 |
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1932/1941) by Friz Freleng, Rouben Mamoulian, Victor Fleming
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD Cover InformationActor: Fredric March, Ingrid Bergman, Mel Blanc, Miriam Hopkins, Spencer Tracy Director: Friz Freleng, Rouben Mamoulian, Victor Fleming Brand: MARCH,FREDERIC Writer: John Lee Mahin Writer: Percy Heath Writer: Robert Louis Stevenson Writer: Samuel Hoffenstein Writer: Warren Foster DVD: Region Code 1 Audio: English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono; English (Subtitled); Spanish (Subtitled); French (Subtitled) Format: Color, DVD, NTSC, Subtitled Picture Format: 1.33:1 Running Time: 209 minutes DVD Release Date: 2004-01-06 Audience Rating: Unrated Studio: Warner Home Video
Movie Reviews of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1932/1941)Movie Review: Two different visions that create one united front... Summary: 4 StarsWhen I saw that these two films were not available separately I initially was reluctant to review them at all, but then I decided that it might be kind of fun to give a collective review, comparing the two and pitting them against one another. What is so remarkable about both features (released ten years apart) is that they really complete one another. Separately neither film hits all the marks needed to make a great film, yet when paired together they create a complete vision of what this impressive tale could be seen as.
So, let's pick this apart a bit.
I think the most appropriate place to start would be with the actors portraying Jekyll and Hyde; Fredric March and Spencer Tracy. Both takes on the character were very different from one another. March had an almost regal take on Jekyll, yet his Hyde was a ferocious almost macabre creation. Tracy made Jekyll very human, very relatable. His Hyde, for me, was like Alfred Molina impersonating Jack Nicholson's interpretation of Fredric March. It had this crazed almost campy personification that reminded me of Nicholson's `Joker'. March's portrayal was much more `horrific' in that the macabre aspects added layers of complete insanity. He reminded me of a character out of a 70's horror film, like one of the members of the grotesque family depicted in `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. For me he gave the better (or more effective) Hyde, but Spencer Tracy just blew me away with his version of Dr. Jekyll. The '41 version of `Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' is very much a film about Jekyll, and so the film really relies on Spencer's humanization of the doctor. His take on Hyde doesn't bother me; it just isn't as terrifying as March's.
Still, if I had to choose a performance, I'd go with Tracy in a heartbeat.
Then we have the objects of Jekyll's (and Hyde's) affections. In the '31 version these roles are tackled by Miriam Hopkins and Rose Hobart. Hopkins delivers one of my all time favorite supporting female performances of all time, so we know who wins this one (in a cakewalk). Her devilishly seductive qualities are only matched step by step by her gradual and realistic spiral towards fearful insanity. She is utterly brilliant. I also really adored Rose here, who captured Muriel's loving support yet fearful suspicion of her fianc?s work. The women of the '41 film don't fare as well. Ingrid Bergman (one of my top ten favorite actresses of ALL TIME) is way out of her comfort zone here, and while she captures the seductiveness needed to carry the character of Ivy (and that close up shot of her teary-eyed face as she faces Hyde for the final time is just utterly gorgeous) she doesn't quite get a firm grasp of the entirety of the character, the full arc. Her accent work is atrocious, and that takes away from the character development for me. Lana Turner is effective, but an afterthought for me. She works well, but she doesn't pop (and I love her work generally). For me, the biggest standout in the supporting cast was Donald Crisp who just sizzles with commanding presence as Beatrix's father Charles.
So then we have the plot. Both films are very similar in plot, yet the '41 film, for me, really expounds on the basic material. The beginning especially sheds a lot of light on the man that is Dr. Jekyll. Like I said, the '41 version is focused on Jekyll, and the '31 film is more about Hyde. That is why the films need to be seen together to really appreciate them fully. A lot of the center portions of the film are very similar to each other, but their strengths definitely lie in separate areas. I can't really say which is better (I prefer the '41 for the mere fact that is fleshes out Jekyll so well) because they are so obviously focused in separate areas.
