June 20th, 2007



I thought Jekyll was OK. The set-up and premise were well devised, and James Nesbitt showed both range and moderation in his performance. What disappointed me was that they - and after all this was post-watershed - shied away from the sort of violence that would be acceptable in shows like Taggart or Prime Suspect. They were trying to get the frisson of evil, while retaining the loveability of the main character. He's so evil he has to be strapped to a chair like Hannibal Lector, and then he - what? Shuts someone in the cellar, breaks someone's ribs (who was really asking for it) chucks a big brute through a window, and chases a girl away but doesn't run after her. He's not evil he's just a bit tetchy.

It was interesting to compare the portrayal by Nesbitt of evil-breaking-through with Jacobi's work on almost exactly the same premise earlier in the night. Interesting but unfair of course. Nesbitt did a pretty good job, he's only mortal.