Pre-Order Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) (Warner Archive Collection) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[timk1041]

One thing I can say this has to be one of the most entertaining threads I have ever read. However, everyone must respect each other's opinions and thoughts on the different versions of the film or any other thing for that matter. Each person has different preferences.

 

[jdee28]

I was thinking that there might be some more censorship cuts to the film out there to be found, but if there aren't, or they've all been found, then great! Looking forward to seeing it on blu ray!

 

[CarlLaFong]

Preorder price on Amazon is down to $14.49!

 

[timk1041]

Preorder price on Amazon is down to $14.49!

For one day. Now up to $17.97.

 

[David Norman]

Appears Walmart realized they probably priced it wrong and fixed it

 

[Capt D McMars]

I have never ever "dumped" on the 1931 version. I like it. March gives a solid performance. So does Miriam Hopkins. I prefer the 1941 version. But if putting words in my mouth that I never said makes you feel justified in continuing your boorish behavior, go for it.

that's the main problem with text over hearing how the words are spoken...in texts it seems interpitation can be squewed...

 

[Capt D McMars]

No, because everyone said this one is far superior

Do I need to buy both?

Yes!!

 

[Capt D McMars]

I found it interesting in a time line sense, 1931 was just a year after Lon Chaney died. So two men stepped up to continue to inovate the makeup skills for the studios. In that year, Jack Pierce was doing both Dracula with Bela Lugosi and Frankenstein with Boris Karloff. Another budding makeup artist was Walter "Wally" Westmore that worked on Fredrick March's makeup in this film.
There must have been some competitive cross pollination, because the transformation scenes here with March and later Pierce's "on the spot" film technique was used with Lon Chaney Jr in Universals Wolfman films. And Westmore's technique was considered ground breaking at that time!!!

Was it Westmore's drive to out do Pierce or just to do it because he was able to? I guess with all of these films in production in the same year might have been an infulence in the application of the simian like presentation, rather than the more subtle rendisions done by John Barrymore or Spencer Tracy 10 years later in 1941. Although much less makeup was used in Tracy's case, they did give him false teeth, added hair and minor forhead and cheek latex to inhance the grotesque aspect of his alternate personna Hyde.

Although all of the films are of their time, they are all good in thier own way and as a collector, I love them all...thanks to all the studios and restoration techs driven dedication to restore and sustain thier studios archives for futrure generations to come.

As Mr F said recently, "Take care of the film Archives, and they will take care of you (Studio)". And by doing so, inturn we as collectors of these classic films, in what ever is your favorate format...we ALL benefit!!!

Wally Westmore went on to a much longer career, I've added his link here.

Wally Westmore - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Yes!!

I obtained a copy of the 1941 WAC release of DR. JEKYLL which I watched last week. I also have the 1931 version on preorder which I have never seen.

I really enjoyed the 1941 version, particularly for the fact that I have never seen Spencer Tracy in a role like that. When he became Hyde, it was difficult for me to accept that was actually Spencer Tracy playing that character. It was a remarkable transformation.

This is the second film I have ever seen Ingrid Bergman in and she's beautifully mesmerizing. Hard to think that in two years she would be starring opposite Bogart in Casablanca.

Yeah, I really liked this film and am looking forward to comparing it to the earlier Frederic March production.

 

[aPhil]

I found it interesting in a time line sense, 1931 was just a year after Lon Chaney died. So two men stepped up to continue to inovate the makeup skills for the studios. In that year, Jack Pierce was doing both Dracula with Bela Lugosi and Frankenstein with Boris Karloff. Another budding makeup artist was Walter "Wally" Westmore that worked on Fredrick March's makeup in this film.
There must have been some competitive cross pollination, because the transformation scenes here with March and later Pierce's "on the spot" film technique was used with Lon Chaney Jr in Universals Wolfman films.

Pierce really did the "on the spot" technique in 1935's Werewolf of London
(and I'm referring to the sequence when Henry Hull is sitting alone and we get the single continuously-running-camera shot —
Not the time when he walks and passes by columns).
If I remember correctly, they also do the continuously running camera on Henry Hull's arm when he is under the "moonlight lamp".

The Lon Chaney Jr effects were dissolves and not the type of effect employed when Frederic March changes to Hyde in a single-shot with a continuously-running-camera (while looking into a mirror).

 

[Robert Crawford]

I obtained a copy of the 1941 WAC release of DR. JEKYLL which I watched last week. I also have the 1931 version on preorder which I have never seen.

I really enjoyed the 1941 version, particularly for the fact that I have never seen Spencer Tracy in a role like that. When he became Hyde, it was difficult for me to accept that was actually Spencer Tracy playing that character. It was a remarkable transformation.

