Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jekyll & Hyde 1920 vs 1932 vs 1941


Technicolor33
 Share

Recommended Posts

imagesECIBNW63_zpsjghz1c0n.jpg

 

My favourite Mr. Hyde: Jack Palance in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He played it like a bon vivant with a psychopathic streak.

 

The most interesting film version, though, would probably be the Rouben Mamoulian-Fredric March of 1931.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the 1931 version with Fredric March & Miriam Hopkins the best--because March's is the most human, not an out & out monster--& Hopkins, is prepared to...until she notices, too late.  The Tracy version I'd rate 2nd, in spite of a Bad performance by Lana Turner as a Proper Victorian Maiden & just an ok one by Tracy--Ingrid Bergman's performance as Ivy, the barmaid, makes up for a Lot,  What clips I've seen from the 1920 Barrymore film look good, but makeup is obvious.  JMO. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen all three, albeit it's been ages since I've seen the Barrymore or Tracy version.  Make-up wise, Barrymore is the scariest looking but my favorite is the March version, hands-down.  March is terrific and you really sense his physical frustration (he wants to get married right now and we get why).  The direction is perfect and I love the opening scenes where we don't see his face for several moments.  Miriam Hopkins is very, very good as the ill-fated Ivy and should have won a Supporting Oscar if they had been given out then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

imagesECIBNW63_zpsjghz1c0n.jpg

 

My favourite Mr. Hyde: Jack Palance in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He played it like a bon vivant with a psychopathic streak.

 

The most interesting film version, though, would probably be the Rouben Mamoulian-Fredric March of 1931.

it's my favorite version too. and the fredric march version is pretty good as well.

 

Palance as Hyde looks like Liberace in that shot. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen all three, albeit it's been ages since I've seen the Barrymore or Tracy version.  Make-up wise, Barrymore is the scariest looking but my favorite is the March version, hands-down.  March is terrific and you really sense his physical frustration (he wants to get married right now and we get why).  The direction is perfect and I love the opening scenes where we don't see his face for several moments.  Miriam Hopkins is very, very good as the ill-fated Ivy and should have won a Supporting Oscar if they had been given out then.

Miriam Hopkins and Ingrid Bergman are wonderful as Ivy, but March, as Hyde, looks like a gorilla. Who was responsible for that makeup?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen all three, albeit it's been ages since I've seen the Barrymore or Tracy version.  Make-up wise, Barrymore is the scariest looking but my favorite is the March version, hands-down.  March is terrific and you really sense his physical frustration (he wants to get married right now and we get why).  The direction is perfect and I love the opening scenes where we don't see his face for several moments.  Miriam Hopkins is very, very good as the ill-fated Ivy and should have won a Supporting Oscar if they had been given out then.

agreed. March's outstanding performance makes one look past the silly make-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to take a moment to defend Westmore's make-up if I may.  The reason March looks "gorilla" (i.e. simian) is because the Hyde character was considered less-evolved and more prone to act on his base instincts than the advanced (more evolved) altruistic Dr. Jekyll.  If the good doctor had been able to get married right away like he wanted to, maybe his physical frustrations wouldn't have manifested into Hyde's agressive behavior but then we wouldn't have the story.  Anyway, the make-up was a hit at the time and Westmore spent many years at Paramount and also did the make-up for ISLAND OF LOST SOULS.  Although the fake Hyde teeth bother me a little bit, I love the way March stretches and struts when he first becomes Hyde.  He's totally freed from society's conventions.  Each time he transforms back into Hyde he looks worse and worse and not even "simian" anymore but something even more primitive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to take a moment to defend Westmore's make-up if I may.  The reason March looks "gorilla" (i.e. simian) is because the Hyde character was considered less-evolved and more prone to act on his base instincts than the advanced (more evolved) altruistic Dr. Jekyll.  If the good doctor had been able to get married right away like he wanted to, maybe his physical frustrations wouldn't have manifested into Hyde's agressive behavior but then we wouldn't have the story.  Anyway, the make-up was a hit at the time and Westmore spent many years at Paramount and also did the make-up for ISLAND OF LOST SOULS.  Although the fake Hyde teeth bother me a little bit, I love the way March stretches and struts when he first becomes Hyde.  He's totally freed from society's conventions.  Each time he transforms back into Hyde he looks worse and worse and not even "simian" anymore but something even more primitive.

the make-up doan really bother me either because Fredric March is so good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

f6e1b3bd-a080-4503-aac9-8e89b89f7e15_zps

 

It's tea time on the 1931 set of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. That's innovative director Rouben Mamoulian between his two stars. I guess Fredric March is really into character as Mr. Hyde here because, unlike the other two, he doesn't need a cup and, what's more, it looks like he just took all of the tea for himself. He looks pretty happy with his king size twinkie.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChristineHoard said: Anyway, the make-up was a hit at the time and Westmore spent many years at Paramount and also did the make-up for ISLAND OF LOST SOULS.

 

The Westmore family have been expertly making up Hollywood for decades. A Lucille Ball movie I just watched, THE BIG STREET had "Westmore" as the make-up credit.

I think different family members worked for different studios, or they possibly delegated jobs among each other.

 

When I met Butch Patrick - Eddie Munster- we had a long conversation about working with the Westmores. He said they were brilliant and patient with him as a kid. He often took his recreation time in make-up, it was that comfortable and expertly applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the 1932 version to be the most exciting but 1941 is okay also.Wasn't there one with Louis Jourdan also?

 

I myself prefer the Tracy version for a variety of reasons, but not having ever read the book, I can't elaborate on whose Hyde is more "true to form".

 

I know Jourdan did DRACULA back in the '70's, but I don't know of any JECKYLL AND HYDE he might have done.  But, I'd be interested in that.

 

 

Sepatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been awhile since I've seen any of these three adaptations of Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Of those three choices, my favorite is the Fredric March version.

 

Like other posters to this thread, however, my favorite overall is The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) with Jack Palance.

 

Of course I must admit a certain fondness for Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971) since Martine Beswick definitely had the best "hyde" of all of them!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rouben Mamoulian's version blows the doors off all the others, even to this day. It's because it takes on this dark, twisted sexual angle to it, with Fredric March's basest desires being inflicted upon poor Miriam Hopkins as his victim when he becomes Hyde. I still can't believe how dark it is. And the acting was terrific.

 

I think maybe this could be remade now, with special effects the way they are. Hyde can always look a little different, so it'd be cool to see a new version of him. But even now I doubt a movie would embrace the sexually sadistic undercurrents of the story that this one did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...