View Single Post
Old October 9 2012, 09:08 PM   #394
Christopher's Avatar
Re: TCM Genre movies schedule...

Just finished watching the '41 version of Jekyll & Hyde, and I agree with with the opinion that it's greatly inferior to the '31 version. Despite being from a rather accomplished director, Victor Fleming, who'd done Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, it was a much less innovative, much more ordinary production than the previous film. The casting was also pretty bad. Spencer Tracy was just too nice a guy to be effectively menacing, and as much as I like Ingrid Bergman, it was kind of painful to listen to her trying to pretend to be a Cockney. Though on the other hand, I think this is the first time I've ever seen a Lana Turner movie, and she was really lovely.

The movie also suffered greatly from the Hays Code. The hand of censorship was so heavy that the movie couldn't really explore or depict what made Hyde so evil. It implied that he was sexually violating and abusing Ivy off-camera, but it was executed so sedately that what we saw onscreen made Hyde seem more just uncouth and annoying than cruel and terrifying, so it never really sold the sense of menace. Jack Dawn's makeup for Hyde was also way too subtle, basically just a wig, a small appliance on the brows and nose, some wrinkles around the eyes, and bushy eyebrows, with the rest being just Tracy bugging his eyes and grinning. Fredric March's Jekyll turned into an apelike brute, but Tracy essentially turned into Burgess Meredith as the Penguin. No, strike that; at least the Penguin was interesting to watch. Plus it was completely ridiculous that nobody could tell that Jekyll and Hyde were the same man. At least Clark Kent had glasses. The whole thing was kind of embarrassing, and greatly disappointing.

Although I guess it's kind of appropriate that of two consecutive versions of DJ&MH, one would be good and the other would be bad.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote