in ,

Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde


‘an original idea which actually does raise some questions about Victorian male hypocrisy’

‘He’s not been himself…’ is Sister Hyde’s caustic comment on the erratic behaviour of her other half, the esteemed Doctor Jekyll. Yes, that’s right, we’re talking Hammer horror with a progressive twist; instead of turning into some kind of masculine hairy ape, in writer Brian Clemens’ superior reboot, he turns into the form of Bond girl Martine Beswick, only to wreak havoc amongst the good doctor’s friends and neighbours.

As a kid avidly scouring the tv schedules in the 1980’s, this film was something of a wild card, and probably prompted me to make an early use of the now-popular phrase ‘Wut?’ for the first time. What’s so scary about a man becoming a woman? Indeed, given that the eternally stodgy British actor Ralph Bates played Dr Jekyll, wasn’t he better off as a woman? Indeed, on his first day as Sister Hyde, the perennially hung-up Jekyll acts much as you’d expect by staying in and fondling his/her own breasts. But soon he’s out using his womanly attributes to seduce his friends and neighbours, and the narrative eventually returns to lockstep with Robert Louis Stevenson’s original story.

But not before Clemens has some fun. Firstly, in the style of Mary Reilly, he replicates the Chinese box narrative of the original book by telling the story from the POV of Jekyll’s neighbours (Susan Broderick, Gerald Sim and Lewis Fiander), freshly moved into his London apartment building. Clements also goes for a full-on Victorian monster mash-up by mixing in Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders (explained away as Jekyll’s search for fresh victims for his experiments) and Burke and Hare, the grave-robbers who provide him with cadavers. This all plays well in Hammer’s parented penchant for cloaks, capes, mist, and period detail, all of which are shown to their best advantage here.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t pass muster as a feminist tract; passing herself off as Jekyll’s sister, Sister Hyde makes dresses out of his curtains, buys expensive garments on mail order, and generally carries-on behind his back in a naughty-nympho manner that horrifies the good Dr. And the early prostitute murders have too many nasty triggers involved to fit with the dry comic tone, notably the revolting intercutting of a street-killing with the gutting of a rabbit.

But Roy Ward Baker’s film is worth exhuming, with clever transformation scenes, and an original idea which actually does raise some questions about Victorian male hypocrisy. And although the trappings are typical Hammer, the subtext is rather radical, exposing the potential misogyny of the story and making Jekyll the deserved victim of his own double-standards.

Thanks to Studio Canal for access to this title.


Leave a Reply
  1. An interesting twist on the old classic although by that time Hammer in the interests of spicing up the box office was determined to re-gender all its classic male horror icons a la Countess Dracula and Lust of a Vampire, but this was definitely a superior item.

    • There is a streak of smart gender politics here, but hard to separate that from the cheap thrills which drag the film down.

    • It’s a strange mix, some funny observations about gender mixed with quite nasty gore (for 1971). Absolutely not the place to start with this story…

    • All part of the service. I’d be concerned if anyone responded by saying they love this film and watch it continuously…

  2. Sometimes when you see an actress you are thing: I know her from something. In this case I was wrong, having looked her up on IMDB, I can’t find anything that looks familiar.
    Anyways, as for this film, thinking this is a pass for me. Even though some of the things you mention in this review do sound interesting, I just don’t think this one is my cup of tea. Great review though😊

  3. *sigh*

    There goes the Tone of the Internet.

    Bonnie Prince, I’m officially kicking you out of the Internets! All of them! (I have that power, believe me)

  4. Sounds a little more porny than feminist. So *sigh* I guess I’m in.

    Actually I’m working up a bunch of notes on Jekyll and Hyde movies and didn’t have this one on the list. Thanks!

    • Dr Jekyll and the Women is another one not to miss, think that is my favourite. Sister Hyde might be worth a ‘written by and directed by women’ reboot, there’s a cool idea in there, but the treatment is too male-orientated to fully succeed.

Leave a Reply