Classic Film : Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—Which version do you prefer..

..and why?
1931?
1941?
Other?

I have both the 1931 and 1941 versions saved on my DVR right now.

I put the 1931 version on top although I have reservations about the make-up - a bit too much, too troglodyte.

Here's Michael Rennie in a live TV adaptation:



It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

I like both versions. 1931 has March and Miriam Hopkins. 1941 has Tracy and Ingrid Bergman. Both versions follow the same script. Both are handsomely made. Both versions have sexual content (1931 has Hopkins stripping and showing some leg; 1941 has a dream sequence where Tracy imagines himself riding a carriage drawn by an implied-nude Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman). 1941 has a musical score over 1931's lack of a soundtrack (aside from the titles and some background music). 1931 has the better action climax. 1941 doesn't have a bad child actor.

Hi clore,

I would think that this might be a very challenging role to play.
The makeup and the special effects would certainly be an important aspect, but I will be looking at them more or less back-to-back to whether March (who one his first Oscar for this) or Tracey shows the greatest personality change and if it seems "natural" or too obvious.

Of course, I will look at other aspects of the movies but that personality change will be interesting to compare.

I saw the 1941 movie during a revival in the mid fifties. Scared the Maypo out of me. Still like it today.

I finally got around to seeing the March film when it showed up in a revival house in NYC in the eighties. Over all, I prefer the 1932 movie where Mamoulian pulled out all the stops. The final Hyde makeup raised the hair on the back of my neck. It and The Exorcist are the only two movies that actually scared me as an adult.

I also have the Barrymore and Rennie adaptations, both of which are enjoyable on their own terms.

I saw the Kirk Douglas musical version ages ago, but I don't remember much about it.

The same for The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (The House of Fright). Paul Massie begins as a homely Jekyll and becomes a lady killer Hyde. I wonder if Jerry Lewis saw it and was inspired to do The Nutty Professor?

I, Monster (Christopher Lee) didn't make a great impression on me, however, I should look it up again for a re-evaluation

We are the makers of music and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Did you see the Jack Palance version back in 1968? It was a Dan Curtis production, not bad although Palance is already too close to Hyde even when he's playing Jekyll. Nice support from Denholm Elliott and Torin Thatcher. It's out on DVD, one of these days

Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde was an interesting take on it and Martine Beswick and Ralph Bates make a perfect pair.



It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

---

Palance is already too close to Hyde even when he's playing Jekyll.

---

I haven't seen it since it was first broadcast.

Your description reminds me of the day Somerset Maugham (I think it was him) visited the set of the Tracy movie and asked, "Which one is he playing now?."

Every now and then someone tries a new twist on the story, whether it is Paul Massie growing handsome or a gender bender like Sister Hyde. I haven't seen it, although I think it has been on TCM a time or two.

I didn't mention the partial 1912 version or King Baggot in 1913 (which I have on dvd). I actually have a newspaper ad of that movie when it played my hometown.

Ah! What I would give for a time machine!

We are the makers of music and we are the dreamers of dreams.

If I had that time machine, this is the version that I'd want to see

Der Januskopf (1920)

Murnau, Veidt, Lugosi - the mind boggles.

It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

---

Murnau, Veidt, Lugosi - the mind boggles

---

Yes.

Another "Holy Grail" in the long line of lost films. The best hope is that the movie played in the Americas and the print escaped the devastation of WWII.

There may be a copy in the basement of a theatre in La Paz, yet to be discovered.

We are the makers of music and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Late response: yeah, I saw the Palance Jekyll & Hyde literally first run. I think it was a Sunday night. It was at a friend's house. January, if memory serves, and wicked cold. I didn't expect to be drawn in but it was well done, atmospheric, more so, as I recall, than either of the the March or Tracy feature film versions, which is no small accomplishment. Palance's Hyde was truly nightmarish.

Same thing for me, I was at a friend's house and yes, it was cold. I wasn't expecting much as "it's from the Dark Shadows guy" and I was not a fan of that series. I was pleasantly surprised also by Palance who managed to be far more subtle as Jekyll than I expected.

