As Dr Jekyll backlash grows, next episode is set to be even scarier
Hundreds complain about ITV’s gory teatime drama
MPs called for a crackdown on 9pm watershed rules yesterday following a torrent of anger over ITV’s gory teatime drama Jekyll and Hyde.
More than 570 viewers have already complained about the programme, which was shown at 6.30pm on Sunday when millions of children could have seen its brutal scenes of torture and murder.
Last night, politicians and campaigners heaped further pressure on the broadcaster, saying it had been ‘grossly insensitive’ to families.
They also called for future episodes of the ten-part series to be broadcast after the watershed or re- edited to make them suitable for family viewing.
Despite the outcry, ITV refused to make editorial changes to Jekyll and Hyde – which attracted 3.2million viewers for its first episode.
Yesterday it said that while this Sunday’s episode will be shown slightly later at 7pm, this had always been the plan. And it seems this episode could be worse than the first.
Within the first minute of the second instalment, a teenager is seen lying on the floor with his head bleeding as he listens to his parents be murdered.
Moments later he is attacked by a gruesome skeletal creature that launches itself at the screen but explodes into dust when stabbed.
There are numerous instances of brutal violence, often against particularly vulnerable victims. And there is a succession of terrifying monsters,
‘It’s not ideal family viewing’
including ‘ Captain Dance’, who at one point reveals his horrific, skinless torso. Another harrowing moment sees a group of what appear to be zombies fed with the corpse of a man who has just been shot on screen.
Yesterday MPs from across the political spectrum called for stricter policing of the long-standing watershed – designed to help parents shield their children from such graphic content.
‘ITV really needs to listen to its viewers,’ said Conservative MP Nigel Huddleston. ‘ As a national broadcaster, it has to take its responsibility seriously. None of us want to turn on the TV in the early evening and end up with our children having nightmares. I’ve got a six-year-old and a nine-year- old, and even from the trailer I could see that [Jekyll and Hyde] was too much [for them].’
Mr Huddleston, a member of the culture, media and sport select committee, added that it would ‘almost certainly’ investigate watershed rules following the controversy.
He said: ‘Our film classifications are incredibly strict, yet on television, it seems to be a bit lax and unfortunately [is] getting even more so.
‘It does look like gore and offensive language has become acceptable and that shouldn’t be the case.’
Labour MP Christian Matheson said the watershed ‘still matters’, adding: ‘ Viewers want guidance and parents want assurance. The warnings [at the start of a show] are only good for the people who joined the programme from the start.’
ITV did issue a warning before Jekyll and Hyde about its content. But Labour MP Helen Goodman said it was not enough, accusing the broadcaster of being ‘grossly insensitive’. ‘ The public reaction shows that this really ought to be on after 9pm,’ she added.
Claude Knights, of child protection charity Kidscape, said such gory scenes could become ‘indelible’ on youngsters. ‘Children will sometimes not be able to get a particular image out of their mind, and there is some correlation between violence [ on screen] and the things a child will go on to do,’ she said. ‘Broadcasters have a duty of care.’
So far, more than 293 viewers have complained to Ofcom, the broadcasting watchdog. A further 280 had lodged their griev- ance with ITV by lunchtime yesterday. Many also complained on Twitter, with one writing: ‘Certainly no prude but think this is totally inappropriate for Sunday teatime slot. Not ideal family viewing!’
Ofcom has yet to confirm whether it will open an investigation. A spokesman said: ‘We have clear rules to protect children, including the watershed, which we actively enforce.’
Aman clubbed unconscious — before the opening credits. a terrifying hybrid monster, halfman and half-dog, shot dead by masked gangsters. a family tortured and burnt alive.
no, not the latest Quentin Tarantino movie, but Jekyll and Hyde, ITV’s newest ‘familyfriendly’ series. ‘Friendly’ if your family is Charles manson’s or Peter Sutcliffe’s, perhaps, but otherwise probably not.
Certainly not according to the complaints from parents, aghast at it being broadcast at 6.30pm on Sunday, just after the considerably less violent Rugby World Cup semi-final.
among the comments were: ‘Just too much and too full-on nasty for the time-slot.’ ‘Far too dark for 6.30.’ ‘Didn’t get much sleep last night as my son was having nightmares.’
more than 500 people have complained to ITV and the TV regulator Ofcom. Countless others would have been upset, but they would not have known where to complain.
Extreme
For a programme advertised as a ‘Doctor Who rival’, meaning that many of its 3.6 million viewers would have been families, I’m surprised the number is not higher. I have two children, aged nine and seven, and I wouldn’t have let them anywhere near it.
It’s not that Jekyll and Hyde was bad. Quite the opposite. It was stylish, well-written and rattled along. I enjoyed it immensely.
nor do I have a problem with violence — again, quite the opposite. I’ve written seven crime novels in which serial killers have flayed their victims in London, drained them of their blood in moscow and shrunk their heads in new York.
I created the messiah series, which ran for five seasons on BBC1 and was described as ‘Britain’s goriest cop thriller’.
There’s a place for violence in drama: the world’s a violent place. But, equally, that violence must be tailored for its audience.
and for ITV to show Jekyll and Hyde not just before the 9pm watershed, but so far before it — a full two-and-a-half hours — was deeply irresponsible. The show’s writer Charlie Higson, a father of three, is unrepentant.
He says TV has to become more extreme to keep up with the proliferation of graphic content on the internet.
In the series’ pre-publicity, he said: ‘Some of the parents might get a little upset and some of the smaller kids, but, you know, f*** them.’ How arrogant! Yes, there’s a vast amount of violent and pornographic content online. But that’s no reason for mainstream TV to try to ape it or for programmemakers to throw up their hands and say: ‘ ah well, if you can’t beat them, join them.’
The lawless and morality-free frontiers of the internet don’t make the watershed irrelevant: they make it more relevant than ever. It’s crucial that we defend it, cherish it, enforce it.
Families (encompassing all generations) gathered to watch a favourite programme may be a sepia-tinged image, but it’s none the worse for that.
With easy availability of internet porn and free access on mobile phones, it is, thankfully, one of the few electronic safe zones left.
When my wife and I sit down with our children to watch, say, Strictly Come Dancing, we do so with implicit hope in the broadcaster that there will be nothing to embarrass us or scare them.
TV executives are paid enormous salaries. It’s not too much to ask that they put themselves in the position of the traditional ‘ right- thinking person’ and ask themselves: is this programme something I could watch with all my family?
and if it’s not, then change it until it is.
Certainly, I don’t want to be ambushed by something unsuitable while channelhopping, cuddled up on the sofa with my children. I don’t want to feel uneasy about them being alone with the remote control if I leave the room.
Their childhood will be over soon enough. It’s precious to me: much more importantly, it’s precious to them.
The watershed was designed to uphold that belief. It has existed since the 1964 Television act was passed. Then, 9pm was widely regarded as the optimum time for children to be in bed.
Even today, Ofcom says protecting children from harmful material on TV and radio is one of its ‘ most important duties’. and so there are ‘strict rules’ which stipulate that ‘material unsuitable for children should not, in general, be shown before 9pm’.
This, Ofcom says, can include ‘everything from sexual content to violence, graphic or distressing imagery and swearing’.
a report by the regulator last year found 78 per cent of viewers ( including 80 per cent of parents) support the watershed — up from 70 per cent and 72 per cent respectively in 2008.
many countries have similar systems. The time of the cut-off varies, from 8.30pm (new Zealand) to 10.30pm (Italy). at 9pm, in fact, the UK has one of the earlier watersheds: France and the U.S. (where the system is known as ‘safe harbour’) ban adult programming until 10pm.
Beamed
Several countries adopt graded watersheds, with programmes rated not simply as ‘child’ or ‘adult’, but by suitable viewing age such as ‘seven’, ‘ten’, ‘12’, ‘14’, ‘16’ and so on. There have been calls for a similar system to be introduced here.
Of course, a watershed isn’t going to stop children, particularly older ones, discovering illicit material for themselves.
The IT skills of today’s youngsters make them adept at bypassing home wifi parental settings.
But, despite what Charlie Higson says about his Jekyll and Hyde series, there’s a huge difference in context between the badlands of cyberspace and the family home environment.
The types of viewing are totally different. Online or on-demand viewing requires people to make an effort — however small — to access material, be it via typing in a search term, a PIn code or an age confirmation.
How ironic, therefore, that if you go online to try to watch Sunday’s episode of Jekyll and Hyde on ITV’s catch-up service, you will encounter this onscreen message: ‘You have selected to play a piece of video content that would usually be broadcast after the watershed.’
But terrestrial, so- called linear TV — the way that the vast majority of people still watch programmes — is still a passive experience.
Programmes are beamed in at a certain time on a certain channel and all the viewer has to do is to make sure the TV is on and sufficient quantities of popcorn/Pringles/vino collapso are to hand.
Grab
Yes, broadcasters occasionally overstep the mark — often cynically: the pop star Rihanna gyrating on The X Factor in 2010, for example, or the Sex Pistols swearing on air with Bill Grundy all those years ago in 1976. But those were incidents within established programmes rather than the deliberate hyped-up start of a new series.
What’s more, contrast this broadcast of a savagely violent show at 6.30pm with the seemingly endless nannying warnings given to viewers before news bulletins, for example, about disturbing footage or strobe lighting and with phone numbers often given in case people want advice.
most importantly, at a time when programme-makers are increasingly tempted to break boundaries in a bid to grab the attention of an increasingly fragmented and dwindling audience, it’s vital there are controls such as the watershed.
no one wants TV that’s bland and unchallenging. But programmes that are challenging must only be broadcast at a time when the audience is emotionally and intellectually mature enough for them.
Children should be allowed to be children for as long as they can be. Viewers, broadcasters and regulators — we are collectively responsible for this.
The line of what is and isn’t acceptable may shift, but it must always be there. The day it disappears for good is the day we all go to the dogs.