So, tomorrow is the 80th anniversary of Paramount's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'. I've always wondered why this film hasn't received the attention of Universal monster movies of the same era, so I tried to come to some sort of conclusion in an article I posted on my site, Psychobabble: http://psychobabble200.blogspot.com/2011/12/strange-case-for-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde.html (http://psychobabble200.blogspot.com/2011/12/strange-case-for-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde.html) .
Any thoughts on this? Do you all think it belongs in the same league as 'Dracula', 'Frankenstein', and the rest?
Quote from: Psychobabble on December 30, 2011, 09:40:23 AM
So, tomorrow is the 80th anniversary of Paramount's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'. ....
Any thoughts on this? Do you all think it belongs in the same league as 'Dracula', 'Frankenstein', and the rest?
No question about it--YES!
I agree on this completely. This version of Hyde is as iconic as Karloff's Frankenstein Monster, Lugosi's Dracula or Chaney's Wolf Man, to say the least.
Totally in the same league as the early 30s Universals. I really don't know why it is not as well recognized. Maybe because it was hidden away by MGM for so many years and didn't get as much exposure s the Universals?
Absolutely in the same league with the best of Universal's Monsters films. Mike, your blog continues to put out great content. Kudos to you my friend!
Thanks, Scatter. Great to hear from you as always.
...and that's an excellent point, RedKing. I should have mentioned the fact that it was considered lost for a long time after MGM hid all prints of the film to keep it from competing with the inferior Spencer Tracy version.
ABSOF**KINGLUTELY! Why do you think James Whale's SHOWBOAT hasn't been released yet? MGM bought the rights to it in 1936, when the Laemmles were strapped for cash. It wouldn't surprise me if they pulled the same stunt with DR. JEKYLL & Mr. HYDE. PARAMOUNT was having problems as well, and I'm sure Louis B. paid Zukor a pretty penny.
"E" ededed
Funny enough I just got a copy of Dr.J and Mr. Hyde for christmas. It is an excellent classic horror movie and easily as good as any of the Universal firsts, Dracula, Frank, Wolfman, etc.. Even if the UM's have gotten more publicity over the years, Dr.J & Mr. H still has one up on them...Frederick March won an Oscar for that bad boy!
Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde, is an absolutely fantastic film, and should be hailed as a clsssic.
Fredric March's performance as Jeykll/Hype is outstanding. When I first watched the
film, many years ago, I was blown-away by the special effects. Or special-tricks that
deceived the audience. Amazing effects for 1931.
I truely believe, Dr. Jeykll/Hyde still holds up as a classic film. Non Horror fans, that
I have talk to are aware, and love the film. The film may not be as commercially
successful as Frankenstein or Dracula, but, Dr. Jeykll/Hyde is on the same level as any
Universal Horror film.
Hey, it did get an Aurora kit, after all, so I don't consider it forgotten or pushed aside at all. The Spencer Tracy version is awful, though. Dan Curtis' made-for-TV version starring Jack Palance out-shines Tracy.
Anyone else remember the ludicrous made-for-TV musical version starring Kirk Douglas that aired on NBC? (I think it beat Broadway's "Jekyll & Hyde" to the punch by 20 years.) Now, that one made the Tracy version look good, by comparison!
(http://cdn101.iofferphoto.com/img/item/177/129/575/VZvEeUUr01rc6cN.jpg)
Oof. That Kirk Douglas version looks terrible, Count Zirock, and you're right that the Palance version is good and the Tracy one is awful. His non-stop mumbling in no way conveys Hyde's menace. His performance is a joke compared to March's.
The March version is an absolute classic. I think it captures the heart of Stevenson's work and is just as important as the Universal classics. I also love the Curtis/Palance version with Dick Smith makeup. He based Palance's makeup on the features of an ancient satyr sculpture...genius.
I'm about to watch the commentary track on the Marcj version, I'll keep ya posted.
