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"?
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"?