Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) User Reviews

A Bold Experiment

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 18 December 2006]

It was probably too soon for Spencer Tracy to have tried a remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Ten years was not long enough for people to forget Fredric March's Oscar winning performance from the Paramount classic of 1931. This version of the Robert Louis Stevenson horror novel drew for Tracy some of the few bad reviews he ever got as a player because it was too soon. Time has been good to this film and we can see the differences in interpretation.

The Jekyll character that Tracy creates is a soft spoken guy, a lot like Father Flannagan. He's a medical doctor, more interested in research than in a practice. Before Sigmund Freud ever coined the terms ego and id to describe man's duel nature of good and evil, Stevenson had those same notions about man's behavior and incorporated them in his novel.

The Hyde character was a bold experiment. Tracy was probably the player in Hollywood who disliked makeup the most. Yet for this film and for few others, he allowed himself to be made up ever so slightly to suggest the evil Hyde. It was a far cry from the simian appearance of Fredric March's Hyde and Tracy got criticized for it. Retrospectives now are kinder to him and his method of interpretation.

Stepping into the female roles played by Rose Hobart and Miriam Hopkins in the March version are Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman. Lana Turner although later she played quite a few sexpots was at this stage of her career playing very winsome proper young ladies and not doing a bad job of it.

Ingrid Bergman plays Champagne Ivy, probably one of the most luckless characters in fiction. Ivy was not in the original novel, she was in the play that was adapted from the Stevenson novel and she's come down to us ever since. This poor girl, no better than she ought to be meets Tracy as Jekyll and he's attracted, but engaged to Turner. When he becomes Hyde, the beast within him remembers and stalks Bergman mercilessly ending in tragedy all around.

Besides March and Tracy other actors who've tried this most difficult of parts are John Barrymore, Jack Palance, and Kirk Douglas. Only the best can and are willing to tackle Jekyll and Hyde. And there ain't no doubt that Tracy is one of the best.

Very good, though so close to the 1931 version that this one doesn't seem all that necessary

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 6 November 2006]

I had the fortune of seeing BOTH this version and the 1931 Frederic March version only about a week apart. Because of this it gave me an excellent chance to compare and contrast them. And it also gave me a chance to see that the two films were extremely similar--so similar that the later MGM film seems more a remake of the 1931 film and not an adaptation of the original book. There was much more similarity between the movies than the book. And, while they both are good, I would definitely say that I preferred the earlier version.

Since the 1931 film was made during the so-called "Pre-Code" era before the guidelines of the production code governing morality in pictures was enforced, it is a more "earthy" and sexually charged film. In this earlier version, March develops the chemical formula simply out of curiosity and a desire to "sow wild oats" without detection. In other words, since Mr. Hyde looked more like a half-man/half-chimp, he could whore around without getting caught or ruining his reputation. The 1941 version had much nobler intent, as nice-guy Dr. Jekyll created his elixir in order to separate the good and evil aspects of our personalities so we could live purer and more wholesome lives without our subconscious evil desires impeding us! In addition, since the 1931 version was pre-Code, it tended to show more skin and imply more about sex, whereas the 1941 version showed Hyde more as a sadist. In general, the 1941 version was a little bit tamer and more "family-friendly", though I think both are fine for older kids.

There were a few negatives I noticed in this otherwise well-made film. One was that Hyde looked almost exactly like Dr. Jekyll. This MIGHT have been a daring and intelligent way to take the movie (though certainly NOT in keeping with Robert Lewis Stevenson's book)--showing the "monster" as looking like a sloppy man, but a man nevertheless. However, this makes no sense, as Ingrid Bergman (the woman Hyde desires) already met Dr. Jekyll BEFORE meeting Hyde and yet couldn't see that they were the same guy! At the very least, she should have thought they were brothers! But, to go to Dr. Jekyll and complain about how abusive Hyde was just seemed silly.

Also another quibble is with the choice of Ms. Bergman as the earthy barmaid (in the 1931 version, she seemed more like a prostitute than a member of the working poor). Changing her part a bit wasn't the problem, but that Ingrid sounded like a Swedish lady trying to sound Cockney--which is what she was! At times, she forgot the accent altogether and at other times she just sounded kind of weird. She was a wonderful actress, but the casting decision was dumb.

As far as Tracy goes, he was fine as Jekyll, but there were times when it was obvious that you were watching a stuntman instead of Tracy. The scenes just weren't done very well and you can't blame Tracy for this but the director. Just watch the scene in the hallway after Hyde's confrontation with Bergman--it's pretty obvious that the guy jumping about isn't Tracy and it doesn't look much like him.

One observation about Tracy. I've recently read a biography about him and choosing him to play the lead was pretty interesting because in real life, Tracy definitely had a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality. When he was sober (which apparently wasn't often enough), he was a sweet guy, but when he drank he was abusive and very reminiscent of the dreaded Hyde. I wonder if anyone at the time noticed this.

Classic Horror

[Uriah43 · 7/10 · 13 July 2013]

Set in Victorian England in 1887, a wealthy doctor by the name of "Dr. Jekyll" (Spencer Tracy) has begun experimenting on animals to determine if it is possible to separate good qualities from those determined to be bad. When he discusses his research at a dinner party his ideas are met with a great deal of consternation, especially on the part of his fiancé's father, "Sir Charles Emery" (Donald Crisp). In fact, Sir Charles is so concerned that he decides to take his daughter, "Beatrix Emery" (Lana Turner) with him out of the country in order to separate the two and give him some time to think about whether the wedding should go forward or not. In the meantime, Dr. Jekyll has grown frustrated with the progress of his research and decides to administer his experimental concoction on himself. Suddenly he turns from a charming and considerate person into a malevolent being called "Mr. Hyde". To make matters worse, with Beatrix gone he sets his sadistic sights on a young barmaid named "Ivy Peterson" (Ingrid Bergman) to satisfy his brutal and abusive nature. Now, rather than detailing the entire plot I will just say that the director (Victor Fleming) does an excellent job of capturing the dark and gloomy ambiance that this movie depends upon. And while both Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman turn in very good performances, it is Spencer Tracy who really makes this film so successful. Definitely recommended for fans of classic horror.

