The “Golden Age” of horror cinema, spanning from 1931 to 1948, holds a special place for many film enthusiasts. Within this era, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s (MGM) 1941 rendition of Robert Louis Stevenson’s timeless novella, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, often sparks debate. While this period produced countless cherished classics, this particular film, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde starring Spencer Tracy, has remained somewhat divisive among fans and critics alike. This reassessment, prompted by the Warner Bros. Archive Collection’s Blu-ray release, delves into the merits and shortcomings of Victor Fleming’s interpretation, comparing it to earlier adaptations and Stevenson’s original vision.
Stevenson’s 1886 novella stands tall alongside Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a cornerstone of literary horror. These three monstrous creations have seamlessly transitioned from page to stage and screen, capturing imaginations across generations. While the 1920 silent film starring John Barrymore is often lauded as the first significant cinematic adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, numerous silent versions actually preceded it between 1908 and 1914. Tragically, many of these early attempts are now considered lost to time, leaving the sound era adaptations to carry the legacy forward.
Among the sound adaptations, Rouben Mamoulian’s 1931 Paramount film featuring Fredric March is often hailed as the definitive cinematic interpretation. Mamaoulian’s version arguably adheres more closely to Stevenson’s original narrative in certain aspects, while diverging in others. Stevenson’s Mr. Hyde is not depicted as a physically monstrous being with grotesque deformities. Instead, he is portrayed as a man devoid of compassion, driven by selfishness and sadistic impulses. Gabriel John Utterson, Jekyll’s lawyer and a central character in the novella notably absent from the 1941 movie adaptation, describes Hyde as having a “displeasing smile” and an appearance that is “pale and dwarfish.” Stevenson’s Hyde evokes “an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation,” emphasizing a more subtle, psychological horror.
However, in the wake of Universal Studios’ financial triumphs with Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931, Paramount opted to present Fredric March’s Mr. Hyde as a physically monstrous figure, embodying both psychological and corporeal terror. Wally Westmore’s iconic makeup design for March’s Hyde certainly resonated with audiences, particularly those captivated by monster imagery. The transformative makeup, combined with Mamaoulian and cinematographer Karl Struss’s innovative camera techniques, created a visually arresting spectacle. The mirror transformation scene, showcasing Jekyll’s metamorphosis into Hyde, remains a breathtaking optical effect even today, highlighting the groundbreaking cinematic achievements of its time and setting a high bar for any subsequent doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie.
The rationale behind MGM’s decision to produce their own Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movie remains somewhat unclear. Trade publications in November 1940 reported MGM’s plans to cast Spencer Tracy in the lead role. By December, Box Office magazine announced John Lee Mahin, previously involved in adapting Stevenson’s Treasure Island for MGM in 1934, as the screenwriter. In a surprising casting choice, pin-up icon Lana Turner was cast as the virtuous fiancée, Beatrix Emery, while Ingrid Bergman, known for her “good girl” image, was assigned the role of Ivy Peterson, a Cockney barmaid. Both actresses, commendably, rose to the occasion, delivering noteworthy performances in their respective roles, adding intrigue to this doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie. Production commenced in early February 1941, building anticipation for MGM’s take on the classic tale.
Despite MGM’s characteristic high production values, Spencer Tracy’s portrayal of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde lacks the enigmatic and tormented depth that Fredric March brought to the role. While Tracy’s acting prowess is undeniable, his interpretation of Hyde, even if arguably closer to Stevenson’s original description, is visually less striking. Tracy’s Hyde is undoubtedly violent, malignant, and a predatory figure towards both Beatrix and Ivy. Yet, his monstrousness remains distinctly human in its presentation. This Hyde, while reprehensible, appears as though he could potentially be redeemed through conventional means – perhaps through therapy or moral guidance – diminishing the sense of profound, supernatural evil that Stevenson’s story evokes.
