Dr. Jekyll und Mr. Hyde

What happened to movies in the late 30's and early 40's? Why did they become so stale and stagey? "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would be considered downright antique to many of today's casual filmgoers, but it feels so much more dynamic technically and thematically than many films that came out later in its decade. The answer, of course, is that this movie came out before enforcement of the Production Code, at which time artistry in films--both style and substance--took a nose dive.

This film is worth watching for its stunning camera work alone. It doesn't suffer from any of the awkwardness other films working in the early years of sound do. The camera's always moving, there's terrific use of light and shadow, and the scenes showing the transformation of Jekyll to Hyde are seamlessly filmed in what appear to be uninterrupted shots, leaving you to ponder the sheer physical behind-the-scenes mechanics of them.

But this movie isn't just more technically advanced than films later in the decade; it's more adult in content too. No filming of this story ten years later (I've not seen the Victor Fleming version for comparison) would dare add the level of sexuality that this story does. Fredric March is very good in the dual role, and when he transforms into Mr. Hyde, you can see that it's everything within his power not to rip the dress right off whatever female he happens to be with and mount her right there. I'm not exaggerating; the film is really that frank.

Creepy good fun.

Grade: A-

Fredric March shines in this early screen version of the enduring Robert Louis Stevenson story which explores the duality in all of us. Dr. Henry Jekyll (March) is a scientist advancing such an idea which doesn't sit well with his peers. Naturally, when he dares to pursue such heretical fancies he will pay a price: his Mr. Hyde is an ugly brute who completely gives in to all of mans' basest impulses, and this gets him in deeper and deeper trouble. When watching this adaptation, one can hardly fail to notice the style and innovation brought to the camera work, the editing, and the scene transitions, as we get an early version of what's come to be known as split screen. The film even begins with what we know as the subjective camera technique where we see things from a characters' perspective, in this case Dr. Jekyll, and it's at least a couple of minutes before we switch to an objective view. The Expressionist cinematography was done by Karl Struss. The way that the transformation scenes are done would be revisited in such later films as "The Wolf Man", and the convincing makeup is done by Wally Westmore, an under-rated and overlooked makeup effects man from this period whose work can also be seen in "Island of Lost Souls". Director Rouben Mamoulian and the screenwriters, Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath, are able to inject their material with a ripe amount of sex, as this was done in the pre-Code days. Musical performer and actress Miriam Hopkins shows quite a bit of leg, for one thing. And in scenes where she must contend with the beastly Hyde, there's an undeniable amount of uncomfortable sexual tension. The actors are all superb, and it's very noteworthy that March should have won a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance(s) as it's not that often the Academy acknowledges horror films for this aspect. March is believable every step of the way; when he's Jekyll you can't help but like him, when he's Hyde he just creeps you out. Hopkins is equal parts touching and saucy, and Rose Hobart is appealing as Jekylls' bride to be Muriel. Holmes Herbert, Halliwell Hobbes, Edgar Norton, and Tempe Pigott comprise the rest of the solid supporting players. With all of this going for it, the '31 production of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is worthy viewing for fans of the classic black & white horror films who want to discover the kinds of things that filmmakers could get away with before the Code started stifling their creative efforts. This story has of course been done many times since, but this would be the ideal adaptation with which to start. It's available on a flipper disc from Warner Bros. that pairs it with the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy, so one can have an interesting time comparing the two films. Seven out of 10.

As this film demonstrates, director Rouben Mamoulian (Applause (1929)) and cinematographer Karl Struss (Sunrise (1927)) were two of the great innovators in renewing the role of the camera for the talkies. Lesser talents began the talkies much the same as silent films began: with a static camera. The sound is still creaky, as usual, with awkward silences, but it's not bothersome. The editing isn't always seamless here, either, and, at times, makes the film seem unpolished, but that, too, is minor. This is the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", in my opinion, and that has very little to do with the actual story adaptation, which comes more from the stage, anyhow. It's the role of the camera that's remarkable.

I don't mean to say that this adaptation is of little interest; it's especially interesting when compared to the novella and its other adaptations. The 1920-John Barrymore version features a more grotesque Hyde and a stiffer Jekyll. Here, Jekyll is, at first, full of gaiety and youthful exuberance. That's more faithful to the novel, but also reflects the filmmakers' intentions and the changes in Hollywood. The 1920 film was bolder in content in some respects; it was a mood piece of horror and atmosphere. The fogy lamp-lit slums of London are still realized vividly in this one, but much of the feeling in them is lost. On the other hand, the mirror motif comes out more here, which corresponds nicely with the doppelgänger (or doubles) theme inherent in the story. This 1931 film is of the classic Hollywood era. The added emphasis on the romance between Jekyll and Muriel is a result. This version is about more than the story, though; the major focus is in the camera-work.

