F&TVR’S From Page to Screen: LANA TURNER 1

Lana Turner, Spencer Tracy & Ingrid Bergman in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ( 1941)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) MGM

Directed by Victor Fleming

Screenplay by John Lee Mahin based on the Novella by Robert Louis Stevenson

CAST: Spencer Tracy (Dr. Harry Jekyll / Mr. Hyde), Ingrid Bergman (Ivy Peterson), Lana Turner (Beatrix Emery), Donald Crisp (Sir Charles Emery), Ian Hunter (Dr. John Lanyon).

1hr 53min / Not Rated

Not the best known version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but certainly one of the most interesting due mainly to the stars; Victor Fleming’s production of Stevenson’s tale about science gone wrong and the ensuing madness has a dream cast headed up by Spencer Tracy who is supported by Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman. Although she was the quintessential Sweater Girl, Lana Turner was much more than just another pretty face. One only need to see her paced performance in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to realize that she was also a gifted actress.

The roles were originally cast in reverse, but Ingrid Bergman knew better and suggested the role reversal with great success. Not only did Bergman’s performance suit the part of Ivy, but Turner was the ultimate beauty in a doomed relationship. It is perplexing to realize that at the time of its release, the film floundered at the box office. In addition, Ingrid Bergman felt that she was miscast even after making the switch from Beatrice to Ivy, and on viewing the film, Spencer Tracy thought his career was over.

Lana Turner & Spencer Tracy in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941), Miriam Hopkins & Fredrick March in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Spencer Tracy may have been carrying the load of the critical attacks and it is even rumored that while visiting the set of the film, W. Somerset Maugham snidely commented, “Which one is he now, Jekyll or Hyde?” The New York Times review was merciless, calling Tracy’s Performance, “…more ludicrous than dreadful.” It is all the more a conundrum due to the simple fact that the performances are what carry this version and make it viewable today.

It should be said that the film is less based on Stevenson’s novel than on the script of the 1931 production that starred Fredrick March, Miriam Hopkins (in Ingrid Bergman’s role), and Ros Hobart (in Lana Turner’s role). Directed by Rouben Mamoulian and unrestrained by the Hayes Code, the earlier version is more of a horror film with a stronger sexual emphasis. Changes had to be made in the 1941 version due to the Hayes Office. Fleming’s film was more of a phycological drama than a horror film, and the sexuality had to be muted to avoid issues with the Code.

Frederick March was in much more make-up and his interpretation more animalistic than Tracy’s, which relied heavily on his acting and light make-up only. Some have criticized this portrayal as over the top, but it is subtlety modulated, and his personality change is severe and believable in both roles. When Hyde grins in the face of his victim’s discomfort, it is unsettling as we feel we can imagine his sinister thoughts. We know we are seeing evil without motivation; it is evil for its own sake. When he trips the waiter after tipping him, our chagrin is genuine.

Spencer Tracy & Lana Turner in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Turner as Jekyll’s fiancé, Beatrix is both beautiful and demure in a role that she underplays with great success. Bergman is Ivy, a bartender in a music hall who meets Dr. Jekyll by way of being rescued as she is attacked on her walk home from the music hall. Presumably dickering over cost with a prospective john (but that is only what you might imagine due to the Hayes Code having caused the roll to be changed from prostitute to barmaid). Dr. Jekyll and his colleague, Dr. John Lanyon (Ian Hunter) come to her defense and although she’s not hurt, she pretends injury, and the good doctor gallantly accompanies her to her room. She flirts with him as he puts her to bed. Of course, he knows that she is not really hurt at all, but too much of a gentleman to mention it. A good man, he is really trying to resist her wiles (Bergman is wonderful in the role) and his friend knocks just in time to save the him from himself.

