Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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…?!

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.

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.

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.

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).