This silent-era classic stars the one and only John Barrymore in the lead role. Barrymore's performance is clearly the one since most imitated by others. It is likely his performance as Hyde here that influenced later cartoon versions and what have you. The menacing stare, those creepy large hands held high ready to strike, the crouched over position, the evil intent in the eyes and the brow. Barrymore is simply fantastic and he pulls this off with much less make-up than many others. It's amazing how he can also pull off playing the tormented Dr. Jekyll-the complete opposite of Hyde perfectly and shows his tremendous range as an actor.
89 Reviews
Demon drink
Spondonman6 May 2004
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.
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.
Adaptations and Alterations
Cineanalyst4 September 2005
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.
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.
Genuinely frightening
ellkew5 January 2003
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.
Holds Up Incredibly Well
ReelCheese22 October 2006
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.
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.
"You're a mysterious young man, Dr. Jekyll."
classicsoncall17 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
As a medical doctor, Henry Jekyll (John Barrymore) maintains a human "repair shop" for the poor and destitute at his own expense. Generally acknowledged as too good to be true, Jekyll is challenged by socialite Sir George Carew to experience more of life for himself, before he marries Carew's daughter Millicent (Martha Mansfield). "Think what it would mean! To yield to every evil impulse - yet leave the soul untouched!"
After meeting night club dancer Gina (Nita Naldi), Jekyll becomes consumed by obsession, spending day and night in his lab developing a drug that will give him the freedom to explore his baser nature. Jekyll's early transformations are almost comic in their execution, he flails his body wildly and even falls down completely as his body transforms into the hideously deformed creature Mr. Hyde. As Hyde plunges deeper into vice, his evil nature threatens to overcome Jekyll's entire life. Jekyll even creates a will leaving his effects to the sinister alter ego in case he's unable to come out of one of his mutations.
A particularly well done scene explores Jekyll's psyche as he lies in bed contemplating his fate; he imagines a huge hairy spider crawling up on his bed and bonding with his own body. Symbolically it cements the viewers understanding of Jekyll's transformation into a creature of evil and monstrous intent.
As Sir George confronts Jekyll, he changes into the most gruesome countenance of Hyde yet, and beats Sir George to death. Without the drug that will keep him normal, he's no longer able to control his transformations. Despondent, he takes his own life, or should I say, Mr. Hyde kills Dr. Jekyll to put an end to the reign of terror in his Soho neighborhood.
At times over the top, John Barrymore's performance is well presented, his portrayal leaves one with an appreciation for his art and his interpretation of the John Louis Stevenson character. Martha Mansfield is demurely pretty as the pining lover who patiently keeps her love for Dr. Jekyll alive, even though she has no idea what a monster he has become. Though a silent film with occasional word screens, one has no trouble in following the details of the story to it's dramatic conclusion. The only mitigating factor for the print I viewed was the musical score that at times did not match the on screen drama, seeming instead to be more upbeat than it's subject matter.
After meeting night club dancer Gina (Nita Naldi), Jekyll becomes consumed by obsession, spending day and night in his lab developing a drug that will give him the freedom to explore his baser nature. Jekyll's early transformations are almost comic in their execution, he flails his body wildly and even falls down completely as his body transforms into the hideously deformed creature Mr. Hyde. As Hyde plunges deeper into vice, his evil nature threatens to overcome Jekyll's entire life. Jekyll even creates a will leaving his effects to the sinister alter ego in case he's unable to come out of one of his mutations.
A particularly well done scene explores Jekyll's psyche as he lies in bed contemplating his fate; he imagines a huge hairy spider crawling up on his bed and bonding with his own body. Symbolically it cements the viewers understanding of Jekyll's transformation into a creature of evil and monstrous intent.
As Sir George confronts Jekyll, he changes into the most gruesome countenance of Hyde yet, and beats Sir George to death. Without the drug that will keep him normal, he's no longer able to control his transformations. Despondent, he takes his own life, or should I say, Mr. Hyde kills Dr. Jekyll to put an end to the reign of terror in his Soho neighborhood.
At times over the top, John Barrymore's performance is well presented, his portrayal leaves one with an appreciation for his art and his interpretation of the John Louis Stevenson character. Martha Mansfield is demurely pretty as the pining lover who patiently keeps her love for Dr. Jekyll alive, even though she has no idea what a monster he has become. Though a silent film with occasional word screens, one has no trouble in following the details of the story to it's dramatic conclusion. The only mitigating factor for the print I viewed was the musical score that at times did not match the on screen drama, seeming instead to be more upbeat than it's subject matter.
Desire and Repression
Teebs29 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This 1920s version of Stevenson's famous novel "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" has flashes of brilliance, particularly in John Barrymore's portrayal of Mr Hyde, the depraved doppelganger of uptight scientist Dr Jekyll.
The transformation sequences are not as technically complex as in versions to come, but Barrymore does a good job at twisting his features grotesquely before a dissolve into full make-up occurs. What is striking and quite surprising is that unlike the modern depictions of Hyde in films such as "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (and also it's graphic novel original) as a huge, muscular Hulk-like creature or even the were-wolf like creatures in later versions, here he is more akin to the ratlike Nosferatu memorably played by Max Schreck in Murnau's 1922 classic. This is fitting as Mr Hyde is not a literal monster, but the manifestation of the id.
What is quite surprising, although this may be very naive on my part, is the way the film deals with this idea of Jekyll's suppressed sexual and hedonistic desires. Jekyll creates Mr Hyde with the help of science in order to be able to frequent the bawdy dance halls and back street bars and brothels which he can't do as Jekyll. Hyde, like Nosferatu, exudes a primal sexuality shown in one scene where he seduces two prostitutes in a bar, maybe hinting at some of Jekyll's repressed fantasies. I was surprised just how clear this was in the film, although I think Hollywood censorship began well after this era.
