Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 9
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today’s Subject, My 9th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Dr. Marlowe & Mr. Blake, from I, Monster (1971).
“I, Monster” is…weird. Mostly because of its title and its main character, played by Lee. To put it bluntly, this movie is a pretty darn straightforward adaptation of the classic story “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.” The plot follows the book quite closely, and even retains much of the original dialogue from the novel in various places. However, it keeps all the character names – Utterson, Lanyon, and so forth – EXCEPT for the title roles. At the time, no one was interested in funding “another Jekyll & Hyde film.” Therefore, the movie not only makes its title “I, Monster,” which…doesn’t even really seem to fit the story, to be honest…but it also changes Henry Jekyll to “Charles Marlowe,” and Edward Hyde to “Edward Blake.” Nothing else changed with the piece, but evidently, this was enough to fool the backers needed. So, in other words, this is a Jekyll & Hyde movie where Jekyll & Hyde are not called Jekyll & Hyde, but are still Jekyll & Hyde. In Lee’s own words on the matter, “You work that out if you want to, but to me, it’s COMPLETELY incomprehensible, even to this day!” This was a movie made not by Hammer, but by Amicus Productions. The self-proclaimed “Studio That Dripped Blood” was, in essence, a ripoff Hammer company, and fittingly, this film can basically be seen as a ripoff Hammer Horror movie, right down to the fact Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing play the lead roles. Putting the baffling title and character name changes aside, “I, Monster” is, nevertheless, one of the more underrated and underappreciated versions of the classic story ever put to the screen. It’s probably the most obscure film in my Top 10, and it’s not one that’s highly regarded: finding good reviews of the movie (heck, finding good copies of the movie suitable for viewing, even) is very, VERY hard. Personally, I really like this version! It’s not perfect, however: my primary issue lies in the pacing. Most of the film has this sort of creeping, tense pace, with spurts of quick action moving through it, as we follow the progression of Lee’s character through his experiments and his descent into madness and self-destruction, as well as getting a great deal of focus on the relationship between himself and his best friend, Mr. Utterson (played by Cushing), and so on…but then, in the last quarter, everything sort of feels like it’s on fast-forward, as if they realized they were running out of time on the picture and just decided to skim through a lot of the last act. Beyond that, however, I think this is a really, REALLY good version of Jekyll & Hyde, and Lee is the main reason why (which is the case with most takes on J&H). He brings a great deal of depth and nuance to Marlowe, as the role gives him a chance to show more vulnerable sides than many of his characters revealed, but he can still command authority when needed. It’s probably one of my favorite takes on Jekyll ever done, mixing the right amount of underlying darkness and superficial sympathy the character requires. I especially love the scenes between him and Peter Cushing’s Utterson: this is one of the films where, in my opinion, the real-life friendship these two actors shared shines strongly through the celluloid. The almost brotherly bond the pair have onscreen really does call to mind the relationship we all know about from behind the camera, and it helps to make both characters, and the story, all the stronger. As Blake, meanwhile, Lee goes through an interesting transformation: inspired by the 1920 silent film version of the story, starring John Barrymore (incidentally, that is my favorite film version of the story), this movie plays with the idea that, as time goes on, the Hyde character becomes increasingly more hideous and monstrous, his exterior ghoulishness matching the evil in his soul. Not only does he change physically, however, but even elements of his personality change; the movie depicts the potion as an addictive drug, and like all addictive drugs, the more you use it, the more the negative effects take a toll. When Blake first transforms, he has a near-permanent smile, and is quick and powerful, genuinely creepy and filled with a zest for life, doing terrible things just for the thrill of it…but as the film goes on, he becomes a lumbering beast, snarling and sneering at everything around him, as the evil he does affects his body and seemingly his mind. The more the evil grows, the more Blake, himself, suffers…yet he just can’t help himself. Again, the only downside to “I, Monster” – aside from the bizarre changes to the names and title, which I think even “Nosferatu” would tilt its head at – is that the last act IS pretty rushed, but up until that point, the rest of the movie is a very strong and well-handled psychological thriller and a fine adaptation of the Jekyll & Hyde story. And hey, even if that last section is a bit over-quick, we do still get another classic clash of the horror titans with Mr. Blake vs. Mr. Utterson in a grand brawl. Any movie that allows Cushing and Lee to be best friends AND worst enemies AT THE SAME TIME is clearly deserving of some credit. Tomorrow, I present my choice for Number 8!