Film of the Book: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Two versions…

Starring Fredric March and directed by Rouben Mamoulian (1932)
Starring Spencer Tracy and directed by Victor Fleming (1941)



(I’m linking this post to the Movie Scientists Blogathon being held jointly by Christina Wehner and Silver Screenings. Follow the link to find your way to lots of great reviews of scientists in films – The Good, The Mad, The Lonely. I’m slotting Dr Jekyll into the Mad category…)

From the book review:

A man and a child accidentally bump into each other at a street corner – a normal everyday incident. But when the child falls down, the man deliberately tramples over her, ignoring her screams of pain. When he is stopped by passers-by, he shows no remorse. This is the reader’s first introduction to Mr Hyde, a man who has no obvious deformity but gives off an air so repellent that strangers passing him in the street shudder without knowing why. But this man has some kind of hold over the eminently respectable and well-known scientist, Dr Jekyll, who not only pays compensation for Hyde’s actions, but also gives him the run of his own house, and has made out his will in Hyde’s favour, leaving him everything should Jekyll die… or disappear.

You can read the full book review by clicking here.


Film of the Book


In my review of the book, I mentioned a few things that made the story work so well, and even as I did, I could see that some of them wouldn’t work at all well on film. So I anticipated that the basic story would be changed, and decided that I would be looking to see how well the films stuck to the spirit rather than the actual plot.

London fog is a major character in the book, beautifully described and working both to give a scary atmosphere and as a metaphor for the darkness hidden within each human soul. I was disappointed to see that neither film made real use of this. Each shows the fog at one point and March makes a mention of it in the 1932 version, but it doesn’t ever get used to obscure acts of wickedness or to show London as a place where viciousness lives side by side with respectability. Interestingly, when I read London Fog recently, Corton mentioned that the fog created for use in films used to make cast and crew feel ill, so I guess directors probably chose to use it sparingly. But I missed it.

Rose Hobart and Fredric March
Rose Hobart and Fredric March

In fact, neither film gave a particularly atmospheric picture of London at all. I suspect they were both made mainly in the studio, and anachronisms abound – in dress, speech, manners. The sets are kept limited, for cost reasons presumably, so there is little prowling around dark alleyways. The Tracy film does better here, showing some contrast between the ultra respectable areas and the seamier side of life. But overall the films both rely more on dialogue and acting than on creating visual atmosphere.

Spencer Tracy and Lana Turner
Spencer Tracy and Lana Turner

The book gives very little indication of what Mr Hyde’s vices actually consist of and this works perfectly in written form, leaving the reader to her/his own imagination. Clearly it would never work in a film though. The 1941 film is obviously based on the 1932 version, so both have gone for the same addition to the story line – the introduction of two beautiful women, one the fiancée of Dr Jekyll, the other a prostitute (1932) or good-time girl (1941) who becomes Hyde’s unwilling mistress and major victim. In both cases this works brilliantly as a way to show the contrast between his good and evil sides and his struggle once evil begins to take him over.

The 1932 film has two lovely actresses who both turn in strong performances – Rose Hobart as Muriel, the fiancée, and Miriam Hopkins as Ivy the prostitute. Ivy’s transition from extremely saucy temptress to terrified victim is excellent, and though the physical violence mostly happens off-screen, the psychological torture Hyde uses on her is chillingly horrific.

Miriam Hopkins in a bit of pre-code naughtiness
Miriam Hopkins in a bit of pre-code naughtiness

The 1942 film has Lana Turner as fiancée Bea, and Ingrid Bergman as Ivy. Now, I shall admit bias here – I have adored Ingrid Bergman my entire life. In fact, as a child I wanted to be her when I grew up. She is stunningly gorgeous and a great actress, especially in these vulnerable, woman as victim roles. Her portrayal of flirty, tempting Ivy at the beginning is charming and her terror once Hyde has her under his brutal control is superb. So… I was prepared to overlook her extremely dodgy attempt at a kind of Cockney accent! At least she made an attempt, which is more than could really be said for either Lana or Spencer, who both sound cheerfully American throughout.

As far as the women go, acting honours come out about even – fine performances all round – with the 1932 edging it in terms of authenticity of accent, but Bergman’s performance just outshining Hopkins’ for me.

Isn't she lovely? Ingrid Bergman...
Isn’t she lovely? Ingrid Bergman…

The men, Fredric March and Spencer Tracy, are just about equally good in my opinion – again I have a huge soft spot for Spencer Tracy, but I could see why many people rate March’s performance as the better of the two. Which brings me neatly to the crux of the matter – it is in the character of Jekyll/Hyde that the two films finally diverge, making one an adaptation faithful to the spirit of the book, and the other a kind of schlock horror – excellent, but wrong.

The book makes it clear that Jekyll has always had vices but now finds it difficult to indulge them due to his increasing fame. So he is never a truly good man – he is a weak man, whose evil side comes to dominate him more and more. The March film gets this so wrong, portraying Jekyll as some kind of angel, caring for the poor and needy out of goodness of heart. Not so the Tracy version, which has Jekyll single-mindedly pursuing his objectives, carrying out experiments on animals, and people if he can get the chance, and not needing much temptation from Bergman to stray from the path of righteousness.

Apeman Fredric March and terrified Miriam Hopkins
Apeman Fredric March and terrified Miriam Hopkins

And again, the book says specifically that Hyde suffers from no obvious physical deformity – his evil is in his nature, not his physical being. The Tracy film is spot on – though his appearance changes, he remains a man – coarsened, perhaps, but not head-turningly grotesque. March turns into the ape-man! He does it brilliantly, but still – it’s ridiculous! By the end he’s leaping about up and down shelves like some kind of manic chimpanzee! His body language is that of an animal – all twitches and sniffs. Tracy is always a fully human man – much more chilling when he turns to evil and, more importantly, true to Stevenson’s creation.

