0
0
Directed by Joe Stephenson (Chicken, McKellen: Playing The Partand), Doctor Jekyll marks the first release from the legendary Hammer Films following its acquisition by theater and entertainment mogul John Gore. It had its world premiere at London’s FrightFest last year and is making its way to the US for an August 2nd theatrical release.
Starring Eddie Izzard (Hannibal, Valkyrie) in the titular role, Scott Chambers (Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2), and stage and screen veteran Lindsay Duncan (A Banquet, Birdman). Here’s a quick synopsis of Stephenson’s new take on the gothic horror tale: “When ex-convict Rob takes the carer position to the infamous Nina Jekyll, little does he know he’s part of an evil master plan devised by her alter ego Rachel Hyde. But to what lengths will Rob go to satisfy his client’s weird wishes and his own ambitions for the daughter he has never even seen?”
Doctor Jekyll director Joe Stephenson joined us to chat about Hammer Horror, navigating expectations, and making “weird little” movies. Check out our full interview below.
In this version, Dr. Jekyll is a woman, Dr. Nina Jekyll. How did you land on Suzy for this role? She’s obviously built up a massive history in comedy as Eddie Izzard, but she also has a great genre resume. How did this come to be?
There was a version of the film that was coming together that, ultimately, I was feeling nervous about. I felt like I was making someone else’s movie. It didn’t feel quite right. I needed somebody who was going to really shake it up and make it feel fresh. And then I met with Suzy, and we had drinks. We got on really, really well very quickly. Spent a couple of hours drinking, and it just seemed so obvious. It just seemed so right. It was a very quick attachment.
Her style of comedy is such a stream-of-consciousness, kind of surrealist; it’s brilliant. It just felt like if we could bring an element of that energy into Hyde, then it would keep people on their toes. It would bring something that you’ve not seen before. And she’s got a wonderful track record. Naturally, she’s always wanted to be a movie star, and this felt like an old-school movie. We are trying to make a film that throws back to Hammer Horror of a certain era. These sorts of films don’t get made very often, and I think their marriage just made total sense.
When you feel like you’re making someone else’s movie and you’re trying to figure out what that missing piece is, how does Suzy pop into your head? Did someone suggest that?
One of the producers suggested Suzy. We were always open to all types of casting. We were not looking for a particular gender, we weren’t looking for anybody in particular.
You know what it was? I felt like I was trying to make something that would do well. You kind of go, “Oh, this is my third film, and I need to do something that’s going to hit with a certain demographic of people.” I was just doing that, which isn’t really making a film from somewhere in yourself. That’s just trying to tick boxes.
When it came to Suzy, we just went, “Oh, hang on a second. The character’s trans,” and now we’ve got something that is unique. We’ve got Suzy’s comedy. We’ve got everything. It just felt like suddenly it was now something that was its own unique thing and not a copy of somebody else’s thing. That’s what it felt like.
The story doesn’t focus on gender or trans-ness. There’s no plot device to that element, I think people are going to be surprised by that.
Yeah, that was a really clear thing. It was going, “Well, we’re not changing the script now.” Not at least because Suzy didn’t want to. I didn’t want to either. The point was that this was gender-blind casting, and we were going to cast whoever was right for the role.
The fact that it was a trans woman, okay, now the character is a trans woman. The plot doesn’t suddenly change. And we were never going to do that. I think it was just a case of having a trans character doesn’t mean that the plot has to revolve around their trans-ness. And the same way that having a queer character doesn’t mean that it has to be a coming-out story. We need to move past that a bit.
There will always be spaces for films about trans-ness, and that’s important. But I’m not trans, so I feel like that should be coming from a trans filmmaker. There are always spaces for queer movies about queer experience, but it shouldn’t be exclusive. I think it’s nice to have a character that is just existing and being themselves and not having consequences and that not being the reason they’re going through what they’re going through.
I was lucky enough to chat with Suzy about this. There’s a place for those stories, but the plot does not always need to revolve around that aspect.
I’m just ready to see stories that are a little bit more open with the casting, I guess. It felt radical, slightly. There were trans-phobes online saying, “Oh, it’s this. It’s going to be this.” As a filmmaker, it is so frustrating when you’re making something, and you see people responding in a certain way. That group of people online did respond when we announced, and it was very frustrating because I sat there going, “It’s literally got nothing to do with it.”
But I’m really glad where we ended up. We do obviously mention trans-ness very briefly. There was another mention in deleted scenes on the Blu-ray, but we ultimately decided that it didn’t even really warrant that. It felt like let’s just let her live.
It’s intriguing that you were reading the comments.
I think it’s hard when you’re particularly independent. My first film was an indie drama called Chicken, and my second film was a documentary on Ian McKellen. They did well critically, but they didn’t really have any sort of particular anticipation from anyone. People weren’t anticipating it, because they didn’t know it was coming.