Spencer Tracy & Ingrid Bergman in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

He is saved from his evil side, but the memory will lurk in the darkness of his soul until his formula brings it to life in the mind of Mr. Hyde. Hyde quickly finds her and begins a relationship of mental terror and torment. Meanwhile, his fiancé is on a short vacation with her father, who does not approve of Dr. Jekyll’s research. Jekyll becomes more and more involved as Hyde in the torment of Ivy than with his research. He even neglects writing to his fiancé as his good side also become obsessed. Suspension of disbelief is strained as Ivy does not recognize Jekyll in the form of Hyde. Or does she suspect it on some level? Whatever the explanation, the cast in this film is formidable, and Lana Turner as Ivy is caught in a triangle that is doomed to the horror of the evil unleashed by science and nurtured by temptation.

Spencer Tracy & Ingrid Bergman in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Facts, Rumors & Hearsay

Spencer Tracy arrived at Clark Gable and Carole Lombard’s second wedding anniversary party wearing his make up as Mr Hyde.

Spencer Tracy wanted a realistic approach to the story. He envisioned Dr. Jekyll committing heinous deeds in a part of the city where he was not known, perhaps drunk or high on drugs. He was let down by the producers, who bought the screenplay for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), and insisted on remaking that version. Tracy may have wished to have the story closer to the source: Stevenson’s novella mentions no female love interest for either Jekyll or Hyde.

Director Victor Fleming is said to have slapped both Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner in scenes where tears were required, and with Turner even resorted to arm twisting!

The original pronunciation of the name Jekyll is jee-kle. In this movie it is pronounced jeh-kle which stuck as the popular pronunciation of the doctor’s name.

Other Films Based on Robert Louis Stevenson’s Gothic Novella

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) Silent
Directed by John S. Robertson
Screenplay by Clara S. Beranger based on Novella by Robert Louis Stevenson
CAST: John Barrymore, Martha Mansfield, Nita Naldi, and Brndon Hurst

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1960) AKA The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll
Directed by Terence Fisher
Screenplay by Wolf Mankowitz
CAST: Paul Massie, Dawn Addams, and Christopher Lee

Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971)
Directed by Roy Ward Baker
Screenplay by Brian Clemens based on Novella by Robert Louis Stevenson
CAST: Ralph Bates, Martine Beswick, and Gerald Sim

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1973) TV Movie
Directed by David Winters
Screenplay by Sherman Yellen based on Novella by Robert Louis Stevenson
CAST: Kirk Douglas, Susan George, Stanley Holloway, Donald Pleasence, and Michael Redgrave

Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde (1995)
Directed by David Price
Story by David Price, Screenplay by Tim John & Oliver Bucher and William Davies & William Osborne suggested by the Novella by Robert Louis Stevenson
CAST: Sean Young, Tim Daly, Lysette Anthony, Harvey Fierstein, and Thea Vidale

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2003)
Directed by Maurice Phillips
Screenplay by Martyn Hesfor based on Novella by Robert Louis Stevenson
CAST: John Hannah, David Warner, and Gerard Horan

NEXT: The Postman Always Rings Twice

Producers & Directors Series 2 Alfred Hitchcock: Part Four

Illustration by John Harbourne

Psycho (1960 Paramount Pictures)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Written by Joseph Stefano based on the Novel by Robert Bloch

CAST: Anthony Perkins (Norman Bates), Janet Leigh (Marion Crane), John Gavin (Sam Loomis), Vera Miles (Lila Crane), Martin Balsam (Detective Milton Arbogast), Vaughn Taylor (George Lowery), Frank Albertson (Tom Cassidy), John McIntire ( Sheriff Al Chambers), Patricia Hitchcock (Caroline), John Anderson (California Charlie), Mort Mills (Highway Patrol Officer).

1hr 49min / Rated R

Part 4: The Investigation

After Marion’s disappearance, her sister arrives at Sam Loomis’ store only moments before the arrival of a private investigator. Detective Milton Arbogast is sarcastically officious to the point of rudeness. Sam demands an explanation to the questions that he’s being asked, and the answers he receives mystify him. There is no question that he is telling the truth when he denies knowing anything about Marion and the forty-thousand dollars. Sam’s innocence, along with Lila’s confusion slowly brings the abrasive Arbogast around, but he has to satisfy his own suspicions first.

