Jekyll-Hyde Transformations (Barrymore, March, Tracy)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2024
- "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (John Barrymore, 1920)
"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (Fredric March, 1932)
"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (Spencer Tracy, 1941)
I neither own nor claim any rights to this material. Just having some fun with it. Thanks for watching!
What's amazing about Barrymore's first transformation was that it was done in a single take, with the actor merely contorting his body and facial expressions. Masterful pantomime.
Barrymore's remarkable, but there are obvious cuts in the scene to allow for changes in makeup and prosthetics. He, like March and Tracy, had help in creating the character.
@@lawrencetoppman9151 The makeup change was actually a trick of the light! They applied red makeup, and shined a red light on his face, then slowly transitioned to a blue light so the make up would stand out.
An unfortunate parallel in Barrymore's performance. Jekyll couldn't lay off the drugs and Barrymore couldn't lay off the booze. Talk about life imitating art. So glad his granddaughter Drew straightened out her life.
One of the best transformations of Jekyll to Hyde was done by British actor Richard Mansfield for the London stage production in 1889. They used a stage trick called the Karl Struss technique involving lights, and make-up that appeared to alter as the lights were subtley changed. Mansfield's, performance was so horrifying that it put him on the list of people investigated by Scotland Yard as a possible Jack-the-Ripper.
For an incredible example of how this technique looked, see this scene from 1937's "Sh! The Octopus"
ua-cam.com/video/Y15uRLNC7kQ/v-deo.html
@@garykass114 Lionel and Ethel ALSO fought both alcohol and drugs. It was the curse of the Barrymore's, Phenominal talent, hampered by substance addictions.
You got to give it to them for all of the work that was put in before CGI.
Cernunnos The Horned One. It did? Thats awful
@@beekidsart1176 Thats good acting and determination for ya
@@carnage6556 well, no art is worth getting hurt over :(
@@beekidsart1176 wait hurt over what? I’m confused
@@aex9516 that one of The transformations makeup was very poisonous and left lasting damage on The actor,, i think
This is where the Hulk concept came from!
Fleet Admiral Perry yeah, it's a strange case.....
And so was Frankenstein
Dr Banner and Mr Hulk
Head ass 😂
The lonly man who has to deal with his monster
The original novel only hints at Hyde's appearance. He's described as a diminutive man but thoroughly repugnant and evil. He gives the impression of deformity without any visible outward signs of such a malady.
True, although he's described as resembling a Troglodyte (an underground creature) and it's mentioned that he stands out even at a distance in his repugnance and the revulsion in his appearance.
This makes me think of the superb actor Toby Jones. It describes his appearance as Quilp in "The Old Curiosity Shop".
I can tell Barrymore and Tracy’s versions are pretty close to what the novel describes Hyde as looking like. March’s is great, although Hyde is much more bizarre looking. However, it was accurate in how Hyde is smaller then Jekyll.
John Barrymore is definitely the most horrifying and creepy Mr Hyde.
Drew's grandfather.
@@BrotherDerrick3X You must have just found that out...
@@johngist3761 no sir. I have known from the moment she started in the business.
If you ask me I feel Fredric March's Mr. Hyde is more horrifying and creepy than the other two.
Spencer Tracy's Hyde wasn't all that horrifying.
I hope people in my generation (millennials) and younger gens can appreciate just how amazing these transformations really are. The acting is spectacular as well
Yes, these transformations are incredible for the time and I really appreciate them.
Note: I am 13 years old.
The 1932 version affects are excellent for that day and age. Its also what I would imagine Hyde to look like
I just listened to the book on audio. Yes, it's accurate. Hyde is described as being somewhat simian, and younger and more fit than Jekyll, which March embodies brilliantly.
lol! I just finished reading it. He looks like a gorilla in the 1932
Apparently the method they used to have the make-up mysteriously appear on March's face in one take was unknown for years. Eventually it was revealed that they used a series of colored lights, and gradually altered the color of the light to make the make-up show up more and more via contrast. Being B&W, the film dfidn't show the color of the light changing. Simple, and brilliant!
