Behind The Scenes: They did this effect using a process called the "Red Light, Green Light" effect, which can only be done in black and white. They put red makeup on the actor, Fredric March, and placed him under a light that could turn from red to green. In black in white, red makeup in a red light looks invisible to the camera. However, when the light turned green, the makeup turned black which, in black and white, looked like shadows were fading in to his face...
This transformation scene is legendary, by far the best for many decades, obviously, and for generations no one could figure out how it was done. After Mamoulian finally died, one of the crew explained that it was done with rotating filters. It is magnificent. Fredric March won the Oscar for his performance but Louis B. Mayer went backstage after learning that he'd beaten Wallace Beery in "The Champ" by one vote and insisted that they give it to both actors.
Best version ever! Academy award for March. Simple make up and stage lighting, cutaways, and genius transformation. All the cgi and special effects can't come near this today.
The silence of everything around him makes it scarier. They should make scary transformation scenes like this in todays movies. Movies now always have a super loud song while it’s happening.
There were many remakes of this story, but none of 'em had a make-up job this effective. And for 1931, the scene is brilliant. The earlier silent version (John Barrymore) was good, too, but this was much more effective IMHO. Thanks for posting.
+Seth Tyrssen I was hoping to find something that's informative about whether there were any edits. I thought I had read that, there were no camera tricks and no edits.
Well, it's a safe bet that this was done almost as a stop-motion piece! A bit of make-up, a bit of filming ... how they'd make it all "appear" on him, I really don't know! Anyone out there know more?
+Seth Tyrssen - there are definitely edits as the camera pans from face to hands and back. The clever trick is the use of red and green for makeup and filters, so that the makeup only becomes visible to the camera gradually as the filter changes. Of course, this trick is only possible when shooting in black and white!
@@tyrssen1 When the camera moves to the right hand, someone put some fake teeth in his mouth. When the camera goes to the left hand, watch closely and you'll see the camera "glitch" once or twice around the elbow. That "glitch" is when they turned the camera off, did some more makeup, and started filming again. They did their best to cut and paste the different takes together. It's easy to see if you know about it.
@@robinsumlin9369 Quite right. I've known such stuff since I was a kid reading "Famous Monsters" magazine, and went on to do some special-effects make-up myself.
While I don't hate CGI (one of my favorite characters is Gollum/Smeagol from LOTR), this scene is a perfect reminder that some things can't be pulled off with computers no matter how hard you try. What they did here was simply place different color filters in front of a camera while the different layers of makeup on Fredric March's face were in different colors and allowed March to express the pain his character was feeling as he transformed into this monster, ending with relief and then excitement. This was a team effort (which is also why I felt Gollum/Smeagol worked so well, everyone worked together, using their strengths to create a fine end product). Today, they'd CG the scene but unless everyone is working together, it would come off as dull and boring.
+janeyrevanescence12 - Yeah, they took the process that was used in the original silent version of Ben-Hur in the scene where the lepers are instantaneously cured as Christ carrying the cross slowly walks past them and reversed the process.
Can you then explain the very obvious cuts that happen when the camera hits the left elbow? Maybe some filter stuff but the definitely turned the camera off to add makeup and turned it back on again.
@@robinsumlin9369 yeah you could tell that each time the camera went down to the hands it was a cut or makeup and teeth what changed first on the right hand and then on his left hand
Definitely a still impressive effect. But one that can only work in black and white. But, there are filmmakers these days that still use black and white. So maybe we'll see that technique again.
This is my favorite golden age film of all-time. To this day, I'm baffled, when taking into account, that Fredric March is playing "both" Jekyll "and" Hyde. It's not only Wally Westmore's brilliant make-up, but March's total change of character. As Hyde, March's voice is changed, as well as posture and gestures. I've watched this movie over a hundred times, and I never lose fascination over Fredric March's academy winning performance. It's amazing.
What this younger generation does NOT remember is that Fredric March WON the Academy Award for best actor for this part and needed NO CGI to get it done. Just a fact.
I agree. I am, however, of the younger generation you describe oh so beautifully. I will not say this twice, but do not make the mistake of labeling the minority when the majority is hopeless. There are some of us who stick our heads in classics and don't come out until decades have past!
David Morris thanks! We watched Dracula in class today, the original film, and everybody laughed. I cannot believe that nobody can appreciate the vintage, dusty feel of a beautiful classic!
The Spencer Tracy version 9 years later was panned viciously as not being up to this one's level and Fredric March sent Tracy a jocular telegram thanking him for his biggest career boost ever. "Werewolf of London," 3 years later, flopped despite having the best werewolf makeup ever because people thought it was too similar to this film. Henry Hull's makeup in that movie works so well with his face, though, that you have to see it to believe it. Truly the scariest makeup ever recorded on film.
but if you look at 0:34 it looks like just as the camera goes from his hand back to his face his cloths suddenly appear differently almost like they filmed it and just put to bits of footage together
@AladerPoop78 I believe they use the same technique in the Jekyll and Hyde Stage Play that was used in the 1932 film verson, the actor playing Jekyll is already wearing the Hyde Make-Up and the make up becomes visible through the use of special lighting and filters
I love this movie and how they adapted the novel by Stevenson. In the book, to keep the reader on his feet, the story is narrated from the point of view of Jekyll's lawyer, Mr Utterson (who make brief appereances in the movie) and only at the end do we know, from one letter by Lanyon and one by Jekyll himself, that Mr Hyde and Dr Jekyll are the same person. Of course in the movie the protagonist HAD to be Dr Jekyll, and so they completely changed the way to tell the story. And it's GLORIOUS. At the beginning we learn about Jekyll's scientific aspirations and Lanyon's opposite view. Then we witness the transformation, with ASTOUNDING effects for the era, and then we gape at ape-like Mr Hyde (courtesy of Fredric March) psychologically torment poor Ivy (played by the always spicy Miriam Hopkins) and finally killing her; they kept the part where he shows himself transforming in front of Lanyon and beating up with a stick Mr Carew (although in the book he wasn't his soon-to-be father in law). I found the movie finale as satisfying as the book's epilogue, with Hyde shot to death slowly changing back into Jekyll while life was slipping away from his body. Pre-Code Hollywood (hello, Miriam Hopkins' naked legs!) was pure beauty and this is a great horror movie, still scary to this day (especially when Hyde shows up in the mirror Ivy was looking in).
@cha5 What racism? In case you haven't read it, the the original 1886 Stevenson story Hyde is described as being apelike and he resembles an evolutionary throwback and a troglodyte (underground creature) the story came out a few years after Darwin theories of evolution took the scientific world by storm. Far from being racist this is a pretty faithful depiction of Hyde as a character.
of all the countless films made over the years, the spencer tracy version was the best because not only were the transformations the most realistic-looking and restrained, but the acting was terrific as well, there was a genuine feeling of sympathy for his character and his obsession to overcome the curse
@Toyman1982 Really? They're just painting on him? Did you miss when the make up changes while his face is still in frame? It was more complicated than just adding make up to his face and hands. It deals with complex make up layering that will begin to expose itself through studio lighting changes.
You statement is correct. The on-camera transformation was a Big Deal secret for decades. The director, Rouben Mamoulian, eventually explained it all, saying it was matter of coloured make-up and filters - things that didn't "read" on black and white film. Directors are smart fellas. Robert Wise once assured Julie Andrews that rain falling during a scene in "The Sound of Music" would not show up on film; something about changing f-stops to make it disappear. He was right. What a pro.
We learned in an art class they used special makeup and lighting. Once the lighting change the specialized makeup appeared. The film panning down was used to help them add the different teeth.
I listened to the DVD commentary and they said that in a way, it was a continuous shot. When moving up the arms, they stopped moving the camera and waited for more makeup to be put on, they they would resume moving the camera. So March and the camera were sitting in the same spot for who knows how long at a time.
For the face-different colored makeup and placing and removing different colored filters over the camera lens. But honestly-some sort of multiple exposures for the hand to head shots and 80 years later-they are done so perfectly-it is impossible to tell if it is indeed multiple film exposures. Just a WOW!!!
