El hombre y la bestia

I just saw this movie for the first time a few days ago and really enjoyed it. I must say I was a little surprised by the bits of "erotic" imagery. I wonder what people thought of that back in 1941. The performances by Ingrid Bergman and Spencer Tracy were very good. Ingrid is mesmerizing and beautifully effervescent. Her strange accent though is at first hard to comprehend. (Is she supposed to be Swedish, Irish, Cockney or what?) It's also fun to see how they managed the special effects - if you look closely at any one of the action scenes involving Mr. Hyde, there are many very obvious stunt doubles and other endearing "mistakes". I also thought it had just enough philosophical underpinnings to make it not just a old fluff "horror" movie.

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.

Set in Victorian England in 1887, a wealthy doctor by the name of "Dr. Jekyll" (Spencer Tracy) has begun experimenting on animals to determine if it is possible to separate good qualities from those determined to be bad. When he discusses his research at a dinner party his ideas are met with a great deal of consternation, especially on the part of his fiancé's father, "Sir Charles Emery" (Donald Crisp). In fact, Sir Charles is so concerned that he decides to take his daughter, "Beatrix Emery" (Lana Turner) with him out of the country in order to separate the two and give him some time to think about whether the wedding should go forward or not. In the meantime, Dr. Jekyll has grown frustrated with the progress of his research and decides to administer his experimental concoction on himself. Suddenly he turns from a charming and considerate person into a malevolent being called "Mr. Hyde". To make matters worse, with Beatrix gone he sets his sadistic sights on a young barmaid named "Ivy Peterson" (Ingrid Bergman) to satisfy his brutal and abusive nature. Now, rather than detailing the entire plot I will just say that the director (Victor Fleming) does an excellent job of capturing the dark and gloomy ambiance that this movie depends upon. And while both Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman turn in very good performances, it is Spencer Tracy who really makes this film so successful. Definitely recommended for fans of classic horror.

I had the fortune of seeing BOTH this version and the 1931 Frederic March version only about a week apart. Because of this it gave me an excellent chance to compare and contrast them. And it also gave me a chance to see that the two films were extremely similar--so similar that the later MGM film seems more a remake of the 1931 film and not an adaptation of the original book. There was much more similarity between the movies than the book. And, while they both are good, I would definitely say that I preferred the earlier version.

Since the 1931 film was made during the so-called "Pre-Code" era before the guidelines of the production code governing morality in pictures was enforced, it is a more "earthy" and sexually charged film. In this earlier version, March develops the chemical formula simply out of curiosity and a desire to "sow wild oats" without detection. In other words, since Mr. Hyde looked more like a half-man/half-chimp, he could whore around without getting caught or ruining his reputation. The 1941 version had much nobler intent, as nice-guy Dr. Jekyll created his elixir in order to separate the good and evil aspects of our personalities so we could live purer and more wholesome lives without our subconscious evil desires impeding us! In addition, since the 1931 version was pre-Code, it tended to show more skin and imply more about sex, whereas the 1941 version showed Hyde more as a sadist. In general, the 1941 version was a little bit tamer and more "family-friendly", though I think both are fine for older kids.

There were a few negatives I noticed in this otherwise well-made film. One was that Hyde looked almost exactly like Dr. Jekyll. This MIGHT have been a daring and intelligent way to take the movie (though certainly NOT in keeping with Robert Lewis Stevenson's book)--showing the "monster" as looking like a sloppy man, but a man nevertheless. However, this makes no sense, as Ingrid Bergman (the woman Hyde desires) already met Dr. Jekyll BEFORE meeting Hyde and yet couldn't see that they were the same guy! At the very least, she should have thought they were brothers! But, to go to Dr. Jekyll and complain about how abusive Hyde was just seemed silly.

Also another quibble is with the choice of Ms. Bergman as the earthy barmaid (in the 1931 version, she seemed more like a prostitute than a member of the working poor). Changing her part a bit wasn't the problem, but that Ingrid sounded like a Swedish lady trying to sound Cockney--which is what she was! At times, she forgot the accent altogether and at other times she just sounded kind of weird. She was a wonderful actress, but the casting decision was dumb.

As far as Tracy goes, he was fine as Jekyll, but there were times when it was obvious that you were watching a stuntman instead of Tracy. The scenes just weren't done very well and you can't blame Tracy for this but the director. Just watch the scene in the hallway after Hyde's confrontation with Bergman--it's pretty obvious that the guy jumping about isn't Tracy and it doesn't look much like him.

One observation about Tracy. I've recently read a biography about him and choosing him to play the lead was pretty interesting because in real life, Tracy definitely had a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality. When he was sober (which apparently wasn't often enough), he was a sweet guy, but when he drank he was abusive and very reminiscent of the dreaded Hyde. I wonder if anyone at the time noticed this.

For years I knew that Fredric March had won one of his Oscars for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE back in the '30s and always assumed that because of this his performance was superior to Spencer Tracy's.

But having just seen the Tracy-Bergman-Turner version, my opinion has changed. Whereas the make-up for March makes him look like a cheap monster in a Universal thriller and almost Simian, Tracy achieves a distinctly chilling effect simply through posture and facial expressions alone with a minimum of make-up. His first encounter with the barmaid Ivy (Ingrid Bergman) is beautifully done with both of them registering emotions as they play against each other--Tracy with a wicked gleam in his eye and Bergman trying to hide her fear. She creates a really sympathetic character, especially when she realizes the extent of her degradation. Her scenes with Tracy where he is sadistically taunting her remind one of the cat-and-mouse game she played with Charles Boyer in "Gaslight".

The B&W photography realistically captures Victorian London after dark with its swirling mists and street lamps. All of the performances are first rate except for an uncertain Lana Turner who has a pallid role and can do little with it.

The only flaws are the film's length--it takes too long to tell the tale with its long-winded speeches--and the leisurely pace under Victor Fleming's direction makes the horror more muted than it need be.