Visually, there aren't many exceptional moments, though the London streets of Mr Hyde's world are suitably murky. I did like the way the opening title cards introduced each character separately as they entered the story, complete with the actor's name, and many of the title cards had expressive pictures surrounding them which complemented the story. The supporting cast is pretty average, although Martha Mansfield is suitably pretty as Jekyll's beloved. Worth a look as an example of early American horror.
The transformation sequences are not as technically complex as in versions to come, but Barrymore does a good job at twisting his features grotesquely before a dissolve into full make-up occurs. What is striking and quite surprising is that unlike the modern depictions of Hyde in films such as "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (and also it's graphic novel original) as a huge, muscular Hulk-like creature or even the were-wolf like creatures in later versions, here he is more akin to the ratlike Nosferatu memorably played by Max Schreck in Murnau's 1922 classic. This is fitting as Mr Hyde is not a literal monster, but the manifestation of the id.
What is quite surprising, although this may be very naive on my part, is the way the film deals with this idea of Jekyll's suppressed sexual and hedonistic desires. Jekyll creates Mr Hyde with the help of science in order to be able to frequent the bawdy dance halls and back street bars and brothels which he can't do as Jekyll. Hyde, like Nosferatu, exudes a primal sexuality shown in one scene where he seduces two prostitutes in a bar, maybe hinting at some of Jekyll's repressed fantasies. I was surprised just how clear this was in the film, although I think Hollywood censorship began well after this era.
Visually, there aren't many exceptional moments, though the London streets of Mr Hyde's world are suitably murky. I did like the way the opening title cards introduced each character separately as they entered the story, complete with the actor's name, and many of the title cards had expressive pictures surrounding them which complemented the story. The supporting cast is pretty average, although Martha Mansfield is suitably pretty as Jekyll's beloved. Worth a look as an example of early American horror.
John Barrymore at his best!
Ken-14114 January 1999
Nearly everybody has seen the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in one of the more modern versions, but nobody has ever portrayed it as successfully as John Barrymore did. This movie, a silent classic, has amazing special effects for its day. Specifically I refer to the metamorphosis of Dr. Jekyll. You will literally not recognize or believe that the same actor playing Dr. Jekyll is also playing Mr. Hyde. The make-up, the lighting, and Barrymore's excellent acting give you the feeling that this is truly a different, darker, more evil man. Berrymore completes the transition from clean-cut Doctor to dementedly violent madman so naturally that you almost forget it's not real. You have to see this! It'll still scare you after all these years!
A Stylistically Dated Landmark of Silent Film
gftbiloxi22 March 2005
Directed by John S. Robertson and starring matinée idol John Barrymore in the dual title role, 1920's DR. JECKYLL & MR. HYDE is sometimes described as the "first American horror film." That description is more than a little problematic, but whether it was or it wasn't, DR. JECKYLL AND MR. HYDE certainly put the horror genre on the Hollywood map.
Whether or not you happen to like this particular version of the famous Robert Louis Stevenson tale will depend a great deal upon your tolerance for the change in acting styles that has occurred between the silent and the modern era. Some silent stars--Lillian Gish, Ramon Novarro, and Louise Brooks leap to mind--were remarkably subtle and worked to create a new style of acting appropriate to the screen, but most actors played very broadly. John Barrymore, considered one of the greatest actors of his day, is among the latter, and was noted for his larger-than-life performances on stage. He brings that same expansiveness to the screen, where it inevitably feels "too big" to the modern viewer.
At the time, Barrymore's transformation into the evil Mr. Hyde was considered shocking in its realism, but today these celebrated scenes are more likely to induce snickers than thrills--as will much of Hyde's make-up, which seems excessive to the modern sensibility. Even so, there are aspects of the film which survive quite well, scenes in which one is permitted a glimpse into the power this film once had. For Barrymore's Hyde is, for all his bizarre ugliness, a remarkably seductive creature--and Barrymore uses his hands and eyes in a remarkable way. One feels the sexual pull as much as one feels the revulsion.
The 1920 DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE is available in several VHS and DVD releases. Some of these are quite good, but I generally recommend the Kino version, which offers a good picture, good soundtrack, and several interesting bonuses. Although other releases may seem attractive in price, it's been my experience that you generally get what you pay for.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, reviewer
Whether or not you happen to like this particular version of the famous Robert Louis Stevenson tale will depend a great deal upon your tolerance for the change in acting styles that has occurred between the silent and the modern era. Some silent stars--Lillian Gish, Ramon Novarro, and Louise Brooks leap to mind--were remarkably subtle and worked to create a new style of acting appropriate to the screen, but most actors played very broadly. John Barrymore, considered one of the greatest actors of his day, is among the latter, and was noted for his larger-than-life performances on stage. He brings that same expansiveness to the screen, where it inevitably feels "too big" to the modern viewer.
At the time, Barrymore's transformation into the evil Mr. Hyde was considered shocking in its realism, but today these celebrated scenes are more likely to induce snickers than thrills--as will much of Hyde's make-up, which seems excessive to the modern sensibility. Even so, there are aspects of the film which survive quite well, scenes in which one is permitted a glimpse into the power this film once had. For Barrymore's Hyde is, for all his bizarre ugliness, a remarkably seductive creature--and Barrymore uses his hands and eyes in a remarkable way. One feels the sexual pull as much as one feels the revulsion.