Arbogast sets out checking one motel after another until he finally stumbles onto the out of the way motel run by Norman Bates. His questioning of Norman starts off slowly, but it isn’t long before Arbogast’s aggressive insistence escalates Norman’s uneasiness and causes him to stumble and give the detective an answer that contradicts one of his previous responses. He is no match for the practiced detective, and Norman’s nerves unravel undermining his concentration to the point of mentioning his mother. He then refuses to continue the conversation and let’s Arbogast know he is no longer willing to speak to him. The sometimes subtle, sometimes sudden changes in mood and personality that Perkins brings to the character of Norman Bates rises to a level that makes it difficult for the viewer not to emphasize with him.

Arbogast leaves the motel and goes to a phone booth and calls Lila. He tells her that he is sure that Marion was at the Bates Motel, but feels that something is not right. Although Norman says she left the next morning, he thinks maybe Norman’s mother knows something that could help them locate Marion. He advises Lila that he is going back to try to speak to the mother. He also tells her that he believes that Sam did not know that Marion had come to see him. He assures her that he won’t be more than a hour. Up to this point, Arbogast has annoyed the viewer almost as much as he did Sam, Lila, and Norman, but when he talks to Lila he seems a different person, kind and comforting. Like the shot of him talking to Norman as his back is reflected in the mirror, it is a reverse reflection of what we see as he grills Norman. One more clue to the paradox that is being unfolded.

Much has been written about Hitchcock’s use of mirrors in Psycho to reflect the idea of a split personality. It is a reflection of Arbogast’s back because he is an unknown, like Norman. We don’t know what to think of him at this point. Arbogast’s is the most telling because the change in his personality is shown and happens right before the second murder.

Returning to the motel, he does not see any sign of Norman. He goes into the house. He starts up the stairs slowly. When he gets to the top of the landing we are startled as Mrs. Bates appears suddenly and stabs him violently. Arbogast staggers backward down the staircase and is followed by the deranged old woman. The scene culminates in a continuation of the vicious stabbing. Like the shower scene, this comes out of nowhere and the shock sends us reeling as we watch helplessly.

Back at Sam Loomis’ store, Lila begins to worry after more than two hours passes and there is no sign of Arbogast. She is convinced that something must have happened to the detective or they would have heard from him. They go to see the Sheriff at his home in the middle of the night, and in the course of trying to convince the Sheriff and his wife that there is something amiss are informed that Mrs. Bates has been dead for ten years. They are more confused than ever as their investigation enters its final stage. They decide to see for themselves what is going on at the Bates Motel.

The next day after seeing the sheriff and his wife at church, they drive to the motel and pretend that they are a married couple wanting to rent a cabin. Lila decides that she wants to go into the house to talk to Norman’s mother. Once they are sure Norman has returned to the house, they go to cabin 1 and examine it. Finding the scrap of paper in the toilet, Lila sees as proof that Marion has been there. Sam reminds her that Norman has never denied that Marion was there. Lila believes that the figures on the paper prove that her sister was going to return the money. It is then that Lila decides to try to find and talk to the old woman. She suggests that Sam be the decoy and she go to the house.

The plan is for Sam to keep Norman busy talking. This turns out to be more difficult than expected. Sam’s questions anger and then bore him. After the ordeal with Arbogast, Norman grows impatient quickly and realizes that he’s being stalled. Hitting Sam in the head with a heavy vase, he then runs to the house.

Lila has been investigating the house. She goes up the stairs to the mother’s room, but finds it empty except for her own reflections in the mirrors that startle her. She is only further confused by what she finds in the empty room. She then heads down stairs and is in the entryway just as Norman is coming up the stairs, and she runs and hides behind the stair case. She sees him come in as she hides in the little stairwell that leads down to the fruit cellar doors. Bates looks in that direction, but chooses to run up the stairs. Of course, he thinks, she’s gone to mother’s room.

