Pre-Order Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) (Blu-ray) (Warner Archive Collection) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases

 

[timk1041]

Great artwork!

 

[Robert Crawford]

The Amazon Link is "active".

 

[Reed Grele]

Pre-Ordered.

When author W. Somerset Maugham visited the set during the filming, he supposedly watched a bit of Spencer Tracy's performance and asked sardonically, "Which one is he now, Jekyll or Hyde?"

 

[Richard Kaufman]

Ugh ... wants this? We want Freddie March on blu!

 

[lukejosephchung]

Ugh ... wants this? We want Freddie March on blu!

It's coming in time for Halloween...

 

[benbess]

I confess I haven't yet seen the March version. But this movie is a star-studded A-level production. My impression is that MGM made relatively few horror movies, but when they did they really went all-out to give those they did make the spectacular and polished look the studio was known for. But maybe especially because of the high production values and big stars, from my memory of it this movie is really horrifying at times. The dream sequence in this movie is especially surreal and frightening. I plan to pick up this blu-ray as soon as it comes out. I think it's one of the most disturbing Hollywood movies of the 1940s. I could almost imagine the studio bosses saying when they first screened it: "What the heck is this!"—or something more colorful. According to Ingrid Bergman, she was originally cast as the "good woman," but lobbied the director to change places with Lana Turner. Bergman was seemingly happy to somewhat shatter her early image of excessive innocence and goodness in Hollywood with this movie, in part to get more complex roles.

 

[Kanny Daye]

Will the Blu-Ray have the full uncut version restored? Different / longer versions have been shown on British and German TV which include scenes which are absent from all of Warners DVD releases so far:

Longer version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) shown on German television

Apparently the German television channel ARD has once (Feb. 15, 2011) shown a cut of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde cut running approx. 115 mins. - longer than the cut released on R1 DVD, for instance as a double feature with the 1932 version. Apparently this version can be identified by a shot near the...

www.hometheaterforum.com

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Comparison: DVD Version - German Free TV) - Movie-Censorship.com

Comparison: DVD Version - German Free TV

www.movie-censorship.com

 

[Capt D McMars]

Pre-Ordered.

When author W. Somerset Maugham visited the set during the filming, he supposedly watched a bit of Spencer Tracy's performance and asked sardonically, "Which one is he now, Jekyll or Hyde?"

Y

es!!!

 

[Capt D McMars]

It's coming in time for Halloween...

I'd love to see a box set, like they did with Prisoner of Zenda!!!

 

[Kanny Daye]

Nowhere a word about the cuts and what's the Blu-Ray version is going to be. The AFI catalogue provides some intresting information:

According to information in the file on the film in the MPAA/PCA Collection at the AMPAS Library, when the first script was submitted to the Hays Office on 11 Nov 1940, M-G-M encountered a few problems with both dialogue and story. The line assigned "Hyde," when speaking to "Ivy," "I'm hurting you because I like to hurt you," was deemed unacceptable because of its "definite suggestion of sadism," and it was indicated to M-G-M that there should be no suggestion of a rape of Ivy by Hyde. The script was approved, following some minor changes, on 5 Feb 1941.

After completion of the film, the Hays Office raised strong objections to portions of Peter Ballbusch's two montage sequences, which take place just after Jekyll turns into Hyde. In the first montage, the office requested the removal of several minor shots, plus the shot in which "Tracy is shown lashing the two girls" and a mention of the 23rd Psalm. In the second montage, the studio was told to delete "All scenes having to do with the swan and the girl, and the stallion and the girl." The first montage was edited so that in the released film there are no shots of either "Ivy" or "Bea" receiving lashes, but there are medium close-up shots of "Hyde" using a whip. There were no words from the 23rd Psalm in the montage, but "Poole" recites the first lines, "The Lord is my shepherd..." at the end of the film. In the second montage, all of the required eliminations were made. No serious censorship problems arose after the film's initial release, but according to a DV article on 17 Feb 1955, the picture was banned in Memphis by "film censor czar Lloyd T. Binford" because "Miss Bergman is an immoral woman," a reference to a scandal that surrounded Bergman's relationship with Italian director Roberto Rossellini.