Tracy is a chilling Hyde...Bergman is brilliant...

[Doylenf · 7 April 2002]

For years I knew that Fredric March had won one of his Oscars for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE back in the '30s and always assumed that because of this his performance was superior to Spencer Tracy's.

But having just seen the Tracy-Bergman-Turner version, my opinion has changed. Whereas the make-up for March makes him look like a cheap monster in a Universal thriller and almost Simian, Tracy achieves a distinctly chilling effect simply through posture and facial expressions alone with a minimum of make-up. His first encounter with the barmaid Ivy (Ingrid Bergman) is beautifully done with both of them registering emotions as they play against each other--Tracy with a wicked gleam in his eye and Bergman trying to hide her fear. She creates a really sympathetic character, especially when she realizes the extent of her degradation. Her scenes with Tracy where he is sadistically taunting her remind one of the cat-and-mouse game she played with Charles Boyer in "Gaslight".

The B&W photography realistically captures Victorian London after dark with its swirling mists and street lamps. All of the performances are first rate except for an uncertain Lana Turner who has a pallid role and can do little with it.

The only flaws are the film's length--it takes too long to tell the tale with its long-winded speeches--and the leisurely pace under Victor Fleming's direction makes the horror more muted than it need be.

Unresolved problems

[keith-moyes · 7/10 · 19 September 2006]

It is impossible to watch this movie without comparing it to Reuben Mamoulian's 1931 Paramount version. I prefer the earlier version, but this one does have certain advantages.

When Mamoulian's movie was made, sound movies were barely four years old - and it shows. It wasn't simply a question of technology. The aesthetics of sound films were different: the structure of the story, the rhythm of scenes; the use of close-ups, etc. had all changed. Mamoulian's film is very accomplished, but is still on the cusp of this change and Fleming's film is undoubtedly a smoother, more confident piece of film-making. Similarly, Tracy gives a genuine movie performance. Frederic March may have won an Oscar, but his Jeckyll has the declamatory style of the theatre so characteristic of very early sound films.

However, it also has disadvantages. In 1931, the censor had less power than in 1941. Mamoulian was able to overrule many of his objections. He still had to be fairly discreet, but he could be somewhat more explicit than Fleming about Jeckyll's sexual frustration.

More importantly, instead of going to the book for inspiration, MGM simply re-made Mamoulian's movie - scene by scene. As a result it inevitably feels a bit stale in comparison. This was also a missed opportunity, because whatever its merits (and they are many) Mamoulian's film had not really solved the problem of how to tell this story. Fleming simply reproduces its shortcomings.

The book is basically a mystery. A lawyer encounters the loathsome Mr Hyde and learns of his connections with Jeckyll. Various other strange events occur. After Hyde commits a savage and unprovoked murder, the lawyer starts to investigate. Meanwhile, Jeckyll deposits a letter with him that must not be read until his death or disappearance. Eventually, the lawyer tracks Hyde down to Jeckyll's laboratory where he is found dead. This takes up 9 of the 10 chapters of the book. He reads the letter, which explains the mystery.

Both movies dispense with the mystery and go straight to the letter. What makes Jeckyll's confession so compelling is how it documents his gradual slide into 'addiction'. Initially, Hyde is a means by which he can indulge in his vices without shame, remorse or consequences. But each time he does so, Hyde gets stronger and his behaviour gets worse. Eventually, Jeckyll loses control altogether and Hyde can appear of his own accord. In despair, he commits suicide.

The core of the book, therefore, is Jeckyll's first person narrative. The cinema is no good at the first person and both these movies tell Jeckyll's story from the normal third person perspective. But Jeckyll has no one he can talk to about his experiences, so we lose most of his motivation and much of his growing anguish. This movie implies that his initial experiment was motivated by a desire to heal, but we are given no reason why he continues to take the transforming drug and see little of his power struggle with Hyde. We see the initial transformation, during which nothing happens (as in the book) then, on the second transformation, we get a long scene with Hyde in the bar and an even longer one of him terrorising and brutalising Ivy, separated by a short scene of Beatrix with her father. As a result, Jeckyll disappears from the movie for 25 minutes - Hyde has taken over the story.

When Jeckyll does turn up again, Hyde's actions have become so appalling that we no longer understand Jeckyll's position. Does he know what Hyde has been doing? In the book he does, but in this movie we are not sure. If he knows, then he is a callous, hypocritical monster, who is as bad as Hyde. But if he doesn't, why does he take the drug at all? Both movies shy away from a crucial feature of the story. Jeckyll enjoys being Hyde! Without this realisation, the story may seem to be fairly simple and clear-cut, but it actually makes no sense.

I doubt if there is any way to tell this story effectively without a voice-over narration. Jeckyll has to tell the audience directly what he is thinking and feeling. In 1931, the voice-over was probably not even technically possible. By simply copying this movie, Fleming misses a crucial opportunity to improve on it.

I would make one final observation. In this version, Hyde's make-up is much more subtle than in Mamoulian's film, but neither is really satisfactory. Mamoulian's simian throw-back could barely pass as human, but in this movie there is no way that Ivy could fail to recognise that Jeckyll and Hyde are one and the same.

