MovieChat Forums > Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932) Discussion > A Better, More Monstrous Hyde Than Tracy...

A Better, More Monstrous Hyde Than Tracy Version

posted 14 years ago by webfix
6 replies | jump to latest

Comparing these two versions side by side on the double dvd, I think that the March version of Hyde is so much better than the Tracy version. I mean, March's transformation is much more monstrous, whereas the Tracy metamorphosis is hardly to a grotesque level, as he still looks too much like Jekyll even when the change is fully complete. I even prefer the Christopher Lee version, I, Monster, to the Tracy version.

I much prefer it when Hyde's face really does look monstrous, as opposed to when he just gets a bit of superficial black under the eyes and a few rotten teeth.

The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk

[–] mattohmss 13 years ago

As do I; it also helps disguise that Jekyll and Hyde are the same man -- having them be so close in appearance, as in the 1941 version, is ludicrous.

[–] webfix 13 years ago

I know. I totally agree with you. Another analogy would be when a lycanthrope changes into a werewolf that . . . well, doesn't really look like a werewolf much, save for a few hairs here and there!

The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk

[–] joshua_carpino 13 years ago

the tracy approach wasn't "ludicrous".it portrayed hyde as being a distorted mirror image of jekyll,an approach arguably more valid than having him turn into a deformed monkey.

[–] eek-a-mouse 13 years ago

I agree, though I still prefer this version over the Tracy one. My preference isn't simply based on the appearance of the two Hydes, but Fredric March's performance and most of all the atmosphere of the film.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

It may not be your preference but given Robert Louis Stevenson's own description of Hyde as troglodytic I don't see how the "deformed monkey" interpretation lacks validity. The ape-like appearance (with its implication that Jekyll has regressed to an earlier state of human) actually gives a rationale for Hyde's ugliness instead of just having him look that way for the sake of matching his personality, so if anything it adds a touch of plausibility. On top of that March really is unrecognizable as Hyde, unlike Tracy.

[–] millsey72 (10939) 2 years ago

But the best version overall is Abbott and Costello meet Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde