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
?!
14 Reviews
Pretty good for 1913
planktonrules5 January 2012
This is a hard film to rate. Compared to the later versions of this tale, this film comes up very short. However, compared to films made around 1913, it's pretty good. If you do watch it--just cut it some slack. That's because at 26 minutes it's a very long film for the time and its reliance on overacting instead of makeup for Mr. Hyde was a common device---one that John Barrymore also used a decade later. Why? Part of it is the tradition of the stage--where you couldn't stop a production to apply monstrous makeup. Another reason for doing this is that makeup was only in its very infancy in films. So, it was up to the actor (in this case, King Braggot) to act Hyde-ish. And, unfortunately, Braggot's version of Mr. Hyde was not great---as to make himself seem like Hyde, he doubles over as if he's suffering from a severe bowel obstruction! This version of Hyde loved beating the crap out of innocent people but the lewd aspects of his personality are not to be found. An interesting sanitized interpretation--but I think the perverted version of Hyde was closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's vision of the man.
Now it sounds as if I didn't like the film--and this isn't really the case. Apart from the odd portrayal of Hyde, I found it truly amazing that they stuffed so much into only 26 minutes--and they did a nice job of it. Good sets and acting were obvious. The only other complaint I have really is about ALL silents up until about 1920--and that is that they feature too few intertitle cards. Often, the actors acted and acted but nothing was indicated as to what they were saying or doing. Typical but a bit confusing.
My advice is to watch this and then perhaps watch the Frederic March version and compare them. Or, try the Barrymore silent version. Either way, there are other silents and talking versions you can compare it to--they must have made a bazillion of them!
Now it sounds as if I didn't like the film--and this isn't really the case. Apart from the odd portrayal of Hyde, I found it truly amazing that they stuffed so much into only 26 minutes--and they did a nice job of it. Good sets and acting were obvious. The only other complaint I have really is about ALL silents up until about 1920--and that is that they feature too few intertitle cards. Often, the actors acted and acted but nothing was indicated as to what they were saying or doing. Typical but a bit confusing.
My advice is to watch this and then perhaps watch the Frederic March version and compare them. Or, try the Barrymore silent version. Either way, there are other silents and talking versions you can compare it to--they must have made a bazillion of them!
Quite Unintentionally the First Universal Monster Movie
LanceBrave23 November 2013
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.
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.
Has any other novel been filmed as often as this one?
Nozze-Foto23 March 2002
Carl Laemmle's Universal Studios was less than a year old when he made this 3 reel version of Stevenson's novel, at least the sixth film version done since 1908! King Baggot, the star, was the moving pictures first real (reel?) superstar, sometimes appearing in a new movie each week (wow!). Baggot later gave up acting and went to the other side of the camera to become a director, doing such things as THE PONY EXPRESS (1924). This version is well done though the first transformation has a bad gaffe. The double exposure is badly timed and for a moment it looks like there are 2 people in the room. Apart from that it is well done and convincing. I like the way Hyde scares the life out of everyone in a seedy pub just by standing in the doorway and glaring at them. It is my life's mission to see as many versions of this film as I can and this one was certainly worth tracking down. Give it a try.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Weakest adaptation I've seen
Platypuschow3 May 2019
One of the earliest surviving adaptations of the classic tale, but of what I've seen so far certainly one of the weakest.
I don't need to speak of the plot, it's an infamous household name after all and they don't deviate much here.
Standing at around the 26 minute mark it looks abnormally dated. Don't get me wrong I'm aware of the release year, but by comparison to the one merely 12 months earlier it looks terrible.
The looks however I can forgive, there are two aspects unfortunately I cannot.
First of all how mediocre and "Phoned in" the whole thing feels. Like they just rushed to get the tale onto film, put little effort in and did absolutely nothing to set it apart from the rest.
