|
|
| Saturday, November 8, 2008 05:31 PM |
| On the Viewer - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 & 1941) |
 by Fëanor |
A while back, poppy and I got a DVD from Netflix that included both a 1931 and a 1941 film adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous story, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I already knew the basics of the story, of course, and I've seen an older, silent film version of it before (I'm pretty sure it was this one, from 1920, starring John Barrymore), but I've never actually read the book. According to this fascinating Wikipedia entry, the 1931 film is considered the classic version, and is based on an early theatrical adaptation of the story, where the plot had been reworked to center on a domestic love interest. The 1941 film is a remake of the film from 1931, so the two movies are very similar in many ways. One of the things they differ in is how the name Jekyll is pronounced. In the first film, most characters pronounce it "jee-kull," which is apparently the original and correct pronunciation, while in the second, everyone says it the way I'm more familiar with: "jeckle." According to Wikipedia, it's the movie's fault that everyone says it that way now. Interesting stuff.
Anyways, both films are really quite disturbing. Jekyll (played by Fredric March in the first film and, believe it or not, Spencer Tracy in the second) is introduced to us as a happy, likable rebel who helps the poor and destitute, and has crazy theories that the medical community - and most other fine, upstanding citizens - tend to find horrifying and ridiculous. He also has a beautiful, loving fiance (named Muriel and played by Rose Hobart in the first film, and named Beatrix and played by Lana Turner in the second) whose father happens to be one of those fine, upstanding citizens. He doesn't approve of Jekyll being such a rabble rouser, and wants him to settle down and fly right before marrying his daughter. But Jekyll is insistent that his ideas have merit - especially his latest one, that the good and evil parts of a man's soul could be split apart by the application of the correct chemicals. Then the evil part could fulfill its desires and eventually dissipate, while the good could be left to do important works, no longer troubled by those evil desires.
He's passionate about the idea, but also passionate about his fiance. He's so desperate to marry her (and, the obvious implication is, have sex with her) that he implores her father to move up the wedding date. But the father is so put off by Jekyll's overt passion (remember, this is set during the Victorian era), that not only does he refuse to allow an early marriage, he actually takes his daughter away with him on a trip to Europe. Jekyll, sorely upset by this extreme cock-blocking, and clearly desperate to indulge his evil impulses, goes home and drinks his experimental serum, thus transforming for the first time into Hyde.
Before all this happened, Jekyll was walking home with his friend Lanyon one night when they happened upon a woman being assaulted by a man. Jekyll rushes in and saves the woman, then carries her up to her room. The woman is Ivy (played by the stunningly beautiful Miriam Hopkins in the first film, and the just as beautiful Ingrid Bergman in the second), and she's tickled pink that such a fine young upstanding gentleman would show interest in her, so she immediately sets about seducing him. Jekyll, horny as hell, lets her kiss him, which Lanyon is mortified to see when he barges in to see what's taking so long.
When Hyde is born, he has some really pretty racy visions of what he'd like to do to Ivy and his fiance (involving whips and riding and so forth), so eventually he tracks Ivy down and essentially makes her his prisoner and his slave, physically, emotionally, and sexually abusing her (you have to assume the sexual abuse, as they obviously don't depict anything of that sort in these films, but they make it easy to assume that, and many other worse things). This part of both films is deeply, deeply disturbing, and both films spend an inordinate amount of time on it. (In fact, poppy and I had originally chosen to watch the 1941 film together, but we turned it off at this point, it was so unsettling. I later ripped both films and watched them on my iPod.) It's almost more disturbing that very little is actually shown, because it forces you to imagine what awful, awful things Hyde must be doing to Ivy to make her be so afraid of him, to the point where she eventually considers suicide. Things only get more disturbing and unsettling when, desperate for help, Ivy turns to the only person she can think of: the famous local doctor, Jekyll!
