Dr. Jekyll et Mr. Hyde

When "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" premiered in Chicago in 1908, produced by the Selig Polyscope Company, the film was the first American real horror movie every shown. This film is lost, as well as its sequel, 1909's "The Modern Dr. Jekyll," also produced by Selig.

The earliest existing print of a movie based on the 1887 Robert Livingston Stevenson's novel "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is the 1912 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," produced by Thanhouser Studios. Actor James Cruz, seen in the lead of the earlier "She," is named in the credits for playing both roles as the researcher Dr. Jekyll, soon to be married, and his evil alter ego Mr. Hyde, which the good doctor turns into by drinking a concoction of liquid.

The 1908 film claims to have been based directly on the Stevenson novel while the Thanhouser version takes its cue from the subsequent successful stage play, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or a Mis-Spent Life." There is some controversy as to who actually plays the shorter Mr. Hyde, one of the few Jekyll movies (and there are a great many) where Hyde is considerably shorter than his counterpart. A Thanhouser Studio actor Harry Benham is attributed by some to have played Mr. Hyde even though he isn't credited in the opening title. The viewer can spot the height difference between the taller Cruze, playing Dr. Jekyll, and the shorter Mr. Hyde.

The Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde theme has since been the main thread in a wide variety of movies, some which one wouldn't think would be related. They include "The Nutty Professor," "Van Hesling," "Edge of Sanity," "I, Monster," "The Ugly Duckling (cartoon)", and "Pagemaster."

The nearest I've come to reading Robert Louis Stevenson's original text of DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE is via a Marvel comic book adaptation so I've no idea how well it compares to its source and can only judge it on its own merits and of the contemporary comparisons of cinema

Being only little over twelve minutes there is a brevity to the storytelling which doesn't harm it all and despite eliminating any complex character studies on the dark side of the individual that Stevenson might have included in his novel the story does bring a tight plot to screen

Director Lucius Henderson doesn't bring the jaw dropping visuals J Searle Dawley brought to the 1910 version of FRANKENSTEIN and you can easily guess how the transformation was achieved of Jekyll in to Hyde , one of stopping the camera , putting the make up on actor James Cruze and then having the camera run again . Very simple when you know how in 2013 but one that probably impressed an audience one hundred years ago

Of course if you want to be cynical you could claim that Cruze interpretation of Hyde is very hammy and unsubtle but let's not forget that method acting didn't exist in silent cinema and everything is melodramatic with an unwritten rule of the time that someone always has to to hold their hand to their forehead when emoting any strong feeling of surprise bus as I said you have to remember the context of when it was made

The oldest version of the classic Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde. Earlier version of 1908 is lost. So here we have it, if you want to know the story in 12 minutes you will get it all.

Overall the story is very simple. Drug tested to transform. Not knowing the consequences the drug takes over the body of de doctor and he turns not knowing when. So finally they see Hyde running into the house of Jekyll. An overdose taken by Hyde so no one knows the secret.

Effects are simply done once after that it's just editing with a simple cut so on that part it's weak and to be famous you need special effects or creepy atmosphere but none of that appears. Hyde looks a bit funny too. Still a must see because it takes only 12 minutes of your life.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1/5 Story 4/5 Comedy 0/5

This is the oldest version of "Jekyll and Hyde" in existence. The film stars James Cruze, who is most famous for his film "The Covered Wagon". It was made by Thanhouser Film C. and was released on January 16 1912. and clocks in at about 11 min. I may have took a star away due to the fact that it could have been longer(the 1913 version was 26 min. only a year later). Actually, in a 1963 interview, a stock crew member named Harry Benham who worked at Thanhouser, said that he portrayed Mr.Hyde in some scenes. When you watch the film you can tell them apart because James is taller and their Hyde makeup is slightly different.

The film starts off with Jekyll briefly talking with an elderly man apparently about drugs. Then Jekyll locks himself in his lab and tests his "potion" on himself. Immiediatly a dark haired taloned beast appears in the chair, looks in his mirror (he is slightly shorter than before mmmmmmmmm)takes the drug again and transforms back into Jekyll, and then begins to write something down.

Jekyll (with his wife a ministers daughter) meet each other in front of her house and talks with her father. The next scene shows Jekyll reading a book cries out in agony rushes into his lab and now Jekyll is Hyde, Hyde grabs his hat runs out into the street knocks down a little girl rushes back to his lab and transforms into Jekyll.

Jekyll is talking to his wife in the the park and then he suddenly runs away kneels down and in the next shot is Hyde. He runs back, tries to strangle her, her father comes (from nowhere) and Hyde kills him instead. Jekyll says to his wife he is "going away" and then he runs back to his lab, a card says his potion is gone now he must remain Hyde to the end. Hyde is in his lab now. He go's on a rampage destroying his lab looking for something. Police have tracked down Hyde and are breaking down the door. just as they are about to break the door down, Hyde takes a fatal dose of poison........... when the police come in Hyde is dead. THE END

Even though this version is short, it is still pretty good and recommended.

One of the earlier adaptations of the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde this is passable silent cinema.

You know the plot of this household classic tale so I won't bore you, I'll merely say that here we have a 12 minute version that sees the ill fated experiments of the good doctor and how they unravel.

I always find silent cinema to be both charming and frustrating. Thankfully this came before the time they insisted on dabbling with filters that quite frankly leave me with a migraine.

It looks the part, the music is fitting and though hammy (As was to be expected back then) the cast do a decent enough job.

Very short but passable for its day it's easy for such a short to get lost in an ocean of adaptations.

The Good:

Well made

The Bad:

Very short and therefore restricted