That was supposed to be a rape?
"The Two Faces of Dr Jekyll" should fall into the category of a revisionist version of the original, 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', by Louis Stevenson. In this revisionist version, Mr. Hyde is a lot more handsome, fun-loving party animal than the repressed Dr. Jekyll.
Towards the ending of the movie, Mr. Hyde (Dr. Jekyll) confronts his two-timing wife, Kitty in an upstairs room of the high-class brothel entertainment palace and presumably rapes her. But when Kitty wakes up on the bed, she is still dressed in her underclothes. Only her black dress has been removed. You, the viewer, are supposed to get the idea that Hyde raped her. This seems odd, given that Kitty still has all her underclothes on and nothing private has been uncovered. But then you have to put all this into context. The movie's filming date is 1960. There was no way the censors of the time were going to permit anything more risque or revealing. If this movie was filmed in 2009, the director would be at liberty to just about show everything. Still, Kitty looks pretty hot stumbling about the room in that Victorian, push-up corset.
It might have been irony or a deliberate act of the film's director. When Kitty awoke on the bed after Hyde's assault, at first I thought Hyde had dressed her up to look like one of the brothel entertainer girls. It's possible the director was trying to draw a subtle metaphor, depicting Kitty as the whore she acted like.