MARY REILLY (Tri-Star Pictures, 1996) Sony Home Entertainment

In the house of Dr. Jekyll there once lived a maid, and Mary Reilly (1996) reports to be her story. However, it has often been noted great books do not necessarily translate into great movies - at least, not verbatim. Often the transition from page to screen is tricky, particularly since novels deal more deeply - and intuitively - with the inner workings of the human mind and heart. Character studies, taken literally, have a tendency to poorly materialize into a more concrete visual form. Such is the case with director, Stephen Frear's literal approach to Valerie Martin's Mary Reilly, a badly bungled re-envisioning of Robert Lewis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from the perspective of his devoted housemaid. Previous film adaptations of Jekyll/Hyde have all taken their artistic liberties with the material - particularly the iconic 1931 and very atmospheric '41 versions that introduce the duality of the virgin/whore into the scenario, involving the good doctor with a virtuous fiancée and adulterous bar wench as he ricochets back and forth between his struggling duality and decaying hold on good vs. evil. Neither female characterization is in Stevenson's novel. However, from a purely cinematic standpoint, each provides for a greater probing into the central character's eroding psyche as it spins wildly out of control.

Fredric March's iconic performance in the '31 version and Spencer Tracy's as indelible turn in the '41 film are tough acts to follow. In Mary Reilly, eminent actor, John Malkovich assumes the responsibilities of resurrecting Stevenson's ill-stricken monster/hero. But the real/reel tragedy here is that he rarely rises above mediocrity in the part as either Jekyll or Hyde and never outperforms either previous star in the role. As the put-upon maid, emotionally torn between her love for Jekyll and rather erotically explored fear of Hyde, Julia Roberts is clearly out of her depth, skulking about doorways and occasionally casting petrified glances as though she were a gazelle about to be rundown by a farm combine. Our story opens with Mary Reilly meticulously scrubbing the front stoop of her employer's residence. The script by Christopher Hampton goes to great pains in the following scenes to set up Mary's neurotic compulsion to be the perfect servant, though she occasionally clashes with Jekyll's staunch butler, Mr. Poole (George Cole) in matters of propriety and social decorum. The first 40-minutes of Mary Reilly are almost slavishly devoted to Mary's perceptions of the household. We see Malkovich in only brief glances as Dr. Jekyll, but never as Mr. Hyde.

Jekyll sends Mary with a letter of recommendation to the bordello of Mrs. Faraday (Glenn Close), a rather ruthless madam who delights in taunting Mary while she awaits her written reply. It seems Jekyll is interested in renting a room at her house of ill repute for his assistant, Mr. Hyde. However, when Faraday sends for Jekyll after Hyde has butchered one of her working girls, Mary arrives with a particular sum of money instead, and, is shown to the room where the carnage has taken place. In true Jack the Ripper style, it is drenched in blood - the one truly shocking moment in an otherwise painfully mundane story. Later, Faraday arrives at Jekyll's residence to demand more money for her continued silence. Jekyll promises it, but then, transforms into Hyde and murders Faraday in his laboratory instead. From here, the story takes a different approach - with Hyde emerging to take the doctor's place and toying with Mary's affections at every opportunity. However, Malkovich's Hyde is not depicted - either visually or through action - as that humped-back half-animal with a ravenous sexual libido, but rather, as a younger version of the doctor - mildly discontent and sexually playful, at least where Mary Reilly is concerned. Sure, in his spare time, Hyde is still a sadist. Why else would he meaninglessly slaughter Faraday and her whores? But this reincarnation of Stevenson’s monster lacks the duality of mankind’s split personality that so effectively made Jekyll a tragic hero, undone by his own medical design. This Jekyll neither laments his loss of self-control, nor does he seem particularly interested in wanting to get it back.

Malkovich's take on both Hyde and Jekyll are remarkably similar in tone. As such, the tension of 'will he or won't he?' harm Mary as Hyde – or perhaps, even as Jekyll, is utterly diffused, leaving a carefully calculated game of manners as its emotionless fallout. There is really not much more to say about the story. In its last act, Hyde inexplicably murders Sir Danvers Carew (Ciaran Hinds). In both the 1931 and '41 film versions, Carew was the devoted husband and respectable father of Jekyll's fiancée – hence, his murder by Hyde became even more heinous as it represented Hyde's ability to inflict death upon the idealism Jekyll so readily admired. Here, the killing of Carew is almost an afterthought – a crime to commit because no other victim was as readily made available. It is important to note Mary Reilly's version of Carew - as a derelict member of parliament who wantonly frequents Mrs. Faradays for casual sex, is in keeping with his depiction in Stevenson's novel and, more to the point, the characterization in Martin's novel from whence - more directly - this movie’s plot derives. What is problematic is Carew's murder by Hyde - since there has been no direct interaction between Jekyll and Carew throughout this movie. As such, Carew's death is needless, pointless and deprived of all but its momentary shock value as Hyde burrows the steel tip of Jekyll's walking stick into the unsuspecting lecher’s cheek. For those seeking an engaging film version of Stevenson's classic novel, seek it elsewhere. Because Mary Reilly is 2-hours of your life you can never get back. Now, that really is a crime!

Sony Home Entertainment's DVD transfer (under the old Columbia Tri-Star marketing banner) is somewhat disappointing. The stylized image, with its desaturated color palette, appears to suffer from lower than expected contrast levels. The results are a softly focused visual presentation where darker scenes register as a muddy mess of indistinguishable grey-blues and brownish blacks. Thankfully, edge enhancement is not an issue. Flesh tones are somewhat pasty. The audio is presented in 5.1 Dolby Digital and a 2.0 stereo version. Extras include trailers and a brief 'making of' featurette. Not recommended!

FILM RATING (out of 5 - 5 being the best)

0

VIDEO/AUDIO

2.5

EXTRAS

1