Ah, that's more like it! Spencer Tracy and beautiful Ingrid...
Ah, that’s more like it! Spencer Tracy and beautiful Ingrid…

So, both films are very enjoyable and I had huge fun immersing myself in the story again and again. But in terms of Film of the Book – the 1941 version wins hands down. Take a bow, Mr Fleming and Mr Tracy! Great adaptation!

For Mr March…


★ ★ ★ ★


For Mr Tracy…


★ ★ ★ ★ ★


* * * * * * *

And, finally… ooh, this is hard. Very hard!…

The Winner in the Book v Film Battle is…


jekyll tracy dvd




(Well, it cheated by having Ingrid Bergman and Spencer Tracy in it…)


30 thoughts on “Film of the Book: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

  1. What a thorough, well-written review, FictionFan! One of the things it shows is that a film doesn’t have to be identical to the book from which it’s adapted in order to be a fine film. And for a cranky, insufferable dedicated purist like me, that’s quite an admission. I will say, though, that it’s a pity they didn’t do any filming in London, because the fog and the outdoor atmosphere play such a role in the story. Ah, well… Very glad you enjoyed the film.


    • Thanks, Margot! 🙂 Yes, I get annoyed when they mess with things too, but in this one I could see how impossible it would have been to film it exactly as its written, so felt that the beautiful woman motif was a reasonable addition! I was disappointed about the lack of fog – both films managed to get over Hyde’s evilness anyway, but without the atmosphere that Stevenson achieved. However, both good films that have stood the test of time well!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m a huge Ingrid fan too, but I’ve never seen this film – I will try & find it online. Thanks for making me aware of it – can’t wait to hear the cockney accent!

    I totally agree its better if the change to Hyde is not too focused on physical appearance. Did you see the recent ITV adaptation? The change was mainly signified by overuse of black eyeliner 😀


    • She just does vulnerable so well! And flirty! I found it on Amazon Instant Video, if that helps. And her accent is very sweet even if it’s not exactly consistent!

      No I didn’t – I realised when I was doing this that you could actually make a lifetime’s work out of tracking down and watching all the different versions! But I did think I might look at a couple of the more modern interpretations to see what they’ve done with it – so I’ll look out for that one… 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Great review. I saw both films as a child, but neither made the impression on me that the book did and still does, probably because “nameless vice” are so much scarier than the other kind!


    • Thank you! I think I saw them both as a child too, and felt I vaguely remembered the Tracy version. But I definitely got more out of them by doing the direct comparison, and they did manage to get the horror across without the graphic gore-fest that would probably be considered necessary today…


  4. It’s been far too long since I saw both films, so I should revisit them, especially since I too am a big Ingrid Bergman fan. One version which I found genuinely scary was James Nesbitt in ‘Jekyll’, a TV series from a few years back – a sort of spin-off set in the modern day (not to be confused with the current TV series, which was a bit too fantastical).


    • Both films are well worth watching – they’ve stood up well considering how old they are. I didn’t see the James Nesbitt one, but I can imagine he’d be great – he does that kind of threatening evil so well! I must try to track it down…


  5. What a great idea for a review! You have book vs. film, and two films squaring off against each other. Very clever! I think my allegiance lies with the earlier film version – just because I’m a real Fredric March fan – but you’ve prompted me to actually read the book. I’ve never even read the original novel, but I’m putting it on hold at the library as we speak (type).

    Thanks for joining the Movie Scientist blogathon with this original look at Jekyll and Hyde! 🙂


    • Thank you! 🙂 I think if I hadn’t been comparing to the book, I’d have found it really hard to choose between the films – I loved both Miriam Hopkins’ and Fredric March’s performances, and each film tried out some innovative techniques for the time. Great fun watching them together – and I do hope you enjoy the book!

      Thanks to you and Christina for hosting it – I’m having loads of fun reading all the other posts, and my to-be-watched list is getting nearly as out of hand as my to-be-read list always is!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m going to have to revisit these! Initially, I was not as impressed with Spencer Tracy, but you raise a great point about how his appearance is much truer to the book. Definitely going to give these a second look.

    One moment I remember really liking in the original 1941 version was when Bergman looks back and for a moment believes that she recognizes Hyde in Jekyll. Very chilling!

    I so enjoyed this Jekyll and Hyde face-off and am glad you could participate in the blogathon!


    • Tracy’s performance does look a bit understated in comparison to March’s but I did think it was much truer to the book – part of the scare factor in the book is exactly that Hyde is still human. I must say I thought both Bergman and Hopkins were great – they both handled the change from flirty to terrified brilliantly. And though the other two women didn’t have such meaty roles they were excellent too. I was surprised, not having watched either of them for decades, at how well they’ve stood the test of time. Great stuff!

      Thank you for hosting it – I’m having lots of fun gradually reading my way through the other posts! 🙂


  7. Oh no no no! I call for a retrial! This is obviously set-up!

    Haha. Awesome review. I love these things. Ingrid is an odd name, you must admit. I get her confused all the time with that other actress I can’t think of…


    • I love old horror films before they got too gory – they leave all the worst bits up to your imagination. And anything with Spencer Tracy in it has an unfair advantage as far as I’m concerned… and Ingrid!


  8. I must have seen bits and pieces of this, but I can’t remember (knowing me, I probably hid my eyes and fled the room before the scary parts came on screen, ha!) Well done, FF — thanks for showing me what I missed!


Please leave a comment - I'd love to know who's visiting and what you think...of the post, of the book, of the blog, of life, of chocolate...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.