Jekyll and Hyde transformation

The transformation picture shows/represents Jackal and Hyde sort of as one person. The artist of the picture does a good job in displaying jackle and Hyde as two people stuck inside one body. This certainty proves to be true, as the story progresses and the transformations occur/takes place. This story sort of reminds me of the movie The Nutty professor which was made during the 90’s. Originally when I had seen the video I had to idea that it was based off of the Dr. Jackal and Mr. Hyde story, but upon reading the story, it makes a lot of sense as the similarities between the story and the movie are apparent. In a way, I feel that this picture could perfectly convey the main plot of the story to someone who hasn’t read the story. But overall, I feel that this picture depicts/represents greatly what occurs in the group book.

Dr. Jackle and Mr hyde

In my opinion, Watching the 1932 film Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sort of helped serve as a supplement to the book. However, as always in the movie, some of the details which were included in the book were left out in the movie. compared to the book, watching the movie I sort of felt that the movie left out the element of mystery which the reader is presented with in the book. Watching the movie i felt that the element of mystery was completely taken out of the movie. Another key difference in the portrayal of the story is the person’s character. In the book, the audience doesn’t know until the very end that  Jackle and hyde are the same person.  Instead throughout the entire movie, the audience knows/ is told that they are the same people. I felt that this the key difference between the book and the novel. In my opinion knowing that Dr. jacle and Mr. hyde are the same person sort of ruined the suspense of the story. But overall, it was an interesting movie to watch. In the end, in my opinion i felt that the version of the story presented in the book was much better than the one presented in the movie. As with any book which is turned into a movie, all the time key details which are presented in the book are left out of the movie, which in the end simplify it too much. The book in the end, end up telling a better and more entertaining story to the reader, as a result personally i would prefer the story told in the book to that which is presented in the movie.

Extra Credit – 1941Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde {Simone G.}

As I’ve said before I liked the movie version better than the book but I liked the 1941 version even better. It seemed more fresh than the 1932 version. The film was more clearer, the actors better, and the overall atmosphere seemed more modern. I felt that the film was more Americanized just because of how actors said certain things. I also felt that the film gave us a clue of how society was at the time. In the 1932 public displays of affection weren’t shown very much but in the 1941 version displays of affection between Jekyll and his finance were more frequent. In the 1932 film Jekyll was also more respectful, scared even, of his finance’s father because he had a tight hold on Jekyll’s engagement. In the 1941 Jekyll seemed to joke with the father more, and the father just seemed like a more likable person once you got past his exterior. You can tell by watching the 1941 how society had developed more.

The transformations in the 1941 was a lot better. I didn’t like how in the 1932 version Jekyll resembled a monkey. It just didn’t seem realistic. If a monkey-like man was running around town I would be a bit concerned. The transformation in the 1941 version seemed more believeable. Hyde resembled Jekyll more so we know that Hyde comes from a inner part of Jekyll. Hyde was still creepy but he was not dehumanized. When Jekyll transformed in the 1941 it seems more of a dream sequence than what is described in the book and the 1932 film. He sees the two women he is torn between and pictures them as horses. I thought that was a bit strange. I think what triggers the transformations is when Jekyll is torn between something he would like to do but is not appropriate so Hyde comes out and does the evil for him. The transformations did not seem as if he was in pain in the 1941 film. I think the 1932 version tried to demonstrate the physical agony more but the 1942 version displayed more of the mental side in the transformation.

The one change I recognized the most was how Hyde died. In the book it seemed as if Jekyll killed Hyde and in the process killed himself. In the 1932 film a random policeman killed him and in the 1941 version the detective killed.

Overall I liked the 1941 film of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It kept my attention longer and it was more modernized so I felt that I could relate to it. Also I found it more believable because Hyde didn’t resemble a creature.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Transformation Scene

In the first transformation scene there where both similarity’s and differences between the movie, novella, and picture. In all three it showed how he took the poison and the side affects, but the side affects and the way the poison persevered itself where all different. For example, the movie portrays the poison as having Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as one person just with two different personalities and desires. In the novella it is seen as if Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde become to different people and while in the picture it is seen almost as if Mr. Hyde is a spirit that came out of Dr. Jekyll, a ghost per say.

Transformation Victor C.

I thought that the picture was very representative of the book and movie. You can see from the picture that he is obviously in pain while making the transformation and that is described in both the book and the movie. What i think is the most interesting part of the  picture is how it portrays both characters.  Jekyll stands tall and looks very much like a gentlemen, an upstanding person from the upper class.  Hyde on the other hand looks like a troll almost. He looks scary and is very representative of the the dangerous creature he is. He is hunched over and looks like a deranged man. I think that this picture is a good representation of the transformation and shows the difference in the two characters not only emotionally but physically as well.

