Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932/1941)

[Eclisse]

The 1932 movie is such a cinematic masterpiece. I never get tired of watching it.

Beaver review of the Warner disc

It always pisses me off when I see Dracula and Frankenstein getting all the attention. To me,this is the real deal.

[Cinephrenic]

I recently rented this from Netflix and I agree. Overlooked material deserves more attention.

[Mr Sausage]

The 1931 movie is such a cinematic masterpiece. I never get tired of watching it.

Beaver review of the Warner disc

It always pisses me off when I see Dracula and Frankenstein getting all the attention.To me,this is the real deal.

Don't trash Frankenstein, it can't help being amazing.

But you are right, Mamoulian's Jekyll and Hyde is astonishing, not the least of which because it is just so disturbing. Hyde is almost sublimely ugly; he's so hard to look at precisely because his monstrousness seems both human and alien, plausible and fantastic. We're shocked by how little it takes to make a human look inhuman.

Hyde's actions are shocking by the same measure: his acts are no worse than the most bestial of standard human actions. When he terrorizes that poor concubine, it's harrowing precisely because it so realistically mirrors an actual abusive (physical and mental) relationship. Again, so little is needed to make the human seem inhuman. Even worse is that the Hyde character is the stronger, more dominant personality precisely because it has a kind of unity that the Jekyll side lacks. Jekyll is fractured, as to some degree we all are, between his great handsomeness and the charitableness in his nature, and his more vulgar and indulgent side, that peeks its head out during his first meeting with the strumpet. Hyde by contrast has no such fissures: his supreme inner ugliness is matched perfectly by his physical ugliness--he is whole, and he is strong because of it.

And then we have the breathtaking visual energy and ingenuity. I could rave about it for paragraphs, but I'll have some restraint and just say this is a stunning movie.

[Eclisse]

Yes sir! And I won't trash Frankenstein (or Dracula). Is just one of those things. This movie, like Cinephrenic said, is overlooked material and deserves more attention. It's very easy to find both Dracula and Frankenstein (maybe justly) been regarded as 2 of the best movies ever made. Off the Top of my Head, Frankenstein was number 87 on the AFI list, and Dracula is on Roger Ebert's great movies list (among others). I just think that 'Jekyll and Hyde' is a superior achievement in everyway, mostly in filmmaking and acting. I agree with everything you said Mr_sausage. I'll add that I love how "adult" the relationship between Jekyll/Hyde and the Miriam Hopkins character is. A lot of sexual tension going on there(and for the most part, they got away with it). Hopkins is quite amazing in the whole movie and March deserved his Oscar.

[Greathinker]

Now i'm interested, going to have to track down this film. But conversely, what do you guys think of the 1941 version? I caught the last half hour on TCM a week or so ago and thought at the very least Spencer Tracy turned in a great performance, especially with his Hyde.

[lubitsch]

But conversely, what do you guys think of the 1941 version? I caught the last half hour on TCM a week or so ago and thought at the very least Spencer Tracy turned in a great performance, especially with his Hyde.

That's one of the very few cases where Tracy got bad reviews for his performance. He isn't bad, but an incredible miscasting. March exactly embodies the slightly stiff Victorian gentleman with repressed desires lurking beneath. But Tracy ... you always see Manuel and essentially a good hearted working class type and this bizarre miscasting wrecks the film alone. Fleming is inferior to Mamoulian and some other points are made in the perceptive review by DVDSavant. I found Bergman completely captivating, she's an enormously inventive and emotional actress, but that aside it's considered to be the lesser film since its release and rightly so.

[dadaistnun]

I haven't seen the '41 version in a long time, but concur that it is worth watching for Bergman. (Though Miriam Hopkins will always be Ivy to me.)

[tryavna]

I have two huge problems with Tracy's performance as Hyde:

1.) The film suffers from Superman-with-glasses syndrome. Tracy's Hyde doesn't look that much different from Tracy's Jekyll. So how can all the other characters not tell what's going on? Or even worse, why does Jekyll even need a potion at all? Can't he just dye and slick back his hair manually?

2.) Tracy seems to think that hoarse whispering equates to being evil.

In the long run, I agree with lubitsch. Tracy's got nothing on March in this role.

[HerrSchreck]

Another Paramount masterpiece from the 32/33 season, along with ISLAND OF LOST SOULS. I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again-- Rouben Mamoulians early years: APPLAUSE, CITY STREETS, JEKYLL HYDE, LOVE ME TONIGHT.... glorious films smashing their genres to pieces. The casting of the mostly-comedic Fred March as Jekyll/Hyde is one of the most exalted casting choices in the history of the medium.