The 1920 DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE is available in several VHS and DVD releases. Some of these are quite good, but I generally recommend the Kino version, which offers a good picture, good soundtrack, and several interesting bonuses. Although other releases may seem attractive in price, it's been my experience that you generally get what you pay for.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, reviewer
John Barrymore's Double Feature or The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll
lugonian4 November 2003
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (Paramount, 1920), directed by John S. Robertson, ranks the best known silent screen adaptations from the famous 1886 story by Robert Louis Stevenson and the 1897 stage play starring Richard Mansfield. Featuring the then unlikely John Barrymore, a matinée idol better known as "The Great Profile," this early horror film features the young actor to good advantage in portraying two entirely different characters in one motion picture. Those familiar with the Stevenson story, especially with its latter remakes during the sound era, whether starring Fredric March in 1931 (for which he won an Academy Award as best actor) or Spencer Tracy in 1941 (a very good film but often dismissed due to its miscasting) the story itself has its alterations.
Set in 19th century England, Henry Jekyll (John Barrymore), "an idealist and philanthropist, by profession a doctor of medicine," spending his time not only conducting experiments in his laboratory attached to his home, but treatinghis patients at a free clinic for the poor at his own expense. He's engaged to Millicent Carewe (Martha Mansfield), but their relationship appears to be mainly platonic. Arriving late at a dinner gathering at the Carewe home, Sir George Carewe, (Brandon Hurst), Millicent's father and Jekyll's mentor, soon becomes Jekyll's evil influence when he suggests the possibilities of man living by his instincts, yet having another side to his nature. Carewe later accompanies Jekyll to a London music hall where they are not only surrounded by a class of patrons beneath their status, but watch a flirtatious young dancer named Gina (Nita Naldi) perform. "For the first time in his life, Jekyll had awakened to the sense of his baser nature." Spending days and nights in his lab with his experiments, Jekyll, after drinking down his invented formula, soon transforms into his evil self. Becoming the uncontrollable person he names Edward Hyde, Jekyll's evil self begins a relationship with the sultry Gina, eventually making her life miserable. Hyde goes on a murderous rampage, taking control over Jekyll's immortal soul. Jekyll's experiment gets the better of him when he keeps changing into the evil Hyde against his will, returning to his gentler self through an antidote, becoming a recluse and spending more time away from Millicent. When Jekyll's antidote supply runs dry, he tries to fight the urge of evil. After murdering a child of the streets in the poor district of town, and later Sir George who witnessed the evil change in his future son-in-law, Jekyll realizes that he's unable to undo his evil deeds, and suffers more as he tries to prevent himself from making Millicent his next victim.
Supporting Barrymore in the cast are Charles Lane as Doctor Richard Lanyon; Cecil Clovelly as Edward Enfield; Louis Wolheim as the music hall proprietor; and George Stevens as Poole, Jekyll's butler.
Produced shortly before what future star Lon Chaney would have achieved in a role such as this, Barrymore's performs his most memorable moments during his transformation scenes. Every transformation captured on film shows the viewer a more hideous manifestation of Jekyll's other self. Quite theatrical to say the least, but what's amazing is Barrymore's constant jerking of his body with his hair flopping about before the closeup of that hideous facial expression, which must have been quite intense for 1920 audiences. It's been reported that Barrymore changed into the evil Mr. Hyde without the use of makeup, unlike Chaney, who would have done his transformation similar to Fredric March's 1931 sound version, looking more like a hideous animal than a grotesque human creature. For Spencer Tracy's 1941 performance, like Barrymore, he's still in human form but his facial gestures appear inhuman. More added touches of evil include Jekyll's somewhat pointed head as well as close up of Jekyll's hand becoming a withered claw. Something worth noting is one where Jekyll sleeps in his bed and imagines a ghostly giant spider crawling upon him. Because of Barrymore's "great profile" image and matinée idol reputation, the camera takes full advantage in his numerous profiled closeups, yet this was the film that firmly establish Barrymore's movie career.
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE became one of the final thirteen movies aired on public television's THE SILENT YEARS (1971) as hosted by Orson Welles. Accompanied by an organ score by Gaylord Carter, the film runs at length to about 62 minutes. In later years, the silent version to DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE was distributed on video cassette, with the print shown on THE SILENT YEARS released through Blackhawk Video in the 1980s. At present, the length of the movie varies. It could be as long as 75 minutes or more, depending on the projection speed. Shorter prints could be the possibility of a deleted sequence or two taken from reissue copies. For the Blackhawk edition, a sudden cut is noticeable as Millicent (Martha Mansfield) is seen sitting sadly alone, longing for her fiancé, followed by an immediate cut showing Millicent, surrounded by some people, running happily up the stairs with a letter clasped in her hand. Besides JEKYLL AND HYDE's availability on video, it's also been recently distributed on DVD.
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE consisted of several earlier American-made versions (1912, 1913, and another in 1920 to compete with the Barrymore film), but for whatever copy is available for viewing, this 1920 production featuring Barrymore is the only easy access for viewing. Out of circulation on the TV markets since the 1970s, it finally resurfaced on Turner Classic Movies October 24, 2004, as part of its annual Halloween fright feast. The print with the Gaylord Carter organ score has circulated on TCM until its March 6, 2011 presentation consisting a new orchestral score composed by Al Kryszak that's one I would not recommend after listening better scores in the past. (***)
Set in 19th century England, Henry Jekyll (John Barrymore), "an idealist and philanthropist, by profession a doctor of medicine," spending his time not only conducting experiments in his laboratory attached to his home, but treatinghis patients at a free clinic for the poor at his own expense. He's engaged to Millicent Carewe (Martha Mansfield), but their relationship appears to be mainly platonic. Arriving late at a dinner gathering at the Carewe home, Sir George Carewe, (Brandon Hurst), Millicent's father and Jekyll's mentor, soon becomes Jekyll's evil influence when he suggests the possibilities of man living by his instincts, yet having another side to his nature. Carewe later accompanies Jekyll to a London music hall where they are not only surrounded by a class of patrons beneath their status, but watch a flirtatious young dancer named Gina (Nita Naldi) perform. "For the first time in his life, Jekyll had awakened to the sense of his baser nature." Spending days and nights in his lab with his experiments, Jekyll, after drinking down his invented formula, soon transforms into his evil self. Becoming the uncontrollable person he names Edward Hyde, Jekyll's evil self begins a relationship with the sultry Gina, eventually making her life miserable. Hyde goes on a murderous rampage, taking control over Jekyll's immortal soul. Jekyll's experiment gets the better of him when he keeps changing into the evil Hyde against his will, returning to his gentler self through an antidote, becoming a recluse and spending more time away from Millicent. When Jekyll's antidote supply runs dry, he tries to fight the urge of evil. After murdering a child of the streets in the poor district of town, and later Sir George who witnessed the evil change in his future son-in-law, Jekyll realizes that he's unable to undo his evil deeds, and suffers more as he tries to prevent himself from making Millicent his next victim.