Both movies are trapped in a convention that probably goes back to the very first stage productions and was reinforced by Barrymore's bravura transformation scene in the 1920 movie: traditionally, one actor plays both parts. There is no warrant for this in the book. Hyde is very different from Jeckyll (and is actually much smaller, especially in the beginning). This convention was not challenged until Hammer in the Sixties, but I feel that both of these movies would have worked better if a second actor had played Hyde. The lead actors would then have been spared the agony (March) and the embarrassment (Tracy) of that Hyde make-up.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

[naivemelody1975 · 7/10 · 24 June 2005]

I just saw this movie for the first time a few days ago and really enjoyed it. I must say I was a little surprised by the bits of "erotic" imagery. I wonder what people thought of that back in 1941. The performances by Ingrid Bergman and Spencer Tracy were very good. Ingrid is mesmerizing and beautifully effervescent. Her strange accent though is at first hard to comprehend. (Is she supposed to be Swedish, Irish, Cockney or what?) It's also fun to see how they managed the special effects - if you look closely at any one of the action scenes involving Mr. Hyde, there are many very obvious stunt doubles and other endearing "mistakes". I also thought it had just enough philosophical underpinnings to make it not just a old fluff "horror" movie.

You should see me dance the polka

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 23 January 2014]

This version of the Stevenson classic story doesn't hold a candle to the 1931 version but it has a lot to recommend on its own. The main complaint about it is that it doesn't feel like a horror film but more a psychological drama or thriller. Spencer Tracy's Hyde is less monsterish than Fredric March's. But this is more in keeping with the story they wanted to tell with this version, which is a focus on the psychological rather than the physical. Still, Tracy does a good job.

Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner were originally cast in the other's part but switched to offer Bergman a chance to play against type. This works to great effect, in my opinion. Turner is a sweet, lovely angel here. A far cry from the glamorous femme fatale we think of her as today. As for Bergman, her sexy performance as Ivy is the standout of the film. One of my favorite roles of hers. The movie's a bit slow and probably won't please monster fans but it's a good movie with fine performances and nice direction. It really only suffers by comparison. Judged on its own merits it's very entertaining.

Two great actors, one role

[gayspiritwarrior · 9/10 · 2 July 2005]

A close look at the credits for both films will show that the 1941 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is more than merely a remake of the 1931 version. The screenplay of the later film was literally based on that of the earlier, and there are scene-by-scene and, in places, word-for-word duplications. Both are excellent, with my own preference going to the 1941 and Spencer Tracy. His performance is amazing, and so subtle that it's frequently dismissed as inferior work. To the contrary, it's every bit worthy of an early graduate of the Actors Studio. Spoilers follow.

The highlight of the film is the astonishing scene when Jekyll first changes involuntarily into Hyde. He's walking the sidewalk in the fog, whistling a Strauss waltz he earlier danced with his fiancée, played well in a throwaway role by Lana Turner. Without meaning to his whistling changes to the polka sung by barmaid Ingrid Bergman, whose performance is nearly a match to Tracy's. He stops, a confused look on his face, then walks on whistling the waltz. Again it changes to the polka, and he stops again, wiping his brow, confusion again on his face. Now unsure, he starts to walk again, and can only whistle the first notes of the polka. He stumbles to a park bench and changes into Hyde. Hyde looks about and then hurries over to the barmaid's flat, where as Jekyll he's just told her Hyde will never come again. Ivy is celebrating with champagne. In a brilliant mirror-shot we see her look of horror as the door opens and Hyde enters. The rest of the scene is simply unforgettable, between the deranged Hyde and the terrified Ivy, realizing her fate is at hand.

There are nice directorial touches in both films, and both tell the story very well. Many will prefer the more straightforward, showier 1931 version. For myself the 1941 is supreme, with Tracy delivering one of the all-time great screen acting performances. 9/10.

Ponderous - certainly not scary - but beautiful.

[David-240 · 7/10 · 26 June 1999]

This is a thoughtful interpretation of the Stevenson story but is very rarely emotionally engaging. The theme seems to be sexual repression, with Hyde coming from Jekyll's repressed lust. As Hyde takes over we witness some extraordinary and very graphic Freudian imagery such as Bergman and Turner, naked, pulling a chariot containing Tracy and his whip, and Bergman being screwed out of a bottle by a corkscrew! Amazing. But the horror of the story is never realized and there is too much philosophical chat.

Tracy is terrific in the lead, but his make-up for Hyde is too subtle to be effective. The transformations require him to stand completely still which makes them a bit dull. The final transformation is quite an achievement however. Bergman could have been great but her attempt at a cockney accent seriously detracts from her fine emotional interpretation. Lana Turner is awful as Tracy's true love. But the rest of the cast is very strong - especially Donald Crisp.

The film also contains some fine Fleming touches, including his beautiful slow pans over magnificent sets and crowd scenes. The cinematography is excellent - make sure you don't watch the colorised version - and foggy Victorian London is recreated stunningly. This film never rises to the horror of the 1920 or the 1932 versions but still has much to offer.

Better than it's reputation would have you believe

[kirksworks · 9/10 · 26 August 2012]

I've seen many Spencer Tracy films, but he isn't one of my favorites. He was rarely convincing. Couldn't buy him as Portuguese in "Captain's Courageous," less convincing in "Tortilla Flat" as a Mexican-American, too old for his role in "Bad Day at Black Rock," and not believable as a Cuban in "The Old Man and the Sea." He was better in comedies like "Libeled Lady," and "Adam's Rib," but where he really shined was as doctors. He plays opposite Hedy Lamarr in "I Take This Woman," a not very good film, but with a fine and believable performance by Tracy as the doctor in love with her.

