Dr. Jekyll e Mr. Hyde

I find it interesting that this classic & 'nearly' definitive motion picture of Robert L. Stevenson's short novella, STRANGE CASE OF DR JEKYLL & MR HYDE was made in Long Island New York financed by Paramount/Famous Players-Lasky. Thus it's not 'really' a Hollywood movie in the literal sense. The financial cord of Paramount, as with all of the big studios, was also situated in New York City. However the legend of this film has come down through the decades intact withstanding it's comparison to later versions of which it undoubtedly influences.

How personal this film must have been to John Barrymore. It seems to have been more than an assignment for him. He brought plants from his apartment to use in the film, he transported sets & costumes from one of his hit plays to be filmed in a flashback sequence, he was miming a story that had been done by the great stage actor Richard Mansfield whom was acquainted with his late father Maurice Barrymore. Interesting enough Barrymore would film another great Mansfield stage success four years later, BEAU BRUMMEL, which was Barrymore's first truly Hollywood made film. One wonders whether the choice to cast Martha Mansfield as Jekyll's love interest had anything to do with her name being Mansfield. There has never come up any evidence that she was related to Richard Mansfield but her name on movie theater marquees for the film must have looked familiar to older movie goers at the time who remembered the great theater actor who died in 1907 and never lived to film even a primitive version of DJ&MH himself. It must have been a good selling point. So John Barrymore as well as the Drew-Barrymore theatrical clan must have known Richard Mansfield on an intimate level at one time or another. I've always counted this film & JB's performance as an homage to Richard Mansfield and the acting profession in general. Perhaps, though it is not on record, a young JB might have seen Mansfield on stage doing Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde.

The film's directorial credit is officially given to John S Robertson and writing credits to Clara Beranger(Wm DeMille's wife) but certainly J.Barrymore added touches here and there to spark up the production such as the above mentioned items he brought or transported to the film set. And also JB's winning portrayal at the time on the Broadway stage as Richard the 3rd performed at night while he filmed DJ&MH during the day. The make-ups for Richard the 3rd & Mr Hyde are strikingly similar when viewing photographs of JB as the two characters. Hyde, while favoring Richard, is truly the more severe of the two roles, and needed to be to put the character over on film. Another plus this film has is that it is made closer to the 1886 timeline of Stevenson's Victorian novella than the later feature length productions of 1931, 1941 and on. The sets where Hyde cavorts look nothing but like an inner London Victorian slum. Also some of the sets where Dr Jekyll has dinner with his elitist friends are accurately Victorian.

Director Robertson along with cameraman Roy Overbaugh keep the production flowing along especially when Hyde is on the screen. The first transformation is a classic, and pretty well known by historians & silent movie buffs. For those who haven't seen the movie I wont disclose no spoilers about the first transformation. Later transformations are accomplished by cameraman Overbaugh with stop-motion-photography and some very smooth double exposures such as in the spider-on-bed sequence. And also some good acting from JB.

Lastly if the original music score could be resurrected and performed with the film today, then a close approximation as to what 1920 audiences saw & heard could be experienced by today's audiences. Most home video copies put accompanied music or awfully scored music that is wrong for the film. Some video releases, wisely don't put any music score on the video which oddly forces your attention to the movie.

Early silent version of the classic horror tale holds up incredibly well more than eight decades later. John Barrymore is the well-to-do doctor who concocts a serum that allows his dark side to find a home in his alter ego. But how long can this double identity survive before one of the personalities absorbs the other?

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE works as well as it does thanks in no small part to Barrymore, the early screen legend. His amazing performance transcends the lack of sound, scratchy picture and obvious limitations. He is the definitive Dr. Jekyll and a suitably creepy Mr. Hyde. Barrymore's co-stars more than hold their own, proving that acting is an inherited talent, not something that is necessarily developed through years of schooling. Brandon Hurst in particular stands out as the upperclassman Sir George Carew.

The film also benefits from its strong script and dialog, though much of the credit there must go to Robert Louis Stevenson, who authored the book on which it is based. What could have easily been a mediocre man-turned-monster outing is instead smart, thought-provoking and imaginative. Director John S. Robertson is to be highly praised.

I went into DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE prepared to cut it heaps of slack given its 1920 production date. But not once did I have to award it brownie points for trying. This is a screen gem from which the Hollywood of today could learn some valuable lessons.