Supporting Barrymore in the cast are Charles Lane as Doctor Richard Lanyon; Cecil Clovelly as Edward Enfield; Louis Wolheim as the music hall proprietor; and George Stevens as Poole, Jekyll's butler.
Produced shortly before what future star Lon Chaney would have achieved in a role such as this, Barrymore's performs his most memorable moments during his transformation scenes. Every transformation captured on film shows the viewer a more hideous manifestation of Jekyll's other self. Quite theatrical to say the least, but what's amazing is Barrymore's constant jerking of his body with his hair flopping about before the closeup of that hideous facial expression, which must have been quite intense for 1920 audiences. It's been reported that Barrymore changed into the evil Mr. Hyde without the use of makeup, unlike Chaney, who would have done his transformation similar to Fredric March's 1931 sound version, looking more like a hideous animal than a grotesque human creature. For Spencer Tracy's 1941 performance, like Barrymore, he's still in human form but his facial gestures appear inhuman. More added touches of evil include Jekyll's somewhat pointed head as well as close up of Jekyll's hand becoming a withered claw. Something worth noting is one where Jekyll sleeps in his bed and imagines a ghostly giant spider crawling upon him. Because of Barrymore's "great profile" image and matinée idol reputation, the camera takes full advantage in his numerous profiled closeups, yet this was the film that firmly establish Barrymore's movie career.
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE became one of the final thirteen movies aired on public television's THE SILENT YEARS (1971) as hosted by Orson Welles. Accompanied by an organ score by Gaylord Carter, the film runs at length to about 62 minutes. In later years, the silent version to DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE was distributed on video cassette, with the print shown on THE SILENT YEARS released through Blackhawk Video in the 1980s. At present, the length of the movie varies. It could be as long as 75 minutes or more, depending on the projection speed. Shorter prints could be the possibility of a deleted sequence or two taken from reissue copies. For the Blackhawk edition, a sudden cut is noticeable as Millicent (Martha Mansfield) is seen sitting sadly alone, longing for her fiancé, followed by an immediate cut showing Millicent, surrounded by some people, running happily up the stairs with a letter clasped in her hand. Besides JEKYLL AND HYDE's availability on video, it's also been recently distributed on DVD.
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE consisted of several earlier American-made versions (1912, 1913, and another in 1920 to compete with the Barrymore film), but for whatever copy is available for viewing, this 1920 production featuring Barrymore is the only easy access for viewing. Out of circulation on the TV markets since the 1970s, it finally resurfaced on Turner Classic Movies October 24, 2004, as part of its annual Halloween fright feast. The print with the Gaylord Carter organ score has circulated on TCM until its March 6, 2011 presentation consisting a new orchestral score composed by Al Kryszak that's one I would not recommend after listening better scores in the past. (***)
Barrymore's Hyde is a beaut!
funkyfry9 October 2002
This 1920 production was the work of Famous Players (later Paramount) and the studio's early style of imitating a stage look limits this film visually and in terms of its acting, which is not subtle. However, Barrymore delivers with panache and flamboyance as the dual personality doctor. His makeup and mannerisms as Hyde are really grotesque, providing reason enough to watch the film. The sets are also very well done; you can almost see the slime of grunge coming off the pedestals and door posts, very similar to the look of Universal's later "Phantom of the Opera" w/ Lon Chaney. But what with the static camera, this film comes off as quite a sleep inducer, and seems a lot longer than it is. Still, wroth seeing for Barrymore's performance and excellent makeup.
The creeping horror.
Boba_Fett113813 September 2006
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/
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/
The creepiest Hyde of them all!
Coventry23 November 2005
This is one of the earliest of many, many (better say endless) Jekyll & Hyde adaptations, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. The main reason why this version pales in comparison with the celebrated 1931-version is because the narration of Robert Louis Stevenson's story never at one point rises above the basics. The film opens terribly slow and you have to wait long and patiently before it gets to the essence of Stevenson's legendary writings, namely Dr. Jekyll's growing obsession to bring out the dark side that hides in ever human being. However, and this is truly remarkable, off ALL the Jekyll & Hyde movie-versions I've seen thus far, this 85-year-old piece of cinema strangely brings forward the spookiest Hyde-monster ever. In fact, John Barrymore simply dominates the whole movie and he clearly enjoyed the sequences where he turns into the malicious and long-fingered monster. The transformation scenes are amazingly uncanny for their time and the camera-work is pure Expressionism. With a slightly more creative approach of the story-material, this could have been the greatest silent horror film ever.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) 5/10
skybrick73625 March 2015
Being a twenty-five year old, it's really hard to imagine what it would be like viewing this movie in a 1920's theater. I appreciate Robertson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as a tremendous advancement in horror cinema. For being over an hour and a half long the movie held my interest but there is only so much I can take out of a film like this, hence the 5/10 rating. John Barrymore's performance was spectacular, he had a typical Doctor look and his Mr. Hyde was down-right creepy. Some of the camera angles of Hyde at the end of the film were very effective making up for a lack of a transformation scene. It was fascinating to watch the two female leads too, Martha Mansfield and Nita Naldi were stunning in appearance. While watching each variation of films, which include the 1912, 1913 and 1920 versions, it's interesting to see what each film does differently. Understanding how popular Robertson's film is, I'd have to say it's on par and give it the same rating with Henderson's 1912 film, which are both worth seeking out as a fan of the novel or curious in silent horror films.