Second, the audio. Yes this is a silent film but here not only does it not have a musical overlay but it sounds like a speaker cranked up to maximum volume was left on mute. So though there is no audio in the traditional sense you are hit with 26 minutes of buzzing and static that certainly damages the film irreparably.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most adapted tales in the history of cinema, so find a better one.
The Good:
Nothing
The Bad:
Audio (Or lack of) gave me a headache
Looks awful by comparison to the previous years effort
Unreadable notes
I don't need to speak of the plot, it's an infamous household name after all and they don't deviate much here.
Standing at around the 26 minute mark it looks abnormally dated. Don't get me wrong I'm aware of the release year, but by comparison to the one merely 12 months earlier it looks terrible.
The looks however I can forgive, there are two aspects unfortunately I cannot.
First of all how mediocre and "Phoned in" the whole thing feels. Like they just rushed to get the tale onto film, put little effort in and did absolutely nothing to set it apart from the rest.
Second, the audio. Yes this is a silent film but here not only does it not have a musical overlay but it sounds like a speaker cranked up to maximum volume was left on mute. So though there is no audio in the traditional sense you are hit with 26 minutes of buzzing and static that certainly damages the film irreparably.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most adapted tales in the history of cinema, so find a better one.
The Good:
Nothing
The Bad:
Audio (Or lack of) gave me a headache
Looks awful by comparison to the previous years effort
Unreadable notes
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913)
skybrick73612 August 2014
One year after Henderson's film about Robert Louis Stevenson's classic novella, Brenon came out with his own version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. This tale was a little more of a let down because of longer drawn out scenes that could have been short and to the point with poor background music chosen. Also, the transformation scene to Mr. Hyde was hack and could have been much more frightening and realistic. The film definitely needed shorter scenes and more written boards to give more information about the plot. Not every viewer of a movie is going to know what's going on because they may not have read the book. I'll give King Baggot credit for doing a good job acting in this silent film but all the other characters were non existent. This movie isn't worth the time and would advise the 1912 or 1920 movies.
One man, two personalities
russjones-808876 August 2020
Dr. Henry Jekyll divides his time between his charity patients and his personal experiments at the expense of his fiancée and social life. His evil side, Mr. Hyde, emerges and things get out of control.
Silent version based on the novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. Both roles are played by King Baggott and, whilst the transformation from Jekyll to Hyde is effective, the latter character is not as well played as in later versions. Even at 26 minutes it is for film buffs only.
Silent version based on the novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. Both roles are played by King Baggott and, whilst the transformation from Jekyll to Hyde is effective, the latter character is not as well played as in later versions. Even at 26 minutes it is for film buffs only.
Another interesting silent version of classic tale
jamesrupert20143 February 2020
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).
The Strange Case Of Robert Louis Stevenson
boblipton24 November 2023
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.
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.
A hidden classic horror film.
jacobjohntaylor128 May 2015
This is a great horror movie. It is very scary. It is one of scariest movies you will ever see. Great acting. Great story line. Great special effect. This movie is very intense. It is a true horror classic. This is a great movie. See it. It is a must see. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say. This is a great movie. Great movie great movie great movie great movie. Do not miss this movie if you find it. One of greatest horror movie ever made. Best on one of the best horror stories ever told. This movie will give you goosebumps. If you like really scary movies. Then you need to see this movie. Very scary very scary.
Varied Transformations
Cineanalyst22 November 2012
This is a respectable adaptation for 1913 of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella. Comparing it to later adaptations, most notably the 1920 John Barrymore, the 1931 Fredric March and the 1941 Spencer Tracy versions of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would be unfair, but this 1913 short feature does fare well in comparison to the 1912 Thanhouser version, which I've also seen. The 1912 film was probably only a reel in length, as opposed to the two or three reels of this 1913 incarnation, which, thus, benefits from less truncation of the narrative. The 1912 film featured two different actors to portray Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, whereas this one stars King Baggot in a dual role. Both pictures used editing for the transformations between Jekyll and Hyde, but the 1913 one also includes two transformations via double-exposure photography. This is the same technique used, albeit done better, in the later and more popular versions of the story. Another way the transformations are achieved here is by Baggot removing his Hyde costume while hunched over and his back to the camera. Baggot also does this once to put on his Hyde, but there's a jump cut to aid him for this. The editing tricks used for the remainder of the transformations are crosscutting and having Baggot exit a scene and re-enter it.
Baggot's Hyde isn't too bad, either, for 1913. He changes his hair and teeth for it, and dons a hat, odd glasses and a cane, and he walks hunched over and knees bent, for a grotesque and animalistic Hyde, which is faithful to the novella's characterization.
The film suffers from some of the typical, outdated cinematic practices of the time. It is told in a tableau style, where title cards describe proceeding scenes and there are no intertitles or changes in camera placements for each set. On the other hand, there is some crosscutting and good, quick scene dissection between locations, which is more than can be said for many pictures of this era and which makes for a, thankfully, breezy viewing experience.
The director of this "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", Herbert Brenon, was probably one of the foremost filmmakers of the 1910s, but some of his most acclaimed pictures from the decade are lost, including "Neptune's Daughter" (1914), its follow-up "A Daughter of the Gods", as well as "War Brides" (both 1916), which starred Alla Nazimova. A couple of his 1920s features: "Peter Pan" (1924) and the Lon Chaney picture "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" (1928), however, remain in wide circulation and some others are available from smaller video distributors.
Baggot's Hyde isn't too bad, either, for 1913. He changes his hair and teeth for it, and dons a hat, odd glasses and a cane, and he walks hunched over and knees bent, for a grotesque and animalistic Hyde, which is faithful to the novella's characterization.
The film suffers from some of the typical, outdated cinematic practices of the time. It is told in a tableau style, where title cards describe proceeding scenes and there are no intertitles or changes in camera placements for each set. On the other hand, there is some crosscutting and good, quick scene dissection between locations, which is more than can be said for many pictures of this era and which makes for a, thankfully, breezy viewing experience.
The director of this "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", Herbert Brenon, was probably one of the foremost filmmakers of the 1910s, but some of his most acclaimed pictures from the decade are lost, including "Neptune's Daughter" (1914), its follow-up "A Daughter of the Gods", as well as "War Brides" (both 1916), which starred Alla Nazimova. A couple of his 1920s features: "Peter Pan" (1924) and the Lon Chaney picture "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" (1928), however, remain in wide circulation and some others are available from smaller video distributors.
Well Worth Searching For
Michael_Elliott2 February 2010
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913)
*** (out of 4)
Originally released as a two-parts, this 26-minute short is certainly the longest of all the early versions of Stevenson's story and it also probably has the smallest budget. The film has King Baggot play the kind Dr. Jekyll who turns into the murderous Mr. Hyde after drinking the wrong potion. To me this is certainly the best of the early versions I've seen as Baggot really does have to do pretty much everything himself and in the end I think it makes for a find Mr. Hyde. The budget appears to be very small as the special effects are certainly lacking and are really far behind the work various other artists were doing including the master Melies. One can't help but wish the producer's had spent a little extra green trying to do more with the make up as pretty much all we get are a few shades under the eyes and not every scene even has that. What makes up for this is the performance by Baggot who really gives it his all and delivers a different type of take on Jekyll. Since there's no make up to hide behind, Baggot must instead create a real character and he makes a few interesting choices including playing Hyde as an almost hunchback who is basically a cripple, kneeling around and hobbling all over the place. This certainly doesn't make for anything scary but it's an interesting and different take. I think Baggot also manages to come across very intelligent with Dr. Jekyll and makes us feel as if we're really watching two different characters. The extra running time gives us several more scenes of Jekyll being destructive and this includes a rather shocking scene where he attacks a cripple boy just for the fun of it. The direction could have been better but I did enjoy the costume design and the sets were impressive for such a low budget. This isn't the easiest version to get your hands on but if you can find it and you're a fan of the story then this here is certainly worth watching.