It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

It was good, and Palance reined it in nicely. His career as an offbeat star was a fortunate one. It was kind of like after Widmark came Kirk Douglas, who also triumphed as a bad guy, and then Palance. The first two were reasonably good looking, though. Palance began as a creepazoid in Panic In The Streets, and he sure looked it,with Shane kind of putting him over as a name player. Even so, he didn't make it big, and by the time homely guys like Steiger, Matthau and Lee Marvin were getting hot Palance's time had come and gone, in major films anyway. Yet he was lucky, as his Jekyll and Hyde casting shows, and he continued to get lucky breaks for many years to come. I never sensed that he had much in the way of a fan base , but maybe he did.

I have a copy of this presentation around here, I should revisit it - and his Dracula also.

Funny about Palance and Marvin. You could plot Marvin's rise and Palance's fall in their four films together. In the first pairing (I Died a Thousand Times), Palance is first and Marvin is fourth billed. In Attack Palance is first and Marvin is third. A decade later, in The Professionals, Marvin is second and Palance is fifth and finally in Monte Walsh, Marvin finally gets the top slot and Palance is third.

I really wish that Marvin had gotten the lead in the first one, he would have made a perfect Roy Earle whereas Palance isn't able to draw much sympathy from me. More than any other actor of his generation, Marvin always struck me as the one who should have been the heir apparent to Bogart. Be it Sam Spade or Charlie Allnut, Marvin could have done it.



It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

---

I wasn't expecting much as "it's from the Dark Shadows guy" and I was not a fan of that series.

---

Both were scored by Bob Cobert. The teleplay's Title music would be used for the DS series and the climax of HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS. Hyde's death music would be used for Barnabas's staking in HOUSE and Palance's exposure to sunlight in DRACULA. "Quentin's Theme" could be heard in the scene where Jekyll talks to Gwyn about Hyde.

Thanks for all of that. I'm going to have to check out the two Palance films sometime soon. Maybe even this week as I wean myself off the political coverage and go back to enjoying some entertainment.

It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

Lee Marvin definitely had it, but there was an unromantic quality to him,like he was a career soldier or, more properly, Marineand I think his uber-macho, so appealing to guys, and in this similar to another Lee (Van Cleef) didn't work with the gals. Marvin came across as a sexual being, but he'd have been tough casting for one of Bogart's more romantic roles,Casablanca comes to mind first and foremost, but also the ones with Becall, I suppose The African Queenhe had it all, just like the song said, with or without Bacall.

Lee showed his tender side with Jeanne Moreau in Monte Walsh and let's not forget that it was highly doubted that Bogart could carry off anything other than the thug. Even there, a lot of his gangsters were weak, which is why he'd be defeated by Cagney and Robinson. He had to be molded into a romantic type and I think that Marvin had it in him. He had the stuff, he's Liberty Valance and Kid Shaleen and his evil cousin. A lot of being perceived as being the romantic type depends on the leading lady - that's where Bergman legitimized Bogart. She could probably have made Stan Laurel into a romantic figure.

Marvin could be human and he had marvelous comic timing. A guy like Bronson is absolutely monolithic and even opposite his wife, he has no chemistry with his leading ladies.



It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

Lee Marvin's comic timing was second to none in my book. His brief time on the witness stand in The Caine Mutiny was dramatically revealing and somewhat funny (Question: "did you like Captain Queeg?", Answer: "Sure. I liked him. Not a lot, but I liked him",Marvin's response is exquisitely timed, and of course the captain is played by you-know-who). Marvin also gives Marlon Brando a run for his money in The Wild One, also funny at times ("storm the Bastille!"). Brando really had to work in that film, full of scene stealers like Marvin, Tim Carey (small part, but still) and Ray Teal, among others.

I do think that Marvin's macho got in the way of his getting or maybe wanting those roles that might have made him a romantic figure. A forty-three year old, already weathered looking Humphrey Bogart was a stretch, but he wasn't a bad looking guy, and he bore a more than fleeting resemblance to six day wonder sex symbol of the pre-Code Jack LaRue. The more I've seen of LaRue the more I appreciate the connection, albeit tenuous, though at Paramount it was a certain Mr. Raft who was the direct beneficiary of LaRue's fall,if that's the right word for it.