**Extra Credit** – (1941) Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde {Marcus C.}

Seeing the 1941 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was more enjoyable than the 1932 version, I believe. This version was better acted and had a better dramatization over all. Compared to the previous screen adaptation, this one was a little longer, but had more of a “realistic” feel to it. When I say realistic, I am stating that the actors didn’t seem as scripted as they did in the 1932. I also noticed that the main character who played in this film was the same character from the Thomas Edison movie that we saw in Engl 101-MT6 last semester. I thought that it was better to make the transformation from Jekyll to Hyde less detailed. In other words, the 1932 version dressed Hyde up in a lot of make-up until he looked very much like a monster. In this newer film (newer in that time period), they didn’t change much about Jekyll’s appearance. Though I am not saying his appearance didn’t change at all,  but rather less. He still looked like he was Dr. Jekyll.

Differences in the two films were made known. One thing that I noticed between the two versions is that the 1941 didn’t emphasize as much on the relationship between Dr. Jekyll and his “wife to be”. They still kept the same story line, whereas he wants to unleash his inner darkness so that he can do things without guilt. But after watching both versions, I noticed that both times he failed. He eventually felt convicted in the end, which is why he wanted to “set his girlfriend free”. He still had the same story with the young lady at the club. The only difference that I remember is that in the 1932 version, the young seductress was an actual berlesk dancer. In the 1941 film, she was only a bar tender.

The same views I had comparing the actual book to the 1932 film still stand. In the book, they didn’t mention anything about a lady playing a major role, as did in the two films. If there was a lady in the novel, she wasn’t mentioned enough to the point where I could remember.

Between the two film versions and the book, I liked the 1941 film version better. The reason is that I feel as if it was better written and had a better story line. I was more apt to focus more, because it held my attention more.

17-Jekyll and Hyde transformation-SoniaS

The image of the transformation scene from the Mansfield and Sullivan dramatization is somewhat comparable to that of the 1932 film as well as the 1st transformation scene in Stevenson on page 80. I think its least fascinating to read the portrayal of the transformation in the book than it is to see it in this photograph. Although the photograph does show the basic idea of what’s happening with the character of Dr, Hyde coming out of Dr. Jekyll body which is showing Dr. Jekyl’s transformation to Mr. Hyde, I think that overall to actually watch it in the movie because it gives a clear detailed visualization of what’s actually going on.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Transformation Image {Simone G.}

I think the picture of the transformation is similar to that of the movie and book. In the picture we see Jekyll and then Hyde kind of creeps out of him. Jekyll is portrayed as tall and handsome represents the good side himself. Hyde crouching over the way and his facial expressions gives off a bad feeling and shows that he is the evil side of Jekyll. In the book Jekyll mention about losing his height during the transformation and in the picture Hyde is shorter compared to Jekyll.

It’s interesting how in the picture Hyde is all wispy. It shows how Hyde is part of Jekyll and that he comes from an inner part of Jekyll. The movie also supported this because when he transformed Jekyll’s persona slowly stripped away revealing his inner “soul”. Hyde’s cringed face in the picture also resembles the pain Jekyll encounters during the transformation. During the movie, whenever Jekyll changed, his face always looked as if he was in pain. Jekyll talks about how painful the transformation was in the book also. Although I think even though he described it as painful in the book the movie helped me picture the transformation better.

Jekyll and Hyde transformation Marshai M

The picture shows Jekyll’s and Hyde’s characterists.   Jekyll is  standing up straight and strong while Hyde is hunch over as if he is handicap.  In the movie one can see that Hyde is a hairy beast.  The darkfine hair is a sign of evil.  The hair  and his posture makes Hyde seem unhuman.     

Jekyll transforms into Mr. Hyde whenever he has extreme feeling.  Whenever something happens that makes himfeel sad, mad, or anxious, Jekyll’s evil side takes over.  Page 80 makes Jekyll’s transformation seem pleasant while the movie makes it seem like a bitter sweet moment ( like eating our candy). 

The picutre displays Jekyll and Hyde as one person.  Hyde is slightly fade- making it seem like he is either a imaginary person or a ghost.  The book makes it seem like Hyde and Tkyll are two different people.  The movie display the characters as one person with different personalities and desires. 

 

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Trasformation :: Traian Dragomir

The image that portrays Jekyll’s paranormal transformation into the hideous Mr. Hyde is fascinating given its date. It sets up a mysterious atmosphere for the events that are about to occur and adds and evil touch to the story. Furthermore, it clearly shows the difference between one’s evil and benefactor, or at least neutral, state of being. I like this take on the transformation far more than the ones in the book and the movie. The movie scene is more gruesome and shows the character’s tormented self. The picture shows the transformation from a psychological point of view which makes it more interesting and captivating.