I return to the Barrymore silent version before the Tracy version. In fact I prefer the Sheldon Lewis version before the Tracy version. Lubitsch is right in my book-- Tracy was hideously miscast. He just wasn't a loose enough dude to really snort his way thru the part properly.

[Gordon]

I can't believe that I still haven't seen the Mamoulian version! Argh! I really must see it soon.

The 1960 Hammer version, The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll, written by Wolf Mankowitz and starring Paul Massie is very good, somewhat underrated, probably due to the fact that it hasn't been seen uncut and in its original 2.35:1 framing since the 60s. Just as the 1931 and 1933 Dracula and Frankenstein steal all the glory from the 1932 Dr Jekyll, the Hammer Dracula and Frankenstein smother the Hammer version of Stevenson's evergreen parable. Even among Hammer fans, it isn't discussed much. Sony owns it and made a new print last year.

But I'll have to see Mamoulian's version soon.

[Gordon]

I acquired the Warner set this week. Mamoulian's film is amazing with a great central performance. However, I feel that the make-up is OTT, too much like wolfman. I was actually very surprised at Fleming's film, as I had been led to believe that Tracy's Hyde is laughable, but I did not find that to be the case, quite the contrary, I found his performance creepy, lecherous and very cunning. Ingrid is the one that caused guffaws, with her clumsy attempts at an estuary english - I mean, her basic english accent is iffy at the best of times and it isn't surprising that she was cast as the fiancee but fought to play the harlot - and she's too clean, elegant and clever for a workin' class barmaid, frankly. Anyway, what impressed me the most was Joe Ruttenberg's mind-bogglingly amazing foggy cinematography - some of the shots are beyond description. What a year 1941 was for great cinematography:

The Chocolate Soldier (Karl Freund)
Citizen Kane (Gregg Toland)
The Little Foxes (Gregg Toland)
Here Comes Mr. Jordan (Joseph Walker)
Hold Back the Dawn (Leo Tover)
Sergeant York (Sol Polito)
Sundown (Charles Lang)
That Hamilton Woman (Rudolph Maté)
The Devil and Daniel Webster (Joseph August)

How Green Was My Valley (Arthur Miller) won the Oscar and it was well-deserved, but the competition was fierce. I also love it when a DP gets a double nomination!

[Greathinker]

I was actually very surprised at Fleming's film, as I had been led to believe that Tracy's Hyde is laughable, but I did not find that to be the case, quite the contrary, I found his performance creepy, lecherous and very cunning.

Having seen both versions by now I would say that Tracy's performance as Hyde is the saving grace in Fleming's film. Since March knocked it out of the park with every aspect of his performance I'm glad the Fleming version came at it with a different angle-- Tracy's Hyde isn't the base, animalstic side of man, rather he's simply a bastard, for lack of a better term, without a moral compass. Of all the qualities in March's performance, one he didn't have was being frightening. This is the best quality of Tracy, with his insidious manner-- I found it so original that at first he appears as if he could be genuine, but the more you see of him the more you understand that he isn't serious at all, and the way he plays on this with every condescending remark towards Ingrid Bergman-- "Oh you've been celebrating... or are you drinking to calm your nerves, it is your nerves isn't it? This couldn't be epitomized any better than in her character's final scene, with Hyde's almost poetic mocking of her vulnerabilities, relating them to a cinderella story as he chokes the life out of her.

The first half of the film is just a bore though-- the relgious angle isn't convincing and there's no real tension between Jekyll, his fiancée and her father. I'm glad to have come across both these films though, both have merits and the Mamoulian version is incredible all around.

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Tracy made a good Hyde.

[Mr Sausage]

Of all the qualities in March's performance, one he didn't have was being frightening.

What? I always found March extraordinarily frightening. Especially in his moments with that poor harlot in her room; they felt like an actual abusive relationship.

[Greathinker]

Of all the qualities in March's performance, one he didn't have was being frightening.

What? I always found March extraordinarily frightening. Especially in his moments with that poor harlot in her room; they felt like an actual abusive relationship.

It's just my opinion. Certainly you can see something happening below the surface, but I can't get past March looking like a monkey with his teeth falling out.