Meanwhile, Lila goes down the stairs, unable to resist the lure of the beckoning doors of the fruit cellar. Coming through the door, she immediately sees Norman’s mother sitting with her back to the door as if asleep in the chair. Saying, “Mrs. Bates,” she walks toward her. Then she gently touches the woman’s shoulder, but instead of a response the chair slowly turns to reveal a hideous cadaver and Lila screams. Her up swung hand hits a hanging light as Norman bursts through the door wearing a wig and his mother’s clothes and is closely followed by Sam. Sam grabs and restrains him.

Denouement

This is the only place Psycho falters. It is a scene that has been inserted solely to explain what happened. Aside from being unnecessary, it is clumsy and serves only to pull the audience out of the spell that the film has so carefully cast. The explanation that the psychiatrist gives is overblown and his presentation is both hammy and stagey. All this is moot, because Hitchcock only included it because he had to due to executive pressure. In spite of bringing the incredible flow of the narrative to a jolting halt, it is not enough to ruin the film. Even the noted Hitchcock scholar, Donald Spoto only has this to say about this scene in his excellent, The Art of Alfred Hitchcock:

“The verbal explanation offered later by the psychiatrist at the courthouse adds nothing more…(than what is seen in the last shot as Sam restrains Norman)…The attempt to provide neat psychoanalytic maps to the contours of Norman’s twisted mind seems jejune.”

Donald Spoto
The Art of Alfred Hitchcock: Fifty Years of His Motion Pictures

Spoto calls it boring. He was being kind. I would like to see a director’s cut with the scene eradicated from the film. Then the film would end like this…

then to here..

and finally…

The Film Score

No other film score has had such an impact on its audience.  It is impossible to imagine Psycho without Bernard Herrmann’s score. The two are joined as with no other film and score.  The ‘all strings’ choice that Herrmann made was so perfect for the subject and theme of the film that it is as important as all of the other elements combined. Though partly necessitated by budget limitations: he created a score for what is essentially a low budget black and white film that transcends its limitations in part due to the magnificent score.   Herrmann called it a ‘black and white’ score which is perfect, because the sound so reflects what is happening on the screen that just hearing the music takes the listener back to the scenes as they flash in the mind as if projected on the air.  In this case, the freedom Hitchcock gave the composer did have a immense impact on the finished film.  Herrmann has said that director’s don’t know music and that Hitchcock wanted a ‘jazz score’ with no music in the famous shower scene but Herrmann knew better and had written a piece for that key scene instinctively.  When Hitchcock finally admitted that the scene did need music, Herrmann had just what the director desired.  Hitchcock reinforced the importance of this when he doubled Herrmann’s fee for the film. See Note by Note: Bernard Herrmann (F&TVR Archives/September) for more on Herrmann’s film scores.

F&TVR is proud to have as a contributor, John Harbourne whose art speaks for itself, below he explains how he works:

When I’m approaching a new drawing I’ll watch the film a few times, make sketches, read the source novel and research online, looking for that angle that will give me the essence of the story. John Harbourne from his site: https://johnharbourneartist.com

Facts, Rumors & Hearsay

Alfred Hitchcock doubled Barnard Herrmann’s salary to $34,501. Hitchcock later said, “Thirty-three percent of the effect of Psycho was due to the music.”

Bernard Herrmann has said, “Alfred Hitchcock only finishes a picture 60 percent, I have to finish it for him.” 

The shower scene made Janet Leigh realize how vulnerable a woman was in a shower. To the end of her life, she always took baths.

Hitchcock received an angry letter from a man whose daughter stopped taking baths after seeing Diabolique (1955), and now was refusing to take showers after seeing Psycho. Hitchcock responded with a letter saying, “Send her to the dry cleaners.”

To enhance the voyeuristic feel of the film Hitchcock used a 50 mm lens on his 35 mm camera which most closely approximates human vision. In the scenes where Norman is spying on Marion, this effect is realized.

NEXT: VERTIGO