#between Jekyll and Dorian who would get irked first?

[justanormalfreak]

Victor obviously

put victor frankenstein, henry jekyll and dorian gray in a room together, who comes out crying first

[tenebris-lux]

(This post is written very clumsily, because I’m way too distractable today. It starts as an Edward Hyde & Dorian Gray post, then turns into Just Dorian Gray. Tired of dicking around with the draft, though.)

I enjoy comparing Edward Hyde to Dorian Gray and imagining interactions between the two. But there’s a contrast I have as … I dunno, a headcanon, maybe? It’s been a while since I read The Picture of Dorian Gray, so I’m possibly misremembering, or maybe I kinda remember and just think I’m making it up, or … I dunno. I’m not eloquent today. WHATEVER! It’s this:

So, Edward Hyde tends to give off an unsettling vibe when people interact with him. Even if he hasn’t said or done anything unusual, people get … put ill-at-ease around him. They’re thinking, “There’s something off about that guy. I can’t put my finger on what it is, but … I should tread cautiously.” (That’s pretty much the impression I get from the book—the “impression of deformity without any nameable malformation”; “none could come near to me at first without a visible misgiving of the flesh.”)

Dorian Gray, on the other hand, doesn’t give off that vibe. For starters, he’s not “pure evil,” as Jekyll described Hyde to be. Also, he’s damn good-looking—he looks about 19 or 20 and is breathtakingly beautiful. He has charisma, and he doesn’t change. People look at him and DON’T think, “There couldn’t be anything wrong with that guy,” and they DON’T think it, because why would that thought EVER cross their mind? The people who are off-put by him are only the ones who have a history with him, or know his history. If he does give off a vibe, it’s due to charisma and it’s to the positive effect.

Hyde naturally pushes people away; Gray naturally draws them in.

I bring this up, because I’ve seen lots of fanart of Gray (referring, here, to him the person, not the portrait), and most of them are done in a way to give off an unsettling vibe. And, while they’re good pictures, it does irk me a little, because to my understanding, that’s not really the case with him. The guy you saw the day his portrait was finished is what you also see 15 years later. The only ways to know the truth about him are:

- getting his history secondhand;

- interacting with him enough times and staying sharp;

- seeing his portrait.

For the same reason, I’m not the biggest fan of the portrayal of him in the movie League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It’s fine that they aged him up, as … well, it could get creepy if he looked too young. But the portrayal gave off a sinister feeling. I didn’t even know the story or character when I saw the movie, and I was getting that vibe.

So, I REALLY appreciate it when there’s no impression that something’s off with him in art.

(Exceptions would be, say, specific scenes where his behavior shows his true colors. No way would he look pleasant and harmless while murdering Basil.)

[therachelperspective]

TV | Penny Dreadful (2014-2016)

This review has sat in my drafts for over a year. (It’s been a weird year, don’t judge me). Although I had a few notes sufficient enough to write a review from and could have probably have finished and posted something by now, I will honestly say that I have pondered Penny Dreadful this entire period of time. Even as I watch other series and take part in other media, every so often my mind wanders back to Penny Dreadful. Whether the show intrigued me or irked me has not entirely been decided, to the point where I am almost feel hastened to watch the show again with more attentiveness. But, just as I feel about Marvel’s Iron Fist series, I’m not sure I want to endure some of the more vexing qualities of Penny Dreadful a second time around (though I sadly will for Iron Fist as I once again attempt to complete the entire Defenders collection).

Let’s see what I can make of my long-stored memories.

Penny Dreadful derives its name from what is essentially Victorian England’s version of a comic book, typically with narratives of crime or violence. As per Britannica, these eight-page installments – also called “dime novels” or “bloods” – were carelessly written second-rate works full of gory themes. While I wouldn’t say the series to be careless or second-rate, it definitely hits the crime, violence, and horror right on the nose to give its namesake proper honor.

Set in the late 1800s, Penny Dreadful bears resemblance to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in that it includes characters from various works of classic literature, though Penny Dreadful sticks to the obvious era of Victorian Gothic. Although its main characters Sir Malcolm Murray (Timothy Dalton), Vanessa Ives (Eva Green), and Ethan Chandler (Josh Hartnett) were created for the show, its supporting cast are directly named after major literary characters – Dorian Gray (Reeve Carney), Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Harry Treadaway) and his Creature (Rory Kinnear), as well as brief appearances throughout by Mina Harker, Abraham Van Helsing, Dr. Henry Jekyll (sadly, while the science is included, Jekyll’s own counterpart Hyde was not), Dracula, and Justine (from The Misfortunes of Virtue). It has been discussed online that the character of Malcolm is based on famed adventurer Allan Quartermain from King Solomon’s Mines and, by name, obviously a derivative of Mina Murray’s father from Dracula; however, he was not mentioned in the novel. Similarly, Vanessa Ives is said to be based on Mina’s best friend Lucy Westenra. Furthermore, the story arc of Brona, who then becomes “Lily Frankenstein,” shares obvious similarities to that of the Bride of Frankenstein.

