Greg Cox wrote:
Yeah, the Code really gets in the way sometimes. There's a great 1940's movie about Jack the Ripper, THE LODGER, which is hobbled by the fact that, apparently, they couldn't acknowledge what exactly the Ripper's victims did for a living. So you get lots of dialogue about how the Ripper is prowling the streets of Whitechapel looking for "actresses."
There was some of that here too. Ivy in the '31 version was pretty clearly a working girl, so to speak, but in the '41 they went to some lengths to establish that Ivy wasn't... wasn't... (insert meaningful pause), but was just a fun-loving girl who was "a little too generous" with her affections.
Given the radical difference in censorship, I'm surprised the '41 movie hewed so closely to the '31 film's storyline. I mean, that's a movie that's heavily dependent on the sexual nature of Hyde's relationship with Ivy to demonstrate how brutal and abusive he is. Try to tell the same story with the sexuality swept under the rug and it's rendered hollow. Maybe they should've told a different version of the story altogether, one where Hyde's evil was demonstrated through crime and violence and stuff they could actually show, instead of nebulously implied sexual cruelty. After all, the original Stevenson work doesn't include the Ivy character or the fiancee, and avoids specific description of Hyde's debaucheries aside from a murder or two.
At least back then no one thought he turned into the Incredible Hulk.
In this case, it would've been more entertaining if he had.