I remember once discussing with a friend the fact that there is virtually no way to make an original adaptation of Hamlet that hasn’t been done before, as it seems the core of the story has pervaded the artistic landscape in a way that is almost indelible, inspiring countless works that derive something from the play. It takes an audacious mind to take a classic work and attempt to breathe new life into it, especially one that is a cultural or literary touchstone such as Hamlet. Robert Louis Stevenson’s seminal work, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is one of the finest gothic novels ever written, and a work that has spawned many adaptations from several admirers, whether they be direct adaptations or works that are inspired by the iconic book. It is understandably enduring – the themes of a bilateral person, someone with two personalities that are distinct enough to make them two completely different people is undeniably resonant. I personally adore Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and many of its descendant works. I also adore Isabelle Huppert (a supreme understatement), and when I discovered that Serge Bozon, one of the more iconoclastic young French filmmakers working today, was making a film that combined these two elements to which I am enamored, I couldn’t quite contain my anticipation – unfortunately, my expectations were entirely disappointed, and I just could not love Madame Hyde as much as I thought I would. However, while it is far from being an unmitigated disaster, it is a disappointing film that does not reach its full potential.

Marie Géquil (Isabelle Huppert) is a milquetoast woman who teaches physics at a local high school. She is an extremely shy woman and lacks enough self-confidence to earn friends or attain much success, and thus she becomes the laughingstock of the staff, especially the arrogant principal (a gloriously smarmy Romain Duris) and someone who her relentlessly cruel students can easily manipulate and take advantage of. The only person who understands her and gives her the support she needs is her husband, Pierre (an endlessly likable and empathetic José Garcia), who coaches his wife in how to gain confidence and demand respect, advice she tries to enforce, but fails miserably when her earnest sensitivity gets in the way. However, Mrs Géquil is a scientific genius, and is on the verge of a breakthrough, but is suddenly struck by lightning. What could’ve easily resulted in her painful death actually brings about the birth of something entirely new within the quiet woman – Madame Hyde. She instantly becomes a better teacher, proving to her co-workers that she is capable, and also manages to inspire her students through improved teaching methods. However, by name, Madame Hyde roams the streets, and always finds herself at the community housing estate, where her presence as “the woman of fire” earns her an almost folkloric reputation – but when her actions prove to be life-threatening, she learns that perhaps her attained boldness as Madame Hyde is perhaps not quite as beneficial as she thought it would be.

John Waters, in 2016, called Isabelle Huppert “the best actress in the whole wide world”, and I am inclined to agree with the notoriously tasteful Waters because if anyone knows great actresses and their capacities, it is the Pope of Trash. Admittedly, I am profoundly infatuated with Isabelle Huppert, and there is very little possibility that I will ever refuse to watch a film with her in it. Madame Hyde was a film I would I have far less intent on watching if it didn’t star the beguiling Huppert, who can elevate any film to a point of near-perfection, and she truly has given some of the most extraordinary performances of the past few decades. However, there have been some accusations that as good as Huppert is, she is almost type-cast as these fierce, independent women who possess fiery intensity and a defiance rarely ever reflected in literature, and to an extent, this is true, but that does not mean that Huppert is any less of an astonishingly talented actress for it. Madame Hyde allows her to momentarily suspend this preconception of the characters she constantly plays, allowing her to take on the dual roles of Marie Géquil and Madame Hyde, with the former being one of Huppert’s least-characteristic performance, a shy and reserved woman who is the subject of disrespect and abuse from those around her. I simply cannot fault Huppert in this film, because as flawed as Madame Hyde is, Huppert is as tremendous as always – elegant, hilarious and truthful, her performance is great, even if the film it appears within is not. Huppert is the highlight of nearly everything she is in, and Madame Hyde is built entirely around her performance (the rest of the cast, while good, is insignificant and not giving sufficient focus). This film may not see Huppert hitting the notorious heights she has been known to in her more towering performances, but it gives her the chance to do something different, and the result is a flawed film with a great, dedicated performance from an unquestionably talented actress, who makes the best of the paltry offerings she is given with this film.

Madame Hyde, as I said before, had all the elements to make it a great film – an amazing actress, a talented director and a great premise based on an iconic story. The reasons behind it being something of a failure is bewildering, and I think the main flaw of this film is the fact that it just simply does not know what it wants to be. It attempts to be a subversion of the traditional Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde story, but it spends far too much time looking at the former, and very little on the latter. I was expecting a film that would Huppert the opportunity to play two different characters, but because the changes in her personality are so subtle, and not at all distinctive, it isn’t clear where one character ends and the other begins. In many ways, Madame Hyde is only marginally related to the story that inspired it, sharing the namesake of the main character(s) and a very loosely-comparable storyline that seems to be more inspired by the countless works that have imitated the Stevenson story rather than something responding to the themes of the original novel. Madame Hyde has a terrific premise, and the intention behind this film is quite remarkable, but it just doesn’t work as well as it should, and while the first act is extremely promising, it only descends into contrived chaos, and never reaches the great potential its outlandish premise had, which is disappointing, to say the least.

Moreover, while I can abide by a film that doesn’t make the most of its premise, I just can’t get past the execution of this film. Serge Bozon is an undeniably talented filmmaker, but he seems to be slightly out of his depths here, making a film that is almost tonally incoherent. It feels like the lucid, daytime scenes set in the classroom, or in the human interactions between character, are the most successful, and suggest a much better film was lurking in Madame Hyde. The problem is that only does this film not explore its premise enough, it is almost misguided in how it conveys the story. There is a perceived lack of coherency throughout this film, and Bozon relies too heavily on suggestion without any explanation, and while this is not entirely necessary, when you have a film like this, it runs the risk of becoming convoluted and dull, and the climactic scenes of this film feel like a chore compared to the auspicious formative moments of the film. Madame Hyde seems to be caught between dark comedy, social drama and science fiction thriller, and rather than successfully using this categorical ambiguity in its favor, it seems to be unable to grasp a single one of them. There are certainly some hilarious moments scattered throughout this film, as well as some fascinating statements on society, but they are few and far between, and do not distract from the fact that this film is a muddled, baffling, and quite frankly, extremely confusing, attempt at satire that just doesn’t make much sense, but rather than in a charmingly surreal way, it is just overly-intricate and tries to compress far too much into a film that could’ve substantially benefitted from a more nuanced sense of direction, one that explored the interesting premise without veering into the realm of excessive, convoluted mediocrity.

I was disheartened to find myself severely disappointed by this film. It had such potential and everything that could have made a truly memorable, subversive and fascinating film. Isabelle Huppert, who is almost without fault as an actress, manages to make the film passable with her spirited performance, and she elevates this material considerably, turning an otherwise trite and underdeveloped character into something quite entertaining, although not close to being as impressive as some of her other performances. Madame Hyde just seems to be the result of misdirection, and as great as Bozon is as a filmmaker, this film seemed to be undecided on where it wanted to go, and the film suffers as a consequence of indecisive filmmaking. I genuinely had impossibly high hopes for this film, and I left somewhat disheartened. There are some redeeming qualities in this film, and it does have its charms, which suggests that with some work, Madame Hyde could’ve been a great film. This film is strictly for devotees of the sublime Isabelle Huppert, and others need not seek out this film, because it serves as a showcase for the actress rather than being an effective film on its own. I genuinely wish it had been better, and I stand firm in my belief that a tremendous film is hidden beneath the final product, which is most upsetting aspect: it has all the parts to be a masterpiece, but does not know how to assemble them as such. Not entirely awful, but extremely disappointing, and Huppert deserved better, even if she does rise to the challenge in bringing sophistication and nuance into an otherwise forgettable dark comedy.