Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › A few words about the two Dr. Jekyll's...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about the two Dr. Jekyll's...

post #1 of 37
12/14/03 at 8:47pm
Thread Starter 
I've had a chance to take examine Warner's new release of both the 1932 (Paramount) and 1941 M-G-M Jekyll and Hydes.

Both are beautifully rendered, but while I would fully expect this of the Tracy version, I would not of the Mamoulian as rights (and film materials) were transferred from one studio to another.

The 1932 version was unavailable for decades, and when available, only in the shorter 82 minute version. While still not completely uncut the 97 minute version presented here is the finest quality that I've seen on the title.

Of the two versions, I personally find the Mamoulian to be of more interest. A pioneer of both early sound and camera movement, this version, while not in the same league budgetarily of the later is the more cinematic of the two.

Fortunately, the decision has been made for those interested in adding either to their libraries, as for $14 the disc offers both.

One interesting comparison to be made is the '32 Jekyll vs. the '31 Dracula. While one, some seven decades later, still has a cinematic brilliance, the other, although a classic, seems ancient by comparison.

These were the talents of Mr. Mamoulian.

RAH
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1932/1941)
post #2 of 37
12/14/03 at 9:58pm
Thank you for the reassuring words, Mr. Harris.

I once saw a beautiful print of the Mamoulian version on BBC2 in 1995 as part of their wonderful 'Forbidden Weekend' of notorious films, introduced by Alex Cox. Alas, I don't have the tape anymore, but all films screened were touted as being "the longest, most uncut versions that can be found".

Is the footage not on Warner's DVD available elsewhere or has it simply been lost to the ages?
Reply
post #3 of 37
12/14/03 at 11:17pm
Thread Starter 
The missing shot is apparently a nude scene with Miriam Hopkins--
just pre-code.

If I haven't searched for something personally, I prefer to make no representations regarding something being extant, as I have no viable information.

RAH
Reply
post #4 of 37
12/15/03 at 12:51am
The missing shot is apparently a nude scene with Miriam Hopkins--
just pre-code.

Yes, that scene has been discussed here and I know some of us including myself will be disapointed with its deletion from this dvd. However, I can't wait until my copy arrives.





Crawdaddy
Reply
post #5 of 37
12/15/03 at 5:57am
Just a little fun note I observed on my LD copy. At the beginning of the March version, when the camera is him going down the hallway and just as he reaches the mirror and walks into frame, look closely. You can see a man in a suit ducking under the camera, moving from your left to right.
Reply
post #6 of 37
12/15/03 at 7:07am
For years the 1932 DR. JEKYLL was surpressed by MGM in favor of their 1941 remake. They had purchased the earlier version from Paramount (as well as the 1920 Barrymore silent) in order to do their Spencer Tracy 1941 version.

MGM did not allow exhibition of the earlier versions, most notably the superior Mamoulian 1932 version, for which Fredric March had earned a Best Actor Oscar.

It wasn't until the early '70s that MGM finally rescued the
March version from oblivion, at the same time they had liberated other early film versions of properties they had remade (most notably ROBERTA and SHOW BOAT). At this time the only version of DR. JEKYLL that MGM distributed was a version edited by Paramount for theatrical reissue in the mid-thirties AFTER the enforcement of the "production code". It was this "short" version alone that circulated for nearly 20 years. The "long version" without the censor cuts was feared lost.

In 1989, MGM finally unearthed the "long version" for VHS, and eventual laserdisc release. However the film element used for this long version had damage, including splices during key scenes. It was also missing a few shots or scenes that were said to have been in the long version when it first premiered.

To add to the confusion, a shot of Miriam Hopkins obviously nude in bed which WASN'T in the long, original version, somehow ended up in the post-code reissue version! This defies logic, but is the truth.

According to several articles on the web, including some mentioned or linked earlier on this forum, what Warner has done is used the film elements from the short version to replace damaged sections of the long version element, inserted the shot of a more "nude" Hopkins that survived in the short version element, and finally restored the Paramount logo to the beginning of the feature.

Unlike Mr. Harris, I have not yet seen this release, but as a huge fan of the film, and of Mamoulian, I cannot wait.

Warner continues to astound with their superb treatment of classics, with an ever-increasing robust release schedule of them. This JEKYLL was an unexpected bonus, added to the '41 on a double feature as part of their promotion where they allowed consumers to vote as to which titles should be given a DVD release. Only the '41 was in voting contention, so imagine my delight when I heard they were adding the '32 version as well. 2 films for the price of 1, and quite a reasonable price at that. Now Mr. Harris advises that the transfers on both titles are quite formidable. I can't wait! Thank you, WB!