[Gordon]

March is scary, but surely you'd agree that he's a wee bit ridiculous? The (in-camera) transfomation (which remains highly impressive) starts out well enough, but I feel they pushed it too far and he seems too wolf-like - in fact, looking at the hair, I reckon that there was a conscious effort to make him look like a sleazy latino type! No offense, obviously. Anyway, we could debate the finer points of screen Jekyll/Hydes, Draculas, Frankensteins until the cows came home, but I don't recall ever seeing one which was flat-out bad. Jesus Franco's 1970, The Nights of Dracula, will be released soon by Dark Sky; it's faithful, though crude, but it is Lee's best performance as the melancholy count and preserves the famous speech omitted from so many versions. Hammer bowlderized Stoker's novel to the point where it became a joke, I feel, turning Dracula in a mere manimal - a monster like the creature from the Black Lagoon. Oh, sure their Dracula/vampire films have their philosophical moments, but they are usually trite. The 1977 BBC version with Louis Jourdan is terrific, a shame that it was shot on video. W.D. Richter's 1979 adaptation could have been much better under a different director with a better cast - Langella insisted on not having fangs and Olivier was ill and tired during filming. I haven't seen the 1973 film written by Richard Matheson, directed by Dan Curtis and starring Jack Palance in a long, long time, but it became aware of it again recently, as it was shot (in 35mm) by the great British cinematographer, Ossie Morris (Huston's Moby Dick, Lolita, Fiddler on the Roof) so I'll have to get ahold of it - probbaly via the Dan Curtis Macabre Collection which also includes Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Turn of the Screw, all of which sound equally interesting, though they were shot on video. Ossie must have insisted on 35mm!

[HerrSchreck]

March is scary, but surely you'd agree that he's a wee bit ridiculous? The (in-camera) transfomation (which remains highly impressive) starts out well enough, but I feel they pushed it too far and he seems too wolf-like - !

Wow Gordo. Did you catch the stages of deterioration with each transformation until he ultimately was a shagged savage old gorilla? More than wolf-like, the beast is the savage jumping drooling bucktoothed ape lurking beneath the surface in all of us. You're missing something sublime, there, my good man. Nietzsche...

[Greathinker]

Dan Curtis Macabre Collection which also includes Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Turn of the Screw, all of which sound equally interesting, though they were shot on video. Ossie must have insisted on 35mm!

Sounds like it's worth checking out, but I can't seem to find a decent review of that set. From what I gather the DVD presentations are not good.

[Gordon]

March is scary, but surely you'd agree that he's a wee bit ridiculous? The (in-camera) transfomation (which remains highly impressive) starts out well enough, but I feel they pushed it too far and he seems too wolf-like - !

Wow Gordo. Did you catch the stages of deterioration with each transformation until he ultimately was a shagged savage old gorilla? More than wolflike, the beast is the savage jumping drooling bucktoothed ape lurking beneath the surface in all of us. You're missing something sublime, there, my good man. Nietzsche...

Nah, even early on he looks to fucked up - such a biped would have freaked the shit out of even the most resolute fellow on the streets or smokey taverns! It's a deliberate misreading of Stevenson, just as with Shelley in the later color films of Frankenstein, simply to create a stronger visual image and that's fair enough, but Tracy's Hyde seems more believable, though I take nothing away from March or make-up man, Wally Westmore, who went on to have a great career in Hollywood. As did art director, Hans Dreier, who was uncredited. That's something else that bugs me about films of the early 30s - many who who made immense contributions got no credit, but as they were under contract, I guess that it wasn't as detrimental as such practices would have been after the Studio System collapsed. Karl Struss was an awesome cameraman and I think I'll buy Image's non-anamorphic 2.35:1 DVD of Kronos (1957) soon.

[Gordon]

Dan Curtis Macabre Collection

Sounds like it's worth checking out, but I can't seem to find a decent review of that set. From what I gather the DVD presentations are not good.

The DVD Drive-In review of the Dracula and Jekyll two-pack provides the most info. Old NTSC analogue video rarely looks good, but from what I can gather, these adaptations are so absorbing that one's attention isn't drawn to the limitations of the transfers too often.

[Scharphedin2]

March is scary, but surely you'd agree that he's a wee bit ridiculous? The (in-camera) transfomation (which remains highly impressive) starts out well enough, but I feel they pushed it too far and he seems too wolf-like - !

Wow Gordo. Did you catch the stages of deterioration with each transformation until he ultimately was a shagged savage old gorilla? More than wolflike, the beast is the savage jumping drooling bucktoothed ape lurking beneath the surface in all of us. You're missing something sublime, there, my good man. Nietzsche...

Nah, even early on he looks to fucked up - such a biped would have freaked the shit out of even the most resolute fellow on the streets or smokey taverns!