This was the first time I was doing something I knew would get some people talking. You want to feel part of something. You want to feel like you’re making something for people, and you want to see that people are responding. When you start getting wound up by some stuff, it’s good to turn it off. And I did, ultimately. But initially, I wanted just to see what people were thinking, I wanted to feel like there’s an audience, and they’re waiting for it.
You have the pressure of bringing Hammer Horror back. Then you have the pressure of people’s expectations. Because of these announcements and the fact that we live in the age of social media, you get instant feedback. How do you navigate all of that and shut it out so you can just work?
The film started its journey as an independent genre movie. The influences were films at that time and I wanted to make something in that vein. I love Blumhouse movies, but I didn’t want it to feel like that. I wanted it to be a slower pace. I wanted it to be a different type of movie.
When Hammer joined, it suddenly felt like, “This is perfect. This actually feels absolutely right.” It gave me more confidence in filming, and I didn’t feel the pressure, but rather that the thing I was trying to do now gets to be part of that history, and it just makes sense.
I think the noise of people’s expectations actually kind of comes about more when you release the film. Particularly now, fans of a certain type of genre movie have certain expectations, and they’ll be disappointed because it’s not that type of movie. Those sorts of things irritate me more as a filmmaker because I want to sit there and tell everybody going into the cinema, “Don’t expect this. Don’t think it’s going to be this, because it’s not like that. It’s not that kind of movie.”
Reviewers saying things like, “I don’t like Halloween, and this didn’t scare me much,” and I was thinking, “But have you considered that maybe it’s not trying to scare you all the time? It’s not trying to make you jump all the time. It’s not trying to do those things. It’s building up to something, and it’s a weird little movie.”
I hope that people go in with an open mind. My biggest hope is that people are aware that it’s a weird little movie and that it’s not going to be like everything else I’ve seen, whether you like it or not.
It’s different types of horror for different types of people. This type is probably a little bit unfashionable. These types of movies are of a different generation, and it is directly calling back to those things, but it’s on purpose. I want to see more weird, little camp movies, but I’m up for everything. I like all types of films, and I just happened to make a weird, little one.
Do you have a favorite on-screen Jekyll and Hyde adaptation aside from this one?
Ooh, that’s good. That’s a good question. Look, I mean in terms of referencing, I didn’t watch them all. I didn’t go back to them. I wanted very specifically not to because there are so many. I mean it’s like over 100 adaptations, and I just didn’t want to cloud my brain with other people’s versions.
However, I did go back to the 1920s and watched the transformations. I really adore how they used to do it. Some of the classics, the silent movies, are my favorite references. I always go back to those. I don’t really have one particular favorite. I wanted to make my own favorite, I guess.
Taking all of the flavors of things that you’ve already seen and then making it into your own thing.
Yeah, and it’s not an adaptation, it’s sort of a sequel. It’s a kind of continuation of the timeline, so we were free to do other things, and that was fun. We could take elements from different interpretations and visual cues that reference the older versions. We have the black-and-white flashbacks, and we have the transformation. It was just a lot of fun to have references to the cinematic language of Jekyll and Hyde on the screen.
You mentioned that the pacing, tone, and feel of this is very specific and different from many modern horror movies. What was it like directing this very intimate kind of story?
I really love doing this sort of thing because I like seeing people act together, and often, you don’t get that. A lot of the pace of films nowadays means, naturally, that you are cutting into performances, and you’re cutting between performances to keep up the pace. The way that modern film is structured is to keep people’s attention, keep them watching, and off their phones. For me, I’m sort of losing a little bit of the joy of watching just people bounce off each other and bringing characters to life. We improvised quite a bit. Naturally, Suzy’s very excellent at that, and so is Scott. Putting those two together, different moments came to life; there’s a joy.
Some of the campier moments weren’t scripted; they just came out of having fun. And yeah, it’s a joy. I love doing that. The thing I just shot is much bigger, with a larger cast, but very much an essential lead. You develop a relationship with one lead that you may not have time to with everybody else on a larger film. On this, you spend time with these particular two or three people. It’s like a little family, and it’s every day. There’s not a day really that these people aren’t in, and it was lovely.
It was like that with the crew as well. We were shooting in this house in the countryside, and we were staying at the house. It kind of felt like a bubble, like a weird experiment of isolation. But it was a lot of fun. We would have dinner, and Suzy would stay the weekends as well. We would have drinks, and it was really lovely. On small projects like this, you get to really create a real family feeling, which is very memorable and unique, so there are lots of pluses to it.
What an incredible experience.
The weather wasn’t great all the time. It would’ve been nice to have more exterior shots, to be honest. We were never going to be outside a lot, it was a bit of a nightmare. I had one crane day, and then the gale-force winds meant I couldn’t use it. I did end up getting it in the sun, but still…
I hope this goes down well with the US. I weirdly feel like the US is going to enjoy it, more open-minded to strange, little films.
Doctor Jekyll is in theaters August 2nd. For more, read our exclusive interview with Izzard in FANGORIA #21!
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
