First Word

A Marmoulian film, with magnificent visuals and effects.

In this movie Jekyll is pronounced with long e: Jeek’l. Supposedly this is the authentic way.

Differences from the Stevenson story may first be outlined:

• Both Jekyll and his friend Lanyon are made to be much younger men. This is to set the stage for Jekyll’s passions
• An entirely new thread of “bad girl” Ivy is added; she becomes the pivot between Jekyll’s doctorly attentions and Hyde’s lust
• Another new thread of “good girl” Muriel, who is made the daughter of the originally minor figure Carew.
• The reason for Jekyll/Hyde’s demise is completely turned around.

As I mentioned in discussing the original story, Jekyll’s nurtured sins were originally not specified. Here, an extrapolation is made, so that it is not the culmination of a double mind, but rather the sexual pressure of a too-long postponed marriage to the good girl, so that the bad girl becomes the occasion for Jekyll to give in to his hemmed in passions. The barely-lidded boiling lab cauldron becomes a recurring symbol of this.

The actors in this movie had all gotten their chops during the silent era and on the stage, and a lot of melodramatic gesture and declamation spilled over into this production. I happen to like it– it gives it an operatic feel– but some readers may find it dated and annoying. No one I think will be able to deny that the acting is superb, however. Southern belle Miriam Hopkins as Ivy and Fredric March as the main character are particularly outstanding, but like Godfather, even the bit parts are well done.

I have two main criticisms at a philosophical level.

1. It is an evolutionary spin on the story, as Hyde becomes a neanderthal. As I argued elsewhere, this is not really true to Stevenson’s vision. If one is going to tamper with the story in such a basic way, I think it would be better to do one where the “good guy” is somewhat deformed, say by birth defect, and the bad persona takes on the body of a “beautiful person”. That would be a cognitive dissonance that would make a better point.

2. The evil of Hyde is identified as violating tradition. Lanyon declaims:

There is no help for you Jekyll. You’ve committed the supreme blasphemy. I warned you. I told you that no man could violate the traditions of his kind and not be damned…There’s no help for you here, or mercy beyond.

That there is no mercy for “violating the traditions of one’s kind” and that this is the “supreme blasphemy” marks this version as humanism in rank form.

But it is so well done, it is “must see.” The usual cautions of the risqué for films of this period applies.