Now, if they'd only get rid of those awful, flimsy snapper cases! :wink:
Reply
post #7 of 37
12/15/03 at 7:44am
Quote:
Yes, that scene has been discussed here and I know some of us including myself will be disapointed with its deletion from this dvd



That shot isn't on the DVD? Then I'm cancelling my pre-order!

Just kidding. This is probably my most anticipated DVD right now.
Reply
post #8 of 37
12/15/03 at 1:23pm
I was eager for this having not seen either of these versions, and being a fan of classic horor. RAH just put the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned!

Can't wait to get this in my hands now!
Reply
post #9 of 37
12/15/03 at 11:16pm
Robert Harris said:

"The missing shot is apparently a nude scene with Miriam Hopkins--
just pre-code."

Roger Rollins said:

"In 1989, MGM finally unearthed the "long version" for VHS, and eventual laserdisc release. However the film element used for this long version had damage, including splices during key scenes. It was also missing a few shots or scenes that were said to have been in the long version when it first premiered.

To add to the confusion, a shot of Miriam Hopkins obviously nude in bed which WASN'T in the long, original version, somehow ended up in the post-code reissue version! This defies logic, but is the truth.

According to several articles on the web, including some mentioned or linked earlier on this forum, what Warner has done is used the film elements from the short version to replace damaged sections of the long version element, inserted the shot of a more "nude" Hopkins that survived in the short version element, and finally restored the Paramount logo to the beginning of the feature."

So...I'm a bit confused here. Is the nude shot there, or isn't it? According to Robert Harris, it isn't. The web articles must be wrong. Is there any footage in this new DVD that wasn't in the old VHS and laserdisc?
Reply
post #10 of 37
12/15/03 at 11:21pm
Thread Starter 
This is a correction to my earlier post.

While I had the time to sample the two Jekylls, and do a rudimentary search for the missing scene...

I missed it.

As far as I know, the version now released is complete and proper...

and beautiful.

RAH
Reply
post #11 of 37
12/16/03 at 3:59am
wow this is great news indeed and thanks for all the info.

This is another must buy for me.

Reply
post #12 of 37
12/16/03 at 4:25am
Great news for fans of Miriam Hopkins!
Can't wait to see more of her
although i owned the LD and don't recall any readily apparent nudity.
nothing even close to Tarzan And His Mate-style in-the-buff-ness.
the scenes with Ivy did have a nice pre-code suggestiveness though.

speaking of Miriam Hopkins,anyone know who owns the rights to These Three?
Reply
post #13 of 37
12/16/03 at 8:07am
Thread Starter 
These Three was (as I recall) a Goldwyn production, which would make it the property of MGM.

RAH
Reply
post #14 of 37
12/16/03 at 8:16am
Funny, this DVD just arrived at my doorstep today.

Now to figure out which version to watch first.
Reply
post #15 of 37
12/16/03 at 8:20am
Quote:
One interesting comparison to be made is the '32 Jekyll vs. the '31 Dracula. While one, some seven decades later, still has a cinematic brilliance, the other, although a classic, seems ancient by comparison.


A great observation. The '32 Jekyll and Hyde is one of the great horror films, and still seems remarkably fresh and "contemporary"! I can't wait to get hold of this, thanks for the good news!!
Reply
post #16 of 37
12/16/03 at 8:22am
Quote:
Now to figure out which version to watch first.


Ron, just MHO, but I categorically recommend you watch the '32 version first! The Tracy version may pale in comparison by watching it afterwards, but the first film is so vivid I think you'll appreciate having that be the one you are exposed to first.
Reply
post #17 of 37
12/16/03 at 8:33am
Ron, go for the 1932 version first.
Reply
post #18 of 37
12/16/03 at 11:23am
I completely forgot this was being released, so thank you for reminding me. I just ordered it and still can't believe the amazing price.

And yes, definitely watch the 1932 version first.

