Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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

This adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde was made a year aftet the short film that the story for the second time. The short film and this medium-lenght film are the oldest adaptations that managed to survive, since the first adaptation made in 1908 is lost media. Although this medium-length film also summarizes the story quite a bit and puts Jekyll and Hyde as main characters, it managed to at least try to tell part of the story of the novel. Of course, Utterson has been left in the background and there are quite a fe moments from the novel that weren't included due to the length of this adaptation. For those who know the original story, they can easily understand this medium-length film, but they can also identify many pot holes or important elements of the story that are missing. In addition, this adaptation presents a rather cartoonish and bizarre version of Hyde that is hilarious. In the previous adaptation, Hyde was also given an exaggerated attitude, but it was handled in a better way and the makeup compensated for it quite a bit. The Mr. Hyde of this version has unconvincing makeup and the actor's performance has aged rather poorly. This version of Hyde can be compared very easily to Jerry Lewis' perfomance in The Nutty Professor. This is rather curious because The Nutty Professor is inspired by Jekyll and Hyde. Like many short films from this earlier era, this adaptation was an experiment based on the theatrical skills of the actors and those in charge of the production. It is not surprising that this film can leave much to be desired, since it was made a studio that was just starting up. This was one of Universal's early projects when it was a small independent studio under another name and would not rise until it made its adaptation of The Hunchback Of Notre Dame. Given the era in which this film was made and the resources that have been used, it has not aged as well as the works of other artists. The reason why this film should be seen is because it is the original pilot episode of the Universal Classic Monsters franchise. The Hunchback Of Notre Dame was the film that kicked off the franchise, but it was with this medium-length film that producer Carl Laemmle would begin to consider the idea of producing monster movies. An idea that would take shape until creating the franchise starting with 3 silent feature films and then the sound films starting with Dracula (1931). All this while Universal was beginning to be forged and to grow with the success of The Hunchback Of Notre Dame and The Phantom Of The Opera. So this adaptation of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde was just a draft and a prototype of what Universal would bring years later. Officially, this medium-length film was credited as the first installment of the classic monster franchise and it is something that very few know. Despite having aged poorly and having several defects, this adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde is a piece of history that may deserve the opportunity to be seen by those who are interested in knowing the background of this monster franchise that has marked fantasy cinema. My final rating for this medium-length film is 6/10.

This is a respectable adaptation for 1913 of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella. Comparing it to later adaptations, most notably the 1920 John Barrymore, the 1931 Fredric March and the 1941 Spencer Tracy versions of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would be unfair, but this 1913 short feature does fare well in comparison to the 1912 Thanhouser version, which I've also seen. The 1912 film was probably only a reel in length, as opposed to the two or three reels of this 1913 incarnation, which, thus, benefits from less truncation of the narrative. The 1912 film featured two different actors to portray Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, whereas this one stars King Baggot in a dual role. Both pictures used editing for the transformations between Jekyll and Hyde, but the 1913 one also includes two transformations via double-exposure photography. This is the same technique used, albeit done better, in the later and more popular versions of the story. Another way the transformations are achieved here is by Baggot removing his Hyde costume while hunched over and his back to the camera. Baggot also does this once to put on his Hyde, but there's a jump cut to aid him for this. The editing tricks used for the remainder of the transformations are crosscutting and having Baggot exit a scene and re-enter it.

Baggot's Hyde isn't too bad, either, for 1913. He changes his hair and teeth for it, and dons a hat, odd glasses and a cane, and he walks hunched over and knees bent, for a grotesque and animalistic Hyde, which is faithful to the novella's characterization.

The film suffers from some of the typical, outdated cinematic practices of the time. It is told in a tableau style, where title cards describe proceeding scenes and there are no intertitles or changes in camera placements for each set. On the other hand, there is some crosscutting and good, quick scene dissection between locations, which is more than can be said for many pictures of this era and which makes for a, thankfully, breezy viewing experience.

The director of this "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", Herbert Brenon, was probably one of the foremost filmmakers of the 1910s, but some of his most acclaimed pictures from the decade are lost, including "Neptune's Daughter" (1914), its follow-up "A Daughter of the Gods", as well as "War Brides" (both 1916), which starred Alla Nazimova. A couple of his 1920s features: "Peter Pan" (1924) and the Lon Chaney picture "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" (1928), however, remain in wide circulation and some others are available from smaller video distributors.

I remember seeing a documentary on classic horror once that said, during the silent era, there was something like fifty different adaptations of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" made. The most famous of which is, no doubt, the 1920 version starring John Berrymore. The 1913 version starring King Baggot is… Not.

At only twenty-seven minutes, the movie condenses an all ready pretty short novel even further. It makes two of the biggest sins a silent film can make: Over-reliance on title cards and major overacting. Major plot elements, such as Hyde committing evil during the night and Jekyll loosing control of his transformation, are brushed over in intertitles. King Baggot overacts wildly, most notable during the transformation scenes. Hyde is portrayed, not through elaborate make-up or subtle acting cues, but by the actor smearing some shoe polish under his eyes, making a maniacal grin, and walking around crouched on his knees. As you can imagine the affect is far from menacing.

The film introduces a love interest, though she doesn't get much development. Hyde's acts of evil seem limited to picking a fight in a bar, jumping on random people in the street, and hiding behind trees. Overall, the film isn't very memorable or impressive. I suspect, if its public domain status hadn't allowed it on to the Youtubes and such, it would be totally forgotten.

Despite all of this, the film is, quite unintentionally, technically the first Universal Monster movie. It was co-directed and produced by Carl Laemmle, the studio's founder and father to the son mostly responsible for creating the Universal Monster brand. Therefore its inclusion here and probably the only reason anybody much talks about it anymore.

Kind-hearted Dr. Jekyll swallows a potion than turns him into his ugly, brutal alter-ego, Mr. Hyde. This version of the oft-filmed Robert Louis Stevenson's tale (this was the sixth version in six years) was released by Carl Laemmle's "Independent Motion Picture Company of America", which would later change its name to "Universal Studios", and stars King Baggot in the titular role(s). The silent film includes intertitle cards that explain the action and identify characters (and sometimes the actors). The film portrays Jekyll as a very good man (he spends much of his time with charity cases, from whom he declines payment) but one who is willing to swallow a potion that he knows will release the evil in him. Baggot's Hyde is a grimacing stunted creature with protruding teeth who walks in a crouch and, among other nefarious acts, assaults a crippled child. Other the first transformation scene, which is done optically by double exposure, the switch between Jekyll and Hyde is done off-camera or with the character's face hidden. The film ends with Hyde dropping dead (and reverting to Jekyll) when his supply of antidote runs out rather than the deliberate suicide-by-poison shown in the 1912 version. Interesting but not much of an improvement on the earlier version (starring James Cruze). Of historic note to horror fans as the I.M.P. film makes Mr. Hyde the first of "Universal Studios" long line of iconic monsters. Followed by the famous full length silent version starring John Barrymore in 1920, and numerous sound versions (the best of which may be the 1931 version, for which Fredric March won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the binate character).