Out of all of them, March really creeped me out because it’s from a viewpoint where we and he are both watching his transition to Hyde. The transition was even creepier with the silence behind it all, only his hard breathing being heard.
0:30 I love the effect of his hair appearing to grow longer as he shakes his head.
Dear Porfle Popnecker: It's fortunate for us horror fans that you thought enough of these transformations to bother putting them all together! Thanks, pal!
2:16 I know the transformation itself steals that scene but I just want a moment to appreciate the glass appearing at the bottom of the camera because we are seeing things from Jekyll's (Hyde's?) eyes. Pretty cool detail for 1931
Fredric March's performance is off the charts in the 1932's Best and epic version first class classic monster movie.
Nah that's 1925's Phantom of the Opera starring Lon Chaney Sr....
In the Barrymore version there is a sequence showing Hyde with a spiders body, probably the most creepy scene in the very good movie.
Es cuando pierde el control y empieza a transformarse sin el suero. Una mañana despierta Hyde. Y en esa inquietante escena esto es plasmado como una pesadilla, con ese Hyde araña monstruosa que se arrastra sobre él y al despertarlo el miedo, es, efectivamente, Hyde
@@bull9674 Si es muy impresionante
@@michaelhuck Si, está muy bien ejecutado. Como dices, muy buena película y tiene cien años! Que suerte poder disfrutarla todavía, muchas otras magníficas obras mudas se han perdido lamentablemente o solo se conservan fragmentos :( Este Hyde es mi favorito de todas las principales versiones del clásico, atrae y repele a partes iguales, todos mis respetos para el soberbio trabajo del desatado señor Barrymore!
00:18 when you drink soda at a restaurant but it has too much seltzer in it.
John Barrymore's Version: Fine, but creepy.
Fredric March's Version: Now creepy than ever.
Spencer Tracy's Version: Still creepy, but still nice.
@ Respectfully disagree, but I feel Fredric March's Hyde was the creepiest.
0:17 when u drink alcohol for the first time
See Ray Milland in "The Lost Weekend"
As Mr hyde
John Barrymore was looking like a Monster
Fredric March was looking like a monkey
Spencer Tracy was looking like a evil man which might be happened after Split personality in real life
@Incog Nito If you had read the description of Hyde from the novel you would disagree.
In the book stevenson said hyde looks normal but has an odd difference
@@purpleegg2534 In the book Hyde is described as looking like a troglodyte (underground creature) and behaves in almost an animal like manner at times such as when he beats Sir Danvers Carew to death and stomps on him in an apelike manner. I always thought of Hyde as being almost an evolutionary throwback in some ways.
Barrymore's Hyde looks more like the crazy monk, March's looks like a monkey, but that's what it's about, Hyde is the wild and primitive version of Jekyll, and even the makeup, unlike Barrymore and Tracy, March's hyde is the one that looks the most disgusting and deformed, he doesn't even look like March, and that's what I love and that's why I stick with that version
Outstanding. I hadn't seen Barrymore's transformation before. He's so great!
The 1931 version will always be my favorite.
I think the 1932 version was the most accurate to the novel. In the novel Hyde has an unnatural appearance of being deformed and smaller in stature than Jekyll.
All three versions were adaptations of the play not the book.There was not a romantic interest in the novel at all.
Crazy thing; in the novel, he changed from an older sophisticated gentleman into a younger but brutish fellow.
Book: "He gives the impression of deformity without any actual physical malformation"
Film: Oh so his skin turns all decayed and dry while he turns into an alien creature? OK!
The films are more influenced by the play adaption in 1887, which made the disparity between jekyll and hyde more pronounced in fear that the audiences wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference on stage. The stage version also gave Dr. Jekyll a love interest.
"Impression of deformity " can be interpreted as something slight or extreme..it would be in the eye of the beholder as can "physical malformation ".