FWIW: I've known guys like Marvin, or the way Marvin comes across on screen: veterans and lifers, military to the core; and they tend to be unromantic in the extreme. Lee Marvin could almost be the template or, as the case may be, poster boy, for that type. There haven't been a whole lot of guys like that in films, not well known players, though I suppose Frank Sutton's sergeant character on the TV Gomer Pyle was cut from the same cloth. Jack Webb strikes me as more a wannabe than the real thing. I like the way Marvin plays off Webb in Pete Kelly's Blues. Mr. Bogart could play military, and as an ex-Navy man he was superb in The Caine Mutiny. I marveled at Bogart's playing in that film even more after watching Jack Nicholson's downright awful performance as a Marine officer in A Few Good Men, but I digress.

(Agreed on Charlie Bronson: an anomaly. His stardom was more international than American, and in a way, allowing for the age difference and the kinds of roles he played he was kind of a successor to Steve Reeves in his monolithic aspects, yet even Steve has a degree of charm and sex appeal.)

Pete Kelly's Blues is another film, which like I Died a Thousand times, seems to have the wrong leading man. I just have a hard time with Marvin getting slapped around by Webb but I'll credit Marvin with being able to play a guy who is somewhat weak in character. He does that also in Bad Day at Black Rock and here again we see the see saw nature of the business. Marvin is way down the cast list from Robert Ryan in a part that Marvin himself could have handled. But a decade later, Ryan is supporting him in The Professionals and The Dirty Dozen.

I'm not fond of A Few Good Men and Nicholson is just part of it. I can't recall the exact details as I only saw it once, but there was something about the climatic scene losing punch because Cruise had already provided too much detail on what he was going to do in the courtroom. I'm not curious enough to go back and double-check. That role really needed a Marvin (by then deceased) or perhaps Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge mode. James Coburn could have done it also - he could have done a lot of Marvin roles and did seem to have the sex appeal that you don't see in Lee.





It ain't easy being green, or anything else, other than to be me

Robert Ryan's star was fading when Lee Marvin's was rising, with age the major factor IMO, especially as Ryan really looked his age. As he grew older Ryan seemed to be aiming for a kind of Henry Fonda distinguished respectability,my takeas he played more educated white collar "establishment" types. He was good enough in those parts but I missed the edge he had when he was younger and had a corner on hateful bigots, bad guys or weak men seething with resentments.

A Few Good Men worked like a well tooled machine. It was good for what it was but nothing special. The set up felt like a cliché. The "you can't take the truth" line felt like facile liberalism. It was the kind of line that seemed more appropriate to a film from the 70s, such as Five Easy Pieces, which was of course a Jack Nicholson picture. Demi Moore struck me as badly miscast, Kevin Bacon was a disappointment, however Tom Cruise was much better than I would have imagined. Agreed on James Coburn, whose career was in some ways similar to Marvin's, and whom just about everyone I've known confused with Marvin.

The Mamoulian version is the one I'd go for thanks to its vividness, its social contrasts, the detail of the sets, and the extraordinary transformations achieved through lighting and the make-up wizardry of Wally Westmore. It really is one of the most unforgettable films I have watched.

That's all, folks!

I would like to say the Fredric March version, but I find the Mr. Hyde makeup a bit hard to handle. He looks ,ore like a werewolf than a psycho case.

Spencer Tracy's minimal makeup is more of the way it should be done, but I like the acting of March better.

I am so conflicted.

All the world is a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.

The 1941, easy. Spencer Tracy may not be my favorite Jekyll but his Mr. Hyde rocks. For my money Tracy's Hyde is up there with Jimmy Cagney's Cody Jarrett as one of the scariest villain's in movie history. Victor Fleming directed a beautifully mounted production. Psychological horror is the way to go with this one. I love the larger than life style of the film, done in the grand MGM manner. Mamoulian's version disappointed me. I found it too arty for my tastes. John Barrymore's silent version was great fun, and Barrymore himself seemed to be having a ball as Hyde.

My preference is the 1931 version because of Frederic March's energetic performance. He is so watchable as Hyde when he is frolicking about with evil intent.

