More Of Jekyll-Hyding
Dual Selling For Dual Personalities
Turns out the Jekyll-Hyde model for 1941 had twofold sales advantage, as, like J/H himself, it fell into dual categories as "one of the super-horror pictures of all time," or "an out-and-out romance," showmen advised to take a pick as to emphasis. Where chilling was aim, bally tricks were old as movies themselves, a mad lab for the lobby emulating Jekyll's own, cut-out monster heads, kid drawing contests, the lot. Posted jingles sucked out whatever dignity might have been inherent in literary origins: "
Metro's Idea Of a Shock Combo in October 1954 |
The 1941 Jekyll-Hyde went well into profit, likely thanks to hoopla like this, and maybe Metro remembered how the horror slant paid, because when Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde came back in October 1954, on a double with A Woman's Face, the fear factor was hammered without inhibition. You'd have thought these were cheapies out of Lippert, or something United Artists agreed, minus a better judgment, to distribute. Leo had a vigorous reissue program that year --- The Asphalt Jungle encoring with Battleground, and a couple Tarzans revived as a pair. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with A Woman's Face were tendered frankly as monster movies, which maybe Jekyll was, if you stretched a point, but all A Woman's Face had was Joan Crawford with face-scorch that in any case got removed by plastic surgery half way through. To call this a horror film was plain misleading, and I wonder if admission-burnt youngsters didn't spread word that here was a cluck. Receipts varied from key site to key site.
5 Comments:
From Griff ---
Dear John:
MGM reissued A WOMAN'S FACE (with JEKYLL) as a horror movie? Gosh. Who'd have thought that old Leo was still trying new tricks back in the day?
Is some context here possible? Was $185K (I'm guessing this is a rentals figure) an acceptable reissue outcome? What would Metro net on something like this after expenses? [Of course, a re-release helped feed the company's distribution system and overhead.]
Regards,
-- Griff
Good point about that $185K domestic rentals figure, Griff. On the one hand, it was found money based on the fact both titles were oldies, though at the same time, Metro would have had to generate fresh paper to advertise them, plus 35mm SAFETY prints to distribute, that last no small expense, depending on how many prints were generated. I could wonder if, in the long run, the reissues seemed worth it.
Decades later, didn't MGM do a theatrical reissue triple feature of MASK OF FU MANCHU, MARK OF THE VAMPIRE and the Paramount DR. JEKYLL (which they owned, post pre-code edit?) I'm thinkin' 1972 or so...
There was a triple bill of those films, though, unfortunately, it did not show up near me.
Those were the censored versions edited as well for time. Fortunately we now have them uncensored and unedited on digital. Paramount's DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE is easily the best version as far as I am concerned altho no version presents Hyde as the charismatic and physically handsome creature Robert Louis Stevenson describes. Remember, Lucifer was the most beautiful of all the angels.
For comparison purposes, a Fox re-release of "Forever Amber" in '53 ( a blockbuster in '47) copped 95,000. Maybe sensing its appeal, Fox reissued/demoted Amber from the original Technicolor to B/W prints. The "Hyde" reissue take is impressive. Not sure the Crawford was the more attractive draw in this lineup.
Post a Comment
<< Home