Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) User Reviews

Watch It for the Camera Work

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 17 November 2005]

What happened to movies in the late 30's and early 40's? Why did they become so stale and stagey? "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would be considered downright antique to many of today's casual filmgoers, but it feels so much more dynamic technically and thematically than many films that came out later in its decade. The answer, of course, is that this movie came out before enforcement of the Production Code, at which time artistry in films--both style and substance--took a nose dive.

This film is worth watching for its stunning camera work alone. It doesn't suffer from any of the awkwardness other films working in the early years of sound do. The camera's always moving, there's terrific use of light and shadow, and the scenes showing the transformation of Jekyll to Hyde are seamlessly filmed in what appear to be uninterrupted shots, leaving you to ponder the sheer physical behind-the-scenes mechanics of them.

But this movie isn't just more technically advanced than films later in the decade; it's more adult in content too. No filming of this story ten years later (I've not seen the Victor Fleming version for comparison) would dare add the level of sexuality that this story does. Fredric March is very good in the dual role, and when he transforms into Mr. Hyde, you can see that it's everything within his power not to rip the dress right off whatever female he happens to be with and mount her right there. I'm not exaggerating; the film is really that frank.

Creepy good fun.

Grade: A-

Not Quite the Book BUT Mesmerizing Performance by March and Innovative Direction/Camera

[classicalsteve · 8/10 · 2 November 2007]

For all the existing film versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" (1886), this 1931 Paramount offering starring the incomparable Frederic March is probably the best. None quite follow the original book, whose tale is actually told backwards in a way. The book does not follow a series of linear events that lead to the so-called "transformation". Instead, rumors of a strange man surface between two characters in the very opening. We learn about Hyde first before Jekyll, which is not the way any film adaptation has ever told the story.

Still, the present film has a lot going for it. At the forefront is Frederic March in the classic dual role of good and evil. When he first becomes Hyde, I thought another actor was playing the role, it's that good! Another distinctive aspect is the camera work which must have been extremely innovative for its time. The opening moments are shot with a first person perspective. The transformation is done relatively seamlessly considering CGI effects had yet to be invented. There are other moments of shadows and dark corridors. The atmospheric fog that permeates the entire film is worth the price of admission.

As stated by other reviewers, some of the dialog hearkens back to an earlier era of the Vaudeville Melodrama. Characters didn't just love each other, they loved each other for eternity! Still a fine film all things considered, dated perhaps in places, but still March's performance is unbeatable, and definitely deserved of the Academy Award for Best Actor.

The Beast Within Remembers

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 28 April 2006]

It's amazing that years before Sigmund Freud was writing about stuff like the ego and the id, Robert Louis Stevenson, a great writer, but not a man of science, was able to grasp at what Freud later said about human behavior. There lurks in all of us a beast capable of doing great evil, that man's civilized self is forever trying to control.

Henry Jekyll, London society doctor, is engaging in experiments to prove that theory. He's a gentleman in every sense of the word, engaged to a proper English girl played by Rose Hobart here. It's funny, but in none of the adaptions of this story is it ever explained what could be in the potion that Jekyll concocts and drinks. But drink it he does and Jekyll becomes the simian like Mr. Hyde, evil incarnate itself.

Another reviewer pointed out the film is actually based on a play adapted from the novel and done originally on stage by Richard Mansfield in London. In that play the character of Ivy, a girl no better than she ought to be attracts the attention of Jekyll when he stops a man from assaulting her. He takes her up to her flat and she makes an effort to seduce him. He resists, but the beast within remembers.

This film becomes one of the first to deal with the phenomenon of stalking. Miriam Hopkins is a comely Ivy and Ivy herself is one of the most luckless characters ever created in fiction whether she was in the original story or not.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde made movie audiences and critics start to take Fredric March seriously as actor. Up to then he had played a variety of lightweight parts on screen. Even so Paramount after this still insisted on still casting him in those roles after he won an Academy Award for Best Actor. When he got free of that studio contract March got the parts he was so capable of.

When MGM wanted to remake the film for Spencer Tracy they bought not just the rights from Paramount, but the film itself. It was not seen for many years and the VHS version I have of it has an MGM opening logo, but the cast at the end says Paramount. Kind of unusual to say the least.

I do disagree with the application of the term science fiction to this story. Hyde is a beast. But he's not something created by nature or man, nor is he an alien from another world. We all have a Hyde within us, it's how well we control him in our selves, and how well as a society we control the Hydes that would do us harm that deems whether we survive as a society or not.

Hyde is very human, with no superhuman powers and no created weaponry. Takes an extraordinary actor to play Jekyll and Hyde and do it well. Only the best take a crack at it like John Barrymore, Spencer Tracy, Jack Palance, and Kirk Douglas. And March is one of the very best. See for yourself.

March's Hyde

[MovieReporter · 27 April 2005]

An exceptional cast and intelligent direction seals the quality of the first 'talkie' version of Robert Louis Stevenson's tale. Often hailed as the best of the many screen adaptations of the story, director Robert Moumalin exploits the symbolic potential of the tale as well as boldly tapping into popular Freudian trends concerning sexual repression. The result is not a by-the-numbers rendition but an effective interpretation with quirks and dimensions of its own. Yet the film belongs to Frederic March who scooped an Oscar for his sensational dual role. Although as Jekyll he unfortunately has to trade flowery romantic dialogue with Rose Hobart, there can be no disputing the menace of his Hyde, with his simian-like appearance, top hat, cloak and cane, who turns cockney hooker Miriam Hopkins' life into a nightmare. It's a breathtaking transformation both physically (thanks to stellar make-up and special effects) and artistically and is undoubtedly the centrepiece of this excellent vintage classic.

"I'll show you what horror means!"

[The_Movie_Cat · 9/10 · 31 January 2001]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is Paramount doing Universal better than Universal did themselves. While this was a cash-in on the genre success of the smaller studio, if all bandwagons were this well made then cinema would be a much richer experience.