1931

March was excellent, despite -as other posters already mentioned- the over-the-top makeup. However, Miriam Hopkins was truly magnificent and the best thing about it, IMHO.

---

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

---

Abbott and Costello version. It's the funniest.

I've never seen any of those classic versions in yet. I have seen Mary Reilly, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the TV movie that Michael Caine did.


Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?

To me, the best adaptations are the 1941 with Spencer Tracy and the 1968 TV mini-series with Jack Palance.
I found the 1931 adaptation ridiculous, it is almost like an intended parody. I guess that Frederick March won the Oscar just because of the make-up.
The 1920 John Barrymore film I couldn't finish with it. So boring.
As to recent remakes, I don't bother.
I must say though that the one made by Hammer in the early 1970s and titled "Dr Jekyll and his sister Hyde" starring Ralph Bates is not bad at all but it proposes an interesting variation to the story: by drinking the potion the good doctor becomes A WOMAN!

1920 - with John Barrymore

Jean Renoir's Le Testament Du Docteur Cordelier is dismissed by many as a mere TV movie (it even begins with Renoir discussing the film in a television studio: around this time he regularly filmed introductions for TV broadcasts of his films), but despite being visually a little flat due to being shot quickly with multiple cameras both to save time and money and to allow the actors more freedom, it's an intriguing attempt to remove the overfamiliarity which curses all other adaptations of its source material. It would be giving too much away to mention exactly which extremely famous novel it's based on (it's not even credited in the main titles), but despite being moved from Victorian Edinburgh to 50s Paris it's in many ways the most faithful screen adaptation to the original mystery structure of the novel. Of course, once you know the title any mystery is gone, so in a strange way changing the names, updating and relocating it is the only way to even attempt to preserve any element of surprise.

Some elements are more successful than others, and while it retains the all-important but oft overlooked front door/back door geography of the good Doctor's house, it's somewhat diminished by both entrances opening on respectable streets rather than occupying the borderline between the upper class streets and the slums. However, it is the only version that points out that far from being the victim of his good intentions, the doctor in question is in fact merely covering up his own very willing part in the crimes rather than trying to put an end to them: his only reason for wanting to end them is to end the pain that he suffers rather than the pain that is inflicted on others. But the real triumph of the film is Jean-Louis Barrault's performance as Opale, a quite remarkable display of pure physicality offering a mass of twitches, swagger and curious movements that should skirt on the comic yet somehow combine with the character's arbitrary rage and purely opportunistic violence to create a disturbing portrait of malice that's a world away from the hypocritical and ultimately far more monstrous Dr Cordelier's public displays of rigid self-control. It may be a minor film, particularly in Renoir's canon, but it's a major performance that deserves to be much better known.


"Security - release the badgers."

VIDEO WATCHDOG would comment about a resemblance to Charles Chaplin: Cordelier is the white-haired Chaplin in his later years; Opale is the Little Tramp.

Easily, the 1941 version. Minimal make up made Tracy that much more menacing as Hyde. The 1931 version had Hyde appear to be a troglodyte which made the narrative unrealistic. Palance was also good in the 1968 version.

1931. The make-up, as most of us agree, was a bit overdone, but then the story is over the top to begin with, and from a technical point of view, the manner in which March's change into Hyde is accomplished is imaginative and frightening.

More critically, the film also has a raw edge (in part no doubt due to the technical limitations of early sound films) that the smoother 1941 version lacks. The '41 is a tad more subtle but there's too much MGM gloss. It lacks the harsher immediacy of the '31 that makes that Hyde so scary. And the time-lapse method of realizing Tracy's transformation (not dissimilar to The Wolf Man) isn't as real or effective as March's transformation. If March's final Hyde make-up had been a little less caveman-ish it would stand out even more.

As for leading ladies, Hopkins is much better than either Turner or even Bergman who said Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was her favorite American film!

I saw the Jack Palance version when it was first broadcast but don't remember enough of it to really comment. The 1920 Barrymore film is intriguing and he's always worth watching but overall that version doesn't hold a lot of appeal for me.

Jack Palance