Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

In what was already the fourth film adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's short novel, King Baggot essays the dual role under the direction of Herbert Brenon. At three reels, it's mostly a highlights version, suitable for local censors. Hyde's depredations seem limited to attacking a a lame boy. Much is made of his cowardice.

Stevenson's works have been and continue to be popular for screen adaptations. A new version of this story shows up every couple of years, and of course, Treasure Island and Kidnapped are popular subjects, as well as many of his short stories. Strong story-telling helps, as well as his outsized characters, often garnering awards nominations for actors. Part of his popularity can be attributed to the timing of his career; he died in 1894 just as movies were coming in, and film makers were familiar wit the books, which remain in print even today. This version is very good for 1913, and remains watchable today.

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…?!

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).

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.