Oh, it's dated of course. A form of stiff melodrama where women still said things like "Darling... I wish this moment would last forever" and men replied "Oh, I love you... be near me always." And I love how the camera coyly veers away during the kissing scene. An odd dialogue gem is Dr.Jekyll (Frederic March) proclaiming: "We'll be so gloriously happy that even the French will be jealous of us." Look out too for Edgar Norton as Poole, offering advice to Jekyll when told his fiancée will be away for a month. "I beg your pardon, sir," he says, "but may I suggest that you ought to amuse yourself?" Yes, the dialogue is overblown, but in a wonderful, glorious way. Like a great stream-of-consciousness from the pen of a man who sees screen realism as just a petty distraction.

But what really works is the innovation of the film, almost dripping off the celluloid. I don't know if those wipes from scene to scene, the fades and the first-person perspective were originated here, but they're used superbly nonetheless. Often the frame hesitates between wipes, carving the illusion that so much is going on simultaneously that one screen cannot house it all. And the single take transformation (As Hyde says, "What you are about to see is a secret you are sworn not to reveal" – it's tinted lens effects were kept hidden for many years) is absolutely magnificent, even 70 years on.

Every single shot is worked out with a mind to an unusual angle, or a unique way of framing things, but never so that it's showy. Often the main action will be taken via longshot, the camera choosing to focus on a sole candelabrum in the foreground while the scene plays out. It's subtexts of bare backs; cleavages, thighs and garter belts are also quite racy for the time. Look how even when Jekyll has left Ivy behind, her seductively rocking leg is merged with the next scene for nearly half a minute to indicate temptation is lingering in his mind. Outstanding.

The sets, too, are unparalleled, street settings often running to several levels and making a mockery of the rival studio's sub-realist fare. The outdoor segments set to rain are exquisite, and look out for an amusing scene – the first between Miriam Hopkins and Hyde – where they engage in an accidental spitting competition. As he says the phrase "pig sty" an unintentional (?) spray of saliva coats his co-star, while a large globule of phlegm hits him in return as she says "Buckingham Palace."

Weirdly, the Doctor's name is pronounced "Gee-kul", not the commonly held "Jek-ull". I've always thought Jekyll seemed a creepier name than the passive-sounding Hyde. Maybe that's the point, and the duality of such a concept is passed forward by many shots of Hyde seeing his face via a mirror. March is not without the wit to add humour to his other persona (who resembles more Dick Emery's comedy Vicar than anything truly horrific), and is in equal terms expert in both pathos and menace. His physicality in the role also cannot be overlooked. Not only that, but you get the real feeling that you're joining March on a discovery; with each new turn of plot as much a surprise to him as it is to us. This is a real loving performance, a far cry from the "take the money and run" sensibilities of The Wolf Man.

Hyde has his violent moments, threatening to glass a man with a broken bottle – "His face was made for it" – and intimating rape. It's a showstopping performance and there's even one scene where Hyde appears to break the fourth wall – yet he's looking through the camera and into the next room. Mere technicalities are beneath the thoroughly insane Hyde. "I shall go only as far as the door, and the sight of your tears will bring me back" he hisses to a terrified Hopkins with double-meaning menace.

With it's literary script that encompasses both Bach and Shakespeare, it's a lovably fluid, fast-paced piece. Sometimes it's not always subtle – take the scene where Hopkins tells Jekyll he's got "the kindest heart in the world" and asks him for a bottle of poison "so I can kill myself, sir." But look at the anguish on March's face as the guilt of his alter ego's actions bleed through. If only all films could be made with such care and love in their craft. Absolutely Tremendous. 9/10.

Treat yourself

[jamesjam-2 · 10/10 · 3 February 2006]

A neglected masterpiece. When I picked up the two sided DVD I was excited because the Fleming/Tracy version is on the order of a guilty pleasure. But I soon realized that I had never seen the 1931 version. This is a film that lingers in the memories of many film goers as still photographs of Frederic March in his makeup. Watching it was a revelation. The same changes to original content - Jekyl's bride-to-be and her family - continue to wear wearily on the production, but nothing could prepare me for March's work. As often as we've seen "transformations" - this one is the BEST. Then young lion director Rouben Mamouilan pulls out some dandy tricks. And the sexually charged atmosphere before the Hayes code - was well - sexy as hell. Do yourself a favor and watch it.

"You cannot conquer it. It has conquered you!"

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 22 December 2012]

Fredric March shines in this early screen version of the enduring Robert Louis Stevenson story which explores the duality in all of us. Dr. Henry Jekyll (March) is a scientist advancing such an idea which doesn't sit well with his peers. Naturally, when he dares to pursue such heretical fancies he will pay a price: his Mr. Hyde is an ugly brute who completely gives in to all of mans' basest impulses, and this gets him in deeper and deeper trouble. When watching this adaptation, one can hardly fail to notice the style and innovation brought to the camera work, the editing, and the scene transitions, as we get an early version of what's come to be known as split screen. The film even begins with what we know as the subjective camera technique where we see things from a characters' perspective, in this case Dr. Jekyll, and it's at least a couple of minutes before we switch to an objective view. The Expressionist cinematography was done by Karl Struss. The way that the transformation scenes are done would be revisited in such later films as "The Wolf Man", and the convincing makeup is done by Wally Westmore, an under-rated and overlooked makeup effects man from this period whose work can also be seen in "Island of Lost Souls". Director Rouben Mamoulian and the screenwriters, Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath, are able to inject their material with a ripe amount of sex, as this was done in the pre-Code days. Musical performer and actress Miriam Hopkins shows quite a bit of leg, for one thing. And in scenes where she must contend with the beastly Hyde, there's an undeniable amount of uncomfortable sexual tension. The actors are all superb, and it's very noteworthy that March should have won a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance(s) as it's not that often the Academy acknowledges horror films for this aspect. March is believable every step of the way; when he's Jekyll you can't help but like him, when he's Hyde he just creeps you out. Hopkins is equal parts touching and saucy, and Rose Hobart is appealing as Jekylls' bride to be Muriel. Holmes Herbert, Halliwell Hobbes, Edgar Norton, and Tempe Pigott comprise the rest of the solid supporting players. With all of this going for it, the '31 production of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is worthy viewing for fans of the classic black & white horror films who want to discover the kinds of things that filmmakers could get away with before the Code started stifling their creative efforts. This story has of course been done many times since, but this would be the ideal adaptation with which to start. It's available on a flipper disc from Warner Bros. that pairs it with the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy, so one can have an interesting time comparing the two films. Seven out of 10.

