Which portrayed the title character better, and which was the better movie? I thought March's performance was the better of the two, but that Lana Turner made Tracy's version just as good a movie.
shareSpence's Hyde is much errie and evil. Fred March is the better Jekyll and Spence is the much better Hyde.
shareSpencer Tracy is the best by far, in my humble opinion. His acting, more than the subtle makeup, showed the evil in Hyde.
X
http://X-Evolutionist.com/
http://X-Evolutionist.spaces.live.com/
I'd say Frederick March but Spencer Tracey did a fine job as well. The one thing that I liked about the 1932 version is that Hyde is more of a monster and less of a man, fitting more firmly in the horror genre. The 1941 version did a nice job of changing the tone and making the film different enough that it was still entertaining and a bit scary.
Both films are underrated.
The way I see it, is that we weren't retreating, we were just attacking in a new direction.
That's a good point. However, I personally think it is more scary to know that it is a "man" and not a "monster" that is out of control, and so I prefer Tracy.
X
http://X-Evolutionist.com/
http://X-Evolutionist.spaces.live.com/
[deleted]
I liked the 1932 version MUCH better and think that March was by far the better Jeckyll AND Hyde. Lana Turner, IMO, was flat and was the weak link in the 1941 version. All I can say after watching the 1941 version is: "You.... Should.... see me dance the polka..." (which was a really nice touch)
My DVDs http://squid-vicious.dvdaf.com/owned?rc=1
1. Frederic March
2. John Barrymore
3. Spencer Tracy
Tracy is a wonderful actor, and he grows with the role. Also, it is psychologically interesting that his Jekyll and his Hyde are so relatively alike physically - this very much stresses the two sides of one person thematics.
Yet, Stevenson's novel clearly describes Hyde as simian which March with that outrageous make-up brings out so much better. Hyde is supposed to positively delight in his new-found strength and vigour, and March is simply dynamite here.
Another thing: the way March (like Barrymore) plays Jekyll you sense something dangerous ahead, that he really is playing with fire, it's a sort of hubris. And the scene where he breaks down and breaks with his fiance is very raw and emotional in the 1931 version (I believe it was reedited and only recently restored). There's nothing comparable in the 1941 version - Tracy seems almost pedestrian at times, even as Hyde.
I love the performances of both March and Tracy.
Regarding the novel, Hyde is never really described too specifically. Stevenson uses various characters to give an overall physical impression of Hyde: a near-dwarfish small man with a pale complexion and a 'displeasing' smile, his voice a husky whisper. He is said (by Jekyll) to be a young man, his hands a bit hairy and 'chorded', his demeanor at times 'apelike.' The character of Enfield says that Hyde gives off a strong impression of physical deformity, but Enfield is unable to pinpoint exactly how Hyde is deformed. These non-specific impressions allow the reader's imagination to fill in the details in their mind's eye. What Stevenson communicates strongly is that everyone who comes into contact with Hyde have an instantaneous, reactionary loathing to him. They are instinctively sensing his totally evil nature.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Fredric March by far in both roles. Tracy was just AWFUL as Jekyll and as Hyde.
shareI think Frederic March is the winner for me...
But I do feel that Tracy's Hyde is a lot of better than many have given him credit for. He's somewhat average as Jekyll but he shows his acting chops as Hyde - quite why he felt embarrassed by his performance is beyond me.
"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino
March for me gave the better performance in the title role, he was really chilling and just outstanding. I for one found Spencer Tracy too restrained as Mr Hyde. As for the better film, it is the 1931 film for me.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)