Le Docteur Jekyll et M. Hyde

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.

That this famous film version of the Stephenson classic, perhaps the first really great American thriller, was enormously aided by John Barrymore's extraordinary abilities is universally appreciated. Nearly forgotten now, however, is the fact the movie's success was also due to the exceptional beauty, marvellously captured, of Ziegfeld Follies showgirl Martha Mansfield in one of her first leading screen roles, that of the ingenue love interest to Barrymore's Dr. Jekyll incarnation.

The picture's period setting provided the ideal backdrop for Mansfield's delicate blonde looks and delightfully coy demeanor. It also gave the budding favorite ample excuse to wear the romantic chiffon creations of the couturiere "Lucile" (Lady Duff-Gordon), which are seen to best advantage in the dinner party scenes. To coincide with the release of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (March 28, 1920), Martha Mansfield was sufficiently publicity-savvy to pose in her latest Lucile gowns for a double page photo-spread in "Harper's Bazaar" (March 1920).

Mansfield's popularity in the Paramount horror film lead her to be chosen by producer David Selznick to succeed Olive Thomas as the studio's top star upon the latter's shocking death in Paris. Tragically Mansfield was destined for a similar end, for only four years later she died of burns sustained when her costume caught fire while shooting a movie on location in Texas.

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/

I'm afraid this is my favourite film version of the tale. I say afraid because I think all the versions following this were technically better, but I still come back to this one. It's faults are legion, mainly from the technological standpoint, and you can also sometimes shake your head at the acting talents displayed, but the atmosphere of the film as a Victorian melodrama is unbeatable. The age of the film itself actually helps in this case (in these digital times), with plenty of blurred smoky foggy images to contemplate. As in the case of Hitchcock's 39 Steps, I preferred the film to the book.

Barrymore/Hyde's convulsions can be mirth inducing, but you can't argue with the fact that if you saw him in real life you'd cross the road to avoid him. Watch his expression after he kills Carew!

This DVD version ran a sedate b&w 82 minutes - after a lifetime of watching a tinted 59 minuter it took some getting used to, and the music was totally unsympathetic to the action too. Therefore the next time I trot this out it really will be silent! But well worth watching seminal stuff especially if you're interested in seeing the best film (that survives anyhow) from 1920.

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.