Films need to find a visual way to show what the text describes. A picture is worth 1000 words, etc. That's why so many great novels make terrible films, or else the film is so different from the novel that the author gets angry ("The Shining," anyone?).
Book: "The man seems hardly human! something troglodytic, shall we say?" (an underground creature)
remember at this time due to phrenology criminals were often thought to have atavistic physical traits.
Barrymore used no special facial tapes or prosthetics. Only on his fingers. All was done by facial contortion. Maybe a little makeup. He was a genius. Reminds me a little of John Lennon.
Steady on!
Load of bullocks
For my money, it's March's version that hits the mark on all points as the definitive adaptation of Stevenson's story, and this includes the makeup and transformation scenes. The Barrymore version is quite good, but takes a back seat, and the Tracy version is just typical MGM gloss and no guts. The thing about March is that it's hard to imagine it's him under the makeup as Hyde -- he really comes off as a totally different person and that's the power of his performance. Neither Barrymore nor Tracy managed to pull that off as well as March.
John’s version was very creepy but really good makeup and a wig for the long hair
Fredric’s version was super creepy and he won the Oscar for this movie tying with Wallace Beery for The Champ and very good progressive makeup
Spencer’s version was kinda creepy I like how they did the makeup for the eyebrows for Spencer’s version
4:10 The gradually increased panting is so DISTURBING, especially for 1932. The sounds of a raging maniac armed to attack. It may be a human physically making that noise, but mentally and emotionally, it really is a genuine MONSTER emerging from him. Combine that with the incredible makeup, and you're surely in for a jarring and unforgettable performance.
The thing that I never understood was why his face began too look more grotesque.
it's mentioned in the novel, in Jekyll's notes he gives a reason for his different appearance. It partially has to do with him going into a more primal state.
With each successive transformation, he committed more heinous acts of evil (thus causing the outward shell to explicitly reflect the nature of the inward reality).
@@ontologicallysteve7765 Like Voldermort
Mr Tig In the book it is described that he suposedly got younger but uglier when he transformed
This movie certainly foreshadowed something didn't it 😂
Mom: why don't you date one of the boys in your class?
The boys in my class: 2:40
I love this comment! So funny!!
Hahaha 😂... Even the old saying "it's whats on the inside that counts" needs to be forgotten with a face like that...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Robert Louis Stevenson described Mr. Hyde as looking like a simian.
Also, the 1931 version pronounced Jekyll as "Gee-kill".
Loved Frederic March.
Which is the correct pronunciation of the Scottish name. It was Spencer Tracy's movie that went with JECK-el, but that's what stuck with Americans ever since.
I heard from somewhere that "jee-kul" is the correct Scottish pronunciation.
But we're all used to calling him "Jeck-kull" at this point.
Frederick March is my favorite.
Incredible to find this comparison! Came here after watching Barrymore. Thank you for posting!
02:45 "At last...at last! Success at last! I've become...Jerry Lewis!!! Oh, lady. Oh, Mrs. laaaady!"
2:53 when you had chipotle
*Taco bell
It wasn’t about good and evil or horror though. it was about man’s animal nature. His struggle to control to conform.
One popular idea is that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is also a take on Darwin's theory of Evolution, which was still a pretty controversial topic even in 1885, with Hyde being close to an evolutionary throwback.
Frederic March was the best. Barrymore overdid it (as usual) and Spencer Tracy wasn't quite evil enough. March was superb.
You summed it up pretty good
I disagree. Barrymore comes off as more realistic and scary. It's a horror, why not overdo it? Plus it was the silent film era and they had to overdo everything to make up for not having sound. Frederic March's make up and grunts come off as cringy and comedic than actually frightening. Spencer Tracy's adheres more to the book, even if it is underwhelming.
The March director is the best. You seem to actually be in Victorian London.
It was his idea to switch the female roles.
The blonde good girl became the slutty one, and the brunette bad girl became the heroine. Works for me.
