1931 - Jekyll/Hyde; Dracula; Frankenstein

Dr. Jekyll trying to console Ivy

 What a great year. When I put together my Favorite's List for that particular year a few months back, I thought to myself, "Almost any other year, 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' would be #1". I was watching a little bit of the Paul Naschy El Hombre Lobo film, "Dr. Jekyll and the Wolf Man" (1971) when I thought the Fredric March Jekyll/Hyde film would be the perfect way to kick off a fun Saturday of "monsters". 

I had a thought when watching this film in regards to the POV style adopted for films such as "Black Christmas" (1974) and "Halloween" (1978). You often see this brought up by fans of "Black Christmas" because "Halloween" was so celebrated for the technique. Both used it at the beginning of their films, but this whole business of how they made the POV so recognized, I'm like, "You do know that Rouben Mamoulian used POV incredibly well way back 40+ years prior, right?" An entire opening sequence through the eyes of Jekyll as he played his organ, talked to his butler, prepared for a party for his fiance, throughout the house as he walked, leaving his home for a horse carriage, all the while looking around as he done it, seemingly in a seamless one-take fashion. It is a hell of an achievement. I am still floored by the POV where March looks into a mirror with his Jekyll taking a swig of his experimental "splitting sides" formula, concocted to "isolate" the heel that causes sin. Jekyll looking to rid himself of the savage lurking in the midst of his being, instead giving that very beast strength over him, over time. Seeing the transition into Hyde is a serious work of art on screen. It is a triumph. And the way March twitches and makes Hyde so distinctively different is such an astonishing feat. The way Hyde moves, the savage that seems totally freed from any sort of "gentlemanly oppression", and how the fiend even talks; March really establishes him as totally different from the polite, sensitive, charitable, and thoughtful scientist who tends to poor patients when he isn't lecturing and teaching students. The "naked leg" scene with the sexy Miriam Hopkins basically inviting Jekyll to bed with her is such Pre-Code goodness. There is a lot of that with Miriam, how her sexual lifestyle is very forward and aggressive...there is some nuance because even with the Pre-Code, Mamoulian shows some restraint. But Miriam's situation as Champagne Ivy once Hyde sees her in a low-rent district London pub goes from playful vixen to abused and frightened victim is heightened to epic melodramatic status.

Speaking of distressed women tormented by villainy, I finally dipped into my new Blu-Ray set of the Universal Monsters for "Dracula" (1931) and "Frankenstein" (1931), with Mina the very target of a certain Transylvanian bloodsucker who purchased a certain abbey-in-ruins near her father's sanitarium grounds. It was such a pleasure to see "Dracula" restored with great richness. The same for "Frankenstein", too, but "Dracula" just looked terrific cleaned up and attractive to the eyes like never before. I am not sure why I had put off picking up "Dracula" but, nonetheless, I eventually got my act together. As I have mentioned a hundred times before: the opening twenty minutes in Transylvania, particularly when Renfield makes to Dracula's castle and what happens within it, is some of my favorite of all horror. Once we get to England, it does lose some of that atmospheric punch, but this film is why I love Gothic horror. With "Frankenstein" I had some distractions, but it isn't like I haven't seen it as much as "Dracula". 

I did notice the village women watching as the men, with lit torches and stick weapons in hand, pursue the Monster after one of their little girls was killed by him. I don't know if my attention was diverted so many times, but I seemed to always miss the village women with their emotional faces, worried their husbands may never return. The terror struck after the Monster actually penetrated the idyll of what was supposed to be a grand wedding celebration for Henry Frankenstein and Elizabeth only enhances the worry when a farmer marches in devastation with his wet, drowned daughter throughout them, each changing from happy to horror upon seeing him walk past...it remains quite a shocker. I imagine it hit audiences of the time hard, too. But along with that, my particular interest in this film, I was very interested in the dynamic of Henry Frankenstein and Dr. Waldman, once just pupil and professor. Waldman is very much of the vein, "Don't delve too deep into science where those very depths could reveal harm" while Henry feels science and curiosity should not be limited. Very much thought back to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in regards to researching the unknown, unlocking secrets that result in tragedy. In the case of Jekyll and Henry Frankenstein, there are very dire consequences, to themselves and others.

After watching "Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein" last night, seeing Lugosi in the role of Dracula in 1931 as opposed to 1948, the period of time just speaks to what struggles the actor obviously went through. But with the 1931 Dracula, Lugosi occupied the character in svelte, commanding shape. Hollywood hadn't quite smacked Lugosi around yet.