Spencer Tracy's version was much better. You even liked Tracy's character and felt a bit sorry for him. Here, you don't really care about anyone - except for Champagne Ivy, that is, the classic Dickensian-type victim of poverty and underclass female vulnerabilities, played to the hilt by a ravishing Miriam Hopkins. I am a huge Frederic March fan but this movie was a huge disappointment to me. It must have been the times, the fact that talking pictures were still relatively new and special effects relatively new (in 1931), that this movie was considered so great in its time. And for March to have won for best actor (actually, tied with Wallace Beery, for Beery's role in the Champ), really boggles my mind. Maybe it's just me. I don't think this film aged well nor do I find the acting all that good - including March's, which I found stilted. Even his transformation scenes failed to move me. Even more important: I also question whether Mr. Hyde was Frederic March (and I know this suggestion is akin to heresy). Listen to Hyde's accent. Look at his nasal features and the shape of his face. I almost thought Hyde might have been played by Humphrey Bogart (which is not likely) but there's a peculiar and unique accent tinged with a British affectation and a vocal quality that I do not believe is March's and I believe it provides a huge clue as to there having been a different actor playing that role. Even the acting quality seems to take a nose dive when Hyde is in the picture (in other words, I believe March would have done a better job in that role). Mr. Hyde was also incredibly agile - like a monkey, or, more to the point, like a circus performer or Olympic-class athlete. His jumping about was - in my estimation - highly unlikely the actions of a Frederic March who (unlike Cary Grant, for instance) did not have an athletic background of this kind nor did he display anything like this kind of agility or talent in other films. This was, actually, my first question after seeing the film: just who played Mr. Hyde? (Did anyone else question this?) I tell you, it was not March. Miriam Hopkins is the only one in this film, for my money, whose performance was of an Oscar-type level. She was incredibly endearing and she came across with a realism I felt was lacking in the others' performances. There was too much "gee whiz" acting in my opinion, stylized horror movie posing, for this movie to be taken too seriously. March was very young here so I excuse his stilted acting on his relative lack of experience because in every other film I've seen him in, he was absolutely top-rate and brilliant. But I am sure my opinion is in the minority here, so see the film and judge for yourself. Clearly it's a milestone picture in Hollywood and should be seen, in that context.
Review of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