Renewed Sight for the Listening Camera

[Cineanalyst · 9/10 · 4 September 2005]

As this film demonstrates, director Rouben Mamoulian (Applause (1929)) and cinematographer Karl Struss (Sunrise (1927)) were two of the great innovators in renewing the role of the camera for the talkies. Lesser talents began the talkies much the same as silent films began: with a static camera. The sound is still creaky, as usual, with awkward silences, but it's not bothersome. The editing isn't always seamless here, either, and, at times, makes the film seem unpolished, but that, too, is minor. This is the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", in my opinion, and that has very little to do with the actual story adaptation, which comes more from the stage, anyhow. It's the role of the camera that's remarkable.

I don't mean to say that this adaptation is of little interest; it's especially interesting when compared to the novella and its other adaptations. The 1920-John Barrymore version features a more grotesque Hyde and a stiffer Jekyll. Here, Jekyll is, at first, full of gaiety and youthful exuberance. That's more faithful to the novel, but also reflects the filmmakers' intentions and the changes in Hollywood. The 1920 film was bolder in content in some respects; it was a mood piece of horror and atmosphere. The fogy lamp-lit slums of London are still realized vividly in this one, but much of the feeling in them is lost. On the other hand, the mirror motif comes out more here, which corresponds nicely with the doppelgänger (or doubles) theme inherent in the story. This 1931 film is of the classic Hollywood era. The added emphasis on the romance between Jekyll and Muriel is a result. This version is about more than the story, though; the major focus is in the camera-work.

The film begins with about three and half minutes of long point-of-view takes, with a mobile camera, from the perspective of Dr. Jekyll. It establishes the camera as an active participant in the film, rather than merely a static recorder. Throughout the picture, the camera continually moves--from slight zooms, dollies, pans and tilts to dance-like tracking shots during the party sequence. Additionally, some extreme close-ups show only a character's eyes. A POV shot during Jekyll's first transition into Hyde turns into spinning memories, which is in addition to the special effects that allow for transformations that are seen with fluent, unbroken rhythm from the camera's eye.

The camera positioning is varied, as well, and some shots are extraordinary just in their positions. The photography exploits the sets to greater effect occasionally, and the filmmakers position props with the camera especially well and in rather thematic ways that apply to the story. Yet, the photography is most brilliant when not subject to much scene dissection: long takes that are unbroken and add more fluency to the already tight plot.

One could say this is showy film-making; even the transitional effects seem to draw attention to themselves: lengthy dissolves that linger as superimposed images (such as the image of Ivy's legs over the image of Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon's debate) and wipes that create brief split-screen shots. But, the camera is the most essential part of film-making (along with editing), and it seems negligent to subject it to a role of impotence--to just recording an enacted play. This 1931 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a cinematic artwork and shows what film should be concerning the role of its most basic apparatus.

March Shines In Early Talkie Effort Of Famous Story

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 5 January 2007]

This was a decent early effort (first "talkie" movie presentation) at the famous Robert Louis Stevenson story, this time with Frederic March in the lead role, which he plays well.

The romance parts with March and Rose Hobardt are somewhat corny. The ending features a tremendous action scene with a very nimble "Hyde."

It was interesting to hear Jeckyll's name pronounced Gee-kle, with the long "e." I've never heard it pronounced that way before or since.

I thought March was better than Spency Tracy in the 1940s film but you couldn't beat the women (Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner) in the latter version. The ladies here were okay but no match for Bergman and Turner. The same can be said for the film as a whole. It was worth seeing, but not worth owning.

A Landmark Horror Film

[Wailmer1990 · 10/10 · 29 October 2007]

Robert Louis Stevenson's classic tale of split personality has been filmed before in 1920 with John Barrymore and in 1941 with Spencer Tracy, but Rouben Mamoulian's expressionist 1931 version stands head and shoulders above the rest. First of all, you have Fredric March, whose tour-de-force performance as the good-natured Jekyll and the monstrous Hyde earned him the Best Actor Oscar. Second, the camera work by Karl Struss brilliantly captures the mood of the story. And lastly, the transformation sequences set an enormous precedent for the later monster movies. It all blends together to form one of most amazing horror movies of the 1930's. Even today, it still has the power to mesmerize and send chills down the spine of even the most hardened horror fan.

Brilliantly made film but is it entertaining?

[1930s_Time_Machine · 6/10 · 18 March 2023]

OK, it's a given that this is a remarkably well-made film that's brilliantly directed but is it entertaining to a 21st century audience?

Yes, it is - but possibly more so because it's so fascinating as a piece of art rather than an enjoyable story. Maybe because it's set in a kind of fantasy world or maybe it's because we're all so familiar with the story but the characters don't quite feel relatable enough for us to empathise with them or feel their emotions. As a story, you'll enjoy it but you won't feel part of it.

There was a filmmaker called Chester Erskine who made a film called MIDNIGHT in 1934. He directed that with more imagination and enthusiasm than hardly anyone else had done before. Unfortunately for him, his ambition was much bigger than his actual skill making that film laughably bad at times but never boring (I actually liked it but the jury's out as to whether that's a brilliantly innovative movie or just amateurish rubbish). Rouben Mamoulian however knew how to do it properly! He demonstrated that he had a hundred times more innovation and he also had the advantage of being an absolute genius. Even if you know the story backwards this picture is is so captivating that you cannot tear your eyes away from it.

