I watched the 1941 Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde with Spencer Tracy after viewing the 1932 Pre-Code Fredric March version first, so my opinion of this film was always going to be dented a little in comparison to the earlier work. Ultimately I favour the March film over this, but the MGM version is memorable and worthwhile in it's own right.
Tracy's Hyde is a lot subtler than March's Hyde, and his Jekyll is a lot less theatrical. Tracy's typically understated acting style is appealing in his handling of Jekyll, as he makes the scientist a more pensive, sympathetic character than March's 'mad doctor' performance. However, Tracy looks decidedly uncomfortable throughout the film despite turning in a very good acting performance. It is one of his strangest roles, and apparently he detested himself in the film, fearing his career would be ruined. It wasn't ruined however, and this is an essential film for Tracy fans.
The make-up for Hyde in this is very good, very subtle. Tracy's Hyde is perhaps more chilling because his appearance is a logical extension of Jekyll's, rather than March's simian-like creature. The transformation sequences are handled excellently, and I do feel that Fleming's version demonstrates the duality of human nature better than the Mamoulian film. By making Hyde's features less exaggerated and monstrous, Fleming conveys that badness is lurking below the surface in every man- even the calm, measured Tracy.
Ingrid Bergman is fantastic as bad-girl Ivy, who represents Jekyll/Hyde's suppressed desires and longings. Her attempt at a Cockney accent is quite bad, but Bergman was always the best at displaying the complex emotional state of her characters, and she does it so beautifully here. Turner, not a favourite of mine, has some reasonably good moments as Beaxtrix, Jekyll's good-girl fiancé. It's a role written in such a way that Turner could do little with it, yet she does make an equally sympathetic character as Bergman's Ivy is.
The major issue that hampers Fleming's production is it's complete lack of atmosphere. This is where the Pre-Code version, in all its raunchy glory, vaults over the 1941 film. The MGM studios had typically bourgeois values when it came to film-making, hence the brightly lit, elaborately decorated sets and overall glossy feel. While March and Hopkins' encounters are raw, brutal and sexually invigorating, Tracy and Bergman's feel rather staged and uncertain. Also, the Hayes Code impacted heavily upon the MGM version. Many of the scenes from Mamoulian's work (indeed, most of them- some of the dialogue is word-for-word) have been re-made and watered down to a saccharine Victorian costume melodrama, which takes away much of the energy and vitality of the film. Tracy and Bergman's 'garters' conversation is dull and forced compared to Hopkins' and March's very suggestive, sexually-charged sequence. In terms of entertainment, I think that the 1932 version definitely comes up trumps. This one suffers from bad pacing throughout, which leads to boredom and a duller production.The March version also was, for it's time, a cinematic marvel of daring brilliance.
This film deals with the psychology of Stevenson's original work better, and has a definite religious element running throughout. Also of note is the Freudian imagery employed in a number of key scenes. Tracy's Hyde whipping horses that turn into the women in his life, the naked Bergman and Turner, is a visual highlight. Fine supporting work from wonderful C.Aubrey Smith and Donald Crisp is another reason to take a look.
This film pales in comparison to the older version, but it is nowhere near as bad as some have previously labelled it as.
See it and enjoy.
7/10.
Tracy's Hyde is a lot subtler than March's Hyde, and his Jekyll is a lot less theatrical. Tracy's typically understated acting style is appealing in his handling of Jekyll, as he makes the scientist a more pensive, sympathetic character than March's 'mad doctor' performance. However, Tracy looks decidedly uncomfortable throughout the film despite turning in a very good acting performance. It is one of his strangest roles, and apparently he detested himself in the film, fearing his career would be ruined. It wasn't ruined however, and this is an essential film for Tracy fans.
The make-up for Hyde in this is very good, very subtle. Tracy's Hyde is perhaps more chilling because his appearance is a logical extension of Jekyll's, rather than March's simian-like creature. The transformation sequences are handled excellently, and I do feel that Fleming's version demonstrates the duality of human nature better than the Mamoulian film. By making Hyde's features less exaggerated and monstrous, Fleming conveys that badness is lurking below the surface in every man- even the calm, measured Tracy.
Ingrid Bergman is fantastic as bad-girl Ivy, who represents Jekyll/Hyde's suppressed desires and longings. Her attempt at a Cockney accent is quite bad, but Bergman was always the best at displaying the complex emotional state of her characters, and she does it so beautifully here. Turner, not a favourite of mine, has some reasonably good moments as Beaxtrix, Jekyll's good-girl fiancé. It's a role written in such a way that Turner could do little with it, yet she does make an equally sympathetic character as Bergman's Ivy is.
The major issue that hampers Fleming's production is it's complete lack of atmosphere. This is where the Pre-Code version, in all its raunchy glory, vaults over the 1941 film. The MGM studios had typically bourgeois values when it came to film-making, hence the brightly lit, elaborately decorated sets and overall glossy feel. While March and Hopkins' encounters are raw, brutal and sexually invigorating, Tracy and Bergman's feel rather staged and uncertain. Also, the Hayes Code impacted heavily upon the MGM version. Many of the scenes from Mamoulian's work (indeed, most of them- some of the dialogue is word-for-word) have been re-made and watered down to a saccharine Victorian costume melodrama, which takes away much of the energy and vitality of the film. Tracy and Bergman's 'garters' conversation is dull and forced compared to Hopkins' and March's very suggestive, sexually-charged sequence. In terms of entertainment, I think that the 1932 version definitely comes up trumps. This one suffers from bad pacing throughout, which leads to boredom and a duller production.The March version also was, for it's time, a cinematic marvel of daring brilliance.
This film deals with the psychology of Stevenson's original work better, and has a definite religious element running throughout. Also of note is the Freudian imagery employed in a number of key scenes. Tracy's Hyde whipping horses that turn into the women in his life, the naked Bergman and Turner, is a visual highlight. Fine supporting work from wonderful C.Aubrey Smith and Donald Crisp is another reason to take a look.
This film pales in comparison to the older version, but it is nowhere near as bad as some have previously labelled it as.
See it and enjoy.
7/10.