Dr. Jekyll and 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 taking of certain drugs can separate man into two beings---one representing EVIL the other GOOD" the story begins by telling us. Jekyll tests that theory on himself one night by downing an elixir, which instantly turns him into a clawed, slobbering ogre. A different elixir returns him to his normal state. More studies are needed.

He later marries. His repeated use of the elixir causes uncontrollable changes in him, back into the clawed, slobbering ogre, who ransacks his own house and then takes to the streets to assault people, and ultimately kill a man.

Followed by police, Hyde retreats to his home, for another dose of elixir. But when it is gone, he realizes he is now stuck as Hyde. Police chop down the door to Jekyll's study with an ax, only to find Hyde, and Jekyll, dead. Or, incredibly sleepy.

Industrial look throughout helps give it a more gritty feel, but compressing the story down to a handful of minutes makes it seem like they only adapted a couple of paragraphs of the story. This is the earliest existing film version of this tale, as a 1908 version appears to be lost.

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

James Cruze is remembered by silent film buffs as a man who worked behind the camera, most memorably as director of one of the first great Western epics: The Covered Wagon, released in 1923. However, in earlier years he worked as an actor for the Thanhouser company of New Rochelle, New York, a studio of modest size that was active circa 1910-1917. Cruze can be seen in the role of Dr. Jekyll in Thanhouser's one-reel version of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous tale, an adaptation that is neither the best nor the worst but surely one of the fastest film versions, clocking in at just over eleven minutes. Given the time constraints, these filmmakers really had to cut to the chase! After a brief shot of Dr. Jekyll discussing his theories with an unidentified companion, he's in his lab mixing the potion, and the first transformation takes place before one minute has elapsed. Perhaps it goes without saying that we get only the highlights of the story here.

Don't expect the cobble-stone streets of Victorian London, for this is a low-budget production that appears to have been filmed in the suburbs of New Rochelle, identified only as "the village" in title cards. The presentation is straightforward and rather subdued, and the performances are low-key by the standards of the day. Hyde's makeup job is fairly restrained too, big teeth notwithstanding, certainly when compared to some of the later versions. I was a little surprised to learn that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are played by two different actors, at least in some shots. If you watch carefully you'll see that Harry Benham's Hyde is distinctly shorter than Cruze's Jekyll. Ordinarily actors relish the opportunity to play both of these roles, but perhaps the technical limitations of the time dictated this unusual casting decision.

There is one especially effective moment when Jekyll realizes he's on the verge of a transformation into his evil alter ego in the presence of his fiancée, and attempts to get away from her. Viewers familiar with the source material might be interested in a couple of minor alterations from the novel: here, Jekyll's fiancée is the daughter of a minister, and there is a plot twist in the final scene relating to Hyde's death that may come as a surprise. Over all, however, this rendition of the story is little more than a moderately interesting curio. It isn't all that exciting, sorry to say, though allowances should be made for pioneer filmmakers. You know it's still early in cinema history when the shelves in Jekyll's study are painted on the walls -- and you know the movie isn't sufficiently exciting when you find yourself examining Dr. Jekyll's bookshelves.

When I was a kid the only thing I knew about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was that they were alter egos of the same person. I knew one was good and one was bad. I thought Dr. Jekyll was bad and Mr. Hyde was good.

Why?

Because Jekyll was such a strange name. Doesn't it sound bad?

Of course I know better now. And I know that this short is just a Cliff notes version of the book. It conveys the necessary message, but it also conveys that it's all a result of drugs. There's an excerpt from a book at the beginning that reads, "The taking of certain drugs can separate man into two beings--one representing EVIL the other GOOD."

The implication being that we all have good and evil within us but we are largely able to keep the evil in check. If we should ever imbibe on drugs then we lose that inhibition and the evil takes over. The more drugs we take, the more the evil takes over.

I wish it was just drugs that brought the evil out of people.

Free on YouTube.