MANSFIELD'S BEAUTY WONDERFULLY SHOWCASED
randybigham5 December 2001
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.
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.
Incredible the same actor plays both Jekyll and Hyde
Johan_Wondering_on_Waves25 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Well I never read the novel and my knowledge about this story was pretty low before I watched this movie. Well yes the story is pretty straightforward and the characters are introduced in a minimalistic way. Except for Dr. Jekyll we don't get to know most of the characters for real, they look pretty cardboard doing what they are supposed to do. There is little surprises since almost everything that will happen is announced by the title cards. For me a silent is more effective when intertitles are mostly used for dialog while the visuals, the gestures and expressions of the cast should do the rest. That said John Barrymore looks really nasty as Mr. Hyde (now that was some nice piece of horror) and it's incredible both the good Jekyll and the evil Mr. Hyde were played by the same actor. The spider scene was memorable but overall the storytelling was rather choppy and dull.
John Barrymore IS the special effect, and for a great story.
secondtake20 February 2010
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
Don't let the flat beginning to the movie turn you off. Once Barrymore begins taking on both roles (Jekyll and Hyde), with the famous first transformation about 27 minutes into the film, it only gets better and better. The fear within him, his inability to cope, the hiding and general mayhem, and the gradual awakening of the good doctor's friends builds to a terrific second half.
It's silent, yes, but it doesn't need too many intertitles. The lighting and sets are really nice, there is a lot of solid, parallel editing, and the results both in the narrative and in the spatial construction of the film from set to set is complex and sophisticated.
Look for a classic (and simple) use of warm toned and blue toned sections of film, as characters move inside and out (inside is yellowy as if from lamplight). This not only adds mood, it helps you keep track of where you are. The locations are limited--no roaming the streets of old London here--but they work to advance the ideas.
John Barrymore's performance is energetic and fearless. The famous first film appearance of 1920s vamp star Nina Naldi is a landmark, too, though she appears only briefly. The rest of the cast is fine, though in some cases noticeably stiff. Director John S. Robinson is not known for any landmarks besides this one, and even this was not the first adaptation of Stevenson's short novel (that was apparently a 1910 Danish version). But the stakes were raised here, only to be matched and bettered, overall, by the Moumalian version of 1931, an early sound movie with Frederic March in the main role. John Barrymore was a ham, at heart, and this was a role where you didn't have to worry about overdoing the part, so the 1920 version is pretty amazing just to see him act full tilt.
The meaning of the story goes beyond the duality of human nature, and the inability to control pure evil. Toward the beginning, Dr. Jekyll is accused of being a studious bore, and he needed to have a life. The only way to win over temptation was to fall into it, said a friend, and this is the crux of it, really, the idea that you need to follow your own sense of good. Peer pressure never had such fast, awful effects as it did on the tender hearted, experimentally minded young doctor.
Don't let the flat beginning to the movie turn you off. Once Barrymore begins taking on both roles (Jekyll and Hyde), with the famous first transformation about 27 minutes into the film, it only gets better and better. The fear within him, his inability to cope, the hiding and general mayhem, and the gradual awakening of the good doctor's friends builds to a terrific second half.
It's silent, yes, but it doesn't need too many intertitles. The lighting and sets are really nice, there is a lot of solid, parallel editing, and the results both in the narrative and in the spatial construction of the film from set to set is complex and sophisticated.
Look for a classic (and simple) use of warm toned and blue toned sections of film, as characters move inside and out (inside is yellowy as if from lamplight). This not only adds mood, it helps you keep track of where you are. The locations are limited--no roaming the streets of old London here--but they work to advance the ideas.
John Barrymore's performance is energetic and fearless. The famous first film appearance of 1920s vamp star Nina Naldi is a landmark, too, though she appears only briefly. The rest of the cast is fine, though in some cases noticeably stiff. Director John S. Robinson is not known for any landmarks besides this one, and even this was not the first adaptation of Stevenson's short novel (that was apparently a 1910 Danish version). But the stakes were raised here, only to be matched and bettered, overall, by the Moumalian version of 1931, an early sound movie with Frederic March in the main role. John Barrymore was a ham, at heart, and this was a role where you didn't have to worry about overdoing the part, so the 1920 version is pretty amazing just to see him act full tilt.
The meaning of the story goes beyond the duality of human nature, and the inability to control pure evil. Toward the beginning, Dr. Jekyll is accused of being a studious bore, and he needed to have a life. The only way to win over temptation was to fall into it, said a friend, and this is the crux of it, really, the idea that you need to follow your own sense of good. Peer pressure never had such fast, awful effects as it did on the tender hearted, experimentally minded young doctor.
effective silent chiller
didi-54 April 2008
John Barrymore, 'the Great Profile', is often said to be one of the greatest of all actors, although the only real work we have to go on are his 1930s MGM movie appearances, which often slip into caricature. However, back in 1920, Barrymore still had his looks and his acting ability as both Jekyll and Hyde cannot be doubted in this involving and stunning adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's oft-filmed tale.
As the women in his life, Nina Naldi portrays the dance hall singer and Martha Mansfield (who would so tragically die during filming of one of her later features in 1922) is Millicent Carew, his intended. Neither make that much of an impression, but are adequate.
It is the little touches that matter in this film. Shadows, close-ups, looks and gestures. It may not be as overtly sensual as the 1931 March version, but it is certainly chilling.
As the women in his life, Nina Naldi portrays the dance hall singer and Martha Mansfield (who would so tragically die during filming of one of her later features in 1922) is Millicent Carew, his intended. Neither make that much of an impression, but are adequate.