I saw this a really long time ago, and remember thinking that he was too freaky looking, and that people surely would have run away screaming at the mere look of him. Then I thought, maybe the transformation is in his own mind... after all, the transformation (at least) initially takes place in front of the mirror. That would also work with Schreck's notion of Jekyll devolving to some lower form of human development.

[Gordon]

Ah, that's actually makes more sense - that the representation is of Jekyll's not of the viewer; that he saw - in the mirror - what he thought was his 'true' nature. Anyway, what Mamoulian and Kark Struss achieved in that film was quite audacious and now I want to see more of Mamoulian's films - Blood and Sand sounds interesting and Fox will be releasing it soon, right? Queen Christina has to be a visual feast as it was shot by the great William Daniels (Greed, The Mortal Storm, Brute Force, The Naked City, Some Came Running).

What happened on Cleopatra - why was Mamoulian fired? I have read that he actually resigned when the production fell apart in 1961 as he was to start another film - but he never made another film. What happened to him? I really must pick up that 3-disc set of Cleopatra. I have only ever caught a few minutes of it on TV over the years and it doesn't look that great, but like Superman, the production problems and achievements of the designers, cinematographers and SFX geniuses fascinates me and I have been tempted by the new Superman releases. Also, what happened to Mamoulian between 1948 and 1957? He shot the added scenes for Powell & Pressburger's, Gone to Earth, retitled to The Wild Heart/Gypsy Blood and that was another reason that I avoided Mamoulian over the years, which was quite foolish. It's fairly obvious from simply seeing that one picture, that he was an extraordinary filmmaker.

[HerrSchreck]

now I want to see more of Mamoulian's films

Please Gordon-- get on the bus. See APPLAUSE and CITY STREETS. If you haven't seen the former you've not seen perhaps the most astonishing debut in film history.

I think you guys are way off on Hyde... it's a movie. Hyde is just a Very Ugly Dude-- full of insight, sarcasm, money, and wit-- making his travail through nighttime london of yore. See Barrymore's nails and head hump and fangs? Old London and the things poor desperate folk will ignore for a meal or a farthing... An inbred world filled with 'unchbacked mountebanks, murderers, races unrecognized, pretty people filled with malice and murder devoid of aforethought... the underbelly of the pre, Victorian, and post Victorian world of urban London-- like 5 Ponts in NYC.. you boys have no idea the level of depravity. Which is the point-- that's the tragedy of Champagne Ivy for falling for this man and fumbling before his intimidationa-- sets up the angelic heaven of Jekyll when he appears to her. THIS IS WHAT THE DRUG DOES IN THIS FICTIONAL FILM... not bring out the semi-but-not-too-funny-looking-primitive-in-all-of-us-so-we-can-believe-it-in21st-century-terms-of-tavern-deocrum-law-enforcement. Poor folks in a hard world confronted with a monster! It's an impossible film painted in Very Big Moral Strokes and March's performance is a masterstroke. Tell the truth this is the first time I've ever heard anyone 1) think that March's casting & makeup was anything but a masterstroke, and 2) think that Tracy's performance was anything but vaguely embarassing. Variety-- spice of life.

[bufordsharkley]

Jeez, I love the '31 Jekyll/Hyde. Everything is so primal, but of one piece, that it's thrillingly feasible. God, the effects are unbelievable-- from the seamless editing of Hyde swinging like an ape down the staircase, to the unbelievable use of filters. The POV shot of March's makeup taking hold, watching himself transform in the mirror, seems impossible in a pre-CGI age.

...I need to see some more Mamoulian, based on the perfection of this and Love Me Tonight. City Streets-- Mamoulian and an original Dashiell Hammett script-- wow, I need to see this. (I guess it's a waiting game, until TCM airs it, if ever.)

[Gordon]

The POV shot of March's makeup taking hold, watching himself transform in the mirror, seems impossible in a pre-CGI age.

Indeed. Probably the greatest in-camera special effect in all of Cinema. We need a thread focusing on the best in-camera effects.

[Greathinker]

Unrelated but I just wanted to add that the Dan Curtis/ Jack Palance version of this story is fantastic. Palance plays Jekyll with a surprisingly light touch and his Hyde is an off-the-wall thrill seeker who loses conception of morality as the story goes on. There isn't a lot in common with the 32/41 versions, Jekyll has no fiancé for instance-- is that how it is in the book? Possibly this version stays truer to the source.

The DVD looks bad, though. Aside from adequate sharpness there's problems all around with the image, but it is still watchable. The sound I thought was fine. Maybe there isn't much that can be done since it was shot on videotape but it's a shame this movie can't get a better presentation. It's one of the better versions of the story.