By the time this happens, Jekyll's fiance has returned and her father has finally consented to an early marriage, so Jekyll is in a great mood, and doesn't plan to ever give over to his evil impulses again. Thus he promises Ivy that she will never see Hyde again. Unfortunately, he's wrong: on the night of a dinner where the new date for Jekyll's wedding is to be announced, Jekyll experiences some dark feelings, and he spontaneously transforms into Hyde, without even having to drink the serum again. (This sequence is particularly effective and powerful in the 1941 film, as it features Jekyll walking through the foggy London night, lamp posts glaring eerily through the mist, and the tune he keeps whistling, to his own discomfort and seemingly against his will, is the one he always forced Ivy to sing.) Hyde immediately returns to Ivy and has his revenge upon her. But he must flee suddenly afterwards and seek help from Lanyon, to whom he is forced to reveal the terrible secret, that Hyde and Jekyll are the same man. In the 1931 film, Lanyon is not much of a friend. He's constantly telling Jekyll how wrong he is, and how his theories are evil, and in this scene he tells Jekyll what he's done is a horrible blasphemy, he's going to hell, and Lanyon won't help him in any way. In the 1941 film, he's a more reasonable character, and although it's clear he still believes what Jekyll's done is evil, he's more sympathetic and tries to help his friend be a better person. The same difference can be seen in the character of Jekyll's fiance's father. In the first film, he's an irritating, unreasonable, conservative blowhard, and very difficult to sympathize with. In the second film, he's a much more likable character, and when he finally relents and moves up the wedding date, it becomes clear he's a funny, human character.
After Jekyll realizes he can no longer control his transformations into Hyde, he knows he must break up with his fiance, as he cannot expose her to the danger of Hyde. But he foolishly decides to do this face to face, and after he's broken things off with her, he turns, watches her crying, and of course immediately transforms into Hyde. He attacks her, but her father intercedes, sacrificing himself to save her. Hyde must run off again, but this time the police are close behind him. When the chase leads them into Jekyll's lab, I expected Jekyll to finally do the right thing and give himself up, or perhaps even engineer his own destruction somehow. But instead the cowardly bastard claims Hyde has just run through and left. Unfortunately for him, Lanyon has been called in to give his medical opinion on the dead body, and he recognizes the murder weapon as Jekyll's cane. He takes the police to Jekyll's lab, and tells them Jekyll is their man, despite how it may appear. They don't believe him at first, as Jekyll is known everywhere as a good and charitable man, and after all he looks nothing like Hyde. But when Jekyll transforms into Hyde before their eyes, there's no question any longer. In the final scuffle, Lanyon is forced to draw a pistol and shoot Jekyll dead himself.
It's a brutal and powerful story, well told and acted in both films, but I prefer the second version for various reasons, some of which I've already made clear. The characters are more realistic, the acting is marginally better, and the lighting, camera work, set design, and mise en scene are all really excellent, combining to create a really effective and eerie atmosphere (plus, I think at least some of the people in the second film have actually been to England at some point in their lives; the way the clearly American actors in the first film awkwardly call each other "blighters" is difficult to listen to). Another reason I prefer the 1941 film has to do with the depiction of Hyde. In the 1931 film, when Jekyll transforms into Hyde, his skin darkens, his nostrils become wide and flaring, and his hair becomes dark and kinky. In other words, he turns into a racist stereotype - the primitive, animalistic African. It's pretty upsetting.
Of course, women are treated little better in either film. Ivy and Jekyll's fiance are clearly the Whore and the Virgin, respectively. And then there's the lengthy sequence during which Ivy is cruelly beaten, tortured, and ultimately killed; as I've said already, this bit is so brutal and awful it's hard to even sit through it.
It's interesting also that, in classic Victorian fashion, sexual impulses are lumped together with all the other evil impulses; clearly nothing good can come of sex. D'oh.
Jekyll is at first rather likable and sympathetic, but as the film goes on, it quickly becomes clear that he's a rather terrible, selfish person, who decides to take his serum a second time, even after seeing the terrible thing it turns him into, apparently just because he's bitter, frustrated, and horny. And at the very end, even when he does try to finally do the right thing, he goes about it in clumsy, idiotic fashion. Then when he gets the chance to give himself up for his crimes, he doesn't take it, but instead makes a cowardly attempt to hide under the identity of Jekyll.
The moral of the story is, of course, don't be a rebel, and don't intrude on God's domain with your evil science. It's not a moral I particularly like, as I'm rather fond of rebels, and of science, but it's a typical moral as far as horror and sci-fi films go, so... what can you do? Anyway, like I said, despite some unsettling elements, both films tell an undeniably intriguing story in powerful and effective fashion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Genzano's books on Goodreads
