiving phenomena according to the limitations of our mind's faculties and that nothing has an inherent existence, only existing as it is seen with a 'contaminated belief structure'.
So it is never surprising that a great writer is able or simply does present many layers which we do not perceive all at once - or maybe some do.
My own understanding of Stevenson is that he was presenting that other dimension common in all humans, that of obsessive attachment to a self cherishing nature. That includes us all!
At it's simplist he was presenting what Jung researched intensively, the dual personality in all of us.
This we know when constructing a characterisation as unconscious desire manifesting in an apparently dysfunctional conscious series of actions.
Ah! But is this comedy or drama?