The rich inspiration from classic literature is what initially drew me to watch Penny Dreadful, along with the hype I read when it was initially released in 2014. Despite the fact that I am typically not one for horror-based film or television, I undertook the task regardless. Per my usual reasoning (I swear I write this in everything and I apologize lol), I wanted to discover for myself if it was truly as great as the critics say. And dare I say, it was actually true for the first season. I remember posting something on Instagram stating how I understood the public interest in the show and that I was excited to continue on. While it has no doubt been some time since I’ve viewed the material, I distinctly remember my personal fascination dwindle shortly thereafter. Had I any sort of ability to abandon the media I try to consume, it might have caused me to not finish the show. But alas, I’m one of those hopefuls that thinks maybe it will get better. Plus, can you really say you watched something if you didn’t watch the entire thing? My answer: no. Must watch it all to have a proper opinion!

Wherein the first season focuses primarily on finding a kidnapped Mina Murray, with tolerable amounts of arc for Frankenstein, his creature, the mysterious Ethan Chandler, and Dorian Gray...  the latter seasons revolving around witches and “nightcomers” (season two), and Dracula (season three) – as well as the constant battles between Frankenstein’s scientist vs. his creations, the dragged out uncovering of Ethan’s background, and Dorian’s inability to keep it in his pants – just didn’t seem to have the same charm to me as the initial season. Maybe it was the story? Were these the best “big bads” writers could come up with? I suppose, yes, considering the source material of that particular period, there’s only so much to work with. But to have the first season’s enemy be simply a vampire and the third season’s Dracula, it seems to me like missed opportunity (like using Dracula in his actual storyline) or they were really just recycling material. You used vampires once already; was doing it again with one buffer season in between really your only option?

Other nagging details that truthfully somewhat prevent me from watching the series again include things like: how much of Vanessa’s “dialogue” actually includes Eva Green’s ability to make guttural sounds; how certain arcs overwhelmed the series (like Frankenstein’s Creature and Lily, though kudos to Penny Dreadful for exploring their thoughts/feelings that other films or shows have not), compared to others tales that were not fleshed out enough; characters from literature left me wanting more, even if I did already know their mythos (Dorian, for example, was merely only a brief glimpse at his portrait, no explanation of its mysticism); and lastly, Lily’s entire story felt too much for me. While I admire the show’s portrayal of feminism, body autonomy, and a sense of sisterhood amongst Lily and her “army,” her approach to these topics also felt preachy and eventually fell more into a “savior” complex. I can understand the rediscovery of life as a newly reanimated human, re-comprehending life and death, not allowing any man to “own” her purely based on his say-so... but the way the show writers approached it was not my favorite. Billie Piper was great in her role, but towards the end of her arc, I was bored with Lily’s endeavors.

My biggest pet peeve surrounding this show, however, was actual a very random detail – Ethan and Brona (Lily, in her previous life) had a very intense relationship during the first season before she succumbs to illness. How is it, despite both of their prominence in the show and their respective arcs, as well as mutual acquaintances with other characters, that Ethan never ever crossed paths with Lily at all once she was reborn? Was it because he would obviously recognize her as Brona and writers didn’t know how to incorporate that detail into the show? Was it because they wanted Lily to remain purely a character in Frankenstein’s and Dorian’s arcs? Someone please answer this for me, because it drives me nuts.

All in all, Penny Dreadful started strong and I did enjoy it at first, but its subsequent seasons and finale felt less than spectacular. What was once an enjoyable suspenseful thriller turned into a psychological drama looking to interpret everyone’s personal issues and traumas rather than working together for a common, supernatural cause. Where the first season saw everyone as a collective group, I feel the show slowly but surely lost its charm by increasing their solo arcs without much interaction amongst everyone as a whole. It’s not to say that they never spoke to one another (Ethan and Lily being the exception), but their interactivity became increasingly minimal. I will give writers some credit in that, for some characters, this solitude reflected their emotions and was necessary for their arc. But maybe I just believe the show was better when the ensemble was a more cohesive whole.