Fredric March and Spencer Tracey both portrayed the lead in "Dr.Jekel and Mr.Hyde"-March in 31',Tracey in 41'..... The film has always been used as a barometer in both actors careers,used to show their different acting styles. I.T.W. is one of my favorite films.The two greatest actors of their time going head to head.Matinee Idol March-round and bald here and Tracey,older and grey. Their performance is awesome......
March was miscast. He's unable to suggest the spellbinder who ran for President three times. He's a caricature. Orson Welles would have been a better choice.
Son of the beach...everyone is entitiled to their own opinion..However,are you really that old enough to have watched what little film that is around with the actual Matthew Harrison Brady?I know there must be recordings of this Bombastic Orator....March and Tracey gave a virtual Master Class in acting.Their courtroom scenes are something to see. I was 14 the first time I watched this film.My Freshman History teacher screened,I.T.W.,12 Angry Men and To Kill a Mocking Bird.,to show us our countries Judicial System. At 14,I knew who Tracey was. Due to watching I.T.W. that year and then TCM becoming the best channel on TV the next year,I learned and appreciated the work of March...Fredrich March's performance in 1931's Jekel and Hyde is awesome.Tracey 10yrs later,in the same role sent a chill up my back. Judging the two against each other is hard to do- I.T.W. is so compelling to watch,because of the incinderary friction between the two real life adversaries.You must be familiar,IMHO,with both actors work,in order to appreciate their performance.ITW is 30yrs after March's performance in J&H. March and Tracey's performance struck me like lightning when I first saw ITW at age 14-30yrs later their performance still resonates with such force inside me. Son of the beach,I respect your opinion,but Perhaps Im a little biased,this was one of the first film classics I fell in love with.
Brady is supposed to be William Jennings Bryan, who was a left leaning populist religious man, who was also the most impressive orator of his day, at least in his youth.
I too, liked this movie in my youth. Today, I think it's weighted against Brady/Bryan. I also love the actor Frederic March, but not here. The part calls for a charismatic and perhaps bombastic orator type, which is why Orson Welles came to mind. In 1960, Welles still had that magnificent voice, and despite his dteriorated physical condition, could still suggest the man he once was. Think of his performance in "The Long Hot Summer".
Here's a Bryan quote:
"The nation is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights."
The guy who could say this was not the character portrayed by March.
The buzz about Fredric March's and Spencer Tracy's spread around the studio lot and Hollywood to the point that a lot of extras made their way to the set just to see the action. In one instance, the extras were applauding so much at one of March's dramatic speeches that they ruined the take by not waiting until the end. This is the reaction of fellow actors who were on set and had the privilege of seeing March's performance first hand.I think I'll rest on their opinion of his performance.
You missed the point. By that time WJB was a shadow of himself and a 19th century thinker. March is one of the great film actors of all-time and was along with Tracy magnificent in this film. One of the two finest double lead performances ever.
I agree March is great here. This is the Bryan of 1925 okay, not the "boy orator" of the 1896 Democratic convention, where his speech won him the presidential nomination. However, though he's older, balder, fatter, he's still intellectually the same man. The 36 year old William J Bryan of 1896 would have been as closed minded as to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the 65 year old was in 1925. The play/film is a reasonably fair "faction" of Bryan at Dayton in 1925 - though I think the "betrayal" of the preacher's daughter is fictional. But it serves to starkly illustrate the bad things even a fundamentally benevolent, caring man can do when his mind is shackled to dogmas which, in the final instant, are so important to him he will sacrifice anything and anyone to uphold/defend them.