MovieChat Forums > Mary Reilly (1996) Discussion > How can NO ONE tell the Dr. + his 'assis...

How can NO ONE tell the Dr. + his 'assistant' are the same person??

posted 14 years ago by Xeokym
6 replies | jump to latest

I'm sorry but I just could NOT get over the idea that NO ONE could tell the Doctor and his "assistant" were one in the same. I mean, come ON, it's like no one can tell that Superman is Clark Kent just because he puts a pair of glasses on!! It's absurd! So his hair gets a little longer without the gray, and he's clean-shaven. And all anyone says about it is the one servant, who comments, "they DO look a bit alike, don't they?" A BIT?! It drove me so bonkers that I could barely watch the movie. Doesn't anyone notice the two are never around simultaneously? It practically ruined the whole thing for me.

"Questions are a danger to you, and a burden to others." -Mr. Krabs

[–] Madonna-whore 14 years ago

OMG I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING About Clark Kent and Superman when I was watching this!

That bothered me as well, they were EXACTLY the same person, like, literally, how come nobody knew it? At least suspect that they were twins or remotely related!

------------------------------
That was longer than a heartbeat!

[–] paleolith 14 years ago

They hardly saw Hyde at all -- not surprising that they then didn't notice the lack of simultaneous presence.

Their coloration is entirely different. Their bearing is entirely different. These are major elements of personal recognition. People don't live talking with movie-screen head shots.

Finally, their expectation was of two men. Expectation is 90% of recognition. They hadn't read the Robert Louis Stevenson story.

That part is very believable.

Edward

[–] Merrida 14 years ago

Well said. And sure, I, too, always had that whole Clarke Kent/Superman issue because it was so blatant. But here, there are sufficient differences that would make him appear as two distinct separate individuals. No one on staff got very close to him at all, so all they would see is his countenance, how he carries himself, his gait and composure. We could somehow overlook the hair growing long and turning black I suppose, but there were enough differences to make this far more believable than Superman.

>>>>Edit to say>>>>> Just as Bradshaw (Michael Sheen) pointed out somewhat in jest, that they DID look similar. And the way he referred, metaphorically speaking, that perhaps this Mr. Hyde was the production of the doctor's "sowing his wild oats" back in the day, put enough of a potential spin to at least consider that Dr. Hyde, perhaps even under some duress, took Hyde in because he was a bastard child, the illegitimate product of the good doctor's unrestrained lust, (with shackles broken, Hyde is the over-emphasis of that aspect of Jeckyl's persona). That lends it at least a bit of credence to buffer the sharing of similar features.

And finally, after watching a (surprisingly) well-performed movie, God could only know why the director felt the need to downgrade and ham up this splitting and rejoining of Jeckyl and Hyde by actually demonstrating in the physical, the clashing twist, and making it look like a cheesey rip off of all those other flicks, (and there are way too many to mention), that used the same ploy, and made what would be a tortuous split/union of the man and psyche,...and turned it into some type of alien trying to crawl out of his body. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but that stupid, stupid ending shot holes in any and all of what were flimsy at best, attempts to show two sides of the same man. Why? Why did they ruin it by silly, unrelated effects? ....and no, I cannot suspend my disbelief quite THAT much, even in defense of a movie I like,...

<<<<<End of Edit<<<<<
______________________________________
Sic vis pacem para bellum.

[–] noirgirl 14 years ago

The first thing to remember is that no one in that age would even have been able to conceptualize that one man could be two different people. Especially those of the lower classes who were not writers. So your mind makes reasons for what is within your ken. Hyde is younger, meaner, different teeth, coloring, gestures, mannerisms. The imagination of the servants would have gone only as far as bastard son, creepy distant relative, secret younger brother, and the like.

[–] ricky_says_hi 13 years ago

the other characters do point out the similarities between them and wonder if they are related. i mean, we all know the story so of course we know they're the same person but what Victorian Londoner in their right mind is going to assume that they are the same?

http://betterwithbob.blogspot.com/

[–] paramitch 12 years ago

I thought the choice to "age up" Dr. Jekyll made it at least somewhat understandable. Jekyll looks like a man approaching 50, gentle and courteous and blue-eyed.

Hyde meanwhile is dark-haired and dark-eyed, looks a good 15 years younger (basically to me he looks 30-35), so as the servants comment, it's believable that they simply assume Hyde is a bastard of Jekyll's youth. This also explains why Jekyll goes to such lengths to protect him (at least, to the servants). It worked for me.

Within the confines of a Victorian universe, the fact that a blue-eyed, gray-haired man leaves the scene and a visibly much younger, physically different man (dark-haired and dark-eyed) returns could just as easily be explained as Dr. Jekyll being a shy and retiring sort who gives in to his bastard but who is also embarrassed by his presence.