ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1900 to 1949
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:04 pm    Post subject: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) Reply with quote



Frederick March creates the hideous Mr. Hyde with maximum acting ability and powerful makeup by Wally Westmore, shocking the world in this truly grown-up version of the classic tale.

The makeup is designed to capture the look of pure evil which Robert Louis Stevenson describes so well in his book, and the transformation scene is a genuine nightmare. In general, the film was so disturbing to audience in the 1930s that the censors snipped out ten minutes for a later re-release, and the missing parts have never been restored.

Naturally Hollywood changed the story's ending so that we get an exciting chase scene between Hyde and the police, but nobody is complaining. Directed by Rouben Mamoulian.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the greatest make up jobs in movie history.

The transformation scene is also terrific.

Trivia } Frederick March (Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde, 1931) & Spencer Tracy (Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde,1941) co-starred in 1960s Inherit the Wind.


Last edited by Pow on Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Custer
Space Sector Commander


Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 932
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's strange — to call Fredric March "Frederick" is kind of correct, as he was born Ernest Frederick McIntyre Bickel, according to his Wikipedia page.

In written science fiction of course the premier Fredric was Fredric Brown, who, these days, is probably best remembered for writing a short story called "Arena," which is officially credited as the source that was adapted to become a memorable Star Trek episode, to avoid legal problems as the plots were rather similar.

Just think, otherwise that episode might have been entitled "Gorn But Not Forgotten"... Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny. Funnn--nnny! Laughing
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder which of the classic horror characters have been done the most in films & TV & theater? Including b films & even b-less movie.

My guess would be Count Dracula.

However,I have seen quite a few Dr.J & Mr.H productions too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phantom
Solar Explorer


Joined: 06 Sep 2015
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:04 pm    Post subject: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) Reply with quote

Nearly every spooky movie scared me as a kid, and they are some of the best remembered moments of my early life. Only two movies ever raised the hair on my head as an adult. The Exorcist, which I saw in early '74 and the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a revival house in NYC in the eighties.

The movie disappeared from catalogues in 1941 due to a contractual obligation fomented by MGM that had purchased the screenplay from Paramount in order to remake it as a (scene for scene) star vehicle for Spencer Tracy. The studio did not want the March film to show up as competition. As a result, the movie was virtually unseen for the next forty years, except in film museums and private showings.

Kids growing up as the post WWII generation were unacquainted with the film, unless they came across references to it in the pages of fan magazines like "Famous Monsters of Filmland" (which did a terrific article on the 1920, 1931 and 1941 versions).

Unfortunately, despite several tantalizing photos, the opportunity to catch any revivals was practically nil. The Tracy picture was re-released in 1956 (and scared the jujubes out of me), but showings of silent features on television in the fifties was less frequent than experiencing a heat wave in Fairbanks, Alaska.

As in the case of Warner Bros Mystery of the Wax Museum (a lost film for several decades), critics speculated on just how good the March movie really was, and if it could stand up to scrutiny by modern audiences. When it finally became available for general audiences around the late seventies, the consensus was that its reputation was solidly intact and even exceeded expectations (not the case, unfortunately, for Mystery of the Wax Museum, but that is for another thread).

Paramount, not usually associated with the horror genre, appeared to be trying to outdo Universal, which had had tremendous success with the release of Dracula and Frankenstein. Dr. Jekyll was released only a few months after the Karloff film and basically followed it into theatres, delivering a one-two punch to audiences who thought they had made it safely through Whale's Chamber of Horrors, only to discover R.L Stevenson's mad creation waiting to finish off the job with even more highly charged mayhem.

And highly charged is the correct description of the movie, directed with great flair by Rouben Mamoulian and acted with memorable panache by Fredric March. The late William K. Everson stated that March's separation of Hyde from Jekyll was so entirely distinct it was as if two different actors were playing the parts. March's make-up was disturbingly simian, so much so that in recent years charges of racism have been labeled against the movie, but it is more than likely that makeup artist Wally Westmore was simply attempting to depict Hyde as Neanderthal and not as a metaphor for any racial class.

In any case, the make-up was a terrible ordeal for the actor, particularly the final transformation at the end of the movie, which was so severe it could have seriously scared March's face forever. It was this final transformation that raised my temperature when I finally saw it in the late 1980's. The make-up is truly hideous.