His finest performance, however, is "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," a film often unfavorably compared to the '31 film. Frederick March is on par with Tracy as an actor. He too overplayed, but Tracy could reach a higher level when he was in top form, and there is no better example of this than the two "Jekyll and Hyde."

Part of the problem with the '31 directed by Rouben Mamoulian was the concept for Hyde, a hairy Simian type beast. March does the best he can with that mouthful of teeth, but his Hyde is too much a monster and less human than the Tracy. This is where the '41 directed by Victor Fleming, excels. March overplayed Hyde, and his Jekyll had many corny moments. What Tracy brought to Jekyll was believability as someone in the medical profession, someone who even before transforming himself, somehow conveys a perverse longing to visit the dark side.

March never scares me like Tracy. What Tracy brings to Hyde is subtle and insidious. Remarkably evil. You can see it in his eyes, in his smile, in how he uses his voice like a snake constricting around Ivy. Tracy's scenes with Ingrid Bergman are uncomfortable to watch because of the hideous way he plays with her sense of well-being. These same scenes were in the March version, but don't create the same pathos.

Miriam Hopkins was a fine actress, and she did very well opposite March, but she's no Bergman. Neither was the character Ivy in the early film as well conceived. Hopkins' Ivy is a somewhat unhappy tart, and her tease of Jekyll at the beginning where we see her swing her leg back and forth is more a conniving entrapment than Bergman's playful Ivy. The 1941 version is far more emotional because of Bergman's Ivy. Her Ivy may be a tart, but Bergman convinces us she's got a sweet inner core deep within. When she is terrorized and murdered by Hyde, it's hard to take. The girl Hyde destroys in the '41 has a steeper fall from grace, and her end is more pitiable.

The scene where Ivy comes to visit Dr. Jekyll and shows him the wounds inflicted on her back by Hyde has more resonance than the earlier film. This is not because of Hopkins, who is on a par with Bergman in that scene, but because March lays it on thick. Tracy's guilt is more palpable, and we want to believe him when he tells Bergman's Ivy that she will never see Hyde again. When Hyde does return to Ivy, his appearance is all the more hurtful for we, like Ivy, wanted to believe Jekyll.

I do prefer the '31 gas lit London and its enclosed, more claustrophobic, rickety streets, but the fog enshrouded London of the '41 is suitably moody and depressing.

Years ago I saw a screening of the '41 with a friend who was put off by how depressing it was. Yes, this is true. "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a very dark, depressing story. Hyde kills Ivy, he kills his fiancé's father, and he actually kills Jekyll as well. He's a vicious brute that brings calamity wherever he goes. I've seen both films many times, but the '41 is the one that continues to pull emotion. This is due to Tracy and Bergman, as well as Fleming's direction. Mamoulian was a great director, but Fleming was his equal.

The score by Franz Waxman is beautifully tragic, something missing from the '31. In the earlier we have Bach's Toccata and Fugue as a segue to the famous POV sequence reveal of Dr. Jekyll. The Waxman score works in the song "Can You See Me Dance the Polka," and it becomes a taunt for Hyde to invade Ivy's soul. "Champagne Ivy" in the '31 doesn't have the same gaiety.

The '41 has some laughable symbolism during the first transformation of Jekyll riding a carriage and whipping his horses, which become Bergman and Lana Turner (the fiancé). This stands out as a bad decision by the screen writers. Fortunately, that sort of thing is not repeated. The '31 has more of it. There's the statue of the angel embracing a woman that we see as Hyde kills Ivy, the cat attacking the bird when Jekyll is overwhelmed by Hyde in the park and the boiling cauldron at the end. These are just as heavy-handed. The park scene in the '41 is improved by Jekyll's whistling suddenly becoming Ivy's song, the suggestion Hyde is taking over. Much better.

The '31 is lauded for it's transformation scenes, but the makeup is obvious, particularly the painted nostrils and the use of filters to reveal the make-up. Tracy depends more on his performance. He brings believability to both Jekyll and Hyde.

There have been many versions of this story and I've seen most, but the Tracy remains my favorite. It's main drawback is it's similarity to the '31, but in just about every case, the '41 has more impact. If you haven't seen the '31 see the '41 first, then go back and see the older. You'll see how much subtlety gets lost.

The MGM Experience.

[nycritic · 6/10 · 27 October 2005]

Less a horror movie than a lavish excursion into an elegant costume drama MGM-style, this version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella still manages to hold itself well due to the presences of the three leads, Spencer Tracy, and two rising female stars – Ingrid Bergman, and a very young Lana Turner.

The story behind DOCTOR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE is that Spencer Tracy wasn't one of the actors to be considered for the role, but because he knew that his looks were too masculine to be taken for a matinée idol, he tackled the dual role in his own way, but on viewing his own performance it seems he overacted whenever he was on screen as Mr. Hyde, and the makeup didn't exactly help. Nevertheless the actor he was he tackled the role and this is the performance he gave: far from his best, but not altogether unwatchable.

If anything, the culprit to blame is the direction in itself, which here is of no mention other than it's plainly bad. There is almost no atmosphere, no trepidation that Jekyll is delving into uncharted territory and unleashing his monstrous side with devastating results, and an extremely laughable sequence in which Hyde crazily flogs his horses which bear the heads of Bergman and Turner. With so much subtext to the material, this is almost its bastard incarnation, wooden and lifeless, a footnote in Tracy's, Bergman's, and Turner's acting careers.

Bone Chilling!