My favorite Jekyll and Hyde is the one with John Barrymore. I think it is THAT one that is in league with the Universal Monsters.
The Frederic March version (1932) is a GREAT film. A classic.
It is for an obvious reason that this film is placed on the same shelf as those of Universal in my collection. The directing of Rouben Mamoulian on this version of the story is so accurate. Inventive and effective techniques are used in a very convincing way. More than the classical opposition between good and evil, the point here is centered on the sexual frustration of Dr.Jekyll. Undeniably, Mamoulian manages to bring in his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde a force that the other versions simply don't have. Clearly, an underrated chef-d'œuvre of cinema.
Quote from: Rich on January 02, 2012, 01:11:54 PM
My favorite Jekyll and Hyde is the one with John Barrymore. I think it is THAT one that is in league with the Universal Monsters.
I totally agree, Rich. The John Barrymore version is fantastic! It is my favorite version of DJ&MH.
Quote from: The Invisible Woman on January 02, 2012, 09:04:48 PM
I totally agree, Rich. The John Barrymore version is fantastic! It is my favorite version of DJ&MH.
Its a good film. But, Fredric March's performance, much more outstanding. ;D
The Mamoulian version is probably in a category of its own. But the beauty of all this is when there's so much version of a story, it shows how deep and essential that story is.
I have this alternative history fantasy in which Universal actually did a film based on Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Claude Rains played the title role. This thought occurred to me after watching The Wolf-Man and The Invisible Man back to back. As Larry Talbot's father in The Wolf-Man, Rains plays a Jekyll like role and as the Invisible Man he's like Mr. Hyde!.
Strictly on a technical level, I think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is superior to the Universal films. Mamoulian has built a very precise language and a way to tell a story quite unique. There are so many little details that go unnoticed and are skillfully inserted throughout this masterpiece.
Quote from: Memphremagog on December 30, 2011, 09:48:12 AM
I agree on this completely. This version of Hyde is as iconic as Karloff's Frankenstein Monster, Lugosi's Dracula or Chaney's Wolf Man, to say the least.
Most definitely. :D
Quote from: Evermonster on August 30, 2013, 06:23:16 AM
Strictly on a technical level, I think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is superior to the Universal films. Mamoulian has built a very precise language and a way to tell a story quite unique. There are so many little details that go unnoticed and are skillfully inserted throughout this masterpiece.
To a degree, but I would put James Whale's work next to Mamoulian's. There are a handful of classic horror movies that are so great they transcend the genre and are simply great movies: Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, Island of Lost Souls, Invisible Man, King Kong...
Jekyll and Hyde- An honorary Universal Monster, alongside Legendre, the Graveyard Zombie from Night of the Living Dead
Quote from: Dr. Jitters on August 30, 2013, 06:21:13 PM
To a degree, but I would put James Whale's work next to Mamoulian's. There are a handful of classic horror movies that are so great they transcend the genre and are simply great movies: Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, Island of Lost Souls, Invisible Man, King Kong...
I couldn't agree more. What caught my attention in Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde is the use of the camera as a kind of extension of his own hands and almost as an additional character. It was something new for me.
James Whale is a filmmaker who focuses on movement. His frameworks are always dynamic and he describes the action in a modern and ingenious way.
Whales, Mamoulian...they are all accomplished masters.
Quote from: Bonomo on December 31, 2011, 01:06:15 AM
Funny enough I just got a copy of Dr.J and Mr. Hyde for christmas. It is an excellent classic horror movie and easily as good as any of the Universal firsts, Dracula, Frank, Wolfman, etc.. Even if the UM's have gotten more publicity over the years, Dr.J & Mr. H still has one up on them...Frederick March won an Oscar for that bad boy!
The 1943 version of Phantom of the Opera was nominated for four Academy Awards. It won two of them; Art Direction and Cinematography. There is no doubt that it is probably due to the film being shot in color. But I think two Academy Awards cancels out one Oscar and over defeats it. :) The Universal Monsters are untouchable.
