A Few Words About A few words about the two Dr. Jekyll's... (1 Viewer)

[obscurelabel]

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


-- 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:


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:


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):


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

 

[Jim Peavy]

Definitely!

Very pleased to hear this disc get's RH's blessing, and with a complete print no less...!

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Robert, thanks for the clarification. Complete at last! Looks as though it's finally time to retire the old laserdisc...

 

[steve blake]

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.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Glenn Erickson has a review at www.dvdtalk.com

 

[JustinCleveland]

Another at DVD Town

 

[MarkBourne]

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.

 

[oscar_merkx]

I cannot wait to finally see these two versions

 

[Haggai]

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!)

 

[Douglas R]

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.

 

[Paul_Scott]

For me it's simply a welcome extra on a disc that's all about the Mamoulian/March version.

i would hazzard to say that the majority of people picking up this disc will probably share that sentiment (i know i do), and thats why it surprises (and disappoints) me that the cover art to the snapper doesn't play up the March version and just have a tag that the other is also included.
from a sales point, i think it would make for a stronger looking product.

its no bid deal as i can always make my own jacket for it, but it is a surprise.

 

[obscurelabel]

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.
[/b]

See Roger Rollins's note in this thread ... MGM purchased the Paramount version when they did their version; Warners owns most/all of the MGM catalog from this era. MGM also did this (purchasing another studio's film) with the British film Gaslight (1940) when they remade it (with Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer) in 1944 ... in that case they destroyed what they thought were all of the prints (some did survive).

 

[Roger Rollins]

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.

Virtually all sound Paramount features released before October 31, 1949 belong to Universal, through MCA's purchase of those films in 1956.

However the deal couldn't include the films Paramount had already sold outright to other parties prior to that transaction.

Warner Bros. is releasing the 1932 JEKYLL by virtue of its ownership Turner/MGM library. MGM had purchased the '32 JEKYLL from Paramount in the late '30s for the purposes of remaking it. They indeed surpressed distribution of the earlier version (in favor of the Tracy remake) until the early '70s, when the '32 was finally liberated.

Through its Turner/MGM library, Warner also owns a few-odd other Paramount titles due to purchase for remake purposes. MGM purchased both MAKE ME A STAR (1932) and THE SQUAW MAN (1914) as both were remade, and now Warner has the originals. WB itself purchased the 1933 Paramount Gary Cooper vehicle ONE SUNDAY AFTERNOON which was remade as THE STRAWBERRY BLONDE.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I've had this disc for about a week, and I'll reiterate all of the positive things said in the reviews. The '32 version has never looked better on home video, and to finally see(and hear) some of the missing pieces is a real treat. Greg Mank's audio commentary is outstanding and entertaining; Mank is one of the best writers around on classic horror cinema, and he was an inspired choice to do the audio commentary.
The '41 version looks nice, but I haven't watched the whole thing yet. The real star of this package is the restored Mamoulian version, one of the finest horror films ever made.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Another great review:

http://fangoria.com/ghastly_review.php?id=1790[/url]

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I just watched this new disc and am very grateful to WB for putting both films out.

However, I was wondering if someone (Mr. Harris, perhaps?) can explain if it could have been possible to better touch up the imperfections of the March version? Even if the negative was no longer useful, couldn't a painstaking frame by frame enhancement remove all the speckles and scratches?
I wouldn't suggest this for just any film, but the Mamoulian Classic is worthy of it.

I agree that this represents the best the Fredric March film has ever looked, and it will certainly suffice, but while it was very sharp I was wondering if the blemishes and other markings could have been eliminated...

 

[Jeff_CusBlues]

I ordered this film and watched it last week. I want to thank Mr. Harris (and everyone else) for the recommendation. Watching these two films was a very nice experience. Especially the 1931 version which I had never seen. One comment: The Miriam Hopkins nude scene is discussed at length and while the bedroom scene is very risque for it's day, I would not consider it a nude scene. Just my opinion.