It is the little touches that matter in this film. Shadows, close-ups, looks and gestures. It may not be as overtly sensual as the 1931 March version, but it is certainly chilling.
Possibly the First Great Horror Film in History
gavin69428 November 2008
Dr. Jekyll has a grand idea... what if he could harness man's evil in two distinct forms? His colleague says no, that would cause man to be both god and devil. But Jekyll presses on and creates a serum that transforms him into another being entirely, that of Mr. Hyde. The experiment seems fair at first, but quickly spirals out of hand as Hyde's violence cannot be contained. How can Hyde be stopped and what will happen to the budding romance between Jekyll and his colleague's daughter? By itself, this film is pretty amazing. The makeup effects are ahead of their time and there's a special effect involving a tarantula that impressed me greatly. The acting is good -- a bit exaggerated at times, but that was simply the style of the day. Even the picture quality is impressive... clearly a lot of love and funding went into this project and it paid off in spades. Any future Jekyll/Hyde film would have to be compared to this one, and it would be a tough film to beat.
I had the special treat of catching it at the Music Box Massacre festival at the Music Box theater in Chicago. What made this great besides a silver screen presentation? Live organ accompaniment. For the entire length of the film, the organist kept us and our emotions moving from the romantic to the terrifying... without missing a note. Silent films may have faded away and will likely never regain any level of popularity, but if you do get the chance to see one, this is the proper way. Prerecorded music has nothing on the sound of a live organ. I have to give full credit to organist Mark Noller for such an amazing and inspiring performance.
This version of "Jekyll and Hyde", more than any other, stands out as a historic plank in the annals of horror and film. While it could be argued that other versions are better or more in touch with a modern audience -- and there are dozens of remakes and reimaginings to choose from -- this is one that should be seen by any serious horror fan or film scholar. Techniques used in it, such as the makeup, could still be influential today. Newer is not always better and while we today think of "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" as the early horror masterpieces, this one should not be ruled out.
I had the special treat of catching it at the Music Box Massacre festival at the Music Box theater in Chicago. What made this great besides a silver screen presentation? Live organ accompaniment. For the entire length of the film, the organist kept us and our emotions moving from the romantic to the terrifying... without missing a note. Silent films may have faded away and will likely never regain any level of popularity, but if you do get the chance to see one, this is the proper way. Prerecorded music has nothing on the sound of a live organ. I have to give full credit to organist Mark Noller for such an amazing and inspiring performance.
This version of "Jekyll and Hyde", more than any other, stands out as a historic plank in the annals of horror and film. While it could be argued that other versions are better or more in touch with a modern audience -- and there are dozens of remakes and reimaginings to choose from -- this is one that should be seen by any serious horror fan or film scholar. Techniques used in it, such as the makeup, could still be influential today. Newer is not always better and while we today think of "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" as the early horror masterpieces, this one should not be ruled out.
Run and Hyde
CuriosityKilledShawn31 October 2010
I'd never seen a silent movie in a theater until last night. The Usher Hall in Edinburgh screened this 90-year-old horror to a large, nearly sold-out, audience with live music. It was a digital projection made from a composite print that hadn't been restored. The film was full of nicks and dirt and scratches, but it didn't bother me, it added to atmosphere I guess.
John Barrymore (Drew's granddad) plays Dr. Jekyll, a man who has devoted his life to good. His friends tease him on his purity and encourage him to let his hair down once in a while, perhaps with a hooker or two. Instead of taking this sound advice Jekyll creates a potion that turns him into Mr. Hyde, a monstrous character who is supposed to represent man's inner beast.
The "horror" didn't really have much of an effect on me. Hyde doesn't do anything considerably evil, but I did find him creepy to look at. The performances are all about theater and overacting in the absence of dialogue and the actors did a good job in this regard. The photography and set design was impressive too but rather undermined by the decrepit nature of the composite print.
Though we should be grateful that the film still exists in good enough condition to screen publicly. This was the 3rd screen adaptation of Robert Lewis Stevenson's novella, the first two have been lost and will likely never be seen again.
I guess you could say that they are "Hyding".
John Barrymore (Drew's granddad) plays Dr. Jekyll, a man who has devoted his life to good. His friends tease him on his purity and encourage him to let his hair down once in a while, perhaps with a hooker or two. Instead of taking this sound advice Jekyll creates a potion that turns him into Mr. Hyde, a monstrous character who is supposed to represent man's inner beast.
The "horror" didn't really have much of an effect on me. Hyde doesn't do anything considerably evil, but I did find him creepy to look at. The performances are all about theater and overacting in the absence of dialogue and the actors did a good job in this regard. The photography and set design was impressive too but rather undermined by the decrepit nature of the composite print.
Though we should be grateful that the film still exists in good enough condition to screen publicly. This was the 3rd screen adaptation of Robert Lewis Stevenson's novella, the first two have been lost and will likely never be seen again.
I guess you could say that they are "Hyding".
The stuff nightmares are made of.
mark.waltz13 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Today, John Barrymore is best known to those who know his name at all, either as a drunken buffoon who got a lot of bad publicity during the last decade of his life or as the grandfather of Drew Barrymore, who was born many decades after he died. But if you look at his theatrical and screen career prior to those sad last years, you will find that he was a definite superstar, once the most popular actor during his heyday. This film version of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic novel is very different than other "Jekyll and Hydes", similar in plot to the very popular Broadway musical that has gained a cult following, but with very noticeable differences.