AFI|Catalog

In London, in 1887, prominent physician Henry Jekyll incurs the ire of his older colleagues because of his experiments and views on the possibility of separating the good and evil aspects of man's nature. Harry is deeply in love with Beatrix Emery, the daughter of Sir Charles Emery, who likes...

catalog.afi.com

The American length July 17, 1941 is given with 11.420 feet = 3487 metres = 127'27 (24 fps) / 122'21 (25 fps)

So it's easy to see: when the film was released in European countries after the war, the continental versions did not have the American censorship cuts.

 

[Kanny Daye]

Here are all contemporary censorship records I have access to:

USA (17.07.1941): 11420 feet = 3487 metres = 127'27 (24 fps) / 122'21 (25 fps)

UK (07.10.1941): 11371 feet = 3466 metres = 126‘40 (24 fps) / 121’37 (25 fps)

France (12.07.1946): 10974 feet = 3345 metres = 122’16 (24 fps) / 117’22 (25 fps)

Italy (08.11.1946): 10970 feet = 3344 metres = 122’13 (24 fps) / 117’20 (25 fps)

Netherlands (08.01.1948): 10957 feet = 3340 metres = 122’05 (24 fps) / 117’12 (25 fps)

Germany (??.??.1949): 11472 feet = 3497 metres = 127'49 (24 fps) / 122'42 (25 fps)

Austria (24.05.1949): 10918 feet = 3328 metres = 121'38 (24 fps) / 116'46 (25 fps)

Germany (TV print ARD): 10813 feet = 3296 metres = 120’28 (24 fps) / 115’39 (25 fps)

Warner DVD master (UK 10.04.2004): 10114 feet = 3083 metres = 112’41 (24 fps) / 108’10 (25 fps)



Difference USA 1941 - Warner DVD master 2004: 1325 feet = 404 metres = 14’46 (24 fps) / 14’11 (25 fps)

Difference USA 1941 - German TV print ARD: 626 feet = 191 metres = 6’59 (24 fps) / 6’42 (25 fps)

 

[Kanny Daye]

I don't know why Warner only distributed this truncated version for so many years and which kinds of footage of the film Warner has in its archives. But the uncut version at least has always been residing at the BFI, which provides its holdings transparently in its database:

35mm Dupe Negative - Nitrate - Combined - 11400 Feet - Stock date: 1947 - - C-43124
Master - Restricted access to preserved film

Collections Search | BFI | British Film Institute

collections-search.bfi.org.uk

Releasing the full uncut version would be the No. 1 sales and promotion argument for this Blu-Ray. So its very irritating that for the moment you find nill and nothing anywhere about, what's this release will going to be...

 

[Capt D McMars]

I don't know why Warner only distributed this truncated version for so many years and which kinds of footage of the film Warner has in its archives. But the uncut version at least has always been residing at the BFI, which provides its holdings transparently in its database:

35mm Dupe Negative - Nitrate - Combined - 11400 Feet - Stock date: 1947 - - C-43124
Master - Restricted access to preserved film

Collections Search | BFI | British Film Institute

collections-search.bfi.org.uk

Releasing the full uncut version would be the No. 1 sales and promotion argument for this Blu-Ray. So its very irritating that for the moment you find nill and nothing anywhere about, what's this release will going to be...

For those of us that collect phisical medium for personal collections this would be a no brainer, unless WAC is blocking the green light on this edition? Aquiring a BD or 4K edition of the uncut film would be a feather in the cap of BFI and Warners...

 

[Nick*Z]

I confess I haven't yet seen the March version. But this movie is a star-studded A-level production. My impression is that MGM made relatively few horror movies, but when they did they really went all-out to give those they did make the spectacular and polished look the studio was known for. But maybe especially because of the high production values and big stars, from my memory of it this movie is really horrifying at times. The dream sequence in this movie is especially surreal and frightening. I plan to pick up this blu-ray as soon as it comes out. I think it's one of the most disturbing Hollywood movies of the 1940s. I could almost imagine the studio bosses saying when they first screened it: "What the heck is this!"—or something more colorful. According to Ingrid Bergman, she was originally cast as the "good woman," but lobbied the director to change places with Lana Turner. Bergman was seemingly happy to somewhat shatter her early image of excessive innocence and goodness in Hollywood with this movie, in part to get more complex roles.
View attachment 132572

I have always believed the Tracy version was exceptionally underrated and unfairly maligned. March's version is, undeniably, definitive of the character. His transformation sequence is utterly bone chilling. But the MGM version has Metro's immaculate gloss and gorgeous cinematography with that yen for foggy London. A true nightmare. Tracy's Hyde is more the devolution of a man into his more primal and beastly self. March's Hyde makes that transformation literal. He truly morphs from man into beast. Tracy merely brings out the beast in the man. It's very effective - but a wholly different interpretation of the part. I love them both.

 

[Capt D McMars]

I have always believed the Tracy version was exceptionally underrated and unfairly maligned. March's version is, undeniably, definitive of the character. His transformation sequence is utterly bone chilling. But the MGM version has Metro's immaculate gloss and gorgeous cinematography with that yen for foggy London. A true nightmare. Tracy's Hyde is more the devolution of a man into his more primal and beastly self. March's Hyde makes that transformation literal. He truly morphs from man into beast. Tracy merely brings out the beast in the man. It's very effective - but a wholly different interpretation of the part. I love them both.

I enjoy each of the portrails, each actor brings somethng differnt to the role. Wether its John Barrymore's silent version, which was his adaptation from the stage play. Or the Fredrich March's portrail, with him eluding to the privious transitional portrail, while still making it his own.
Spencer Traceys take was great, as only he could flesh it out, and as you say underrated. I love to watch titles, like this one, in sequence. Viewing from the earliest and moving forward...I just recieved the Indicator Edition 2K restored I Monster 1971, Hammers take on the subject...and Christopher Lee dons the mantle of Hyde. Not as visually transformitive, in this case it was not externally as much as it is internally, still an amzing perfomance as well!!

 

[Alan Tully]

I've never seen the 1931 version & it was probably way back in the sixties when I saw the 1941 version, so I've ordered the double DVD set s/h from eBay, only a couple of pounds, & I'll see if I like them. A WAC Blu-ray to the UK costs around $30 these days, so just as well to check.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I enjoy each of the portrails, each actor brings somethng differnt to the role. Wether its John Barrymore's silent version, which was his adaptation from the stage play. Or the Fredrich March's portrail, with him eluding to the privious transitional portrail, while still making it his own.
Spencer Traceys take was great, as only he could flesh it out, and as you say underrated. I love to watch titles, like this one, in sequence. Viewing from the earliest and moving forward...I just recieved the Indicator Edition 2K restored I Monster 1971, Hammers take on the subject...and Christopher Lee dons the mantle of Hyde. Not as visually transformitive, in this case it was not externally as much as it is internally, still an amzing perfomance as well!!

Small correction. I, Monster was made by Amicus not Hammer. An easy mistake to make since Amicus was Hammers biggest competition in England.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Will the Blu-Ray have the full uncut version restored? Different / longer versions have been shown on British and German TV which include scenes which are absent from all of Warners DVD releases so far:

Longer version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) shown on German television

Apparently the German television channel ARD has once (Feb. 15, 2011) shown a cut of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde cut running approx. 115 mins. - longer than the cut released on R1 DVD, for instance as a double feature with the 1932 version. Apparently this version can be identified by a shot near the...

www.hometheaterforum.com

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Comparison: DVD Version - German Free TV) - Movie-Censorship.com

Comparison: DVD Version - German Free TV

www.movie-censorship.com

My copy arrived today and I'll watch Tuesday or Wednesday.

Will report back on the version included - though the case lists it as 113 minutes, so I would expect the US version.

I also would expect the same version on the 2004 DVD, which is the 113-minute cut, I guess.

 

[Richard M S]

My copy arrived today and I'll watch Tuesday or Wednesday.

Will report back on the version included - though the case lists it as 113 minutes, so I would expect the US version.

I also would expect the same version on the 2004 DVD, which is the 113-minute cut, I guess.

I'll wait for confirmation, but if it is the same as the 2004 DVD, then I cancel my Amazon pre-order.