Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 14972
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
This movie is actually creepily disturbing. Miriam Hopkins is a great actress.
Well, then
- mellytu74
- Posts: 9374
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
We watched it last night.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
- tlynn78
- Posts: 8664
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.mellytu74 wrote:We watched it last night.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
- triviawayne
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
tlynn78 wrote:Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.mellytu74 wrote:We watched it last night.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
because the "acting" was so realistic and not over the top at all...
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 14972
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
Actually Hopkins was good. We're watching the Spencer Tracy version, 1941, and it's way campier and boring.triviawayne wrote:tlynn78 wrote:Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.mellytu74 wrote:We watched it last night.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
because the "acting" was so realistic and not over the top at all...
Well, then
- mellytu74
- Posts: 9374
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
One of the things I like about the Tracy version was Ingrid Bergman in the Hopkins role. I agree with you, Beebs, that Hopkins was superb.Beebs52 wrote:Actually Hopkins was good. We're watching the Spencer Tracy version, 1941, and it's way campier and boring.triviawayne wrote:tlynn78 wrote:
Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.
because the "acting" was so realistic and not over the top at all...
- franktangredi
- Posts: 6503
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:34 pm
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
I watched this for the first time a couple of months ago, and I was struck by its portrayal of a woman in an abusive relationship that she can't find her way out of. Sadly, still topical.
- franktangredi
- Posts: 6503
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:34 pm
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
Actors today still act, and actors in the thirties were still themselves in a series of different roles. In fact, that was the entire basis of the old star system. March was part of a select group of stars who were also character actors - along with Paul Muni, Charles Laughton, Bette Davis and a number of others. But others stars such as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, John Wayne, and Clark Gable never disappeared into their roles quite like that and didn't need to.tlynn78 wrote:Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.mellytu74 wrote:We watched it last night.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
- tlynn78
- Posts: 8664
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
I'm thinking specifically of the likes of Julia Roberts for instance. Don't get me wrong, I like watching her, and most of her work, but she are the same person in every role I've seen. Kevin Costner and Harrison Ford, same. ymmv.franktangredi wrote:Actors today still act, and actors in the thirties were still themselves in a series of different roles. In fact, that was the entire basis of the old star system. March was part of a select group of stars who were also character actors - along with Paul Muni, Charles Laughton, Bette Davis and a number of others. But others stars such as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, John Wayne, and Clark Gable never disappeared into their roles quite like that and didn't need to.tlynn78 wrote:Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.mellytu74 wrote:We watched it last night.
The close-ups of Frederic March's face are creepy and unsettling - you can see Jekyll's gears working.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 14972
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
That's what impressed me, too.franktangredi wrote:I watched this for the first time a couple of months ago, and I was struck by its portrayal of a woman in an abusive relationship that she can't find her way out of. Sadly, still topical.
Well, then
- franktangredi
- Posts: 6503
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:34 pm
Re: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931
My only point was that this isn't a change. There have always been those types of stars.tlynn78 wrote:I'm thinking specifically of the likes of Julia Roberts for instance. Don't get me wrong, I like watching her, and most of her work, but she are the same person in every role I've seen. Kevin Costner and Harrison Ford, same. ymmv.franktangredi wrote:Actors today still act, and actors in the thirties were still themselves in a series of different roles. In fact, that was the entire basis of the old star system. March was part of a select group of stars who were also character actors - along with Paul Muni, Charles Laughton, Bette Davis and a number of others. But others stars such as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, John Wayne, and Clark Gable never disappeared into their roles quite like that and didn't need to.tlynn78 wrote:
Back when actors acted, instead of being themselves in a series of different roles.