Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Carl Laemmle's Universal Studios was less than a year old when he made this 3 reel version of Stevenson's novel, at least the sixth film version done since 1908! King Baggot, the star, was the moving pictures first real (reel?) superstar, sometimes appearing in a new movie each week (wow!). Baggot later gave up acting and went to the other side of the camera to become a director, doing such things as THE PONY EXPRESS (1924). This version is well done though the first transformation has a bad gaffe. The double exposure is badly timed and for a moment it looks like there are 2 people in the room. Apart from that it is well done and convincing. I like the way Hyde scares the life out of everyone in a seedy pub just by standing in the doorway and glaring at them. It is my life's mission to see as many versions of this film as I can and this one was certainly worth tracking down. Give it a try.

This is a hard film to rate. Compared to the later versions of this tale, this film comes up very short. However, compared to films made around 1913, it's pretty good. If you do watch it--just cut it some slack. That's because at 26 minutes it's a very long film for the time and its reliance on overacting instead of makeup for Mr. Hyde was a common device---one that John Barrymore also used a decade later. Why? Part of it is the tradition of the stage--where you couldn't stop a production to apply monstrous makeup. Another reason for doing this is that makeup was only in its very infancy in films. So, it was up to the actor (in this case, King Braggot) to act Hyde-ish. And, unfortunately, Braggot's version of Mr. Hyde was not great---as to make himself seem like Hyde, he doubles over as if he's suffering from a severe bowel obstruction! This version of Hyde loved beating the crap out of innocent people but the lewd aspects of his personality are not to be found. An interesting sanitized interpretation--but I think the perverted version of Hyde was closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's vision of the man.

Now it sounds as if I didn't like the film--and this isn't really the case. Apart from the odd portrayal of Hyde, I found it truly amazing that they stuffed so much into only 26 minutes--and they did a nice job of it. Good sets and acting were obvious. The only other complaint I have really is about ALL silents up until about 1920--and that is that they feature too few intertitle cards. Often, the actors acted and acted but nothing was indicated as to what they were saying or doing. Typical but a bit confusing.

My advice is to watch this and then perhaps watch the Frederic March version and compare them. Or, try the Barrymore silent version. Either way, there are other silents and talking versions you can compare it to--they must have made a bazillion of them!

This is at least the 22nd(!) version – or variation on the theme – of the venerable R.L. Stevenson novella that I have watched (incidentally, yet another one would follow it the very next day). It came hard on the heels of the 1912 adaptation – which makes one wonder as to why another stab at this property was deemed necessary so soon, considering that cinema was still practically in its infancy…but, then, the inherent contrast between the Jekyll/Hyde personas always seemed to attract actors wishing to demonstrate their versatility (the ultimate irony being, however, that the individual 'star' of these Silents – namely James Cruze in 1912 and King Baggot in the film under review – both eventually became better known as directors)! Incidentally, I was most anxious to watch this particular version because our 'colleague' Michael Elliott considers it the best rendition of the classic horror tale ever!; that said, I know he will not be offended when I say that I have learned to take such hyperbolic assertions with a pinch of salt – especially since he also feels that the 1920 adaptation featuring the obscure Sheldon Lewis (which I rated ** myself) is superior to the John Barrymore vehicle from the same year! Anyway, the film is quite faithful – unlike, say, the aforementioned Lewis version – to the source material (if not necessarily its spirit); however, the thoroughly unsubtle acting – Jekyll emphatically waves his arms so much throughout the film that he can easily be mistaken for a preacher – to say nothing of the cartoonish Hyde make-up (complete with Groucho Marx walk and Jerry Lewis teeth!) is worthy of a parody. The transformation occurs a record number of times during the picture's brief 27-minute duration, with the last three minutes or so – in which the clumsy Hyde knocks over the last antidote serum, searches frantically (literally mounting on shelves!) for leftovers in his laboratory and eventually folds up on the table – in particular being unintentionally side-splitting!! Having said all that, I still think this was a worthy effort for its time and I am glad I have finally been provided with an opportunity to watch it for myself after hearing so much about it on this site…but as for being preferable to or better than the Mamoulian, Renoir, Albertazzi, Borowczyk, Robertson or even Fleming versions…?!

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913)

*** (out of 4)

Originally released as a two-parts, this 26-minute short is certainly the longest of all the early versions of Stevenson's story and it also probably has the smallest budget. The film has King Baggot play the kind Dr. Jekyll who turns into the murderous Mr. Hyde after drinking the wrong potion. To me this is certainly the best of the early versions I've seen as Baggot really does have to do pretty much everything himself and in the end I think it makes for a find Mr. Hyde. The budget appears to be very small as the special effects are certainly lacking and are really far behind the work various other artists were doing including the master Melies. One can't help but wish the producer's had spent a little extra green trying to do more with the make up as pretty much all we get are a few shades under the eyes and not every scene even has that. What makes up for this is the performance by Baggot who really gives it his all and delivers a different type of take on Jekyll. Since there's no make up to hide behind, Baggot must instead create a real character and he makes a few interesting choices including playing Hyde as an almost hunchback who is basically a cripple, kneeling around and hobbling all over the place. This certainly doesn't make for anything scary but it's an interesting and different take. I think Baggot also manages to come across very intelligent with Dr. Jekyll and makes us feel as if we're really watching two different characters. The extra running time gives us several more scenes of Jekyll being destructive and this includes a rather shocking scene where he attacks a cripple boy just for the fun of it. The direction could have been better but I did enjoy the costume design and the sets were impressive for such a low budget. This isn't the easiest version to get your hands on but if you can find it and you're a fan of the story then this here is certainly worth watching.

One of the earliest surviving adaptations of the classic tale, but of what I've seen so far certainly one of the weakest.

I don't need to speak of the plot, it's an infamous household name after all and they don't deviate much here.

Standing at around the 26 minute mark it looks abnormally dated. Don't get me wrong I'm aware of the release year, but by comparison to the one merely 12 months earlier it looks terrible.

The looks however I can forgive, there are two aspects unfortunately I cannot.

First of all how mediocre and "Phoned in" the whole thing feels. Like they just rushed to get the tale onto film, put little effort in and did absolutely nothing to set it apart from the rest.

Second, the audio. Yes this is a silent film but here not only does it not have a musical overlay but it sounds like a speaker cranked up to maximum volume was left on mute. So though there is no audio in the traditional sense you are hit with 26 minutes of buzzing and static that certainly damages the film irreparably.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most adapted tales in the history of cinema, so find a better one.

The Good:

Nothing

The Bad:

Audio (Or lack of) gave me a headache

Looks awful by comparison to the previous years effort

Unreadable notes