Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931): A Review (Review #2190)

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931)

The duality of man gets the creepy treatment in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. An Oscar-winning performance and impressive visual effects elevate this early adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson horror classic. 

Renegade British Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) is convinced that man is capable of separating the noble aspects of himself from the depraved nature fighting within each person. His colleagues are at most cooly receptive to downright contemptuous of such ideas. Dr. Jekyll will not be denied his scientific breakthrough.

What he is being denied, repeatedly, is early marriage to Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart). Her father, Brigadier General Carew (Halliwell Hobbes) is adamant that they marry on the anniversary of his own nuptials seven months away. Jekyll is desperate to get married. He is not so desperate for Ivy Pearson (Miriam Hopkins), a tart who fancies him after he rescued her from an abusive man. She tempts him openly, but he resists.

Now convinced that his experiments have yielded success, Jekyll drinks his concoction. To his horror, they transform him into a hideous, ape-like figure who cannot control his animal side. He tells his butler Poole (Edgar Norton) that this mysterious figure is a friend named Hyde. Hyde, however, cannot hide his darker impulses. Frustrated that the Carews are in Bath (Muriel's father presumably keeping her as far from Jekyll as possible) Hyde pursues the luscious tart, Ivy. He forces her to become his mistress until Jekyll discovers that the Carews are returning early.

Jekyll attempts to break off his liaison with Ivy, who is unaware of Hyde's other identity. He also swears off drinking his concoction. However, the poison has taken over Jekyll, who has no control over when Hyde will come out. The lives of everyone involved are in danger with the mad doctor and his alter ego running rampant through London. Who will live and who will die by the time that both Jekyll and Hyde end their reigns of terror? 

Fredric March won Best Actor for his performance in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He was declared a co-winner with Wallace Beery for The Champ despite March receiving one more vote than Beery. According to Academy rules at the time, if two nominees came within three votes of each other, a tie was declared. Out of the two of those, I lean towards Beery. In the early parts of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I found Fredric March a bit theatrical. There is also the matter of accents. 

Fredric March does not have a British accent. He sounds like an American. As such, March sticks out with everyone else who spoke with British accents. Some of the actors were British. Others were not, such as Miriam Hopkins. She adopted a convincing Cockney accent. Therefore, hearing March sound nowhere near British made his own foreignness stick out. 

None of that says that Fredric March gave a bad performance. He had a difficult task in that he had to portray two characters and portray them convincingly. Fredric March did an excellent job in convincing one that he was both Jekyll and Hyde. He made Jekyll into a good, if frustrated man. Hyde was a brutal beast. He could be a little more over-the-top, but that was the character. March changed voices, even whole inflections, between Jekyll and Hyde. Fredric March was quite effective and strong as both characters. "I'm no gentleman, but I have money", Hyde sneers to Ivy. That is quite true even now on how some men manage to get beautiful women. 

Despite being a Pre-Code film, I think Jekyll wanted marriage to get some, yet I digress.

Miriam Hopkins was equally strong as the sleazy but doomed Ivy. Unlike March, she had an accent that sounded effective and convincing. Hopkins was quite daring in her come hither manner. Even for a Pre-Code film, one is taken a bit aback by how brazen Ivy was. Yet, when she ends up being the terrified and abused mistress, one feels for Ivy. 

Everyone else is acceptable. That is not to say that they were good. I found the rest of the cast a bit theatrical in their manner. However, it was not a major issue.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde's director Rouben Mamoulian elevates the production with a mixture of inventive camerawork and visual effects. The film begins with a four-minute sequence from Jekyll's point of view, down to seeing Jekyll reflected in the mirror. There are other instances where Mamoulian has us see things from Jekyll's perspective. In doing this, the initial shock of seeing Hyde emerge works extremely well. The limitations of the time do give us some time-lapse images of Hyde returning to Jekyll and vice versa. However, that is near the end of the film and is no less effective. 

The film also has a very curious transition method of split screens. On one side, we see for example Hyde running through the park. On the other, before shifting the scene, we see people at Muriel's formal engagement party wondering where Jekyll could be. Just before Jekyll's first transformation, we see a clever montage of both his naysayers and Ivy's shapely leg almost taunting Jekyll to drink.

The transformation from Jekyll to Hyde is still very effective visually. We see a mix of March's acting and strong makeup work plus the overall visuals shape the change to be extremely well-handled. Even after almost a century the effects still hold up well. The film also has great subtext, such as when a boiling kettle underscores Jekyll's internal rage. 

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does have some curiosities. Chief among them is how Jekyll is pronounced. Most people say "Jeck-ill". In the film, it is "Jee-Kyl". I found that very peculiar. 

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde still holds up very well. Fredric March's performance is hard to top even though others have tried. The film has all those spooky London fogs and gothic touches that work to give it a more menacing feel. There is no need for a split decision: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a strong and effective adaptation. 

DECISION: B+