I did like March's J&H film though. You know what though? When it comes to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I think the best version ever filmed was the silent version staring John Barrymore. The 1932 version is definitely the best version with sound though.
Yeah, but best actor s art direction and cinematography any day. Besides, the 1943 Phantom barely qualifies as a horror film. It's more of a lavish musical with the Phantom as a sideshow.
Quote from: Mord on September 01, 2013, 02:05:53 PM
Yeah, but best actor s art direction and cinematography any day. Besides, the 1943 Phantom barely qualifies as a horror film. It's more of a lavish musical with the Phantom as a sideshow.
word.
When I finally saw the whole film - probably in the 1990s - I saw surprised by the overt sexuality. Obviously a pre-code film...
and it is a favorite, definitely on par with the Universal films.
Very insightful article. I'm glad this thread was dredged up from the depths.
Quote from: Evermonster on August 30, 2013, 06:23:16 AM
Strictly on a technical level, I think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is superior to the Universal films. Mamoulian has built a very precise language and a way to tell a story quite unique. There are so many little details that go unnoticed and are skillfully inserted throughout this masterpiece.
Much as I love and adore the classic Universal monster movies, I must agree with the above statement. There are Universal films that might be nearer and dearer to my heart than Paramount's Jekyll and Hyde. But I can't deny that, speaking strictly in terms of artistry and overall technical quality, this movie is a supreme piece of work, right up there with James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein.
Fredric March's performance in
both rolls - Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde - is every bit as iconic as Lugosi's Dracula, Karloff's Monster, Chaney Jr's Larry Talbot/ Wolfman... I have often thought that Universal should just buy this movie from Paramount and include it in every future Universal Monsters re-release. It would fit right in!
(http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq39/BryanBaugh1/dr__jekyll_and_mr__hyde_by_bryanbaugh-d5ab8m6_zps29528ee6.jpg) (http://s431.photobucket.com/user/BryanBaugh1/media/dr__jekyll_and_mr__hyde_by_bryanbaugh-d5ab8m6_zps29528ee6.jpg.html)
Quote from: BryanBaugh on September 19, 2013, 06:18:45 PM
I have often thought that Universal should just buy this movie from Paramount and include it in every future Universal Monsters re-release.
Universal does own
almost all the Paramount movies from the '30s and '40s
except "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". It was bought by MGM when they wanted to do the '41 remake. WB now owns (or, at least distributes) all the MGM stuff, including the '32 J&H.
Great J&H art! Love it!!
Quote from: Mike Scott on September 19, 2013, 08:22:33 PM
Great J&H art! Love it!!
Thanks! I am better at expressing my appreciation for things through my drawings rather than my words.
Odd that I don't have this in my library of film. I must take corrective action....
Quote from: jimm on September 21, 2013, 03:22:50 PM
Odd that I don't have this in my library of film. I must take corrective action....
The double bill March/Tracy version is actually pretty good, includes commentary tracks
Quote from: Bonomo on September 21, 2013, 06:24:17 PM
The double bill March/Tracy version is actually pretty good, includes commentary tracks
Yeah that is a top notch classic horror DVD in my opinion. The commentary track on the 32 March version is excellent. Greg Mank does it and he points out all sorts of interesting details - Mamoulian's use of statues to symbolically comment on the action in the scene - among other things.
We'll, I have seen the Tracy on disc, that's how organized the DVD are, I may have the double :)
Quote from: Memphremagog on December 30, 2011, 09:48:12 AM
I agree on this completely. This version of Hyde is as iconic as Karloff's Frankenstein Monster, Lugosi's Dracula or Chaney's Wolf Man, to say the least.
Absolutely, and unlike Lugosi's DRACULA, March's monstrous MR. HYDE feels shockingly contemporary.
I DVRed this film off of TCM a while back. What a great, GREAT film. It definitely stands tall with Universal's finest!!!
Chris