Change Your Image
l-c-patka
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
A remake, just a little bit inferior to the 1931 one
This is more like a remake of the 1931 film than a new adaptation of the book with a novel approach. However, this bacame obvious only after the first act. The first act itself brought a few interesting moments. Jekyll here tries to cure an insane person, showing his good will and good nature. He is not just a mad scientist experimenting. That mad person went through some shock from an explosion and that's what turned him into a lunatic - which might be an influence of the famous case of Phineas Gage. And my impression was that maybe Freudian psychoanalysis might have been a bigger influence here than in the previous movie.
Jekyll makes the point at the dinner table that the good and bad side of the person is always together ("good and evil are so close as to be chained together in the soul") - and he wants to let the good side free. Instead, what he does eventually is letting the evil side loose. This reminded me of Pascal who said that those who want to be angels turn into beasts eventually. Jekyll's love was just too perfect. They even say that there is nothing evil in it. Maybe some play of the darker side of man would be needed to make it more balanced and less prone to temptations like the one coming from the girl that Jekyll meets? Maybe the shadow in us is needed to make life more adventureous? As the looney says to the priest: the one who thinks about progress inspired by pure moral role models "takes the fun out of life"... So the madman is prophetic when he says that if you want to put "Belzebub in his bottomless pit, he'll show you"...
I liked the sets of this movie, but the overall atmosphere wasn't that suspenseful, and it didn't have as experimental shots as the 1931 version. There are some good transformation scenes, but the rest of them is just repetetive and too slow. What's more interesting is that the transformation on two occasions is accompanied by some metaphorical montages. The first of these reminds the viewer of a lake where good sinks and evil emerges, after which there is a reference to one of Plato's allegories with a chariot, but here Jekyll/Hyde is riding a carriage where the horses are the two girls he is attracted to.
It's nice that Mr Hyde looks more humane here than in the earlier film, for he doesn't look as someone who would be immediately examined or put into a chamber of curiosities. However, he doesn't look that interesting either, and acts as the tamer version of Fredric March. Tracy, I think is better as a confused Jekyll. Now Ingrid Bergman is just fantastic in this flick, she stole the show for me. She reminded me of Brigitte Helm in Alraune - Dr Jekyll and Alraune herself, what an interesting couple that would make! As for the minor roles, Jekyll's too perfect fiancé is played well, and the butler is also an interesting supporting character.
This film is definitely worth watching, it's just that the 1931 version has more ideas and the title role is acted out more ingeniously. Oh, and one more thing: the studio behind this version tried to destroy the copies of the previous film, so that this one becomes more successful and prevails. I'm glad that they couldn't destoy all of them in their evil pursuit, and we can now judge both films and see that this one, while adds some nice aspects to the story, is perhaps a little bit too derivative.
Berkeley Square (1933)
Should've skipped the middle
I saw it happenning with old movies quite frequently that they start out with an interesting concept, then go totally boring for an hour or so just to be interesting at the end again. Same here.
This one had three things going for it: the montage about WWI, the scene where Standish tells everyone his honest opinion about them (including telling people that they're like characters from a Jane Austen novel), and the very last scene where a view of time borrowed from Boethius and other philosophers is coupled with an imafe of eternal love. In that scene, Standish reads Helen's epitath and it says that they shall be together eternally - in "God's time", in the timelessness of heaven. (As I gather, she committed suicide.) And he makes the bold step of breaking up with his fiancé. What a tear-jerking moment!
The movie could've been better if it featured scenes about Captain Standish living in the 20th century juxtaposed with the scenes from the 18th century. We learn that the good Captain has been drinking a lot in the modern world and he wasn't quite himself - but that's it. I would've been really interested in learning more about him. Also, the movie could've easily have a happy ending with Helen returning in the body of Standish's fiancé and the fiancé's mind traveling back to marry that old guy. But that would've been a completely different movie.
Furthermore, I would have liked to know more about how time travel worked here, how the ankh was involved, and how Standish knew that he's going to travel back in time. Bu everything is left mysterious, almost nothing is explained.
Leslie Howard played the two characters nicely, but I was absolutely irritated with what Heather Angel did with her eyes - going into reptilian mode several times.
At the end, it is hard to tell whether it was worth watching the whole movie or not, but after the last scene it really leaves the viewer moved and thinking at the same time. I am glad that even Lovecraft was impressed with this flick!