It was filmed black & white, & initial makeup was shot in one color light, & the makeup done using the opposite (forgot if it was red or green light 1st- simply don't haven't time to look up) Anyway, Hyde makeup was done using I think reds, & the red dominate lighting setup washed out the same colored Hyde makeup.... during the transformation, the two lighting colors are faded between red to green, maintaining lumen output throughout the shift, causing the 2 makeups to "shift" between designs.
they used lighting, make up, and the literally taped his face into that position. the coolest thing to me is the lighting though, when they added red light the green makeup would pop out giving it the appearance that he was actually changing! Genius!
...the camera movements are all part of the effect like the special make-up that only showed when the lighting filter switched. Any prosthetics were easily placed on him by simply following the camera movements. One continuous take. Remarkable.
Well, while there seems to be a cut at 0:46, it still remains that, prior to that, much of the transformation has been already done. The lens was covered with a red film, which was slowly taken off. As Fredrich March had his skin red-tinged too, this worked to the affect of creating the illusion of a drak pigmentation. as the camera travels to the first hand, it's clear that the film is put back somehow and then again taken off for the hand transformation. continues...
though I don't get why the cut is made at 0:36 and not before the camera focus the right hand (because somewhere in the middle of the panning the film would have to been put back). perhaps there's even another cut so well made we are not getting it.
I am often amazed what can be done today with modern techniques but I think its a lot more interesting how they did it before these were available :D An smetimes (the Hobbit) CGI just doesnt have the same effect as make-up and such, mainly because the characters move to light and because enemy-minions (goblins, orcs, aliens, robots) all look the same which gets rather dull after the first two freaking hours of the movie
I think that if jekyll had Heterochromia iridum (or at least a slight difference in eye colors) that this would be enough of a transformation. Like say, he was in a tense situation and he bursts into the bathroom and looks in the mirror. then the camera goes from focusing on the lighter iris to the darker one. This would be a good way to show a changing moment. Then he emerges from the bathroom with a new-found badass attitude and kicks butt.
That's why, so I guess, the camera cuts off. Because there would not be enough time to glue the wig if the camera panning were continuous. I think that's a good explanation for all the process.
To be honest I always felt that most movie versions of Jekyll and Hyde take the wrong tack. In the book Jekyll is supposed to be a man of 50 and Hyde is much younger. Surely, even back then with the make up effects they had, it would make more sense for an actor to start in 'old' make up, and then gradually have it peel away during transition shots and newer features added? I think this would be much more effective.
You are right, and I guess all the cuts were made to allow for the film to be placed again on the lenses and also for the staff to apply teeth, red tint and wig to the actor's face.
Behind The Scenes: They did this effect using a process called the "Red Light, Green Light" effect, which can only be done in black and white. They put red makeup on the actor, Fredric March, and placed him under a light that could turn from red to green. In black in white, red makeup in a red light looks invisible to the camera. However, when the light turned green, the makeup turned black which, in black and white, looked like shadows were fading in to his face...
Mario Bava effects!
didnt u see the cut in the video? yea they used this red green effect, but the cut was so obv 0:35 ( use 0,25x speed if u dont see it that fast)
@@Schniezzen The jump cut was done so hat the technicians could insert March's dentures and nostril-distending plugs.
More like “it can only be done AS SUCH in black and white”
This is so amazingly innovative for it's time
for 1931 this is like the most awesome visual effects i mean if i was a kid back in 1931 and saw this i would literally shit my pants .
Imagine watching this on the big screen back in the day. Pretty scary for its time.
did america invented cinema/movie?
Those facial expressions are priceless
Yep they are lol
Even Bill Bixby didn't carry on like that when he changed into the Hulk for the first time in the pilot episode.
Me when whiskey
The relief when Hide takes over completely
Fun fact: This is what the Incredible Hulk's transformation is inspired from.