I have not seen this film for quite some time though I can always conjure up the face of John Barrymore as Mr.Hyde. Bent double with hideous pointed features and spider-like hands he is still truly frightening after all these years. When will producers understand that effects are no match for a talented actor with only himself the clothes on his back and make-up. Barrymore distorts himself is the same manner as Lon Chaney performed and conjures up the dark side of Jekyll's personality. A chilling film that seeps into the mind and is still the benchmark film version for Stevenson's classic tale.

Through countless adaptations, including movies, the gist of Robert Lewis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is familiar to those who have never even touched the novella. The doppelgänger, or doubles, theme of its battle between the good and evil within oneself are shared heritage, even though the Victorian age it was set in, the suspicions of invention and science and some of the psychological notions have since passed. This 1920 filmed version, the first highly regarded one, presents the story as it has been most commonly handed down: the narrative is simplified, removing the original mystery, and it takes the perspective of Dr. Jekyll, reducing the role of Mr. Utterson.

There are some interesting parts to this adaptation, especially when comparing it to the later 1931 and 1941 versions. The competing beliefs between Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon are well rendered, as are those between Jekyll and Sir George, who is, apparently, based in Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray". Additionally, the rationale behind Jekyll's experiment is altered more illogical by concerning it with one's soul, instead of the hypocrisy of the two-faced upper classmen who present themselves respectably for the public but also want to visit the prostitutes at night.

Anyhow, for better or worse, John Barrymore is restrained (considering the role and the film era). There's an odd giant spider nightmare in this one, too. The best aspect of this version, I think, is its horror atmosphere, with the studio sets of the fogy, lamp-lit London slums and even the detailed interior designs add something--production values that make this early entry stand out. Barrymore contributes to this, especially with the makeup to create his deformed Hyde that could rival Lon Chaney's creations.

To see a major point of difference between the three major Hollywood adaptations, as well as an indication of Hollywood's evolution and how this 1920 version stands out, compare Barrymore's horrific and grotesque Hyde with that of Fredric March and Spencer Tracy: notice how Hyde becomes easier on the eyes with each subsequent decade.

This is one of the earliest (but not the earliest) movie version of the famous story of Jekyll & Hyde, based on the novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, the man who also wrote the novel Treasure Island, among other works. It's one of the best movie versions but at the same time also probably the least known. Movies from the '20's don't really reach a wide audience. People probably only know the '31 and '41 versions of this movie. A shame, since lots of '20's deserve some more recognition from a wider audience. They're artistic, style-full and overall also well written and impressive. The images themselves had to be speaking for itself and had to be impressive of course since the images basically were the only tool to tell the story and all its emotions with. "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is one of those '20's movies that deserves more credit and fame than its currently getting.

The movie is very well made and the story is extremely solid written and features some interesting elements. The way Dr. Jekyll is torn between his evil and good side is brought effectively to the screen. The movie is basically about the battle between good and evil, only this time set into the mind of one man. It is mainly due to the solid written story that this premise works out so well and effective.

Of course also the acting helps a lot to tell the story with. Conform '20's style, every actor goes over-the-top in his performance, with exaggerated movements and facial expressions. Especially Cecil Clovelly goes way too over-the-top in his role. Also of course John Barrymore does this, especially when he is turned into Mr. Hyde. But nevertheless every actor feels well cast and plays his or her role with lots of profession. The still very young looking John Barrymore is good in his role as both Dr. Henry Jekyll/Mr. Edward Hyde and he plays both roles convincing, despite going a bit too much over-the-top at moments.

The movie only features a bit too many unnecessary characters that don't add enough, or anything at all to the story. On top of that there also are some needless sequences, which don't seem to serve a purpose. Such as the Italian historical sequences, told by Gina. Yes, it serves a purpose later for the story but it could had easily been done in a more simple and shorter way, to make the movie flow better.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about this movie is its look. The sets look impressively detailed, although the entire movie is obviously filmed on a stage. Also the costumes and make-up are good, as are the impressive looking early special effects, which also adds to the horror of this movie.

Yes, as an horror movie this movie also works well. It's atmosphere feels dark and the Mr. Hyde character makes sure that the movie always remains unpredictable as well as both tense and scary.

The ending is very well written and also works very effective. It's well thought out and handled and provides the movie with an impressive and memorable ending, which might also come quite unexpected, since it's not an happy one.

A must-see for the fans of the story and horror fans in general.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/