Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941 film)

Rather than being a new film version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella, this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a direct remake of the 1931 film of the same title. Both Hollywood productions differ greatly from the original literary work due to their heavy reliance on Thomas Russell Sullivan's 1887 stage adaptation of the story. The director for the 1941 film was Victor Fleming, who had directed Gone with the Wind and codirected The Wizard of Oz, two major releases by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1939. MGM, where Fleming was under contract, acquired full rights to the 1931 film from Paramount Pictures prior to Fleming's production. According to the Robert Louis Stevenson website being archived and preserved by the British Library, subsequent to that acquisition MGM studio executives “hid the [1931] film away to avoid competition with their remake”.[2][3] The 1931 version then, due to ongoing legal restrictions and the lack of readily available copies, was effectively “lost” for over a quarter of a century, not generally available again for rescreenings and study until 1967.[2]

MGM's 1941 remake was produced by Victor Saville and adapted by John Lee Mahin from the screenplay of the earlier film by Percy Heath and Samuel Hoffenstein. The score was composed by Franz Waxman with uncredited contributions by Daniele Amfitheatrof and Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco. The cinematographer was Joseph Ruttenberg, the art director was Cedric Gibbons, and the costume designers were Adrian and Gile Steele. Jack Dawn created the make-up for the dissolute Mr. Hyde's appearance.

Despite having not yet met his later co-star Katharine Hepburn (they met working on Woman of the Year in 1942), Tracy originally wanted her to play both Bergman's and Turner's roles as the "bad" and "good" woman, who would then turn out to be the same person.[4]

Initial casting had Bergman playing the virtuous fiancée of Jekyll and Turner as "bad girl" Ivy. However, Bergman, tired of playing saintly characters and fearing typecasting, pleaded with Victor Fleming that she and Turner switch roles. After a screen test, Fleming allowed Bergman to play a grittier role for the first time.[4][5]

According to MGM records the film earned $2,351,000 resulting in a profit of $350,000.[1]

After its preview of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in late July 1941, the trade paper Variety cited some weaknesses in the development of characters and situations in the film's plot; but, overall, the popular New York publication gave the production a very positive assessment. Variety predicted the film would be “one of the big ones for fall release” and focused special attention on Bergman's performance and screen presence.[6] It compared too Hyde's physical appearance with his portrayals in the 1925 and 1931 interpretations of Stevenson's novella:

...Tracy plays the dual roles with conviction. His transformations from the young physician...to the demonic Mr. Hyde are brought about with considerably less alterations in face and stature than audiences might expect, remembering John Barrymore and Frederic March in earlier versions. What is likely to happen when the new “Jekyll” moves into general distribution after Sept. 1, is more generous recognition of Ingrid Bergman as a screen actress of exceptional ability....In every scene in which the two appear, she is Tracy’s equal as a strong screen personality.[6]

The Film Daily praised the film in its review, heaping most of its accolades on Victor Fleming and his direction.[7] The trade paper, which was widely read by theater owners or “exhibitors”, complimented Fleming's pacing and staging of the story and described his “handling of the players” as “flawless”.[7]

Outside the realm of film-industry trade papers, the general public in 1941 had more mixed reviews about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. One example of those reactions can be found in the contemporary fan magazine Hollywood, which was distributed nationally each month by Fawcett Publications in Louisville, Kentucky.[8] Hollywood recommended that its readership “should see the picture”, citing once again Bergman's excellent, “breath-taking” portrayal of Ivy.[9] The monthly did, though, find the film's plot passé and Tracy's Hyde far too understated in appearance to be effective:

In the ten years that have elapsed since Frederic March won his Academy Award for his work in the title roles, movie-goers have become too sophisticated for the sort of medical hocus-pocus on which the Stevenson story is based. Too many Frankensteins and bogey-men have stalked across the screen in the interim for Mr. Hyde to be a convincing monster. While Spencer Tracy does a grand job in his dual role, his Mr. Hyde is inclined to be more humorous than terrifying.[9]

Another fan-based publication, Modern Screen, was less subtle in its November 1941 review of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, calling the film “quite the oddest picture of the year”.[10] The magazine, in part, considered the remake “funniest when apparently it is trying to be most serious and never so routine as when it is trying hardest to be different.”[10]

With regard to more recent critical responses to this version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, American film reviewer and historian Leonard Maltin in 2014 gave the production 3 out of a possible 4 stars, praising in particular Tracy and Bergman's performances.[11] The online film-review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported, as of 2018, an approval rating of 65% among professional critics, a score based on 20 reviews, with a rating average of “6.7/10”.[12] General audience reactions to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were just slightly lower on Rotten Tomatoes in approvals, scoring at 61% and registering a rating average of “3.4/5” based on over 4,700 responses.[12]