Also the evil queen from Snow White
Also the Lizard was inspired by J&H
This transformation scene is legendary, by far the best for many decades, obviously, and for generations no one could figure out how it was done. After Mamoulian finally died, one of the crew explained that it was done with rotating filters. It is magnificent. Fredric March won the Oscar for his performance but Louis B. Mayer went backstage after learning that he'd beaten Wallace Beery in "The Champ" by one vote and insisted that they give it to both actors.
My dad makes that face in the toilet
You.... you... watch your dad while he's in the toilet?
That is messed up that you watch your father shit...
JoeMcfly Gaming HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Are you your own father, by any chance?
Jayesper hahahahahahah
Impressive for 1932 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
For any year.
Best version ever! Academy award for March. Simple make up and stage lighting, cutaways, and genius transformation. All the cgi and special effects can't come near this today.
Well, they sure do, but I guess this has some historic value.
I always wonder just how fast hair and make had to move when they cutaway to his hands 😅
The silence of everything around him makes it scarier. They should make scary transformation scenes like this in todays movies. Movies now always have a super loud song while it’s happening.
Fredric March is an amazing actor. I'm surprised he doesn't get more recognition than he does.
He was good and great to be there in about him
He did winan Oscar
0:04 me on Friday night
1:03 me on Monday morning
not so much different...
Lololololol
Maddy Gowers 100th like!
Same 😂
hahahahahahaha
There were many remakes of this story, but none of 'em had a make-up job this effective. And for 1931, the scene is brilliant. The earlier silent version (John Barrymore) was good, too, but this was much more effective IMHO. Thanks for posting.
+Seth Tyrssen I was hoping to find something that's informative about whether there were any edits. I thought I had read that, there were no camera tricks and no edits.
Well, it's a safe bet that this was done almost as a stop-motion piece! A bit of make-up, a bit of filming ... how they'd make it all "appear" on him, I really don't know! Anyone out there know more?
+Seth Tyrssen - there are definitely edits as the camera pans from face to hands and back. The clever trick is the use of red and green for makeup and filters, so that the makeup only becomes visible to the camera gradually as the filter changes. Of course, this trick is only possible when shooting in black and white!
@@tyrssen1 When the camera moves to the right hand, someone put some fake teeth in his mouth. When the camera goes to the left hand, watch closely and you'll see the camera "glitch" once or twice around the elbow.
That "glitch" is when they turned the camera off, did some more makeup, and started filming again. They did their best to cut and paste the different takes together. It's easy to see if you know about it.
@@robinsumlin9369 Quite right. I've known such stuff since I was a kid reading "Famous Monsters" magazine, and went on to do some special-effects make-up myself.
''Don't make me angry! You would't like me when I'm angry!''
While I don't hate CGI (one of my favorite characters is Gollum/Smeagol from LOTR), this scene is a perfect reminder that some things can't be pulled off with computers no matter how hard you try. What they did here was simply place different color filters in front of a camera while the different layers of makeup on Fredric March's face were in different colors and allowed March to express the pain his character was feeling as he transformed into this monster, ending with relief and then excitement. This was a team effort (which is also why I felt Gollum/Smeagol worked so well, everyone worked together, using their strengths to create a fine end product). Today, they'd CG the scene but unless everyone is working together, it would come off as dull and boring.
+janeyrevanescence12 - Yeah, they took the process that was used in the original silent version of Ben-Hur in the scene where the lepers are instantaneously cured as Christ carrying the cross slowly walks past them and reversed the process.
well, it was only 1930 whatever. it's not like they have proper computer effects now, is it?
Can you then explain the very obvious cuts that happen when the camera hits the left elbow? Maybe some filter stuff but the definitely turned the camera off to add makeup and turned it back on again.
@@robinsumlin9369 yeah you could tell that each time the camera went down to the hands it was a cut or makeup and teeth what changed first on the right hand and then on his left hand
Definitely a still impressive effect. But one that can only work in black and white.
But, there are filmmakers these days that still use black and white. So maybe we'll see that technique again.
First time I've seen a clip of Dr Jekyll and Tom Jones
So goddamn good!!1932 and having better transformation scenes than all the goddamn technology can provide in 2024
Brilliant acting and effects without cgi - genius.
