I will admit to a degree of bias up front.I’ve never been particularly enamored of
MGM’s 1941 interpret of Robert Louis Stevenson’s famed novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.And it occasionally bothers me that I’m
not.The so-called “Golden Age” of the
Horror film (1931-1948) has long been, and will likely always remain, my
favorite cinematic era.Since the start
of the home video revolution I dutifully acquired (and subsequently upgraded)
practically every monochrome classic – OK, and some not-so-classic – genre films
issued from that era to hold in my private collection.It was of little concern to me if a film was
the product of a major studio (Universal, Columbia, MGM, Warner Bros. et. al.)
or of a low-rent independent (Monogram, Republic or PRC).Practically every U.S and British film – as
well as few from the continent – would find its way into my home archive.
So it’s telling that prior to this Blu ray debut of
Victor Fleming’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,
recently issued as part of the Warner Bros. Archive Collection, the only copy
I’ve held in my collection is the old Laserdisc of the title. Published in 1986
as part of MGM’s “Great Books on Video” series.I simply never had the desire to channel any additional discretionary
income into an upgrade of the film.So
in some way the arrival of this High-Def edition by WAC was welcome.It has allowed me the opportunity to reassess
long-held opinions or prejudices.
Similar to Stoker’s Dracula
(1897) and Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818)
monster, Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr.
Jekylland Mr. Hyde (1886) stands
as the third point of the immortal crown of literary monsters: the trio of
select ghouls to have made a seamless transition from written page to the stage
to the silver screen.Though the most
celebrated earliest cinematic adaptation was the 1920 Paramount silent classic
featuring John Barrymore as the titular rogue, even that film version wasn’t
the earliest.Stevenson’s novella had
been brought to the silent screen on a number of earlier occasions (1908-1914),
though several of those earliest efforts are now thought forever lost in time.
Of the sound films, my favorite big screen adaptation of
the novella will forever be Rouben Mamaoulian’s 1931 Paramount remake featuring
Fredric March.In some manner of
speaking, Mamaoulian’s version is a bit more faithful to Stevenson’s original
work than MGM’s 1941 version, in other ways not.Stevenson’s conception of Mr. Hyde presents him
not as physical monster with deformities, but merely a compassionless, selfish
human whose heart has grown cold and actions sadistic.Hyde is described by Jekyll’s lawyer friend,
Gabriel John Utterson (a major character of the novella completely missing from
the Fleming version), as a sinister fellow with a “displeasing smile,” one who
appeared “pale and dwarfish.” Stevenson’s Hyde gave off “an impression of
deformity without any nameable malformation.”
But following in the wake of Universal’s box-office
success in 1931 with Tod Browning’s Dracula
and James Whale’s Frankenstein, it
was in Paramount’s interest to portray Fredric March’s Mr. Hyde as a feral
beast in a physical as well as psychological sense.The applied iconic make-up conjured by Wally
Westmore for March’s Hyde was certainly appealing to the “monster kid” in
me.When I was first introduced to
images of March’s Mr. Hyde first in the pages of Famous Monsters of Filmland and later via the (very) occasional
television broadcast, I was left duly impressed.As I was with the imaginative camera-trickery
rigged by Mamaoulian and cinematographer Karl Struss.The sight of March’s mirror-reflected
transformation from Jekyll into Hyde remains a stunning and impressive optical
effect to behold even in 2022.It must
have been mind-blowing to audiences some ninety-one years prior.
It’s not entirely clear why MGM chose to move forward
with their own version of the Stevenson work, but in November of 1940 the
trades were reporting that MGM was planning their own version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to feature actor
Spencer Tracy in the lead role.The
following month it was announced in Box
Office that veteran screenwriter John Lee Mahin (who had earlier adapted
Stevenson’s Treasure Island for MGM
in 1934) had been assigned scripting duties.In an interesting example of casting against type, the Pin-Up model and
screen vixen Lana Turner was contracted to play the role of a good girl done
wrong, with Swedish good girl Ingrid Bergman signed to portray a Cockney barmaid.It must be said, both actresses pull off their
respective challenges rather admirably.Production on Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde was to commence on Wednesday, February 5, 1941.
Despite the overall gloss of the MGM remake, Spencer
Tracy’s Jekyll and Hyde is not nearly as enigmatic nor tortured a character as
March’s was.Tracy’s a great actor of
course, no one is contesting that.And
I’m certainly not knocking his performance in the film; I’m sure he does all he
can in role with the material given him.But as the most essential component of cinema is in its visuals, Tracy’s
Hyde falls short - even if his presentation is more aligned with Stevenson’s original
descriptions.Tracy’s Hyde is violent
and malignant and an unpleasant suitor to both fiancé Beatrix Emery (Turner)
and Ivy Peterson (Bergman), the maligned barmaid he uses and abuses.But Tracy’s Hyde remains a decidedly human
monster in his appearance.Yes, he’s
sadistic and manipulative but his soul conceivably,
at least, might still be saved with a bit of religion, a session of drug
counselling, or an anger-management class or two.