The direction is also very different for each film. The '31 film is much darker in tone and construction. The way in which film was made then (almost gritty and grainy by default) add layers of terror to the scenes, even those that are simply not meant to be fear-inducing. The glossed over direction of the '41 version dampens the fear a tad, but it is much more beautiful to the eye (the use of fog mixes very well with the black and white, almost grey tone to the film). Visually, the '41 film is more appealing and almost more easily appreciated, but I have to go with the '31 here, for it really captures a desired tone effortlessly and carries that tone without ever once losing it.
In the end, neither film is perfect. Neither film would make my ballot for best of the year, but both films would litter my ballot in other areas. Like I said, Miriam Hopkins is a revelation and would win my supporting actress award in '31, and her co-star Rose Hobart would get a nomination. I'd also nominate it in Directing and a slew of technicals (if I really gave much thought to those races). The '41 version would get three different major nominations from me, in supporting actor (for Crisp), lead actor (for Tracy) and adapted screenplay, for it definitely has a stronger screenplay in my opinion.
If I had to judge the films separately I would give the edge to the '41 vehicle mainly for the added depth to the screenplay, but both films have their strengths and weaknesses. So, as far as my grade is concerned, I struggled with what to do. Do I give the DVD an A, since when watched together the films complement each other in a way that creates a sense of completed vision, or do I grade the DVD based on the actual films involved and give it a B, since when viewed separately the films are incomplete?
As you can see, I went with my gut and gave my film grade, thus the four star review.
Summary of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1932/1941)Classic Hollywood versions of the story about a doctor who transforms into a murderer. Genre: Feature Film-Drama Rating: NR Release Date: 7-JUN-2005 Media Type: DVD Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) Fredric March won an Oscar? for playing the protagonist (and antagonist) of Robert Louis Stevenson's story. Dr. Henry Jekyll is an honorable man of science, albeit frustrated at the enforced celibacy of a delayed wedding date. Hyde is the fearsome creature he turns into after drinking a potion, and Hyde's appetites (mostly expressed with Miriam Hopkins's Cockney dance-hall wench) are decidedly unrestrained. March's performance is pretty theatrical, but it's fun to watch; his Hyde twitches and squawks and lopes around like an ape in a tuxedo. Rouben Mamoulian's direction has plenty of the brio of early-thirties Hollywood, and the transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are ingenious for the time. This film followed Dracula and Frankenstein into theaters by a few months, and it stands well with those horror classics--and it's a darn sight more fun (and much more down and dirty) than the 1941 MGM version of Stevenson's tale. --Robert Horton Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) Classy MGM was not the studio most likely to make a horror movie in 1941, and in fact its production of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ended up looking more like a glossy costume drama than a B-movie frightfest. The mood of Robert Louis Stevenson's tale of a divided doctor is ably captured in Joseph Ruttenberg's Oscar-nominated cinematography--more so, perhaps, than in Spencer Tracy's lead performance. Tracy wasn't especially happy about playing the role, although his transformations from good Dr. Jekyll to evil Dr. Hyde are convincing enough. One of the main reasons to see this version of the story is the young, impossibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, then still a year shy of Casablanca. Bergman was cast in the good-girl part, but proved a shrewd judge of material, even this early in her Hollywood career; she finagled her way into playing the floozy instead, thus securing a more colorful acting platform than Lana Turner, who ended up in the more respectable role. Director Victor Fleming's previous movie was a little number called Gone with the Wind, and the Big Picture approach to that project may have influenced his work here--this Dr. Jekyll is just a bit too stately, too polished to really engage. The picture is so dignified it never cuts loose with the kind of wild invention that marked the 1932 version of the story, which won Fredric March an Oscar. It's the tale as imagined by Jekyll, rather than Hyde. --Robert Horton
|
 |