[GOWBTW · 10/10 · 8 June 2006]

Many versions of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic of "DJ&MH" come and go, the one with Spencer Tracy is the absolute favorite of mine. I just love the trick camera work of this one. Where Dr. Henry Jekyll becomes the revolting and sinister Mr. Edward Hyde. The translation of the novel was well made, and as I recall, the way Hyde looked at himself in the mirror, really made my blood curdle. When Hyde went to the bar and be spilling the pounds all over, man that is one man I wouldn't be around. The dinner scene is great, and the church scene is really good as well, the only scene that really tops it was when Hyde kills a man with the cane that belonged to Jekyll. That to me is really going too far. Turning from one man into another is a game one person shouldn't play, there's always going to be a price to pay. And Jekyll had to pay it. When they showed that Jekyll was transforming into Hyde, the police never wasted any time. The book is everything, the movie is a classic. It is everything a novel lover should have. 5 stars

Handsome but Dull

[kenjha · 6/10 · 26 December 2012]

The second screen version of the Stevenson novel to come out of Hollywood is glossier than the first but not an improvement. It is a handsome but somewhat dull production. The main problem is that the plot moves at too leisurely of a pace, and the interactions among the characters are not interesting enough to sustain the narrative through nearly two hours. Tracy looks rather comical as the grinning Mr. Hyde, but he does not embarrass himself in this silly role. Bergman seems to be having a lot of fun as the prostitute that Tracy is attracted to and pursues her in his Dr. Hyde persona. Turner is young and lovely in an undemanding role.

Spencer Tracy just didn't get the point

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 15 October 2019]

Playing Dr. Jekyll is one of those roles every man wants to play, like Hamlet and King Lear. However, even though many, many actors have gotten to play the famous double-role, not everyone has actually understood the point. In the Spencer Tracy version, it's really clear either he or director Victor Fleming didn't understand the character and story. The 1932 version is the best, and Fredric March completely nails the three characters; the way he plays it, a post-Hyde Dr. Jekyll is so changed, he's a third person. Freddie understands why he turns into a different person, and he understands why it takes over him. Spence just doesn't get it, and instead the movie is played off as a straight horror flick, not a character insight.

The two ladies in the movie are Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner. In an interesting role-swap, the ladies decided to change and challenge themselves. Lana plays Spence's respectable, prim fiancé, and while she's very pretty, she's not given anything to do. Ingrid gets the real meat of the film, and unlike the male lead, she knows what to do with it. She plays the prostitute who pushes Spence over the edge, and she does a very good job jumping from trashiness to flirtation to annoyance to scared to horrified to destroyed. If you like Ingrid, you might want to watch a few scenes of this movie, but have your remote handy to speed through Spence's parts.

The special effects in this movie are nonexistent, which is extremely disappointing after you watch the incredible effects from the 1932 version. In this one, simple and obvious fades transition the transformation. Ironically enough, with eyebrows, fuller hair, and a set of good teeth, Spence looks less creepy as Mr. Hyde than he does in his normal Dr. Jekyll appearance!

Hidden in the movie are some familiar faces, like Donald Crisp as Lana's disapproving father, C. Aubrey Smith as yet another man of the cloth, and Sara Allgood as the long-suffering mother of a deranged mental patient. It's always great to see Donald, Sara, and C. Aubrey, but it's not worth renting the movie just for them.

Not the March version, but pretty good, anyway!

[BobLib · 1 October 1999]

Unlike Universal, MGM was never a studio associated much with out-and-out horror films (A notable exception: 1932's great "The Mask of Fu Manchu," with Boris Karloff, Myrna Loy, and Jean Hersholt). But, when they did make them, they made them with the legendary MGM class and gloss. And such a one was the 1941 version of Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Unlike the March version, this wasn't a particularly scary film, but more of a suspenseful one. As befits the director who made "Wizard of Oz," "Red Dust," and "Gone with the Wind," Victor Fleming turns the story into a thinking man's horror film, and succeeds brilliantly.

As to the cast, Spencer Tracy, like Frederick March, was effectively cast against type for the part, and delivers a good, understated performance. His Hyde is very much the Hyde of the book, an evil, decayed version of Jekyll himself, rather than a monster. This last was accomplished by Jack Dawn's equally understated makeup. Lana Turner, and Jekyll's fiance, Beatrix, is little more than pretty set decoration. Let's face it, she wouldn't really prove she could act until "Peyton Place" and "Imitation of Life" in the late '50's. But Ingrid Bergman, now, that's another story! In one of her first U.S. films, she delivers a brilliant performance as Ivy Peterson, the Cockney barmaid unwillingly cought up in Hyde's insane reign of terror. Her scenes with Tracy, both as Jekyll and as Hyde, fairly crackle with energy. These are two comsummate pros working together, and they don't disappoint. In the only other supporting roles of any importance, Donald Crisp, Ian Hunter, Barton McLane, and Sara Allgood all aquit themselves beautifully.

In Defense of Ingrid's Accent

[crcawc · 6/10 · 19 April 2017]

There isn't much I can add to all of the well-informed reviews that precede mine, but I would like to point out one thing. As an author and researcher on Jack the Ripper (Sherlock Holmes and the Autumn of Terror, Rukia London, 2016), I can say that one of Jack's victims, Elizabeth "Long Liz" Stride was in fact Swedish and worked as a prostitute in the East End of London in 1887 and 88 - the exact time and place in which the movie is set. Thus, Bergman's accent is completely believable to me.

Undermined by the Code, Enhanced by Bergman...

[ElMaruecan82 · 7/10 · 22 December 2017]

An adaptation of "Robert Louis Stevenson's classic "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" wasn't particularly necessary after the 1931 version, but just as the Fredric March version brought new elements over the 1920 silent classic with John Barrymore, there could have been something fresh to make out of the 'old' material. The subject would have been even more relevant in the worldwide context of 1941. Unfortunately, the film only retreads the same formula and fails to pass as a superior version, mostly because of the prevailing Hays Code. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film in its own right and it's served by solid acting and confident directing, but the good parts were either as good in the 1931 version or better.