@@IgnorancEnArrogance Exactly, why did they make him look like a monkey? Absolutely ridiculous and silly. John Barrymore brings horror and creepiness with his version. True horror, like other movies of that era, like Nosferatu.
@@kylerobinzine5238 - Maybe?
Paramount's DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1932) should have stayed in the Paramount Studio film vault for 25 years without the 1941 MGM remake and the 1932 Paramount version would be bought by MCA (Music Corporation America) along with the 750 Pre-1949 Paramount sound films in 1958, so that DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1932) would be included with the UNIVERSAL MONSTER MOVIES!
But now has it is July 2020, we as classic horror fans we are still waiting for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1932) to have its official BLU-RAY debut! Let's hope DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1932) will come to BLU-RAY before this horror film reaches the 90th Anniversary by 2021 or 2022!
Barrymore was amazing
Fredric March Was The Best, And The Scariest! 😳
Yees. Barrymore is my favourite! Super.
March was the best!
2:28 karen when she wears a facemask for a minute
Spencer Tracy verison is "WHATEVER".
His is actually more true to the book, which states that Dr. Jekyll's transformation was more psychological than a true and complete physical reformation.
That’s so, but the March version has more spirit - and art. Still the definitive version, for me - so far.
Who will try a color remake?
@@IgnorancEnArrogance The change was physical too. Hyde was notably shorter, younger and stronger. No one thought they were the same man (and if I remember right, one of the servants thinks Hyde is a relative or even an illegitimate son of Dr. Jekyll).
March's was an early example of ingenious special effects, including changing of filters on camera lenses during the transformation. And as far as the films in their entirety, acting, cinematography, etc., March's version remains the best. Plus it also benefited from pre-code, a level of sexual permissiveness denied Tracy's producers.
I prefer the Tracy version. A more subtle makeup and transformation yet he still looks like a different guy
When you do two lines if coke at the nightclub
BY FAR, the creepiest version "I've" ever heard of this story, was here on UA-cam...THE CBS RADIO MYSTERY THEATRE "DR. JEKYLL, & MR. HYDE! From "I believe" 1977? Starring Kevin McCarthy! INSANELY CREEPY! VERY, VERY WELL DONE!
2:42 hi and welcome to chilly’s!
March's hair as Hyde looks like Frankie Avalon.
This is genuinely terrifying.
What about the 1968 " The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" starring Jack Palance?
That one only used a simple cross-dissolve, which looked cheap.
Palance was excellent in that. He also made a Dracula film around the same time and with the same producer.
I have both films.
Jack Palance is my favorite Jekyll/Hyde.
The beginning scene is creepy AF
They’re so cute!!
Imagine the terror in the eyes of 1920's teenagers on a date.
😂😂
Fredric March's Hyde becomes progressively more monstruous and apelike with each transformation. The movie gets away with quite a lot as it shows his brutal abuse of the woman called Ivy.with disturbing frankness for the period. I love the Barrymore version, specially the spider dream, but March is my favorite.
Barrymore has a pretty seamless switch in his performance, really great
March for sure has the best effect
Tracy is standard 1940's effects
man, the fredric march ones really creep me out.
I feel like I'm gonna get my period earlier from watching these clips.
Sheesh...lol
1. Grinch
2. 1970’s Nerd Without Glasses
3. Nothing…
I'm directing a production of this in October, and the transformations are proving to be the hardest part, so we've limited them down so there's only one full Jekyll - Hyde and one Hyde - Jekyll in the whole show, though others are shown in silhouette or similar.
Spencer Tracy = fail. They wanted to keep his head stationary so the fades could look seamless but who, in the middle of such a transformation, would be that still? no one. I think the March transformations were the best of the 3 although Barrymore's was quite creepy with the long fingers and long face and only 1 cutaway to finalize the face. The area around his eyes are actually makeup/latex/etc. they do not move and when he does blink, his real eyelids can be seen to close but the outer ones tilted up at the outer corners are stationary. That transformation actually is pretty badass for the fact that it seems pretty seamless. The face he has in that first shot is almost identical to that closeup. But the March ones used that tinted color technique which let him change while moving in one shot and get different colors or shading to show up. That was a genius idea.