This is my favorite golden age film
of all-time. To this day, I'm baffled,
when taking into account, that Fredric
March is playing "both" Jekyll "and"
Hyde. It's not only Wally Westmore's
brilliant make-up, but March's total
change of character. As Hyde, March's
voice is changed, as well as posture and
gestures. I've watched this movie over
a hundred times, and I never lose
fascination over Fredric March's academy
winning performance. It's amazing.
why do you
have to
speak like
this? can't
you just
finish the
whole line?
Agreed I couldn’t have said it better.👍
@@skadoof2525 Because I'm my
own person and not sheep.
That's why. 😉
A masterpiece. The cast was marvelous. Hyde was truly creepy in this.
What this younger generation does NOT remember is that Fredric March WON the Academy Award for best actor for this part and needed NO CGI to get it done. Just a fact.
I agree. I am, however, of the younger generation you describe oh so beautifully. I will not say this twice, but do not make the mistake of labeling the minority when the majority is hopeless. There are some of us who stick our heads in classics and don't come out until decades have past!
madZ McCoy Well said. Glad to hear there are younger people out there who appreciate these classics.
David Morris thanks! We watched Dracula in class today, the original film, and everybody laughed. I cannot believe that nobody can appreciate the vintage, dusty feel of a beautiful classic!
They should watch "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi. Very atmosphereic and genuinely spooky for its time.
+David Morris I'll suggest it to my teacher:)
Every morning , when I try to poop for 40 minutes.
When you open the front facing camera 0:43
Omg man, I just laughed so hard at that...thank you! LOL
0:35 looks like he is trying to sh*t his pants! 😂😂😂
The Spencer Tracy version 9 years later was panned viciously as not being up to this one's level and Fredric March sent Tracy a jocular telegram thanking him for his biggest career boost ever. "Werewolf of London," 3 years later, flopped despite having the best werewolf makeup ever because people thought it was too similar to this film. Henry Hull's makeup in that movie works so well with his face, though, that you have to see it to believe it. Truly the scariest makeup ever recorded on film.
did he just go black?
+FaliusAren yep full time now brv lol
+Extravagant Sobriquet . . . . . . Yes, literally, because it's a black and white film smart one
he turned into a black man 👹
I'm so sorry😓
he kinda did, racism alert
Extravagant Sobriquet I'm pretty sure that's *not* how a black person is supposed to look. At all.
This is the best Jekyll and Hyde film in my opinion. March captures the sympathetic side of Jekyll and the cruel side of Hyde perfectly.
The lack of music makes this very surreal.
Excellent yeah excellent because they are awesome and the best and the greatest and amazing and all ways wicked!!!!!!.
This is how I am on the toilet every morning
but if you look at 0:34 it looks like just as the camera goes from his hand back to his face his cloths suddenly appear differently almost like they filmed it and just put to bits of footage together
The Hulk before The Hulk.
This is an Oscar winning performance 😌
@AladerPoop78
I believe they use the same technique in the Jekyll and Hyde Stage Play that was used in the 1932 film verson, the actor playing Jekyll is already wearing the Hyde Make-Up and the make up becomes visible through the use of special lighting and filters
This is the best interpretation of what Hyde looks like in the actual novel the strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Highly recommended movie
Beautiful way to show how expressions can make or break a performance
“Did he just turn in Jeff Goldblum?” -Mario, Glove and Boots
"WE COME FOR YOUR DAUGHTER CHUCK...."
This is actually really good for that time. Nowadays they would just cgi the sh*t out of it.
That's what happens when you sneak my grandpa's corn liquor!😂
looks like me trying to take a selfie
dude.....
Facial expressions were better 80 years ago!
I love this movie and how they adapted the novel by Stevenson.
In the book, to keep the reader on his feet, the story is narrated from the point of view of Jekyll's lawyer, Mr Utterson (who make brief appereances in the movie) and only at the end do we know, from one letter by Lanyon and one by Jekyll himself, that Mr Hyde and Dr Jekyll are the same person.