Although he looks more middle-aged than "young", Spencer Tracy delivers a fine performance as Dr. Jekyll, he's an ambitious, stubborn man who doesn't hesitate to confront a suspicious and unfriendly crowd when exposing some politically incorrect ideas about the natural duplicity of the human soul. And while he's a great Jekyll, Tracy can't explore the evil richness of Hyde as March was allowed to. I don't think it's a comment on his acting abilities since Tracy is the epitome of versatility, but something must have been too limiting in that directing from Fleming.

Mamoulian who did the 1931 film was a Russian so he could inject some bold creativity and he did... but Fleming was too conventional, if we except the one scene where I thought I was watching a Hitchcock movie. There's perhaps one stroke of genius that elevates the film slightly above its predecessor. During the transformation scene, a hallucination shows Jekyll whipping two horses whose faces are slowly transposed to the two women: Lana Turner who plays Beatrix, the eye-candy society lady and Ingrid Bergman who plays hell-for-soul prostitute Ivy Pearson. Apart from that one blow at the Code, the film might have been too 'good' for its own good.

Tracy could then only venture his character in the realm of emotional volatility rather than that bestial lust that made March so domineering. In the dinner scene, there's a lady referring to that new chap named Oscar Wilde. I don't think that was incongruous, among Wilde's famous quotations: "the best way to resist temptation is to yield to it.". The Jekyll/Hyde story has always been built on two chapters: Jekyll resisting the temptation and Hyde's dark indulgences. But there's nothing in that Jekyll that seems ever exposed to the temptations, even when he first meets Ivy, Tracy plays it like a father figure and Bergman's heart is broken. We see love more than lust.

And it doesn't get better with Hyde, the 1931 one had the face of a prehistoric man, incarnating our hidden impulses, Hyde here is evil all right but the very point of Hyde is to be more than a villain, here he looks like some bum escaped from an asylum, a rabid dog ready to bite out of despair, but not like some individual driven by something repressed for years.Maybe it's Lana Turner as Beatrix who failed to inspire Tracy (too voluptuous and sweet) but in the 1931 film, you could feel the sexual tension between Rose Hobart and March, and a similar tension between Jekyll and Ivy (played by Myriam Hopkins).

I guess, the code is to be blamed, because while it does expose battle between the forces of good and evil in human soul, the line that Jekyll has to cross is never drawn in clear terms. There were even moments where it was hard to tell if he was Jekyll turning into Hyde or the opposite, and even harder to believe his friend and colleague and best friend Lanyon (Ian Hunter) didn't know it was Jekyll. Still, for all these flaws, the film has one asset and not the least, her name is Ingrid Bergman. I read that it was her performance in "Intermezzo" that won her the part for "Casablanca", I'm pretty confident that this film achieved to convince the producers, she was good on an Oscar level, proving to have some gift when it came to play long suffering women.

There was something in her performance as the poor ill-fated Ivy that almost stole the thunder of Jekyll and Hyde and avoided her typecast as 'nice women', she embodied the trauma of women who're pleasant enough to appeal to respectable men but can only attract sleazy thugs like Hyde. She was a real tragic character and indirectly the redeeming factor of the film. I didn't feel scared by Hyde as much as I felt sorry for Ivy. And the way she went from childish joy to sheer terror when the shadow of Hyde begun to creep was perhaps the most painful to watch moment. Yes she was that good.

And she was so good that according to Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy wanted Bergman to play the dual role and I thought that was an interest twist on the story, how about the duplicity of women as well as men. Lana Turner didn't add nothing to the film (without ruining it though) so it's sad that Fleming didn't follow that advice, who knows, maybe the film's reputation would have been enhanced? It's still worth to watch for the atmosphere, the performances of the two leads but this is one movie where the context is crucial to understand where it succeeded, and where it failed. Fortunately, there's still the 1931 version, and it is the definite one.

Sanitized Remake of Fredric March Classic!

[bsmith5552 · 7/10 · 9 February 2004]

This was the third version of the oft filmed Robert Louis Stevenson story of a man's battle with his good and evil personalities. Although I consider the Fredric March version filmed ten years earlier to be better, this is nonetheless an entertaining film. Spencer Tracy takes on the title roles in this version with Ingrid Bergman playing the tragic bar-maid (not prostitute) Ivy Peterson and both are great in their roles.

Dr Jekyll (Tracy) is a successful high society doctor who is engaged to Beatrix Emery (the very young and very beautiful Lana Turner) whose father Sir Charles (Donald Crisp) is skeptical of Jekyll's trying to prove that man's soul has two sides...one good and one evil and thus places doubts on his daughter's future happiness. One night while returning home with his friend Dr. Lanyon (Ian Hunter), they come upon bar-maid Ivy Peterson (Bergman) who is being beaten by an unruly patron. Jekyll comes to her aid and takes her home. Ivy is immediately attracted to the suave and debonair Jekyll and tries to seduce him. Jekyll repels her advances but secretly harbors a desire for her.

Meanwhile, Sir Charles having become disillusioned with Jekyll's theories, takes Beatrix on a trip to the continent. Jekyll becomes distraught and buries himself in his work. One night he decides to try a formula he has created to separate good and evil personalities on himself. What emerges is a grotesque and brutal personality whom he names Mr. Hyde.

Hyde immediately remembers the alluring Ivy and seeks her out. He literally takes over her life and sets her up in a classy apartment and keeps her there "for his own purposes". He brutalizes her to the point the she fears his every appearance.

When Sir Charles and Beatrix return from their trip, Sir Charles agrees to an early marriage feeling that Jekyll has finally come to his senses. Jekyll then vows not to become Mr. Hyde again. But unfortunately, he makes an uncontrolled transformation on the street after having assured Ivy that Hyde would no longer bother her when she came to see him earlier.

Naturally Hyde goes straight to Ivy's apartment and confronts her on what she had said about him to Jekyll. She tries to escape but to no avail. Jekyll realizes that now he can no longer control Mr. Hyde and goes to Beatrix to break their engagement with tragic results.

Tracy's makeup is far less monstrous than that created for Fredric March ten years earlier. Director Victor Fleming goes for exaggerations of Tracy's features and the playing up of the psychological differences between Jekyll and Hyde. The first couple of transformations are played as dream sequences involving good girl Turner and bad girl Bergman. We don't see the actual transformation until well on into the movie.

Of note is the fact that although the story is set in late 19th century London, most of the cast speak without British accents. As talented as Ingrid Bergman was, her Cockney bar-maid accent is laughable. Also Jekyll's charitable work with the poor is barely mentioned in this version.

In addition to the above principals, look for Barton MacLane as man gone mad, Sara Allgood as his distraught wife, a clean shaven C. Aubrey Smith as a bishop and former silent movie comic Billy Bevan as Mr. Weller a lamplighter.

Tracy and Bergman make this an enjoyable movie.

A true classic. The best version of the story. Tracy at his Best

[the_great · 10/10 · 10 November 2005]

I have to disagree with the comment "For all you Tracy fans only", and also with the comments that suggest the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is far better.

First of all, I am not a Spencer Tracy fan - at least I didn't consider myself as one. Yes, the word dull came to mind. But after seeing the superb 1941 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I found myself wondering if anyone could have played Dr. Jekyll and especially Mr. Hyde any better than him.

In the 1931s original a handsome, wimpy Dr. Jekyll transforms into an ugly, retarded Mr. Hyde. While this Mr. Hyde hardly resembles his alter ego Jekyll, except for neediness, I do not find that as a strong, interesting controversy in the film. Fredric March was a great actor, but in this film with this script different actors could have played the parts of Jekyll and Hyde and it wouldn't have made any difference. Awkward, still boring film.

I was expecting so much, but stopped taping this pretty soon into the film. The psychology is awful (I am not suggesting that all films should emulate "real" life, but all films should be "real" in a world of their own, whatever it is.) I had seen the 1941s version earlier, and boy, it doesn't have a dull moment. I started watching this for Lana Turner, and there she is, looking pretty. Yes, she should have played the part Ingrid Bergman took, but you can't have it all all the time. Perhaps Ingrid Bergman was the girl to play the waitress. I truly enjoyed her masochistic portrayal of the bad girl.

Yes the film owns a lot to the original - filmed on same location, same choreography? The makers of this film had a decade to learn from the mistakes of the original and turn it around with better lines and nuances.

With one look from Spencer Tracy, a trouble maker changes his mind. "I'm sorry governor". Imagine Fredric March, in his monkey make up, doing that? He would have been laughed out the club, or not get in at all.

To add the grade to 10, Peter Godfrey as the butler. The end of this film is truly spiritual, merciful and frightening at the same time. And all of this is accomplished without any phony art stuff, as they would have tried these days.

A true classic.

Seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1964

[kevinolzak · 7/10 · 25 January 2014]

1941's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" has long been the version most people see first, because MGM for many years suppressed the 1931 Paramount version with Fredric March, which I too consider superior to this one for its pre-code flair. That is not to say that this is weak by any stretch, as both films are approached from a different perspective in regard to Edward Hyde, March the less likely, primitive Neanderthal Hyde, Spencer Tracy the more realistic, psychological rendition, utilizing little makeup in his chilling, unexpected interpretation. This one takes its time, Hyde making his initial appearance 35 minutes in, and while the pacing never really flags, it does seem to go on a bit too long. Lana Turner compares favorably with Rose Hobart, but it's still a rather thankless role in either version. Ingrid Bergman looks and acts very well (even with her charming accent), but the script doesn't allow her the same latitude that Miriam Hopkins enjoyed. As Lanyon, who exposes his friend Jekyll as the fiend he is, Ian Hunter previously appeared opposite Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, and Vincent Price in 1939's "Tower of London" (as King Edward), while in one of his last films played another physician in 1960's "Doctor Blood's Coffin." This version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" made two appearances on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater: Sunday June 7 1964 (paired with Saturday afternoon's "Fiend Without a Face"), and Saturday July 24 1965 (followed by second feature 1943's "Revenge of the Zombies").

Excellent translation of the original story to screen

[Brian-140 · 10/10 · 5 November 2002]

If one approaches this movie to compare it to the previous (1931) version of the same story there are bound to be some negative comments. But if one goes back to the original story, this movie becomes the ONLY true translation of the original novel to the screen.

Robert Louis Stevenson intended his story to be a portrayal of a staunchly virtuous man who slowly degraded himself spiritually to something less than human - a sort of psychological self-destruction. Stevenson was very reluctant about using the mad-scientist angle and stated that he felt the potion drinking was "just so much hugger-mugger."

This movie is a perfect encapsulation of Stevenson's original vision. Dr. Jekyll is a staunchly virtuous man who, despite warning from both clergy and friends, feels that he has the strength to tackle the secrets of the soul. Alas, he has not that strength and finds himself strangled to death in the coils of the serpent he unleashes.

Granted there are some bad things about the movie: Tracey could have been a shade more emotional, and it would have been nice if the proper accents were used (a london dance-hall stageshow being done with a Mae West accent????). But the fact that Tracey is able to show the transformation using only the power of the actor rather than the makeup makes this the most exceptional film of its type.

Worth watching!

