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.
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.