Jim Carrey needs to star in a modern version but in the style of John Barrymore!
Ha ha, I thought the same thing.
Plus he can contort his face, just like Barrymore
I knew John Barrymore resembled Jim Carrey 😂😂😂
Me: uh dr jekyll? [Jekyll groaning] jax: buddy? Pomni: are you okay? Mr hyde: my name is Mr hyde! Me: run, RUN!
The John Barrymore one was spooky, but the third one. He looked like he was going through it! 😩 Bless his heart😂They did an absolutely amazing job without CGi! And that music is so haunting.
:22 uh, who told him to strike a pose just before transforming?
Nice video,bro!
Spencer Tracy for me ..all day long best ever ..1941 version..
Fredric March is my all time favorite, followed by Spencer Tracy.
Five Oscar-winning actors have played Jekyll/Hyde:
March in 1932 (won his first one playing the duo)
Tracy in 1941
Jack Palance in 1968
Michael Caine in 1990
Russell Crowe in 2017 (in “The Mummy” with Tom Cruise)
You could probably add Kirk Douglas, who has a Lifetime Achievement Oscar. He was in a 1973 version.
Just wondering about the background music in John Barrymore's second transformation. Couldn't find it in any version uploaded on UA-cam. The music used in this video was better than the music in the movies uploaded.
All 3 are great transformations, bw seems the best medium as light & shade work better. Barrymore is the most creepy as silent films make your mind feel more shivers as in the mastery Nosferatu.
Barrymore's version was the best!
My boy, I derive no pleasure in warning you that you are in extreme danger.
Even as we speak, lurking in this room waiting to strike are forces of evil. Every man has possessed of both good and evil. - Dr. Henry Jekyll, The Pagemaster (1994)
You've known what I was about each time you drank the formula. - Mr. Edward Hyde, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
At 0:23 when the transformation starts what’s the music called im not the biggest fan of silent films but this one is simply amazing
que trabalho de pesquisa magnifico ,,,gostei muito
we need a reboot? I think someone lime Christian Bale can make it
F**k you reboots are stupid and Hollywood is dead in every category of entertainment.
the stage musical is being written into a movie
@@georgedenis4690 no need to curse
Ya UNIVERSAL STUDIOS can produce a remake of Jekyll & Hyde with Christian Bale he be great to play that! Universal studio did do a 1913 version before Paramount did the 1920 and 1931 version, and Universal made a 1953 horror/comedy version with Bud Abbott & Lou Costello with Boris Karloff as Dr. Jekyll. I wish Universal did have complete ownership of the 1932 Paramount version but Warner Brothers owns the film from Turner Entertainment.
@@georgedenis4690 okay Boomer
The reason why Dr. Jekyll turned into Mr. Hyde because he did a drug that turned him into Mr. Hyde and they were both the same guy.
Does anyone else think march just turned into Jeff goldblum?
In my opinion the Fredric March version has to be the most horrifying. He looks like he’s more monster than man.
Is it me or does anyone else notice that Jekyll gets a little bit taller when he transforms into Hyde?
Big Al Waldron He's supposed to become shorter as Hyde! According to the book anyway!?
Which Jekyll Frederic March's, Spencer Tracy's or Drew Barrymore's?
@@jordanp.davidson5977 I think Barrymore's gains a little extra height, although March's does gain a little height too due to the bump on hydes head. However most depictions seem to look a little bulkier in stature. Tracy's seems to maintain the same height despite gaining a few wrinkles.
@jordan davidson thats John Barrymore not drew Barrymore
@@James-ke8dy Hysterical!
why not the full Tracy transformation?