Not As Good As The March Version, But A Fine Film In It's Own Way

[jem132 · 7/10 · 3 June 2006]

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 performance still gives me nightmares"

[aliciam1104-527-676023 · 10/10 · 12 November 2012]

I think what made Spencer Tracy so good in this role was that his prior movies showed the actor as he seemed to be, a nice guy. As Dr. Jekyll, he is a caring and understanding doctor, but when turning into Hyde we see a performance unlike any Mr. Tracy has played before. Hyde is all evil, totally delighted by being menacing with no regard to anyone else. For this reason I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good thriller, without the gore. The rest of the cast is excellent, especially Ingrid Bergman as Ivy, who is the subject of Hyde's sick amusement. This is a chilling movie, made in black and white which seems to add to the suspense.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) **1/2

[JoeKarlosi · 6/10 · 8 October 2009]

I just re-watched the Spencer Tracy version. Now I'm more positive than ever that it can't hold a candle to the 1931 Fredric March version for me. I've still managed to give it two and a half out of four stars though, because if it is to be considered on its own without ever having seen the 1931 classic to spoil it, it's still a pretty good movie. But when comparing it to the Rouben Mamoulian film, here are my quibbles: Tracy is a fine actor but is unbelievable and miscast as a too-modern Jekyll; he even says "Yeah" to his butler at one point. Everyone pronounces the name as "Jeh-kull" instead of "Gee-kull". The makeup on Hyde is practically non-existent (it's hard to believe that people cannot easily recognize this Jekyll when he's Hyde!), and while Tracy's performance is better when he's Hyde and he pulls it off, he is no match for Fredric March's Oscar-winning turn as the sadistic madman.The scenes between Hyde and Ivy feel too long and stretched out. Miriam Hopkins' Ivy has it all over Ingrid Bergman in every way. So much of the dialogue is the same or very similar to the 1931 film that I don't even know why they bothered with the remake, and it's a sin that the studio felt it necessary to take the older movie out of circulation and hide it; but I guess that's the only way the 1941 film could work and not be compared to its superior. But I will say one thing --- Lana Turner here is much hotter than Rose Hobart. **1/2 out of ****

"What's the idea, guvnor?"

[Steffi_P · 5/10 · 27 March 2010]

The studios could pull some pretty low tricks sometimes. When MGM went into production on their version of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson, they bought up the rights the Paramount's 1931 edition, for the purpose of destroying the negative and with it, their competition. Commercial rapacity is potentially more ruthless than censorship or simple negligence. Luckily, they didn't succeed in rooting out every copy so the older film is still extant. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem they paid too much attention to providing a worthy successor.

With such a uniquely tricky part as Jekyll/Hyde, casting is a matter of precision. MGM went for the "safe" bet of thrusting their most talented male lead into the role. And Spencer Tracy is undoubtedly a superb actor, but that doesn't mean he can do everything. Among the things he can't do is be convincingly English. Of course, mastering an accent isn't everything, but when you see him in top hat and tails, strutting around a mock-up of Victorian London, hobnobbing with Ian Hunter, and it's STILL the same old Spencer Tracy, a distinctly corny atmosphere descends on the proceedings. But if you think Tracy is bad as an English gent, wait 'til you see Ingrid Bergman as a cockney lass! She is actually acting very well, but when they give her lines like "You aren't half a fast one, aren't you " (sic) with her thick Swedish accent, you can wave bye-bye to any remaining traces of credibility.

But of course, the real question is not if Mr Tracy makes a good Jekyll. Does he make a good Hyde? Erm, no. The make-up department have dabbed his face a bit, and Tracy bares his teeth and widens his eyes, but really he still just looks like Spencer Tracy on a bad hair day. He does a pretty good job at being menacing, but major plot points revolve around Hyde being unrecognisable as Jekyll, so again we see believability gurgling away down the plughole. Compare this to the 1931 equivalent, where Fredric March turned into a hairy, subhuman and very un-Marchlike beast. Comparisons are odious, but then so are many aspects of this film.

Still, the 1941 version is not without its merits. The screenplay is by John Lee Mahin, a name on many classic pictures, and he has done a nice job here. In the original novel, the narrative is from the point of view of an acquaintance of Jekyll, and the horror derives from the mystery of this strange character Hyde. All the major film versions (including the silent one with John Barrymore) tell it from Jekyll's own perspective, perhaps because the makers in each case felt the story's secret was too well known. In my view, this weakened those earlier film versions. Mahin puts elements of horror back into the plot by focusing much more on the plight of Ivy than on Jekyll's transformations. Hyde's terrorizing of the innocent barmaid takes on the quality of an abusive domestic relationship, and is very effective.

Picking up on the horror tone is director Victor Fleming. Fleming had never done a horror before, although bits of Wizard of Oz are certainly creepy, and he adapts to it well enough, with lots of low angles and stark imagery. He keeps a kind of aloof distance in the scenes featuring Tracy as Jekyll, whereas scenes with Hyde are full of mean close-ups. He excellently handles the tension-filled meetings between Tracy-as-Hyde and Bergman making great use of the cramped space of Ivy's flat (which incidentally is unfeasibly lavish, but otherwise a fine bit of set design by Cedric Gibbons and Edwin Willis). When Tracy sits at the piano there is a long take with Bergman sitting nervously in the background, and then suddenly we are thrown into close-ups against blank backgrounds, the camera wheeling round with the actors in a truly chilling moment.

But ultimately, the quality of the monster is a major factor in a horror movie. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was a critical and commercial flop. The grand irony is that MGM's purchase of the Paramount version means today the two appear side by side on the same DVD (produced by Warner Brothers, who now own large chunks of MGM's back catalogue) and viewers can decide with ease which is the better. Or should that be "least bad"?