Chris
Reply
post #19 of 37
12/16/03 at 12:04pm
Hmm, I had honestly never heard of these films before (not a big student of pre-70s classic film) but you guys have piqued my interest. Might have to pick this up over the weekend.
Reply
post #20 of 37
12/16/03 at 12:42pm
Definitely watch the 1932 version first, I find it much superior to the 1941 version (And check out that amazing transformation effect...done in a single unedited take!)
Reply
post #21 of 37
12/16/03 at 1:05pm
This is great news ... I have seen the VHS version of the 1932/Frederic March version, put out by (I believe) Turner some years ago (prior to the Time-Warner merger). This version had quite a bit of restored footage

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

-- the POV tracking shot of Jekyll going to his class which had been missing ... this was famously copied by Jerry Lewis in "The Nutty Professor" --


but I don't remember a nude scene. It's been some time since I viewed this (I may not have it anymore) so I'm going from memory, but I am really hoping that they were able to fix one spot in particular:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

When March as Mr. Hyde is confronting Hopkins, she (feeling threatened) mentions that she knows an important man, Dr. Jekyll; he replies with much agitation "I'm Dr. Jekyll!" ... at least that's what I assume he says, because the print jumps and the audio drops out at just this crucial moment! Must have lost a couple of frames there; what's so bad is that it is when Hyde reveals his true identity!


Also to comment on the transformation scenes, this is well known, but:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The scenes when it appears that Jekyll transforms partially into Hyde in an uninterrupted take are famous examples of the use of red/green lighting, filters, and makeup to acheive a result not possible with color film. Not sure of the exact technique, but Tim Lucas describes a similar effect in Bava's "Black Sunday/The Mask of Satan" in his commentary on the Image DVD. Barbara Steele wears aging lines drawn on her face with red makeup, and is filmed using intense red light. The b&w film does not pick up the red makeup. Then the red light is turned down; at the same time green lights are turned up ... as the green light brightens, it causes the camera to register the red makeup as ever-deepening black, giving the illusion of lines appearing on the face as if by magic!


One more comment (mild spoiler):

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

This is the only version I'm aware of where the Doctor's name is pronounced "Jeek-ul", not "Jeck-ul". I wonder if they researched this and found out if this is what Stevenson intended???


Looking forward to getting this one
Reply
post #22 of 37
12/16/03 at 2:48pm
One interesting comparison to be made is the '32 Jekyll vs. the '31 Dracula. While one, some seven decades later, still has a cinematic brilliance, the other, although a classic, seems ancient by comparison.

Definitely!

Very pleased to hear this disc get's RH's blessing, and with a complete print no less...!
Reply
post #23 of 37
12/17/03 at 11:53pm
Robert, thanks for the clarification. Complete at last! Looks as though it's finally time to retire the old laserdisc...
Reply
post #24 of 37
1/1/04 at 11:55am
does anyone know if there are any reviews anywhere?.i have got this on pre order and cant wait to see it,especially the frederic march version as i have never seen it.
Reply
post #25 of 37
1/1/04 at 12:36pm
Glenn Erickson has a review at www.dvdtalk.com
Reply
post #26 of 37
1/1/04 at 12:48pm
Another at DVD Town
Reply
post #27 of 37
1/2/04 at 8:15am
Another review will be up at DVD Journal on Monday (in time for the disc's Tuesday street date).

In short: I can confirm all positive comments above. The '32 Mamoulian version is reason enough to get this disc. Plus it receives a splendid commentary track from fan/historian Greg Mank, who is enthusiastic, encyclopedic, and brings to bear a sense of fun. (If you've heard his commentary on Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein you know how good Mank is.) It's a shame there was no Best Supporting Actress Oscar in '32, 'cuz Miriam Hopkins might have taken it in a walk, although starry-eyed fans of Ms. Hopkins may be distressed at some of Mank's tales told about her on-set shenanigans.

The '41 version is a glossy MGM melodrama that's well made and delivers an A-list cast, but it's a buttoned-down, tepid retelling of Mamoulian's film that lacks its predecessor's visceral energy (and Spencer Tracy's Jekyll/Hyde duality is surprisingly muddled). Well worth watching, certainly, especially for luminous Ingrid Bergman, who was arguably too beautiful for the role of Ivy. For me it's simply a welcome extra on a disc that's all about the Mamoulian/March version.
Reply
post #28 of 37
1/2/04 at 9:17am
I cannot wait to finally see these two versions

Reply
post #29 of 37
1/2/04 at 9:24am
Quote:
Well worth watching, certainly, especially for luminous Ingrid Bergman, who was arguably too beautiful for the role of Ivy.


One of the movie theaters in my original hometown--Lexington, KY--had (and maybe still has) a publicity shot of Bergman from that film up on their wall of classic movie star shots. She's easily one of my favorite cinema beauties, and that was one of the best pictures I've ever seen of her.

(Woodhill cinemas, I think, for anyone living in that area who wants to check!)
Reply
post #30 of 37
1/2/04 at 2:52pm
How come Warner Bros now has the rights to the 1932 version when it was originally a Paramount film? I'm not aware of any other Paramount titles that have gone to Warner Bros.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1932/1941)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › A few words about the two Dr. Jekyll's...