Competing step for step with March is Miriam Hopkins as cabaret singer Ivy Pearson. Hopkins is an acquired taste for some film fans who find what is commonly called "over the top" acting annoying. I prefer to call it "larger than life" or simply "bravura" acting. When it is done right, it is far more thrilling and entertaining than most examples of "psychological" emoting. The actress infuses the role with an electric sexuality that is seriously toned down in Ingrid Bergman's performance in 1941.

And there is a great moment when Ivy first lays eyes on Hyde. Her startled reaction is almost worth the purchase price of the movie, itself.

Also along for the ride are several excellent character actors, including perennial butler Edgar Norton, Holmes Herbert, and the incredibly named Tempe Pigott (dammed it I know how to pronounce it!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is one slam-bang review, sir!

I've never seen this movie, although I've read about it for years, mostly in Famous Monsters of Filmland (as you mentioned).

Imagine my delight when I checked Stagevu and found that they have it for downloading. I'm doing that right now, and you can do the same.

And tomorrow is Halloween . . .

So, I'm all set to get the jujubes scared out of me.
Shocked
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:31 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Spike
Astral Engineer


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 266
Location: Birmingham. Great Britain.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:14 pm    Post subject: I have no soul. I'm beyond the pale. I'm one of the living d Reply with quote

It's one of the most famous pieces of literature ever written, a genius piece of story telling from the trippy mind of Robert Louis Stevenson. That it has consistently been ripe for film and stage adaptations, and continues to be so since it first surfaced in written form in 1866, is testament to what a devilishly intelligent piece of work it is.

This 1931 version, directed by Rouben Mamoulian and staring Fredric March, may not be 100% faithful to the source, but it's arguably the finest adaptation to screen, led by a superb performance from March and featuring technical guile by Mamoulian and his team. It's wonderfully stylish, and coming as it did before the Hayes Code, it's sexy and dangerous, awash with terrifying cruelty, with the subversive and Freudian psychological beats making for a Gothic horror classic.

Split personality a go go, inhibitions cast asunder, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is priceless. 8/10

_________________
The quality of mercy is not strnen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) Reply with quote

Phantom wrote:
And there is a great moment when Ivy first lays eyes on Hyde. Her startled reaction is almost worth the purchase price of the movie, itself.

The sexual elements of this story are so subtle we're never quit sure that any real hanky-panky ever went on! Sad

But this one scene of the terrified girl makes it obvious that Hyde did NOT just slap the poor girl around for the fun of it! Shocked

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2022 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pow wrote:
One of the greatest make up jobs in movie history.

TCM showed this one today as part of their Halloween weekend. I watched it and realized that the one aspect of the makeup I've never cared for is the protruding upper row of teeth.

They were just too damn big! Shocked

Frederick March had to widen his mouth so much to enunciate his dialogue that it distracted from his fine performance. It robbed him of the chance to display a faint, evil smile while delivering quiet, sinister lines. Evil or Very Mad

The only time he made the effort to close his mouth and cover the teeth was the brief scene near the end when he's shown in close-up, puckering up to kiss his poor screaming fiance.

It looks more comical than frightening. Rolling Eyes

I found a good picture of Mr. March that showed the oversized dentures —






— and I took a crack at some "digital dentistry" to reduced the acreage of his enamel. Very Happy





I was tempted to give him a nice haircut and plunk his eyebrows, but I resisted the urge to give him a complete make-over! Laughing

Having read the novel, I've always wished a version would show Mr Hyde as he was described — although the only solid element of his appearance Stephenson gives is that Hyde was significantly shorter and leaner than Dr, Jekyll.

For this reason, Dr. Jekyll had to buy a separate set of clothes, specifically for Hyde's smaller body.

Other than that, the excerpt below is about the best description we get.
_________________________________________________

“He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point."
_________________________________________________

Naturally, my point is that the Frederic March's "Hyde" works too hard to be evil and frightening. The version of Hyde in the novel manages to scare folks just be appearing in their midst and projecting an air of evil and cruelty . . . without saying a word.

I suppose the only way this could be done in a movie would be to have two separate actors playing Jekyll and Hyde.