The character of Dr. Henry Jekyll is presented as a very noble man who takes care of the poor and downtrodden, and whose desire to do good for his fellow man results in his downfall due to his experiments studying the psychology of the good and evil in everybody. The film doesn't take long to turn Dr Jekyll into the hideous Mr. Hyde, and for special effects that are now over a hundred years old, the film is quite impressive in many ways. While there are some comical elements in how Mr. Hyde first appears, it's obvious that in 1920, those effects would scare the bejeebers out of its audience. Mr. Hyde is a hideous villain, lascivious and perverse, and his crimes quite gruesome. The women involved with both characters truly have to deal with monstrous actions by Mr. Hyde, even though there are very subtle clues about how tortured the evil side of Dr. Jekyll really is.
This film truly stands the time as a brilliant piece of cinema, filled with visuals that are stunning, with Barrymore giving a performance that undoubtly in 1920 would have won him an Oscar had they been around at the time. The supporting cast is filled with unknowns, but they are all brilliant, and even the minor roles show off a dark society at the time that wasn't at all romantic or beautiful. The print that I saw of the film, in the public domain, has a beautiful music score, and it is very easy to watch even for people who are not fans of silent movies. The ending certainly haunted me, and I must call this one of the greatest silent movies ever made, not to mention one of the greatest horror movies ever made. Arachnophone should be aware that there is a scene involving a giant spider, one quite frightening in its nightmarish presentation.
The character of Dr. Henry Jekyll is presented as a very noble man who takes care of the poor and downtrodden, and whose desire to do good for his fellow man results in his downfall due to his experiments studying the psychology of the good and evil in everybody. The film doesn't take long to turn Dr Jekyll into the hideous Mr. Hyde, and for special effects that are now over a hundred years old, the film is quite impressive in many ways. While there are some comical elements in how Mr. Hyde first appears, it's obvious that in 1920, those effects would scare the bejeebers out of its audience. Mr. Hyde is a hideous villain, lascivious and perverse, and his crimes quite gruesome. The women involved with both characters truly have to deal with monstrous actions by Mr. Hyde, even though there are very subtle clues about how tortured the evil side of Dr. Jekyll really is.
This film truly stands the time as a brilliant piece of cinema, filled with visuals that are stunning, with Barrymore giving a performance that undoubtly in 1920 would have won him an Oscar had they been around at the time. The supporting cast is filled with unknowns, but they are all brilliant, and even the minor roles show off a dark society at the time that wasn't at all romantic or beautiful. The print that I saw of the film, in the public domain, has a beautiful music score, and it is very easy to watch even for people who are not fans of silent movies. The ending certainly haunted me, and I must call this one of the greatest silent movies ever made, not to mention one of the greatest horror movies ever made. Arachnophone should be aware that there is a scene involving a giant spider, one quite frightening in its nightmarish presentation.
A good read
keith-moyes12 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have long doubted that the silent cinema was ever really a mature dramatic medium in it own right. To me, it has always seemed like a transitional phase that was was inevitably destined to evolve into the 'talkie'. This 1920 movie merely confirms how quickly this started to become apparent.
This version of Jeckyll and Hyde is one of the best adaptations of Stevenson's book. Because it predates the Hays Office it could be much more open and honest about Jeckyll's motives than either the 1931 or 1940 versions (which both have their merits). It is also more effective in documenting Jeckyll's gradual slide into 'addiction'.
Barrymore's Hyde is the most creepily depraved I have yet seen. His first 'in camera' transformation is rightly applauded as a tour de force, despite some histrionics that might raise a few snickers amongst contemporary audiences unfamiliar with the acting conventions of earlier times.
There is much to admire and enjoy in this picture, which has been well documented in other reviews on this site, and I can only regret that it no longer seems to be available in a print that does it justice.
However, I cannot help noting that this movie would have been impossible to follow without the liberal use of title cards. I counted 27 in the first 15 minutes. That means that 30 - 40% of the initial running time is taken up with reading rather than viewing.
Once the basic situation has been set up and explained, the title cards become noticeably less frequent but, even so, all the major evolutions of the plot are announced rather than dramatised. Even when the movie uses some effective spider imagery to depict Hyde's increasing hold over Jeckyll, the symbolism would have been incomprehensible without the preceding title card.
Was this a failure of the movie or a failure of the medium?
To those people who would still try to convince me that silent cinema had developed a fully-fledged visual language of its own I would only say: "show me how this story could have been told effectively without all those title cards?"
To date, there has been no reply.
This version of Jeckyll and Hyde is one of the best adaptations of Stevenson's book. Because it predates the Hays Office it could be much more open and honest about Jeckyll's motives than either the 1931 or 1940 versions (which both have their merits). It is also more effective in documenting Jeckyll's gradual slide into 'addiction'.
Barrymore's Hyde is the most creepily depraved I have yet seen. His first 'in camera' transformation is rightly applauded as a tour de force, despite some histrionics that might raise a few snickers amongst contemporary audiences unfamiliar with the acting conventions of earlier times.
There is much to admire and enjoy in this picture, which has been well documented in other reviews on this site, and I can only regret that it no longer seems to be available in a print that does it justice.
However, I cannot help noting that this movie would have been impossible to follow without the liberal use of title cards. I counted 27 in the first 15 minutes. That means that 30 - 40% of the initial running time is taken up with reading rather than viewing.
Once the basic situation has been set up and explained, the title cards become noticeably less frequent but, even so, all the major evolutions of the plot are announced rather than dramatised. Even when the movie uses some effective spider imagery to depict Hyde's increasing hold over Jeckyll, the symbolism would have been incomprehensible without the preceding title card.
Was this a failure of the movie or a failure of the medium?
To those people who would still try to convince me that silent cinema had developed a fully-fledged visual language of its own I would only say: "show me how this story could have been told effectively without all those title cards?"
To date, there has been no reply.