David Hanna, a drama critic for the Los Angeles Daily News, was among many critics who expressed disappointment upon the film’s release, specifically regarding Tracy’s understated physical transformation into Mr. Hyde. The studio’s heavily publicized secrecy surrounding the filming of Tracy’s transformation scenes only amplified the eventual letdown. Hanna wryly observed that Tracy’s Hyde transformation resembled “someone who just needed a brace on his teeth and a little filling to make him appear a most respected member of society,” highlighting the perceived lack of dramatic visual change in this doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie.
London’s Picturegoer magazine echoed this sentiment, with their critic remarking that Tracy’s “grotesque make-up” elicited smiles rather than chills. Indeed, Tracy’s Hyde is visually underwhelming. He doesn’t embody a profound personification of evil. Instead, he resembles someone recovering from a night of excessive drinking – disheveled hair, dark circles under his eyes, and a perpetually leering expression. This subtle approach, while perhaps aiming for psychological realism, arguably sacrifices the visceral horror that many associate with the doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie narrative.
While Fleming’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was commercially successful, it did not achieve the timeless acclaim of his preceding masterpieces, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. Most critics at the time favored Paramount’s 1931 version as the superior film. Although some argued that Tracy’s acting ability negated the necessity for elaborate makeup to distinguish Jekyll from Hyde, others contended that the 1941 remake suffered from deeper issues beyond makeup expectations. Mahin’s screenplay incorporated a layer of Freudian psychoanalysis, a thematic addition that some critics felt detracted from the story’s inherent horror, resulting in a less impactful doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie experience. As the Picturegoer critic noted, “March’s ape man make-up, crude though it was,” conveyed “a stronger sense of horror than Tracy’s milder conception, which comes as sheer anti-climax.”
An interesting marketing anecdote underscores the film’s slightly underwhelming reception. Following the film’s initial box office performance, Variety reported in September 1941 that MGM decided to revise its national advertising campaign. The original campaign, with the tagline “A Good Woman – A Bad Woman. He Needed the Love of Both!”, emphasized the film’s romantic aspects, downplaying its horror elements. A revised campaign emerged, discarding the “too prettified” publicity stills. New images were commissioned, focusing on “a blowup of Spencer Tracy’s face in the ‘Mr. Hyde’ impersonation.” This revised strategy, accompanied by the new tagline “It CHILLS you! Half-Man! Half-Monster!”, proved successful in markets like Detroit. Subsequent exhibitors requested the advertising materials used in Detroit’s exploitation campaign, indicating a shift towards highlighting the film’s horror aspects to boost audience engagement for this doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie.
While some academics might favor the 1941 version, neither it nor the more celebrated 1931 film remains entirely faithful to Stevenson’s original work. Mahin’s script interestingly blends elements from Stevenson’s novella with ideas from the 1931 film’s screenwriters, Percy Heath and Samuel Hoffenstein. This 1941 doctor jekyll and mister hyde movie leans heavily into dialogue and lengthy discussions in opulent settings. As a cinematic adventure, it offers limited excitement, confined to brief episodes. Fleming and Mahin’s adaptation might have been better suited for an intimate stage production, but its pacing and lack of narrative drive render it somewhat tedious as a film.
In its July 1941 review, Variety aptly observed that Fleming, by adhering “closer to the literal than spirit of the text, missed some of the more subtle points.” Rouben Mamoulian, director of the 1931 version, seemed to concur. He later asserted that his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movie remained the “best one ever made.” Mamaoulian remarked, “Spencer Tracy is a very competent actor. 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.” Indeed, in MGM’s 1941 rendition, Dr. Jekyll’s transformative potion seems to have been, at best, a rather weak brew.
This Warner Archive Collection Blu-ray edition of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde offers a pristine 1080p High Definition transfer in 1.37:1 aspect ratio with DTS-HD Master 2.0 Mono Audio. The visual presentation is remarkably clean, and admirers of the film are unlikely to find fault with this transfer quality. This is a straightforward release, with the film’s original trailer and optional English subtitles as the only extras.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FROM AMAZON
