i try not to be toooooo PC. But i cant help notice how Mr Hydes character seems to take on several black features, that were typical of the stereotype characters created in that era... especially the hair and the skin tone. It almost felt like watching one of those films where white people were made up to play black people to avoid using black performers.
I have never seen a black person who looks anything like Hyde! I agree about the Neanderthal. To me it's unmistakable.
I simply do not see even a hint of what you claim. Sometimes I think people strain to find things that aren't there, whether it's racism of any kind or those who claim there is gay "subtext" in the most ridiculous places.
Actually, I see far more racism in today's movies and on TV than I ever saw in the past. The hatred and nastiness make me shudder and have me switching channels a lot. No, hatred and stereotyping are much more common today, which is a sad thing to have to write. PC is a joke! People seem to want to defy that notion, pushing the envelope so that they insult everyone they can. It's like the situation going onwith food: The more they say what is bad in nutrition, the worse the offerings become, as if in total defiance.
I'm starting to think that the neatest reply to these constant charges of racism is to first ask the one offended to precisely define just what, exactly, the term means to him. Just how, precisely, are we to interpret his charges?
Let's see (as a for instance)...yep. Hyde was good friends with an upper-class doctor, had the run of his house, was able to (within reason) get off the hook by using connections.
Yeah, no doubt about it, Hyde was a racist charicature. An anti-white racist charicature.
Racism goes one hell of a lot deeper than just facial characteristics. And the entire concept has gone far enough.
And it will never disappear until we all just learn to laugh at our idiocies and get over it.
So much for my eloquence. In twenty-five words or less gribfritz just summed it all up better than I did.
People with a political agenda can find racism (or various other no-no's) in anything.
I watched "Bride of Frankenstein" probably forty or fifty times before I heard people say that James Whale used it as a metaphor for his being gay. It would never have occurred to me...and I still think people with an agenda are reading things into it that just aren't there.
I've always enjoyed Manton Moreland. I think he's one of the greatest comedians of the 20th century. And I don't find his portrayals racist, I find them FUNNY. And not only did white people think so, but black people did, as well. He wasn't being stereotypical, he was being FUNNY! (Lou Costello played much the same scairdy-cat character that Manton always did, and no one considers his portrayals "racist.")
Want to really hear how stupid this stuff can get?
Years ago if you were found out to be "queer" in some small town you'd be practically tarred and feathered. Back then it was a matter of security just to keep things to yourself.
Nowadays the "movement" will be the first ones that out you. In effect, they're doing the same things to you that the ignorant straights were doing years ago! Why? Because the tables have turned, and now they have some political power, and the more people they have, the better. But goodness forbid should you just want to keep your orientation to yourself.
As for racism: define "black."
If both of your parents were black, then obviously you are.
If only one of your parents was black...you're still black.
If only one of your grandparents was black...you're still black.
If only one of your great-grandparents was black...you're still black.
And on and on...
It's like that old saying (but forgive me for the bad connotation), one drop of wine in a barrel of sewage is sewage; one drop of sewage in a barrel of wine is sewage.
So...at what particular point in time (or generations) does someone become white?
This stuff is all so stupid. Sorry I carried on so long, guys.
Not everyone subscribes to the one-drop policy, at least not these days. I'm 1/4 black, 3/4 white, and I consider myself biracial, not black. I know there are still people who would say that I'm all black, but I don't buy that. In fact, I find it somewhat offensive that in 2013 people are still expected to "choose" a race/ethnicity. Bull$hit! I'm biracial and proud.
But anyway... bit off topic there, sorry.
"He's already attracted to her. Time and monotony will do the rest."
I thought that it seemed to fit a lot of black stereotypes of the time, too, but I figured they were going for a Neanderthal look, and I was probably just reading too much into it.
That being said, I think John Barrymore's makeup in the '20s version was better, although this version is the best Jekyll and Hyde adaptation in every other respect.
"He's already attracted to her. Time and monotony will do the rest."
When I saw it last night, I thought of primate origins, animalistic. What we the civilized man would look like if our beast was released. Others have mentioned Neanderthal, a less evolved man.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
[on casting Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)]: I don't want Hyde to be a monster, Hyde is not evil, he is the primitive, the animal in us, whereas Jekyll is a cultured man, representing the intellect. Hyde is the Neanderthal man and (Frederic) March's makeup was designed as such.
It seems others were right. But the director may be misinformed about Neanderthal. Recent evidence may suggest that he was more evolved than artistically portrayed. I like my notion of our inner beast brought to life. Mr. Hyde was articulate and cunning. In fact, it reminds me of a werewolf persona. Protective of what they believe belongs to them and vicious when crossed.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
If you look in the trivia section you see that they had to use a series of filters for the different effect looks. Considering all movies at the time were in black and white you would get different shades of blacks to gray scale.