The film begins with about three and half minutes of long point-of-view takes, with a mobile camera, from the perspective of Dr. Jekyll. It establishes the camera as an active participant in the film, rather than merely a static recorder. Throughout the picture, the camera continually moves--from slight zooms, dollies, pans and tilts to dance-like tracking shots during the party sequence. Additionally, some extreme close-ups show only a character's eyes. A POV shot during Jekyll's first transition into Hyde turns into spinning memories, which is in addition to the special effects that allow for transformations that are seen with fluent, unbroken rhythm from the camera's eye.

The camera positioning is varied, as well, and some shots are extraordinary just in their positions. The photography exploits the sets to greater effect occasionally, and the filmmakers position props with the camera especially well and in rather thematic ways that apply to the story. Yet, the photography is most brilliant when not subject to much scene dissection: long takes that are unbroken and add more fluency to the already tight plot.

One could say this is showy film-making; even the transitional effects seem to draw attention to themselves: lengthy dissolves that linger as superimposed images (such as the image of Ivy's legs over the image of Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon's debate) and wipes that create brief split-screen shots. But, the camera is the most essential part of film-making (along with editing), and it seems negligent to subject it to a role of impotence--to just recording an enacted play. This 1931 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a cinematic artwork and shows what film should be concerning the role of its most basic apparatus.

For all the existing film versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" (1886), this 1931 Paramount offering starring the incomparable Frederic March is probably the best. None quite follow the original book, whose tale is actually told backwards in a way. The book does not follow a series of linear events that lead to the so-called "transformation". Instead, rumors of a strange man surface between two characters in the very opening. We learn about Hyde first before Jekyll, which is not the way any film adaptation has ever told the story.

Still, the present film has a lot going for it. At the forefront is Frederic March in the classic dual role of good and evil. When he first becomes Hyde, I thought another actor was playing the role, it's that good! Another distinctive aspect is the camera work which must have been extremely innovative for its time. The opening moments are shot with a first person perspective. The transformation is done relatively seamlessly considering CGI effects had yet to be invented. There are other moments of shadows and dark corridors. The atmospheric fog that permeates the entire film is worth the price of admission.

As stated by other reviewers, some of the dialog hearkens back to an earlier era of the Vaudeville Melodrama. Characters didn't just love each other, they loved each other for eternity! Still a fine film all things considered, dated perhaps in places, but still March's performance is unbeatable, and definitely deserved of the Academy Award for Best Actor.

This film is far superior to the 1941 version with Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner. Fredric March's portrayal was more subtle than Tracy's. March's Mr. Hyde is terrifying, especially in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins, but at the same time, he was able to imbue his "bad side" personality with sympathy, especially toward the end when he realizes the monster that he's become because he messed with his natural impulses through the use of chemical augmentation. The scene where Jekyll is watching his fiancée cry and he desperately tries to control his impulses and keep himself from transforming was well-acted by March and was very sad to watch. I thought March did an excellent job and he earned his Oscar.

Spencer Tracy's rendition of Mr. Hyde was way too hammy and the makeup was ridiculous. He seemed forced and over the top, whereas March's portrayal of the two sides of his personality was more complex. Both Jekyll and Hyde had their bad parts. Hyde, even though he did some awful things, may have had some good qualities despite his selfish and unconscionable behavior. Based on March's portrayal, it seems that the best of human nature lies somewhere in the middle of Jekyll and Hyde.

Miriam Hopkins is very good here as the professional trollop who gets more than she bargained for in Hyde. I thought her cockney accent was a little uneven, but it didn't detract from her performance. Miriam's bad girl liked to take chances, and thus she gets herself into questionable situations, but she didn't deserve the fate of being stuck with the abusive Mr. Hyde.

I really liked her opening scene with Dr. Jekyll where she flaunts her legs and ends up nude in the bed with a strategically placed sheet, that was pretty risqué, even for a pre-code. Unfortunately, her whispered "come back" was a temptation for Dr. Jekyll, but it was an invitation for Hyde. The scene where Mr. Hyde attacks her was very frightening and I thought that Hopkins and March acted it well.

I think that director Mamoulian managed to keep the secret of Hyde's transformation until his death or pretty close to it. That is an accomplishment in and of itself - keeping a secret that long. At any rate, highly recommended.