Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
.jpg)
Director: Victor Fleming
Even in the 1940s Hollywood was in the business of producing inferior
remakes of films that had already been deemed classics. The 1941 MGM version of
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was a remake
of the popular film of the same name from just ten years prior by Paramount featuring
the Academy Award winning performance of Fredric March. Here MGM attempted to
take a proven story, cast it with a notable star in the lead role, and have it
directed by one of the studio’s best filmmakers. It’s ultimate result in cinema
history was only to gain further appreciation of the 1931 film, due to MGM’s
lack-luster product.
1941’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
is a horror picture remake of the classic tale about a gifted scientist who unlocks
the ability to separate the dual personality in that of his evil half which in
turn overpowers his life to his ultimate demise. Spencer Tracy assumes the role
of the brilliant scientist Dr. Jekyll who has concocted a pair of serums that
turn kind and meek beings more aggressive, while turning aggressive beings
gentle. Determined to truly prove his works’ worth Jekyll behind closed doors uses
himself as his first human test subject, transforming himself into the hostile,
lustful, and forceful split personality which he names “Hyde.” While Jekyll’s
fiancée Bea, (Lana Turner), is away Jekyll allows his internal lust to turn him
into Hyde to fulfill the pleasure of a seductive barmaid named Ivy (Ingrid
Bergman), which turns into an abusive relationship. Jekyll begins to lose his psychological
and physical control to Hyde, which destroys his engagement with Bea and
ultimately leads to Hyde quarrelling with the police, costing him his life
where he for good turns back into his original form in death.
As a remake of a horror classic of just ten years prior, this version
appears to lack the punch that made Fredric March’s version gripping. It is not
a singular thing in the picture that makes this film fall short, but a series
of things that attempt to parallel the 1931 version that fall short entirely.
From the performance of Spencer Tracy to the special effects, from the make-up
to changes to the story due to the Production Code, the film as a whole is
lacking as a piece of entertainment attempting to rival the great horror films
of the 1930s. The lone saving grace of the feature it is beautiful
cinematography, for which the picture was nominated for an Oscar.
The story of this version begins with the success of Paramount’s 1931
release of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
MGM had the idea that they would take this proven film idea and remake it with
one of their headlining stars in the title roles would be a sure fire way bring
in yet another box office success for Hollywood most prestigious studio. Like
the 1931 version the plot would follow the story shared in the stage play
version of the tale, which tended to have a more personal story than the
original gruesome novella by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Spencer Tracy, a two time Academy Award winning actor, would take on
the monumental task of the dual role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Tracy’s
performance is a huge bag of mixed reactions with his varied extremes in the
picture. As Jekyll Tracy is overly dry and bland, like a piece of plain white
bread. He appears to be more reciting lines than acting. As Hyde Tracy is over
the top, as if one piled as many things on top of white bread and demanded it
to be called a sandwich. His overacting detracts from the story and keeps one
from taking the film seriously.
The make-up, which is said to have been extensive and greatly bothered
Tracy appears almost non-existent, and not in a good way. Other than false
teeth that make his jaw protrude out and longer, unkempt hair, there is not
much else that makes Hyde look different from normal. The make-up lacked the
grotesque misshapenness form the Fredric March’s look which is inspired by the
descriptions in the novella.
Tracy never comes off as the Englishman of which the role is supposed
to be and would be openly criticized by movie critics for that fact of his
performance. His presentation would be seen as too American, detracting from
the fact the tale takes place in London. Tracy would eventually name Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as his least
liked performance in his career and he even received a humorous telegram from
Frederic March thanking Tracy for his performance which only made critics
praise even more so March’s appearance in the 1931 film.
In casting the two female roles it was originally intended to have
Ingrid Bergman in the role of the sweet, innocent Bea and Lana Turner as the
seductive Ivy. This would make sense since Turner was best known then as the
“sweater girl,” referencing her appearance in They Don’t Forget where she wore a form fitting sweater, creating her
sexual public image. However, Bergman felt the challenge of herself playing Ivy
would make for a superior performance and the roles were reversed by MGM. To
fit within the Production code the role of Ivy would be changed from a
prostitute seen in 1931 to a flirtatious barmaid, although Bergman’s
performance does hint at her selling her body for profit to willing men. The
Swedish born actress would garner the most screen time of the two as Bergman’s
career was on a huge upturn, especially when she would be immortalized in her
appearance in the 1942 classic Casablanca.
Like Tracy, Bergman would come to be very displeased with the picture as well.
Victor Fleming coming off working on two huge productions with The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind would be entrusted
with MGM’s hopeful prestigious picture. With his influence the film contains
moments of beautiful cinematography, including scenes with great use of
shadows, fog, and creative lighting. Editing during select scenes is fast and
harsh to manifest the brutality of the evil Hyde. Both of these traits garner
the film Academy Award nominations. However, the film once again lacked the
gripping nature of the other horror classics.
The most notable of these lacking points are the transformation scenes
for Jekyll to Hyde. Where the 1931 was creative with use of lighting, make-up,
and editing, this picture uses unbearably slow editing the drags on showcasing
Tracy in various stages of make-up, which is usually nothing more than eye
shadow and the teeth that make his jaw stick out. Sometimes added are swirling visuals
and cuts between shots of Bea and Ivy, manifesting to the audience the change
in the mind from Jekyll to Hyde. In the end the transformation you are left
with leaves you in a state of relief that it is finished rather than a sense of
wonderment from seeing a person metamorphosize, because, well, Tracy does not
change much.
In the end, despite all the negative criticism from critics and the
poor acting, the film did end up attracting enough of an audience to produce a
hefty profit for MGM. Other than garnering three Academy Award nominations for
the picture’s only redeeming qualities, all the feature did was cause people to
think upon how superior the 1931 version was. However with MGM’s acquisition of
the film right of the story the studio attempted to destroy as many of the 1931
prints as possible to keep audiences from remembering the Paramount production.
This action by MGM and the result from critics prove that the best rise to the
top as many reminisced about the what great from Fredric March’s version of the
tale.
As I view each successive film along this historical review of motion
pictures I attempt to watch each picture with the thought of the picture being
of its own time and place and effort not to compare remakes to previous
versions. However, here is a case where I had no choice but to compare, as it
laid as part of the feature’s history. It is painfully obvious that the 1931
version, mind you a version created in the early years of talkies, is vastly
superior to the 1941 picture of the same name. Everything about Spencer Tracy
is lacking, from his make-up to his drab or over the top acting. He is never
fear-inducing or comes off as a monster, as the original story intends in a
way.
The film feels like a book report of movie that reenacts the plot
points of the story, but at no point am I invested in the characters nor do I
ever come close to being lost in the story, rather I am aware I am simply
watching a movie to see how \Victor Fleming and Spencer Tracy made the story
look. It is difficult to watch a good story, good actors, and a good director
come together and produce far below expectations. Perhaps it would have been
better if the 1931 never existed to compare to this picture, but one can easily
say that this 1941 version would have never existed if the 1931 version was
never produced.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment