Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

Directed by Rouben Mamoulian

Screenplay by Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Hath, based on the novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson

Runtime: 1 hr, 36 min

 

Ah, Jekyll and Hyde: the classic twist ending that people forget was in fact a twist ending.  The strange case of Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde is so ingrained in our culture, almost synonymous with “multiple personality” disorders, that it’s easy to forget that the Robert Louis Stevenson work was not so much a horror story, but a mystery.  Granted, the original story is not very cinematic in that regard, so most adaptations just make the “Jekyll-is-Hyde” conclusion the starting point of the story, as is the case with the first film of Classic Horror Month.

Directed by Rouben Mamoulian, the 1931 version of the tale stars Fredric March and a heap of makeup as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Jekyll appears to have it all; he’s a respected scientist and lecturer and he’s engaged to the lovely Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart).  Yet there’s a scientific enterprise which is consuming his efforts.  Jekyll makes a concoction which can separate the bad in a man from the good.  Long story short, he drinks the potion and becomes his concentrated evil, Hyde.  No surprise there.

What may be a bit surprising is how much this adaptation changes from the Stevenson text.  For example, Muriel and the temptress Ivy (Miriam Hopkins) are not in the text—in fact, the number of female leads in the book is zero.  Meanwhile, the book’s narrator and detective, Mr. Utterson, is only mentioned in passing and I don’t think he has one line of dialogue.  And then there are the confusing changes to Danvers Carew (Halliwell Hobbes), turned from an elderly Parliament member who exists to get murdered to a stubborn general keeping Jekyll and his daughter from marrying earlier.

Aside from the alterations to Carew, these changes are mostly justified for the page-to-screen adaptation.  After all, following Mr. Utterson’s quest to compare handwriting would likely not make for thrilling cinema.  At any rate, most of the action would have to take place off-screen, and if the filmmakers were really being faithful to the text, then the whole ending would be revealed via a series of letters.  The film medium just wouldn’t support that very well.  The change in perspective and the addition of romances make the story more visually oriented, which is fine in my book.

Of course, the key is whether these changes actually work.  Fortunately, they do.  Muriel as a character may be a bit on the bland side, but she is relatable in her worries regarding what’s gotten into Henry as of late.  Similarly, while Hobbes’ performance as her father tends toward one note (anger), he does provide some additional conflict to the story.  Meanwhile, while Ivy, a beleaguered bar singer, is probably expendable plot-wise, she is able to bring out both the nobility--and the baseness—in Dr. Jekyll.  Yeah, two minutes with Ivy is enough to demonstrate that this movie was pre-Code.

However, the scene stealer is, appropriately, March’s Jekyll and Hyde routine.  As the former, he is a gentleman and compassionate, but always with an undercurrent of impatience for those around him.  March makes it clear that Jekyll could in fact possess an interior Hyde.  And when that dwarfish monster is set loose, so is March’s more hammy side.  A lot of the character may be brought out in the makeup and transformation sequences, but March himself is so lustful and lively that it’s hard not to get involved in the performance.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is certainly a fun movie to watch, and on that merit alone it is worth watching.  However, it must be said that the film is not particularly frightening or suspenseful.  Given that we already know the twist and can’t be scared by the implications it has for humanity, any fear factor must be found in the atmosphere or the plotting—what is Hyde going to do next?  There certainly is build-up, with Hyde lusting after Ivy and making her life hell, but there’s little payoff involved, and other incidents are similarly wanting.  Let’s just say this film is not scream-inducing.

Then again, it could easily be that modern audiences just have different standards for what constitutes horror.  Hell, given how good the makeup work on March looks for 1931, that alone might have been a frightening sequence.  Further, the way the film is shot does give it a certain off-kilter feel.  Mamoulian and cinematographer Karl Struss love close-ups of people eyes, which is nicely eerie touch.  And really, the source material is not especially scary, so it’s not as if they failed in that regard.  Given what Mamoulian and crew had to work with, the finished product is fine enough scary flick.

I will say that at 96 minutes, the film does come off as a bit padded.  There are only so many times that we can see Jekyll show up late/not at all for a Carew affair before it feels repetitive.  Yet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is never a bore to watch, either.  It moves at its own pace, tells its own story and delivers its own scares.  It’s not a masterwork of horror or psychological drama, but it is a damn fine film nonetheless.  If you’d like some classic-lit based classic horror this Halloween, then this would be a good bet.