As a "horror film" however it couldn't be described as scary. On that grounds it fails and it doesn't quite have as much eerie atmosphere as DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN or indeed THE MUMMY.....but although it's older, it's a better made film than any of those.

It falls into the perpetual trap that period dramas succumb to: it's Victorian England as imagined by filmmakers from the time the film was made. It's also Victorian people speaking in that annoying affected manner that people allegedly spoke in "the olden days." That aside, there's nothing else which can be criticised about this . The incredible vision and skill of Mamoulian make this seem as though it was made just a few years ago rather than thirty years after the actual Victorian era. It's easily the best telling of this story.

"Come back, won't you ?. . . Oh, yes, you can."

[icfarm · 8/10 · 1 October 2007]

Very impressive - and, as other commentators have pointed out, surprisingly sexy - adaptation of the classic tale.

Dr. Jekyll (the great Frederic March, an Oscar winner for this) is a scientist who has dedicated himself to discovering a way to separate the "good" and "evil" sides of human nature. His stated goal is to make it possible for all people to be rid of their "evil" side for good so that it will "trouble them no more"; this, in turn, will give the "good" side freedom to reach its full potential.

Jekyll is engaged to a beautiful young woman named Muriel (Rose Hobart) whose father insists they wait for marriage. Jekyll is in love with (and let's be honest, hot for) his fiancée and wants to marry sooner, but his intended does not want to hurt her father's feelings by going against his wishes, so he agrees to wait for her.

Meanwhile, Jekyll has met a local tart named Ivy (Miriam Hopkins, spectacularly sexy and decidedly non-waifish). He hears her scream - it appears, although we don't see what actually happened, that she has been hit and knocked down by a man - and he carries her up to the loft she lives in. After getting a good look at her handsome benefactor, our Ivy decides to turn on both the "poor-me's" and the sex appeal, of which she has plenty, especially in bed wearing nothing but a garter. (The scene contains no nudity but innuendo and tension aplenty). When he finally tells her he has to go, she calls out the words I have used as the title of my review to him.

In the meantime, his tries a new potion he has concocted on himself. This leads to his first transformation into "Hyde", who, in this version, is portrayed as somewhat ape-like, suggesting an evolutionary throwback (always allowing for the theory of evolution). This character could care less about the mores of the society around him. Hyde's first emergence is cut short before he can cause any trouble by the arrival of his alter-ego's manservant.

But Muriel and her father have gone away, and Jekyll soon gives in to temptation, drinking the potion again. This time, he DOES go out, and immediately seeks out what Jekyll wanted but denied himself - Ivy. He finds her at a seedy music hall where she performs/hangs out, invites her to his table, and comes on like the Cro-Magnon he is, scoffing at men like his alter-ego who "like your (Ivy's) legs but talk about your garter", referring to the fact that Jekyll had warned Ivy earlier that her garter was tight enough to cut off her circulation.

Ivy is soon (and not exactly willingly) "shacked up" with Hyde, refusing to leave or try to find help for fear of him. But Hyde reads in the paper that his fiancée and her father are coming back, and informs Ivy that he will have to leave her for a time, but, "If you do one thing I don't approve of while I'm gone . . . the least little thing, mind you . . . I'll show you what horror means". Their goodbye scene is one of the most chilling in movie history, perhaps as close as any filmmaker of this period would ever come to an actual "rape" scene.

Jekyll is reunited with his fiancée and future father-in-law, and is able to convince the latter not to make them wait so long for their wedding.

He goes home overjoyed, but not for long. You see, he sent Ivy fifty pounds cash as a way to try to make amends for his treatment of her as Hyde. But she appears in person. She doesn't want his money -Hyde would only hurt her if he found out she had it- she wants help getting out of the trap she is in with him (at one point, she shows Jekyll her back, and although we are not shown the actual wounds, she says, "Pretty, ain't it? It's a whip, that's what it is, a whip!).

Jekyll, feeling more ashamed than ever of his behavior as Hyde, gives his word to Ivy that Hyde will never come back; she can keep the money without fear.

Feeling better - after all, he has made amends to Ivy, he will soon be married to his fiancée, and he is rid of Hyde, or so he thinks, Jekyll goes for a pleasant walk in a park. But he sees a cat stalking - and, although we are not shown this, presumably killing and eating - a bird, and this brings out the predator within himself again. After another transformation, Hyde seeks out Ivy and, after a horrific scene in which he confronts her over going to Jekyll for help, kills her.

Jekyll reads in the paper what he has done (we are led to assume, I think, that he has no memory of his actions as Hyde)and decides that the only "peanance" he can offer is to call off his engagement (not to mention that he now feels he must leave Muriel for her own safety).

But he transforms yet again - it's worth noting here that March is able to portray this transformation with his back to the camera as he peers in at the sobbing Muriel, simply through body language - and goes back into his now ex-fiancée's house. Hearing his daughter's scream, her father comes running in and is killed by Hyde.

It all ends in a police chase and the death by shooting of Hyde/Jekyll.

Worth a look, definitely.

Cheers.

Jekyll and Hyde

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 22 February 2018]

In Victorian London, Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) investigates the duality of human being. He develops a drug and creates an alternate violent personality Edward Hyde inside himself.

This is generally good as far old classic horror. The standout is the transformation of Jekyll into Hyde, and Fredric March's visceral performance as the unhinged Hyde. That grotesque face is a horror icon. The story does drag a little at times and meanders in its melodrama. It is heightened every time Hyde is on the screen. The movie is truly Jekyll and Hyde.