Of course in the movie the protagonist HAD to be Dr Jekyll, and so they completely changed the way to tell the story. And it's GLORIOUS. At the beginning we learn about Jekyll's scientific aspirations and Lanyon's opposite view. Then we witness the transformation, with ASTOUNDING effects for the era, and then we gape at ape-like Mr Hyde (courtesy of Fredric March) psychologically torment poor Ivy (played by the always spicy Miriam Hopkins) and finally killing her; they kept the part where he shows himself transforming in front of Lanyon and beating up with a stick Mr Carew (although in the book he wasn't his soon-to-be father in law). I found the movie finale as satisfying as the book's epilogue, with Hyde shot to death slowly changing back into Jekyll while life was slipping away from his body.
Pre-Code Hollywood (hello, Miriam Hopkins' naked legs!) was pure beauty and this is a great horror movie, still scary to this day (especially when Hyde shows up in the mirror Ivy was looking in).
He went from handsome to what the hell!
love it! GREAT movie and fantastic special effects
Dean Martin has a drink and transforms into Jerry Lewis
More like into Jacques Brel 😆
@cha5 What racism? In case you haven't read it, the the original 1886 Stevenson story Hyde is described as being apelike and he resembles an evolutionary throwback and a troglodyte (underground creature) the story came out a few years after Darwin theories of evolution took the scientific world by storm.
Far from being racist this is a pretty faithful depiction of Hyde as a character.
of all the countless films made over the years, the spencer tracy version was the best because not only were the transformations the most realistic-looking and restrained, but the acting was terrific as well, there was a genuine feeling of sympathy for his character and his obsession to overcome the curse
It’s crazy this was almost a century ago. I’m just learning about this story and it’s amazing.
@Toyman1982 Really? They're just painting on him? Did you miss when the make up changes while his face is still in frame? It was more complicated than just adding make up to his face and hands. It deals with complex make up layering that will begin to expose itself through studio lighting changes.
The guy that deserved the nomination was the makeup artist~ not March
I've had drinks like that.
Absolutely classic. Still one of the best transformations of all time. Genius.
He looked constipated 😂
Excellent!
You statement is correct. The on-camera transformation was a Big Deal secret for decades. The director, Rouben Mamoulian, eventually explained it all, saying it was matter of coloured make-up and filters - things that didn't "read" on black and white film. Directors are smart fellas. Robert Wise once assured Julie Andrews that rain falling during a scene in "The Sound of Music" would not show up on film; something about changing f-stops to make it disappear. He was right.
What a pro.
I've heard that the animators for 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves' used this scene as inspiration for the Evil Queens transformation
@steveobrien1000
The first transformation is even more impressive!
The one where he's looking at himself in a mirror.
VERY good for it's time.
We learned in an art class they used special makeup and lighting. Once the lighting change the specialized makeup appeared. The film panning down was used to help them add the different teeth.
You can't tell me "Special effects were better 80 years ago" with the obvious stupid cut over here at 0:35
_How it feels to chew 5 Gum_
I listened to the DVD commentary and they said that in a way, it was a continuous shot. When moving up the arms, they stopped moving the camera and waited for more makeup to be put on, they they would resume moving the camera. So March and the camera were sitting in the same spot for who knows how long at a time.
Is it so hard to give the director credit? Don’t you know his name? Then find out. His name is mentioned only once in the comments.
pretty freaking awesome continuous shot! :D
For the face-different colored makeup and placing and removing different colored filters over the camera lens. But honestly-some sort of multiple exposures for the hand to head shots and 80 years later-they are done so perfectly-it is impossible to tell if it is indeed multiple film exposures. Just a WOW!!!
wow what a relief a change for the better
this has gave me several nightmares
Incredible for 1932
It was filmed black & white, & initial makeup was shot in one color light, & the makeup done using the opposite (forgot if it was red or green light 1st- simply don't haven't time to look up)
Anyway, Hyde makeup was done using I think reds, & the red dominate lighting setup washed out the same colored Hyde makeup.... during the transformation, the two lighting colors are faded between red to green, maintaining lumen output throughout the shift, causing the 2 makeups to "shift" between designs.