This is the second film I have ever seen Ingrid Bergman in and she's beautifully mesmerizing. Hard to think that in two years she would be starring opposite Bogart in Casablanca.

Yeah, I really liked this film and am looking forward to comparing it to the earlier Frederic March production.

I'm happy you liked the 1941 version. It's a good movie despite some people disagreeing with that POV. I'm going to wait to view both Blu-rays until next month which is only 10 days from now.

 

[Robert Crawford]

that's the main problem with text over hearing how the words are spoken...in texts it seems interpitation can be squewed...

It happens to me all of the time.

 

[jbirdp]

View attachment 152233 View attachment 152234 View attachment 152235

Marco — I LOVE these. Are the last two Mondos? Would you please link your Pinterest page? Thanks so much.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

I obtained a copy of the 1941 WAC release of DR. JEKYLL which I watched last week. I also have the 1931 version on preorder which I have never seen.

I really enjoyed the 1941 version, particularly for the fact that I have never seen Spencer Tracy in a role like that. When he became Hyde, it was difficult for me to accept that was actually Spencer Tracy playing that character. It was a remarkable transformation.

This is the second film I have ever seen Ingrid Bergman in and she's beautifully mesmerizing. Hard to think that in two years she would be starring opposite Bogart in Casablanca.

Yeah, I really liked this film and am looking forward to comparing it to the earlier Frederic March production.

Basically one is an award winning horror film and the other a psychological thriller. And I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Pierce really did the "on the spot" technique in 1935's Werewolf of London
(and I'm referring to the sequence when Henry Hull is sitting alone and we get the single continuously-running-camera shot —
Not the time when he walks and passes by columns).
If I remember correctly, they also do the continuously running camera on Henry Hull's arm when he is under the "moonlight lamp".

The Lon Chaney Jr effects were dissolves and not the type of effect employed when Frederic March changes to Hyde in a single-shot with a continuously-running-camera (while looking into a mirror).

I just thought that this "Chaney-esque" makup technique was in overdrive in 1931. Later, with WOL it got more and more refined, as the makeup artists became more cumfortable with these innovations.

 

[Thomas T]

I really enjoyed the 1941 version, particularly for the fact that I have never seen Spencer Tracy in a role like that. When he became Hyde, it was difficult for me to accept that was actually Spencer Tracy playing that character. It was a remarkable transformation.

This is the second film I have ever seen Ingrid Bergman in and she's beautifully mesmerizing. Hard to think that in two years she would be starring opposite Bogart in Casablanca.

Glad you were able to appreciate the subtlety of Tracy's performance.

Only the second film you've ever seen Ingrid Bergman in? Then Mr. Epstein, you must check out Gaslight (her first Oscar winning performance), Anastasia (her second Oscar winning performance), Murder On The Orient Express (her third Oscar winning performance as well as Spellbound, Notorious, Saratoga Trunk, Journey To Italy, Indiscreet, Inn Of The Sixth Happiness and Autumn Sonata. Quite a remarkable actress.

 

[Matt Hough]

Glad you were able to appreciate the subtlety of Tracy's performance.

Only the second film you've ever seen Ingrid Bergman in? Then Mr. Epstein, you must check out Gaslight (her first Oscar winning performance), Anastasia (her second Oscar winning performance), Murder On The Orient Express (her third Oscar winning performance as well as Spellbound, Notorious, Saratoga Trunk, Journey To Italy, Indiscreet, Inn Of The Sixth Happiness and Autumn Sonata. Quite a remarkable actress.

Don't forget The Bells of St. Mary's.

 

[bujaki]

Don't forget The Bells of St. Mary's.

A more beautiful nun there never was.

 

[Thomas T]

A more beautiful nun there never was.

She was lovely but she has a lot competition: Deborah Kerr, Sophia Loren, Julie Andrews, Jessica Lange, Mary Tyler Moore, Raquel Welch, Vanessa Redgrave, Loretta Young, Joan Collins, Meg Tilly, Susan Sarandon, Jodie Foster, Amy Adams, Celeste Holm, Shirley MacLaine etc.

Personally I'd vote for Audrey Hepburn (The Nun's Story).

 

[bujaki]

She was lovely but she has a lot competition: Deborah Kerr, Sophia Loren, Julie Andrews, Jessica Lange, Mary Tyler Moore, Raquel Welch, Vanessa Redgrave, Loretta Young, Joan Collins, Meg Tilly, Susan Sarandon, Jodie Foster, Amy Adams, Celeste Holm, Shirley MacLaine etc.

Personally I'd vote for Audrey Hepburn (The Nun's Story).

Kerr, Holm and Hepburn round up my top 4.
And Kerr donned the habit twice, making her twice as lovely.
But not one of them played against any Mr. Hyde. Just la bella Bergman.