Somewhat emotionless and strictly by the book adaption

[jordondave-28085 · 5/10 · 22 September 2023]

(1931) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde DRAMA/ HORROR

Motionless with plot holes despite excellent performance by Frederich March which as a result of this film, garnered his first Oscar win of out of two from his long illustrious acting career! Story from the popular Robert Stevenson novel about a scientists theory or transformation upon drinking a mixed chemical drink turning him into a hideous Mr Hyde. Although, theirs nothing wrong with the point the movie was making, but in order to make that point meant forcing the story line to create plot holes within the story line leading to the obvious conclusion.

Pre-Code Jekyll/Hyde With The Amazing Fredric March!

[jem132 · 10/10 · 3 June 2006]

This is viewed by many to be the best cinematic re-telling of Stevenson's original work, which is a tad odd as very little of the novella remains. The concept of the duality of human nature is still present in March's Dr Jekyll/Hyde, but a whole lot of sex and daring visual effects have been added to Stevenson's controversial Victorian work. The result? An excellent and entertaining film that will stay in the mind for quite some time.

Fredric March, one of the best actors of all time, won the Academy Award for playing the dual roles. It's not hard to see why- March is excellent in this one, and plays both Jekyll and Hyde with enthusiasm and vigour. It's a very theatrical performance by today's standards. but what a fun performance it is! March shows his incredible acting range here.

March's Jekyll is a repressed Victorian doctor who is interested in both separating the two sides of human nature- 'good' and 'evil'- from each other, and quickly marrying his rich fiancé Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart). A slight hitch in his plans- Muriel's father insists that the two lovers must wait eight months before they are married, so they can wed on the anniversary of his own wedding. It's a rather laughable concept actually, but it serves it's purpose as the pre-cursor to March's wild rampage as Hyde. It seems the primary reason Jekyll wants to marry Muriel is to bed her, and when he can't do that, he takes a concoction of drugs and turns into the simian, sexually uninhibited Hyde.

March's make-up almost destroyed his wonderful looks forever, so it deserves a mention here. Looking at through today's CGI-trained eyes, March's Hyde is ridiculously overdone and more comical than scary. Tracy's 1941 Hyde is a much subtler figure, which suits the narrative better in some ways. However, Mamoulian effectively conveys to the audience in his version that Hyde is having a lot of fun, is liberated in his personal and sexual freedom, hence the 'comical' aspects. March, amazing in both comedy and drama, plays him at first like a free-wheeling puppy, eager for discovery, than as a real monster as he degenerates both in appearance and behaviour. The simian make-up suits the notion of Hyde being 'semi-evolved' in nature, so it all works out in the end.

Miriam Hopkins is the Cockney slut Ivy who Jekyll good-naturedly attends to at first, then brutalizes her as Hyde. March's first encounter as Jekyll with Hopkin's Hyde is a erotically-charged, provocative affair. Jekyll's primal instincts and his need to unleash them, quickly, are displayed in his overt sexual interest in Ivy. She's a girl who knows the value of sex, too, as she sexily strips for him after he makes a suggestive comment that her garter is perhaps too tight. For those interested in film history, take note of these powerful scenes between March and Hopkins- they would help bring on the Production Code in a couple of years. A sexually aroused Jekyll is grabbed and kissed by an explicit Ivy while she lies visibly naked in bed, something that would be absolutely banished from films in just a few years.

Hopkins turns in an excellent performance in this one, very convincing as the 'Tart With A Heart' Ivy. She's a brazen, sexual creature, complete with brassy blonde hair and cleavage, yet she's also sympathetic . Her situation with Hyde (where she is 'kept' by him) is borne as much out of economic necessity as it is out of total fear. And total fear is what Hopkins does best here- her scenes with March ravishing her as Hyde are among the best in film history. She's a cheap, tragic figure and provides an interesting contrast to the 'other side' of Victorian society reflected in Jekyll's fiancé Muriel.

Hobart is rather weak in a role that is, admittedly, poorly written. She has a one-dimensional role, and Hopkins is given much more opportunity to shine. Interesting to see March and Hopkins battle it out, acting-wise.

Mamoulian builds an amazing atmosphere here with some studio-bound, yet very Expressionistic sets. Lighting is used to great effect, and the camera work was revolutionary for it's time. The subjective camera-work at the beginning where we see the action through Jekyll's eyes was innovative (a little shaky, but innovative all the same)as were the wipes used constantly to juxtapose Ivy and Muriel. The garden party scene with March and Hobart has some oddly fascinating shots, with Mamoulian focusing on the lover's eyes and foreheads when they are professing their love. Symbolism is used nicely throughout, with a number of prominent statues and paintings depicting naked women. The fire-and-brimstone hell imagery of Jekyll's lab is also a clever visual effect- Jekyll is truly a man about to 'boil over'.

The transformation sequences are amazing for their time, and March acts them so well. Much of the dialogue spoken is melodramatic and rather hokey, yet we have some great lines. There's some rather fascinating religious overtones to March's Jekyll who is looked upon as a God-like figure by a number of characters. The crippled girl's cry, with hands out, to Jekyll 'I can walk sir!' is one of religious ecstasy, and Ivy looks upon him as a saint who can save her from Hyde. Alas, that cannot be. Hyde is a sinner as Jekyll is a saint, and we know exactly what he does with Ivy when the scenes fade to black.

I consider this better than 'Dracula' or 'Frankenstein' (both 1931 films) for Mamoulian's stylish direction, the presence of viable female characters, the brilliant camera-work, and the acting of March and Hopkins.

Not the original source material, but a darn good film that uses the female characters and the addition of sex to underline the dual side of man.

"I'll show you what horror means"

[rhinocerosfive-1 · 9/10 · 3 April 2008]

Rouben Mamoulian gives us an erotic, scary vision of man as beast, illustrating the dangers of sexual repression with a hairy paw. He has at his disposal the great Karl Struss, whose photography helps crystallize the symbols of lust and virtuous chastity. Mostly lust.

