Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

source: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

MGM did a stellar job of producing a high quality Horror film, putting together director Victor Fleming (of "Gone with the Wind" fame) and stars Lana Turner, Ingrid Bergman, and Spencer Tracy. This film demonstrates that horror doesn't have to be campy, low-budget schtick. Like 2000's "The 6th Sense," 1941's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" actually respected the horror material enough to demonstrate the heights to which a major studio could take the genre. The film takes us to darker places than we dare imagined existed at good ol' MGM, home of the happy-go-lucky family musical. We see the confident, handsome, Jeckyll dissolve into a cruel, crass, foul-minded Hyde with Tracy's masterful performance. Bergman and Turner also turn in gritty, splendid performances with their less-than-life affirming characters. Rather than playing it for sci-fi thrills, this interpretation of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel focuses more on Tracy's losing battle to tame the demon of Hyde. The result is a riveting parable on the banality of evil (all the more visceral in retrospect, given the film's release at the brink of World War II.) The Film Snob, Lee Cushing

Unlike Universal, MGM was never a studio associated much with out-and-out horror films (A notable exception: 1932's great "The Mask of Fu Manchu," with Boris Karloff, Myrna Loy, and Jean Hersholt). But, when they did make them, they made them with the legendary MGM class and gloss. And such a one was the 1941 version of Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Unlike the March version, this wasn't a particularly scary film, but more of a suspenseful one. As befits the director who made "Wizard of Oz," "Red Dust," and "Gone with the Wind," Victor Fleming turns the story into a thinking man's horror film, and succeeds brilliantly. As to the cast, Spencer Tracy, like Frederick March, was effectively cast against type for the part, and delivers a good, understated performance. His Hyde is very much the Hyde of the book, an evil, decayed version of Jekyll himself, rather than a monster. This last was accomplished by Jack Dawn's equally understated makeup. Lana Turner, and Jekyll's fiance, Beatrix, is little more than pretty set decoration. Let's face it, she wouldn't really prove she could act until "Peyton Place" and "Imitation of Life" in the late '50's. But Ingrid Bergman, now, that's another story! In one of her first U.S. films, she delivers a brilliant performance as Ivy Peterson, the Cockney barmaid unwillingly cought up in Hyde's insane reign of terror. Her scenes with Tracy, both as Jekyll and as Hyde, fairly crackle with energy. These are two comsummate pros working together, and they don't disappoint. In the only other supporting roles of any importance, Donald Crisp, Ian Hunter, Barton McLane, and Sara Allgood all aquit themselves beautifully.

This version of the classic "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" story is more slow-moving and psychological than most. Rather than emphasizing the more horrific elements of the story, it relies on a good cast to bring out the ways that the characters and their relationships are affected by the doctor's weird experiment. It's not the version to watch if you are looking for excitement or horror, but as a more psychological approach it mostly works. Spencer Tracy plays the dual leading role, and does pretty well at creating two distinct personalities - the transformation uses only minimal special effects, and relies on Tracy to make the characters convincing. Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman work well as Beatrix and Ivy, and the rest of the cast members are also all very good. What the film lacks in excitement it makes up for in making Dr. Jekyll's world believable. If you're already familiar with the story in its more horrific versions, this would be worth a look if you're interested in a different take on it. It's probably not the place to start, though, if you don't yet know the story.

Less a horror movie than a lavish excursion into an elegant costume drama MGM-style, this version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella still manages to hold itself well due to the presences of the three leads, Spencer Tracy, and two rising female stars – Ingrid Bergman, and a very young Lana Turner. The story behind DOCTOR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE is that Spencer Tracy wasn't one of the actors to be considered for the role, but because he knew that his looks were too masculine to be taken for a matinée idol, he tackled the dual role in his own way, but on viewing his own performance it seems he overacted whenever he was on screen as Mr. Hyde, and the makeup didn't exactly help. Nevertheless the actor he was he tackled the role and this is the performance he gave: far from his best, but not altogether unwatchable. If anything, the culprit to blame is the direction in itself, which here is of no mention other than it's plainly bad. There is almost no atmosphere, no trepidation that Jekyll is delving into uncharted territory and unleashing his monstrous side with devastating results, and an extremely laughable sequence in which Hyde crazily flogs his horses which bear the heads of Bergman and Turner. With so much subtext to the material, this is almost its bastard incarnation, wooden and lifeless, a footnote in Tracy's, Bergman's, and Turner's acting careers.

This is a thoughtful interpretation of the Stevenson story but is very rarely emotionally engaging. The theme seems to be sexual repression, with Hyde coming from Jekyll's repressed lust. As Hyde takes over we witness some extraordinary and very graphic Freudian imagery such as Bergman and Turner, naked, pulling a chariot containing Tracy and his whip, and Bergman being screwed out of a bottle by a corkscrew! Amazing. But the horror of the story is never realized and there is too much philosophical chat. Tracy is terrific in the lead, but his make-up for Hyde is too subtle to be effective. The transformations require him to stand completely still which makes them a bit dull. The final transformation is quite an achievement however. Bergman could have been great but her attempt at a cockney accent seriously detracts from her fine emotional interpretation. Lana Turner is awful as Tracy's true love. But the rest of the cast is very strong - especially Donald Crisp. The film also contains some fine Fleming touches, including his beautiful slow pans over magnificent sets and crowd scenes. The cinematography is excellent - make sure you don't watch the colorised version - and foggy Victorian London is recreated stunningly. This film never rises to the horror of the 1920 or the 1932 versions but still has much to offer.

