Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Kirk Douglas co-produced this videotaped NBC production through his Bryna Productions, and cast himself in the lead. It's rumored to feature castoff songs from Lionel Bart's OLIVER! If so, they've been shoehorned somewhat inappropriately into a truncated but serviceable version of the Stevenson tale.

The cast and performances are good-- particularly Susan George, Judi Bowker and Donald Pleasence (who displays an impressive singing voice).

Some of the songs are fine-- the one Michael Redgrave sings at the engagement party is beautiful-- but others are cringe-making. One may watch this show wincing in dread that another one will start.

Despite this, it's an interesting version-- certainly a curiosity-- and worth a look.

It has always been my humble opinion that the best player in the history of the screen who could go quickest into a rage and convince you of it is Kirk Douglas. So the dual role of Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde should have been a natural for him. And when it's strictly acting Kirk takes his place along side John Barrymore, Fredric March, Spencer Tracy even to the guy who created the role in the Victorian era theater Richard Mansfield.

But this musical adaption of Dr.Jekyll And Mr. Hyde fails precisely because of that, it's music. Lionel Bart who wrote so many good songs in the 60s for British pop stars and the score of the musical Oliver was in a lot of financial and health problems. The story goes that Bart opened the trunk and provided a lot of previously unpublished stuff for the score. It hadn't been used because it wasn't that good.

Can't critique the cast here though only Stanley Holloway as Poole the butler could be properly identified as a musical performer. Kirk Douglas had sung on the big screen previously in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and Man Without A Star, but he had better material there. Donald Pleasance is his usual slimy self as the man from London's underworld who discovers Douglas's dual nature.

The women in the story no matter which version also emphasize the dual nature. Susan Hampshire is the daughter of Michael Redgrave who Douglas courts as Jekyll. But it's Susan George as the music hall performer who Hyde wants to make his love slave.

I wish Kirk Douglas had done a straight dramatic version, it would have been better received.

With the death of Kirk Douglas a couple days ago, I was in the mood to watch one of his films. However, I've seen most of his work and so after a bit of research I found something I haven't seen...nor knew that he ever made in the first place. It seems that back in 1973, he starred in a made for TV musical version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"! While this sounded just dreadful, it did make me curious...and when I found it on YouTube I knew I just had to see it.

Before you decide to watch this one, there are a couple things you should know. Even for YouTube, the quality of the print is simply awful...so bad that a sane person probably wouldn't bother--which says a lot about me! Also, there are blank gaps in the film where the commercials used to be...so be sure to speed through them.

So is the film good? No. While the sets and costumes are lovely, the music really didn't work. The songs weren't very good (why a song all about bicycle?) but also it seemed strange having Douglas in the lead singing most of the songs as he really didn't have a great voice. Why not pick an actor with a strong voice, such as Gordon MacRae or Howard Keel? I also couldn't understand why they didn't stick closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel? The original motivation for the Doctor's work was to unlock the dark side of a human being....here he's a neurologist who is trying to cure insanity. Why the change? I also thought the makeup to make Jekyll become Hyde was cheap and silly--mostly just cotton stuffed in Douglas' mouth! It made me laugh when folks didn't recognize him...when he simply looked like Jekyll with mumps! I also laughed when Jekyll keeps talking to describe EVERYTHING he's thinking and doing...didn't this seem awkward to anyone when they did it?

Overall, this is a silly and misguided film project. Good for a laugh...and not much more.

In my opinion this is an excellent remake of the classic story. Kirk Douglas in the role of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his evil counterpart Mr. Edward Hyde, is as good as Fredric March was in the 1931 film, and better than Spencer Tracy in the 1941 version.

And Susan George is better for the part of two bit hooker than both Miriam Hopkins (1931) and Ingrid Bergman (1941).

Only blemish is the singing, which does not contribute to the atmosphere but almost destroys the tension and excitement.

Overall though a very good enjoyable film.

One of my sci-fi/horror/fantasy reviews written 50 years ago: Directed by David Winters; Executive Producers: Winters and Burt Rosen, taped telefilm for Bryna Productions, broadcast by NBC. Screenplay by Sherman Yellen; Photography by Dick Bush; Edited by Stuart Baird and Bob Best; Music and Book by Lionel Bart, Mel Mandel and Norman Sacks; Choreography by Eleanor Fazan. Starring: Kirk Douglas, Susan George, Susan Hampshire, Stanley Holloway, Donald Pleasence, Michael Redgrave and Judi Bowker.

Surprisingly successful and entertaining taped musicalization of the Stevenson perennial, with Bart's musical numbers often self-consciously recalling his "Oliver!" hit. Douglas is good with a Fredric March-style swept-up upper lip, but receives brilliant support, especially immensely sexy and evocative young Susan George, whose extreme youth is played off against a 13-year-old street moppet. Dick Bush as lighting cameraman creates classic compositions, overcoming Winters' textbook direction.