Fredric March's Hyde stands yet as one of the most terrifying beasts ever captured on film, his hair a silverback gorilla's mane, his teeth protruding like shards of broken china, his broad negroid nostrils a stark contrast to Jekyll's pretty aquiline features... but the eyes: March always has the eyes of a degenerate, no matter what he plays. This is the chief appeal of his urbanity, this lurking hint of monstrousness, and when Hyde is unleashed, crying "Freedom!", the eyes dart with hideous delight, and we squirm to see the thing within, without.

Hyde's sudden entrance to Miriam Hopkins' parlor, his silent glare from the landing, the catlike menace of his approach to the cowering women... this is what horror means. Nispel, Roth, take a lesson.

the other Victorians

[oyason · 11 March 2006]

Rouben Mamoulian's DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE is one of the truly great horror films of all time. The story has been filmed more than any other in the horror genre, but it is Mamoulian's approach to the material that makes this one stand out. Mamoulian explores the west's overrated belief in free sensuality. His version of Dr. Jekyll, (Frederic March) is a sexless, Victorian man of reason, who wants to run wild. And so he does, but only after he concocts a special scientific cocktail that unleashes his lower nature. Mamoulian depicts Hyde as a semineanderthal brute, and March delivers on that characterization.

When one takes the time to watch March's performance (his Jekyll is sacharine saintly, his Hyde moves like a lurching simian marionette), it's not hard to see why it won the Academy Award that year, while other milestones like James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN and Todd Browning's Dracula weren't even in the running. DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE is a work set apart. It's racy in ways that film in 1930s United States rarely got to explore, it's bold in it's portrayal of upper middle class society, and its opening sequences are dreamlike and surreal in a way that really suck the viewer in. The audience is asked to take in the world the way Jekyll sees it for the first ten minutes of the film, and the camera-work cements in place Jekyll's abstracted reference. The scene in which Jekyll persuades a charity ward girl that she can walk unassisted is eerie precisely because of the way the camera follows her stilted, semi-joyous gait and restrained happiness. The angle of the shoot tells us Jekyll is looking at the rest of us the same way an entomologist would look at an insect.

Mirian Hopkins as the ill-fated Ivy manages to break through every stereotypical interpretation of the East End floozy that cinema has been burdened with. She's a movie "bad girl", but not one with a heart of gold, rather, Ivy is opportunist and craven. She is not one of Charles Dicken's "noble poor", and that's why her character works. She is fleshy, sensual, sweet, what Jekyll wants, and what he certainly cannot obtain from his "finished" and equally alienated fiancée Muriel Carew, portrayed here by Rose Hobart. Being a man from the upper classes, however, he's not allowed to explore what he really wants, but only what is socially acceptable. Or, "it simply isn't done", as his fiancée's father, Sir Danvers Carew (Haliwell Hobbes) would say. Hence, the looming mayhem. The wild man and woman must be set loose,by hook or by crook. And so it is, armed with a club and an intelligence distorted through a funhouse mirror.

The novella of Robert Louis Stevenson is mutated, but that's the name of the game in film. Still, all the liberties taken by screenplay authors Percy Heath and Samuel Hoffenstein make sense. Is it scary? Yes, in its portrayal of the social traps we allow ourselves to be blocked into. That's some spookshow, and Stevenson knew it, and Rouben Mamoulian knew how to work with that observation, and that's why this film will hold its own decades from now.

Jekyll vs. Hyde

[sol- · 6/10 · 13 March 2016]

Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's iconic story, this horror film focuses on a scientist who develops a way to transform into a Neanderthal-like man with animalistic impulses. It is an interesting concept with lots of dialogue about evil existing inside everyone and repressing one's base desires, but the real standout element here is the filmic style. The film features innovative point-of-view camera- work that frequently tracks and pans. Then there is a superb lethargic dissolve of a woman's leg to show how ingrained the image is our hero's mind. Plus there is a great bit in which reaction shots between two lovers gradually zoom in closer... and the list goes on. The film is so technically advanced that it is still impressive by standards today; only the over-the-top makeup effects (complete with buck teeth) disappoint. With so much attention dedicated to the look of the film, it is perhaps unexpected that the story sags a little. Absolute no romantic sparks exist between Fredric March and Rose Hobart, which makes his pining to marry her a little hard to buy, and a subplot with a wanton Miriam Hopkins (not part of the original story) only works slightly better. When the film concentrates on March though and his increased difficulty of keeping Hyde under wraps, it rarely missteps. As alluded to, the film has a lot to say about dualities with the nature of humankind and the visuals are absolutely top notch.

The most significant horror film of 1931? Some say "Dracula" or "Frankenstein." I think "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is another surefire contender

[TheUnknown837-1 · 9/10 · 24 August 2009]

While the titles "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" are the most popular surefire contenders for the most revolutionary horror film of 1931, I would strongly argue that the adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's story "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is another title to be considered. This film is not only significant in the fact that it's one of only two movies for there to be a tie between two actors in receiving the Academy Award for Best Leading Actor, but it's revolutionary in its visual effects and Fredric March's portrayal of a ferocious two-sided madman and the effect he has on the people around him as he jumps between sides.

It's because of this film that many are familiar with the story of Jekyll and Hyde. And why shouldn't it be? The film uses the original Stevenson story only for inspiration and foundation and instead uses its own imagination to create something new and yet surprisingly powerful in its entertainment. Is it scary? No. Not by today's standards anyway. But is it haunting? Yes. It haunts you in the same way that Count Orlok haunted you in "Nosferatu" (1922). The vampire didn't scare you in that film. But the image of a tall, pale rodent-like humanoid stalking about a castle hall after a petrified protagonist lingers on in your memory. As does the memory of Fredric March as she transforms from a handsome young scientist into an ape-like monster that begins to hound and possess a helpless young woman played with great enthusiasm and energy by Miriam Hopkins, most of whose performance had to be cut from the film due to censorship and therefore cost her the possibility of receiving an Academy Award nomination. Fredric March is equally brilliant as Jekyll and Hyde. The film also stars Rose Hobart as Jekyll's fiancée, Halliwell Hobbes as her suspicious father, Edgar Norton as the comical, stammering butler and Holmes Herbert in the one role that I think should have been developed a little more for the character does have impact in the last third of the story.