David Hanna, a drama critic and entertainment writer for
the Los Angeles Daily News was hardly
the only critic who, upon the film’s release, registered disappointment with
Tracy’s physical non-transformation into the villainous Mr. Hyde.There had been a lot of Hollywood press
ballyhoo that the sound stage was to be closed to all visitors when Tracy’s
Jekyll-to-Hyde scenes were to be lensed.So the eventual ho-hum big reveal of the new “Mr. Hyde” was a crushing
disappointment. Hanna sighed, “The first time Tracy changed character the
make-up looked as though he just needed a brace on his teeth and a little
filling to make him appear a most respected member of society.”
This opinion was shared by London’s Picturegoer magazine. Their critic offered, the “scenes when Tracy
assumes a grotesque make-up are included to make one smile, rather than creep.”It’s true that Tracy’s Hyde is an
underwhelming sight to behold.No
physical personification of evil flashes before us.Tracy looks like someone who merely awoke
from a night’s bender: mussed hair, sagging dark bags under crowfeet lined
eyes, slightly askew, bushy eyebrows and a leering countenance.
Though Fleming’s Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was far from a box-office disappointment, it certainly
wasn’t the impressive, timeless effort his two most recent pictures, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind, had been – and would
forever remain. Most critics seemed to agree Paramount’s 1931 was by far the better
film.Though some argued Tracy was so
capable an actor that he required “no gargantuan make-up to denote his
transformation from the good Dr. Jekyll into the evil Mr. Hyde,” others countered
this 1941 remake had problematic issues beyond make-up expectations.Mahin’s script offered a sprinkled layer of Freudian
psychoanalysis into the mix, a reinterpret sure to offer cinemagoers a lesser experience.As the critic from Picturegoer noted, “March’s ape man make-up, crude though it was”
managed to convey “a stronger sense of horror than Tracy’s milder conception,
which comes as sheer anti-climax.”
There is an interesting “art against expectation” side
note to all this.With the box-office of
Hyde underperforming, Variety reported in September of 1941
that MGM had chosen to “revise its national campaign on the picture.”The original campaign (“A Good Woman – A Bad Woman.He
Needed the Love of Both!”) hyped the film’s romantic elements at the
expense of its (admittedly minor) horrific elements.A new campaign was struck, the “too
prettified” and posh original publicity stills withdrawn. Replacement images
were ordered, MGM choosing to “slice into the film for a blowup of Spencer
Tracy’s face in the ‘Mr. Hyde’ impersonation.”This tactic and a new accompanying blurb (“It CHILLS you!Half-Man!Half-Monster!”) proved so successful in such
markets as Detroit, that subsequent regional exhibitors were requesting use of
the same ad mats used in that city’s exploitation campaign.
It’s possible there’s a gaggle of English professors who
prefer the 1941 version above all others, but neither this version nor the better
1931 film is faithful to the original source material.Mahin script is interesting as it mines and mixes
elements of both Stevenson’s work with ideas conjured by Oscar-nominated ’31
screenwriters Percy Heath and Samuel Hoffenstein.This is an “actor’s film.”There’s lots of long and drowsy oral discourses
that take place in tony parlors, but as an adventure of any sort it’s exciting only
in the smallest of episodes.Fleming and
Mahin’s version might have made for a compelling, intimate stage show, but as a
film it’s overlong and not terribly involving.
In its review of July 1941, a scribe from Variety hit the nail on the head:“It may be that Fleming, keeping closer to
the literal than spirit of the text, missed some of the more subtle points.”’31 Director Mamaoulian would likely agree with
that assessment.He boasted a few years
hence that his version of Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde remained the “best one ever made.”“Spencer Tracy is a very competent actor,” Mamaoulian mused to the St. Louis Post Democrat.“But the man who plays Jekyll has to be
superbly handsome.As Fredric March
was.Then the changeover to Hyde is
gripping.Tracy was miscast.”‘Tis true in MGM’s 1941 version the potion
brewed by Dr. Jekyll this time out was, at best, a weak tea.
This Warner Archive Collection Blu ray edition of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is presented
here in a pristine 1080p High Definition 16x9 1.37.1 and DTS-HD Master 2.0 Mono
Audio.There’s hardly a visual blemish
throughout, and it is doubtful admirers of the film will find any fault with
this transfer.This is a bare bones
release, the set’s only special features are the film’s original trailer and
removable English subtitles.