Please add the name of the actor Fredric March
These old school edits are looking crazy in 2024 they done turnt dude into a drunk Tom Jones 😂😂😂
Smooth! I'll have another!
CGI was much better during 30es.
this was actually scary and now im scared to go to sleep sksksks
they used lighting, make up, and the literally taped his face into that position. the coolest thing to me is the lighting though, when they added red light the green makeup would pop out giving it the appearance that he was actually changing! Genius!
...the camera movements are all part of the effect like the special make-up that only showed when the lighting filter switched. Any prosthetics were easily placed on him by simply following the camera movements. One continuous take. Remarkable.
Well, while there seems to be a cut at 0:46, it still remains that, prior to that, much of the transformation has been already done. The lens was covered with a red film, which was slowly taken off. As Fredrich March had his skin red-tinged too, this worked to the affect of creating the illusion of a drak pigmentation. as the camera travels to the first hand, it's clear that the film is put back somehow and then again taken off for the hand transformation. continues...
Thanks for sharing this man! Do you have a link with something more about it please? :)
My god he turned into Ronaldinho
i honestly agree that this is the best and always will be thumbs up if you agree
0:24 How to turn into Marlon Brando !!
though I don't get why the cut is made at 0:36 and not before the camera focus the right hand (because somewhere in the middle of the panning the film would have to been put back). perhaps there's even another cut so well made we are not getting it.
i think this Hyde is much funnier than the others
Winslow Pierce he’s not meant to be funny.
Game X Legit Well... you gotta admit he looks funny, from today's standpoint.
@@dyingontheinsideandout5429 No, you're just stupid.
“Bottle of champagne and be quick about it ! ... what are ya starin at !?” 😂 Fredric March was the best one
@@dyingontheinsideandout5429 Dont really think you would be saying that if you saw him in real life :o
Did you watch 0:52 - 0:54 ??? their's a scene change just as the hand goes out of the frame, you can clearly see it.
Color make-up + tinted camera lenses + black & white film = Movie Magic
it must be a shocking effect at that time
I am often amazed what can be done today with modern techniques but I think its a lot more interesting how they did it before these were available :D An smetimes (the Hobbit) CGI just doesnt have the same effect as make-up and such, mainly because the characters move to light and because enemy-minions (goblins, orcs, aliens, robots) all look the same which gets rather dull after the first two freaking hours of the movie
**slides the camera to the back**
We're no strangers to love..
I can see the struggle. Gone are the days where great movies rely on great acting and not cgi.
I think that if jekyll had Heterochromia iridum (or at least a slight difference in eye colors) that this would be enough of a transformation. Like say, he was in a tense situation and he bursts into the bathroom and looks in the mirror. then the camera goes from focusing on the lighter iris to the darker one. This would be a good way to show a changing moment. Then he emerges from the bathroom with a new-found badass attitude and kicks butt.
If you believe that, you clearly do not understand the story. The fact that they look like two different people is the entire point.
i think you're also missing a point that i'm trying to make. mine is more of a revamp on the classic
That's why, so I guess, the camera cuts off. Because there would not be enough time to glue the wig if the camera panning were continuous. I think that's a good explanation for all the process.
To be honest I always felt that most movie versions of Jekyll and Hyde take the wrong tack. In the book Jekyll is supposed to be a man of 50 and Hyde is much younger. Surely, even back then with the make up effects they had, it would make more sense for an actor to start in 'old' make up, and then gradually have it peel away during transition shots and newer features added? I think this would be much more effective.
Y'all this use to be the peak of movie technology
That's pretty damn clever... Thanks for explaining.
Based, we watched and read that serie in 2019, when we were freshman...
You are right, and I guess all the cuts were made to allow for the film to be placed again on the lenses and also for the staff to apply teeth, red tint and wig to the actor's face.
80's version of Bruno Mars
:D
This is some quality transformation
Me in the Taco Bell bathroom at 1 AM
I kept expecting Jerry Lewis' voice to say. "Hey, lady!"