Now I saw this film after I saw the 1941 remake with Spencer Tracy and for those not familiar with that film, let me just warn you to see this movie first. The remake follows the same story almost as if it were by the book and recreates a lot of scenes, but it does not deliver the same impact even though Tracy is almost as great as March in this film. It's only half the movie that this truly entertaining 1931 horror opus is.

Good as a film, but not a good adaptation

[Sophitia36 · 6/10 · 17 March 2010]

I don't really understand the very good ratings for this film. Of course, as a film, it was quite good. The actor playing Jekyll was gorgeous and had a lot of charisma, the special effects were good for the time, and there were some interesting shots. Overall it was classy. However, I really loved the book and I am bitterly disappointed by this adaptation. I am not the kind of person who trashes a film adaptation just because they made a few changes to the book, because I think they can be necessary, but I don't like it when they make changes that alter completely the essence of the story. I hate the fact that they had to include so many women, and that in short, the whole film seems to imply Jekyll's main motivation was lust : his "fall" is partly provoked by the fact that he can't marry quickly and have sex with his bride, and when he becomes Hyde, the only thing he seems to be interested in is raping this poor woman. I also hated the way they changed the ending, I thought it was completely unnecessary and took away all the subtlety out of it.

What I find really puzzling, is the fact that people always seem to trash recent film adaptations of literary masterpieces, supposedly because they betray the story by altering the original material. And yet, the more I look at older adaptations, the more I realize that usually they are a lot more unfaithful than the recent ones. They often change the plots completely and most of the time it truly alters the essence of the story. Still, these films are held in high esteem, and no one seems to notice that the flaws they denounce in new films are even more present in the old ones.

Excellent

[zetes · 9/10 · 21 March 2005]

I haven't read Stevenson's famous novel, but this film is adapted from a play which is supposedly a lot different anyway. The story is really not especially great. A scientist makes a potion that turns him into a total spazz. The spazz version ruins Dr. Jekyll's romance with Rose Hobart and tortures a loose woman, played by Miriam Hopkins. The film turns out to be completely amazing, however, thanks to the lead performance, by Fredric March, and the elegant direction by Rouben Mamoulian. Every time I see March in a film, I become more impressed by his range. Of course, this is a perfect vehicle to demonstrate one's range, and he excels as both Jekyll and Hyde, though his Hyde is what most will remember. Looking at his filmography, Mamoulian directed relatively few films for a director of his era (not to mention talent). I need to see more, most notably Love Me Tonight, but he will always be a genius in my book for Queen Christina. His direction of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is beautiful and nearly flawless. A lot of the film is made from the direct point-of-view of Jekyll, and he uses a first-person technique that works brilliantly. Between March and Mamoulian, the general silliness of the story is completely made up for. March's female co-stars, Hopkins and Hobart, are quite good, as well.

A Disappointment

[iamyuno2 · 6/10 · 9 March 2014]

Spencer Tracy's version was much better. You even liked Tracy's character and felt a bit sorry for him. Here, you don't really care about anyone - except for Champagne Ivy, that is, the classic Dickensian-type victim of poverty and underclass female vulnerabilities, played to the hilt by a ravishing Miriam Hopkins. I am a huge Frederic March fan but this movie was a huge disappointment to me. It must have been the times, the fact that talking pictures were still relatively new and special effects relatively new (in 1931), that this movie was considered so great in its time. And for March to have won for best actor (actually, tied with Wallace Beery, for Beery's role in the Champ), really boggles my mind. Maybe it's just me. I don't think this film aged well nor do I find the acting all that good - including March's, which I found stilted. Even his transformation scenes failed to move me. Even more important: I also question whether Mr. Hyde was Frederic March (and I know this suggestion is akin to heresy). Listen to Hyde's accent. Look at his nasal features and the shape of his face. I almost thought Hyde might have been played by Humphrey Bogart (which is not likely) but there's a peculiar and unique accent tinged with a British affectation and a vocal quality that I do not believe is March's and I believe it provides a huge clue as to there having been a different actor playing that role. Even the acting quality seems to take a nose dive when Hyde is in the picture (in other words, I believe March would have done a better job in that role). Mr. Hyde was also incredibly agile - like a monkey, or, more to the point, like a circus performer or Olympic-class athlete. His jumping about was - in my estimation - highly unlikely the actions of a Frederic March who (unlike Cary Grant, for instance) did not have an athletic background of this kind nor did he display anything like this kind of agility or talent in other films. This was, actually, my first question after seeing the film: just who played Mr. Hyde? (Did anyone else question this?) I tell you, it was not March. Miriam Hopkins is the only one in this film, for my money, whose performance was of an Oscar-type level. She was incredibly endearing and she came across with a realism I felt was lacking in the others' performances. There was too much "gee whiz" acting in my opinion, stylized horror movie posing, for this movie to be taken too seriously. March was very young here so I excuse his stilted acting on his relative lack of experience because in every other film I've seen him in, he was absolutely top-rate and brilliant. But I am sure my opinion is in the minority here, so see the film and judge for yourself. Clearly it's a milestone picture in Hollywood and should be seen, in that context.

essential cinema classic

[christopher-underwood · 8/10 · 29 October 2016]

Yes, it creaks a bit here and there and has sometimes the look more of a silent film, but this is an easy talkie and a pre-code one at that. In fact there is much innovation here with audacious camera work and bold wipes from one scene to another. It is some time since I last saw this but it still retains its power. And its vigour! I was surprised all over again at the near nakedness of Miriam Hopkins in her scenes of seduction - that is seduction by her of all things. Later she will suffer as her resonating call to return echoes in the mind of Jekyll/Hyde. There is much talk at first of the true nature of man, the seeming duality of the noble and the base and the social hypocrisies and if in the end it becomes a little more farcical it still retains its power. It will be many years until the issues of sex and violence are so vividly portrayed or explored and this version of the book, albeit more based upon an early stage play will forever remain an essential cinema classic.