I have to disagree with the comment "For all you Tracy fans only", and also with the comments that suggest the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is far better. First of all, I am not a Spencer Tracy fan - at least I didn't consider myself as one. Yes, the word dull came to mind. But after seeing the superb 1941 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I found myself wondering if anyone could have played Dr. Jekyll and especially Mr. Hyde any better than him. In the 1931s original a handsome, wimpy Dr. Jekyll transforms into an ugly, retarded Mr. Hyde. While this Mr. Hyde hardly resembles his alter ego Jekyll, except for neediness, I do not find that as a strong, interesting controversy in the film. Fredric March was a great actor, but in this film with this script different actors could have played the parts of Jekyll and Hyde and it wouldn't have made any difference. Awkward, still boring film. I was expecting so much, but stopped taping this pretty soon into the film. The psychology is awful (I am not suggesting that all films should emulate "real" life, but all films should be "real" in a world of their own, whatever it is.) I had seen the 1941s version earlier, and boy, it doesn't have a dull moment. I started watching this for Lana Turner, and there she is, looking pretty. Yes, she should have played the part Ingrid Bergman took, but you can't have it all all the time. Perhaps Ingrid Bergman was the girl to play the waitress. I truly enjoyed her masochistic portrayal of the bad girl. Yes the film owns a lot to the original - filmed on same location, same choreography? The makers of this film had a decade to learn from the mistakes of the original and turn it around with better lines and nuances. With one look from Spencer Tracy, a trouble maker changes his mind. "I'm sorry governor". Imagine Fredric March, in his monkey make up, doing that? He would have been laughed out the club, or not get in at all. To add the grade to 10, Peter Godfrey as the butler. The end of this film is truly spiritual, merciful and frightening at the same time. And all of this is accomplished without any phony art stuff, as they would have tried these days. A true classic.

Playing Dr. Jekyll is one of those roles every man wants to play, like Hamlet and King Lear. However, even though many, many actors have gotten to play the famous double-role, not everyone has actually understood the point. In the Spencer Tracy version, it's really clear either he or director Victor Fleming didn't understand the character and story. The 1932 version is the best, and Fredric March completely nails the three characters; the way he plays it, a post-Hyde Dr. Jekyll is so changed, he's a third person. Freddie understands why he turns into a different person, and he understands why it takes over him. Spence just doesn't get it, and instead the movie is played off as a straight horror flick, not a character insight. The two ladies in the movie are Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner. In an interesting role-swap, the ladies decided to change and challenge themselves. Lana plays Spence's respectable, prim fiancé, and while she's very pretty, she's not given anything to do. Ingrid gets the real meat of the film, and unlike the male lead, she knows what to do with it. She plays the prostitute who pushes Spence over the edge, and she does a very good job jumping from trashiness to flirtation to annoyance to scared to horrified to destroyed. If you like Ingrid, you might want to watch a few scenes of this movie, but have your remote handy to speed through Spence's parts. The special effects in this movie are nonexistent, which is extremely disappointing after you watch the incredible effects from the 1932 version. In this one, simple and obvious fades transition the transformation. Ironically enough, with eyebrows, fuller hair, and a set of good teeth, Spence looks less creepy as Mr. Hyde than he does in his normal Dr. Jekyll appearance! Hidden in the movie are some familiar faces, like Donald Crisp as Lana's disapproving father, C. Aubrey Smith as yet another man of the cloth, and Sara Allgood as the long-suffering mother of a deranged mental patient. It's always great to see Donald, Sara, and C. Aubrey, but it's not worth renting the movie just for them.

Let's start with the deficiencies: cheap makeup and special effects, marginal sets and costumes. And perhaps my bias against Spencer Tracy. I've never liked Tracy as an actor, although I'll be the first to acknowledge his best work. He has always struck me as paternal, smug, self-righteous and ponderous -- although that may be because he was type cast. IMHO this is his best film, because it shows not only his typical character (Dr. Jekyll) but that character's doppelganger (Mr. Hyde). ~I've always wanted to use that word in a review~ Tracy is not afraid of playing a very sinister, menacing character. (I wish more directors would have given him that chance). He plays Hyde as a jet-propelled, leering, vicious fiend -- and is convincing. When he is Hyde, he looks like a very horny James Whitmore -- on speed. He is very unsettling. Perhaps Tracy should have done more horror movies. What makes the film is simply the powerful and touching performances of Tracy and Bergman. Bergman simply glows with life. Although the Freudian implications are not explored in depth here, this version is absorbing and sometimes mesmerizing.

As clichéd as it might sound, remakes are rarely better than their originals, and this remake is no exception. The thing is I much prefer the 1931 film with Fredric March which was stylish, exciting and erotic and March was absolutely outstanding. By all means this version is worth seeing, but it does have a number of problems. Starting with the good things, the production values while not as stylish are fairly impressive with gorgeous cinematography and some effective looking sets. The screenplay does have some nice touches, and Donald Crisp is brilliant as Sir Charles Emery. Victor Fleming(Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz) does a decent job directing and the music score sets the mood well, but... despite all this there is something missing. I think the film's main problems are the length and pacing. The film is a little too long, but I think the pacing was more of an issue. Some scenes are very slow and ponderous. Also the focus here is less on the horror of the situation than the doctor's emotional turmoil, and this is done to little dramatic effect here. While Crisp is brilliant, the other performances are variable. Spencer Tracy's split-personality performance here is somewhat uneven, what I mean by that is that while he was fine as the good hearted Dr Jekyll, despite the impressive and scary transformation montage I for one found him too restrained as Mr Hyde. Ingrid Bergman disappointed me, she is a beautiful and great actress and here while she looks luminous her accent leaves a lot to be desired. Then there is Lana Turner, I am not a massive fan of Miss Turner to be perfectly honest, though she was beautiful and haunting as Milady De Winter in The Three Musketeers, but she is rather bland here. I am probably alone here but I also thought the ending was a bit of a let down. Overall, disappointing and inferior, but worth watching. 5/10 Bethany Cox