Outstanding performance by Barrymore
scsu197521 November 2022
This is an interesting spin on the Robert Louis Stevenson story. I say "spin" because the movie has little in common with the book, other than utilizing the main theme of each person having a darker side. The film introduces two characters who did not appear in the book: Millicent Carew (the nice girl who loves Jekyll) and Gina, a dance-hall girl. In fact, there are no female characters in the original story, except for Hyde's housekeeper. The characters of Millicent and Gina would re-appear in subsequent film versions, with different names. Of course, the big star here is Barrymore, who does an exceptional job transforming into Hyde. In one scene, he actually throws himself into the air, landing on his back.
His Jekyll is handsome and gentlemanly, and cares for the less fortunate.
His Hyde is ugly, hunched over, and no doubt a rapist (which he is most definitely not in the original story). His misshapen head is a bit jarring, but the makeup is a lot easier to swallow than Fredric March's ape-like alter ego. In one of his earliest roles, Louis Wolheim plays the dance hall owner who gladly foists Gina (Nita Naldi, who is very sexy) onto Hyde. Later, after Hyde has used her, we see her as a completely wasted woman.
Martha Mansfield, who portrayed Millicent was only 20 when she made this film. Her performance is a bit hammy when she sees her father's dead body, but overall she acquits herself well and is quite lovely. This may be her only surviving work.
His Jekyll is handsome and gentlemanly, and cares for the less fortunate.
His Hyde is ugly, hunched over, and no doubt a rapist (which he is most definitely not in the original story). His misshapen head is a bit jarring, but the makeup is a lot easier to swallow than Fredric March's ape-like alter ego. In one of his earliest roles, Louis Wolheim plays the dance hall owner who gladly foists Gina (Nita Naldi, who is very sexy) onto Hyde. Later, after Hyde has used her, we see her as a completely wasted woman.
Martha Mansfield, who portrayed Millicent was only 20 when she made this film. Her performance is a bit hammy when she sees her father's dead body, but overall she acquits herself well and is quite lovely. This may be her only surviving work.
"Turns out it was Super lager he was drinking"
Bezenby28 June 2013
This is the first silent film I've watched since they used to show Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd on the telly before the telly became a huge pile of crap and to be honest with you, they need to show more films like this rather than programmes like 'Real housewives of Accrington', 'Whelk Catchers' and 'The Only Way is Grimsby'. This film was made in what seems like an impossible time ago, 1920, so in our age of information, where we're barraged with noise and data almost everywhere we go, how can a film with no audible dialogue stand up?
Actually, it stands up quite well. The copy I had came with a terrible music soundtrack, so instead I watched the film while listening to Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works 2. That seemed to work nicely.
John Barrowmore is Dr Jekyll, man of the people, helping the poor and spending what marginal time he was with his girlfriend. Trouble is, his mates think he's boring. They think he needs to get out to some bars, hang around with some loose women, and generally blow off some steam. Jekyll seems to take this on board, but, being a man of science, comes up with a plan. If he can become someone else in order to get involved in a bit of debauchery, then he's in the clear guilt wise with his missus. Makes sense, right?
Jekyll necks his new formula and before you know it, he's Mr Hyde. Mr Hyde likes his hooch, and likes his women, but he's also as mean as hell. Worse still, he's becoming the dominant personality and folks are noticing that Jekyll doesn't seem to be around that much any more. This might be some allegory on the duality of man and the struggle ever person faces with doing what's good and what's wrong. I don't know much about that, but I sure loved the bit where he stomped on that kid and then paid off the family. Or how about that bit where he beat the guy to death? Or the bit where Jekyll dreams about a genuinely creepy spider-guy crawling up his bed (I wasn't expecting that and was well impressed)?
John Barrowmore was pretty good as both characters, going from a pale-faced, innocent Doctor to a gurning, hunched wretch. The film zips by pretty quickly (not much time for long drawn out dialogue in silent films) and has some genuinely unsettling moments, from the spider bit above to the bit in the bar where Hyde man handles two hookers. I was glad I broke my silent movie duck on this one.
Actually, it stands up quite well. The copy I had came with a terrible music soundtrack, so instead I watched the film while listening to Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works 2. That seemed to work nicely.
John Barrowmore is Dr Jekyll, man of the people, helping the poor and spending what marginal time he was with his girlfriend. Trouble is, his mates think he's boring. They think he needs to get out to some bars, hang around with some loose women, and generally blow off some steam. Jekyll seems to take this on board, but, being a man of science, comes up with a plan. If he can become someone else in order to get involved in a bit of debauchery, then he's in the clear guilt wise with his missus. Makes sense, right?
Jekyll necks his new formula and before you know it, he's Mr Hyde. Mr Hyde likes his hooch, and likes his women, but he's also as mean as hell. Worse still, he's becoming the dominant personality and folks are noticing that Jekyll doesn't seem to be around that much any more. This might be some allegory on the duality of man and the struggle ever person faces with doing what's good and what's wrong. I don't know much about that, but I sure loved the bit where he stomped on that kid and then paid off the family. Or how about that bit where he beat the guy to death? Or the bit where Jekyll dreams about a genuinely creepy spider-guy crawling up his bed (I wasn't expecting that and was well impressed)?
John Barrowmore was pretty good as both characters, going from a pale-faced, innocent Doctor to a gurning, hunched wretch. The film zips by pretty quickly (not much time for long drawn out dialogue in silent films) and has some genuinely unsettling moments, from the spider bit above to the bit in the bar where Hyde man handles two hookers. I was glad I broke my silent movie duck on this one.
Hammy Histrionics
Jon Kolenchak17 May 2003
Even taking into account the different style of acting present in many silent films, I found John Barrymore's performance (especially in the transformation sequences) a bit much.
If you want to see him do a tremendous job in an offbeat role, check out "Svengali" (1931).
If you want to see the most frightening version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", watch the 1931 version starring Fredric March.
If you want to see him do a tremendous job in an offbeat role, check out "Svengali" (1931).
If you want to see the most frightening version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", watch the 1931 version starring Fredric March.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