Interesting version of the classic tale with some drawbacks...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 13 February 2009]

FREDRIC MARCH won his first Oscar for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE and it is the kind of showy role that usually results in at least an Oscar nomination. Although he's a fine actor, this was 1931 and even the best screen actors had not yet toned down their performances from either the stage or the silent screen. There are moments when he's clearly over the top, by today's standards, and of course the exaggerated make-up by Wally Westmore (with the aid of special lighting filters) gives March a Simian countenance more suitable for a "Planet of the Apes" type of thing.

Still, the actor has to be credited with giving a strong performance, full of athletic leaps as he attempts to get away safely from those trying to trap him. And it certainly helps that he gets strong support from MIRIAM HOPKINS as the cabaret singer who is frightened by his Mr. Hyde personality as well as his gruesome disguise.

ROSE HOBART is a strange choice to play the society girl that March is romantically involved with. She's even more bland than Lana Turner was in the MGM version of the '40s, if that is possible. She offers no real passion to the part or charm and his infatuation with her never seems plausible. She would go on to play character roles for the bulk of her career.

The mostly British cast does well by the script and the vintage B&W photography simulating London interiors and exteriors is fine.

In the Spencer Tracy/Ingrid Bergman/Lana Turner version, Tracy's make-up was never concealing enough--you could always see him beneath the bushy brows and the jagged teeth. It made you wonder why others around him didn't see through to Dr. Jekyll. March has gone to the opposite extreme, and therein lies the weakness in my opinion. He's too much in the other direction.

However, having said that, it's a good enough version of the Stevenson story in view of the fact that it's strictly a film of the '30s in style and performance.

"We can control our actions, but not our impulses"

[Steffi_P · 5/10 · 3 October 2009]

The early 1930s were truly the golden age of the horror movie. The scream flicks of this period were not the scariest or the biggest budgeted, but the era was unique and special in that the monster, the object of terror was almost always the star. The box office pull and familiarity of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff was far more significant than that of Vincent Price or Christopher Lee a few decades later, and they never had to cede top billing to some dashing male lead or beautiful heroine. Frederic March was not a horror star, but as Jekyll and Hyde landed the first Academy Award for a performance in a horror, in the kind of role that it would later become unthinkable to honour in this way.

This was a very transitional time for acting, particularly with regard to male leads. The couple of Best Actor winners before this (George Arliss and Lionel Barrymore) had been of the room-filling theatrical style that dominated the early talkies, beating the more reserved and naturalistic style that was slowly evolving. The fifth Academy Awards were the turning point, when Wallace Beery's warmly human turn in The Champ tied with Fredric March's gleeful scenery-chomping in this picture. Although I prefer Beery, I can see why March was equally lauded. While his Jekyll is nothing special, competent but still a little too hammy for a straight role, his Hyde is utterly engaging and watchable. He differs from the John Barrymore (1920) and Spencer Tracy (1941) interpretations in that he is not only animalistic but slightly childlike in his manner. Importantly, he is transformed enough not just through the make-up but in voice and mannerisms to make him genuinely appear as a completely different person. March as Hyde also adds the one genuine note of creepiness to a production that is short on atmosphere.

This adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella makes several sweeping changes. The twin love interests of Ivy and Muriel were an invention for this version, but a more significant difference is in how the story is revealed. In the book, the tale is told through the eyes of the lawyer Utterson, who sees his friend Jekyll apparently harassed and blackmailed by the villainous Hyde, and we do not discover that they are one and the same until the final chapter. Perhaps because the concept of Jekyll's transformation was fairly well known by this point, the film relegates Utterson to a minor character, and instead follows Jekyll on his journey of scientific discovery and his struggle to control his alter-ego. Hence we lose the sense of mystery that was a great asset to the novella, but we gain a deep and disturbing insight into the process.

Producer-director Rouben Mamoulian's aim seems to be to totally immerse us in the experience of Jekyll and Hyde, and thus employs some of the most extended and elaborate point-of-view shots ever committed to celluloid. This is a somewhat hit-and-miss tactic. It makes the first transformation scene truly exhilarating, but other times it just looks odd, particularly in the opening scenes, where it quickly turns into a distracting gimmick. This is the young Mamoulian all over. He paid absolutely no attention to the established rules of film grammar, had no sense of subtlety, and seems to have assumed that the more obvious and complex the technique, the more effective it must be. He sometimes has good ideas – for example drawing our attention to the skeleton shortly before Jekyll downs the potion for the first time, but he has to do so heavy-handedly with a whip-pan. Perhaps worst of all are those annoying split-screen moments, one of which actually distracts from one of the nicest touches in March's performance – his breaking in and out a run after his transformation in the park.

Also, in spite of March's success, Mamoulian was generally a poor director of actors, one of the few coaches who appears to have encouraged excessive hamming. Miriam Cooper is mediocre, which was about the most she ever was, and everyone else is bad to the point of cringeworthy. However Mamoulian did hire the best when it came to technical crew. The cinematography of Karl Struss brings out the dinginess of the slums, while we can thank renowned production designer Hans Dreier for the bright idea of making Jekyll's lab a careful blend of scientific paraphernalia and Gothic architecture.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this version of Jekyll and Hyde is that, unlike the classics being produced at Universal, it simply doesn't have the horror genre running through its veins. Prestigious, highbrow Paramount just didn't seem to get the camp creepiness of its smaller rival. And yet, it is true to the 30s horror form, for ugly and despicable as Hyde is, he (not Jekyll) is unquestionably the hero.