Idk. But it didn't look like Tracy change to Mr Hyde
Imagine if the average man is Dr. Henry Jekyll then he takes the concocted potion and turns into a Daniel Quilp-like character, only not so monstrous outwardly and a bit younger, then that's Mr. Edward Hyde.
Spencer Tracy is pretty underated. his eyes looked insane. what an actor
Barrymore owns this.
My favorite version is 1932 Frederic March, he looks more scarier, his face goes into more of a transformation, he looks more like a monster.
El de 1932 más que mounstro parece un hombre lobo con esos dientes y ese comportamiento.
Hello how are you doing? I really liked the compilation of the transformations. I want to ask you if I can use your video and add music that I have composed. I live in Uruguay and I make music with tape loops with cassettes, field recordings and instrumentation. Do the images have rights reserved or are they in the public domain?
If you allow me, I will add your name so that everyone knows that the images were edited by you.
See you soon.
the special effects in this era were so good. Their more chilling than seeing that stuff with todays technology. eg nosferatu and metropolis. and this of course.
What made Spencer Tracy's final transformation great is that he's trying to stop it happening by verbally denying it but he cant control it anymore. So it's quite sad.
Frankly his performance as Dr Jekyll was particularly superb, even if his make up could have been better as Hyde. Fredric March simply did things the Absolute best.
Being a HUGE classic monsters movie buff since 1964, I love talking and critiquing these films! As much as I can appreciate Barrymore's 'transformation' with only his hands being artificially enhanced, it's the 1932 version which is the best (rightfully earning Frederick March an Oscar) - two things about this version......first, I love how with each transformation, the Hyde personality is more grotesque as his actions become more heinous, and secondly it's pretty obvious that this version of the Jekyll & Hyde story influenced the legendary Jerry Lewis in his 1964 classic "The Nutty Professor". The Spencer Tracy version was definitely the weakest as he was all wrong for that role - in my humble opinion!
Where's Jack Palance? His Hyde scared the crap out of me.
Barrymore did his with essentially NO make up but simply distorted his face. March's version is the ONLY horror film to EVER win an Academy Award. Lot of the studios in the early 30's picked up on the trend especially after they saw how much money was raked by Universal's "Dracula" & "Frankenstein."
Silence of the Lambs 1991
Die BESTE und GENIALSTE Version ist die von 1932, mit Fredric March, an diese kommt keine andere ran!!!.
Und das aus zwei Gründen:
Die 20 er Fassung, mag ich nicht, stehe nicht aus Stummfilme, wo ich alles mit lesen muß.
Die 40 er Fassung ist schon etwas besser, aber Tracy ist alles andere als diabolisch in der Rolle und zu mal ist seine Verwandlung derart schwach in Szene gesetzt.....nur strubbelige Haare und dunkle Augenringe...das soll Hyde sein???.
Die 30 er Fassung ( in Deutsch synchronisiert selbstverständlich ) ist einfach genial...Hyde sieht von mal zu mal schlimmer aus ( im positiven Sinne natürlich ) aus...4:17...einfach klasse👍👍!!!.
Fredric March ist zurecht der BESTE Jekyll/Hyde!!!.
Shame about Frederic March's Hyde teeth.
0:21
Barrymore and arch are the only ones worth noting. Slender Tracy is an iconic actor but his Hyde was more of like a split personality then an outright horrifying Monster. Barrymore is the scariest.
March* Spencer*
1920 version is the best. Barrymore did it all himself. No special effects on his face, just the hands. Brilliant performance!
The 1932 had surprisingly good special effects for its time, it was done well, but way too much makeup when transformation is complete. Looks silly.
And the 1941 transformation simply isn’t any good.
Fredric March's transformations (with the exception of the last one) are far better than Spencer Tracy's. Why show transformation details that couldn't be reproduced thechnically, fast groving hair in stop motion for example?
My girlfriend after a sip of vodka
Her sipping it, or you?
Awesome but horror transformation of Mr Hyde monster.
Nobody beats Blankfield.