What do you think, Mike.
Very Happy
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anthony Perkins played Jekyll/Hyde in the 1989 film Edge of Sanity. Instead of putting Hyde make-up on Perkins with a trowel, it is done in a "somewhat" more subtle manner that is quite effective. That, along with Perkins being a gentleman with a lean build, makes his Mr. Hyde probably closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's vision than most film versions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotpens
Starship Captain


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 871
Location: The Left Coast

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In 1960, Hammer Films did a slight twist on the story with The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll. In this version, Jekyll is a shy, bookish, bearded fellow who becomes a handsome, rakish, clean-shaven charmer when he transforms into Hyde. That actually makes more sense than having Jekyll's alter ego resemble some kind of subhuman creature.

I mean, realistically, would a dude who looks like a Neanderthal be accepted as "normal" in the taverns and brothels of the seedier parts of London? Even gamblers, drunkards and prostitutes have their standards!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scotpens wrote:
I mean, realistically, would a dude who looks like a Neanderthal be accepted as "normal" in the taverns and brothels of the seedier parts of London? Even gamblers, drunkards and prostitutes have their standards!

You are so right, Scot!

Hollywood always wants to make Hyde more "monstrous" than Robert Louis Stevenson describes him in the novel. As I stated above, Stevenson said very little about the physical appearance of Hyde, other than he was shorter and leaner than Jekyll.

Instead, Stevenson described the disturbing emotional effect Hyde's appearance had on the people who saw him.

That was clever of Stevenson, because it allowed each reader to imagine a strange appearance which would have that same adverse effect on them.

But as you said, Scot, it's not reasonable to assume that Hyde looked hideous and abnormal if he was able to enjoy an active social life in the seedy haunts of London — much less have a relationship (albeit a bad one) with the lovely Ivy Pearson!

We should note, however, that neither Jekyll's fiance nor the prostitute are in the novel.

I've read the novel, and frankly I've always thought that Stevenson's treatment of his premise was not well handled.

A shocking statement about this classic, right? Shocked

Consider this. Dr. Jekyll wanted to separate the more primitive and sensual side of his nature from his noble side, which was devoted to behaving in a respectable and civilized manner.

In other words, Jekyll wanted to bust loose and enjoy all the pleasures which "respectable and civilized" gentlemen weren't supposed to do!

I understand, of course, that Jekyll didn't quite get what he expected, but he did seem to enjoy the bizarre results, none the less. And that's the puzzling part.

Instead of becoming a hedonistic playboy and a tireless "party animal", he becomes a murdering sadists with an uncontrollable temper!

Is that really the kind of "pleasures" that Dr. Henry Jekyll really wanted to enjoy? Confused

I think the story would have been more interesting (and the main character worthy of more sympathy) if Jekyll had used Hyde as a "disguise" which allowed him to sneak out and wallow in sensual delights without tarnishing his reputation.

After all, the scene in the 1941 version makes it crystal clear that Dr. Jekyll is just itchin' to jump into bed with the sexy Miss Pearson when she teases the hell out of him (and us) with her playful offer to "play doctor".
Twisted Evil

_ Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) - Oh Doctor! Scene


___________


However, it's true that a completely unprincipled person like Hyde would also disregard the consequences of his actions. So, Hyde would still occasionally do despicable acts without feeling any regret. The end result would be much the same; Hyde would become a fugitive, and Jekyll would desperately want to rid himself of his other identify.

Thoughts, anyone?

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Jan 29, 2024 12:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) Reply with quote

Phantom wrote:
The movie disappeared from catalogues in 1941 due to a contractual obligation fomented by MGM that had purchased the screenplay from Paramount in order to remake it as a (scene for scene) star vehicle for Spencer Tracy. The studio did not want the March film to show up as competition. As a result, the movie was virtually unseen for the next forty years, except in film museums and private showings. !).

I finally got to see this movie when TCM showed it recently, and I was very impressed! Mr. March's acting during the transformation scene was just as impressive as his hideous appearance. He didn't just change on the outside, we firmly believed that the poor man's innards were taking a beating, too! Shocked
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2024 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

______________________________________________

I watched the clip above again, and Ingrid Bergman's playful teasing of Spencer Tracy is very sexy! Several shots of Tracy's lustful admiration while she invites him to feel her lower back (which she claims is hurting) make it plane that he his aroused, and when she suddenly plants a solid kiss on him, he wraps his arms around and hangs tight! Shocked

This scene certainly makes is plain that sex is one of his goals for creating Hyde.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1900 to 1949 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group