*** (out of 4)
Originally released as a two-parts, this 26-minute short is certainly the longest of all the early versions of Stevenson's story and it also probably has the smallest budget. The film has King Baggot play the kind Dr. Jekyll who turns into the murderous Mr. Hyde after drinking the wrong potion. To me this is certainly the best of the early versions I've seen as Baggot really does have to do pretty much everything himself and in the end I think it makes for a find Mr. Hyde. The budget appears to be very small as the special effects are certainly lacking and are really far behind the work various other artists were doing including the master Melies. One can't help but wish the producer's had spent a little extra green trying to do more with the make up as pretty much all we get are a few shades under the eyes and not every scene even has that. What makes up for this is the performance by Baggot who really gives it his all and delivers a different type of take on Jekyll. Since there's no make up to hide behind, Baggot must instead create a real character and he makes a few interesting choices including playing Hyde as an almost hunchback who is basically a cripple, kneeling around and hobbling all over the place. This certainly doesn't make for anything scary but it's an interesting and different take. I think Baggot also manages to come across very intelligent with Dr. Jekyll and makes us feel as if we're really watching two different characters. The extra running time gives us several more scenes of Jekyll being destructive and this includes a rather shocking scene where he attacks a cripple boy just for the fun of it. The direction could have been better but I did enjoy the costume design and the sets were impressive for such a low budget. This isn't the easiest version to get your hands on but if you can find it and you're a fan of the story then this here is certainly worth watching.
An interesting film with a new, improved ending
Tornado_Sam5 May 2018
This movie is the second of 3 versions of the classic story I'm seeing in chronological order. The first version was made in 1912, a year before this movie came out, but despite this slight difference in years this movie is highly improved, and is much more involved than the other one. The run-time is longer (26 min, very long for the day) it sticks to the original story much more than the other one (including the characters Utterson and Lanyon, which the 1912 version failed to do) and, while it has a new ending, this new addition is actually an improvement on the story.
The film gets off to a slow start. We're introduced to Jekyll, his girlfriend and stuff and told how he cars for the poor. Then the action starts, where Jekyll drinks the antidote and turns into Mr. Hyde. As several other reviewers pointed out, the Hyde here is actually a bit lame. The 1912 version's Hyde had some good makeup and acting, but here there isn't much of that so Hyde pretty much crouches on his knees like an idiot. Then, he goes around scaring people and murdering and stuff until the finale occurs, which I'm not giving away, because it really comes off as surprising.
Overall, it is interesting comparing both versions of the story, because they vary a lot. While the Hyde here is envisioned differently than you'd normally think, it makes his appearance new and interesting. Even with 26 minutes of screen-time, Herbert Brenon was really able to stick to the novella. It's definitely worth checking out.
The film gets off to a slow start. We're introduced to Jekyll, his girlfriend and stuff and told how he cars for the poor. Then the action starts, where Jekyll drinks the antidote and turns into Mr. Hyde. As several other reviewers pointed out, the Hyde here is actually a bit lame. The 1912 version's Hyde had some good makeup and acting, but here there isn't much of that so Hyde pretty much crouches on his knees like an idiot. Then, he goes around scaring people and murdering and stuff until the finale occurs, which I'm not giving away, because it really comes off as surprising.
Overall, it is interesting comparing both versions of the story, because they vary a lot. While the Hyde here is envisioned differently than you'd normally think, it makes his appearance new and interesting. Even with 26 minutes of screen-time, Herbert Brenon was really able to stick to the novella. It's definitely worth checking out.
King Baggot gives us a masterly presentation
deickemeyer31 July 2017
With this two-reel release the Imp company gives the public opportunity to compare a film production of the famous Stevenson story with stage productions that have preceded it. King Baggot gives us a masterly presentation of this dual character; as the kind-hearted, upright Dr. Jeykll he pleases, and as the hideous Mr. Hyde, under the powerful drug, he brings shudders aplenty. In one effect at least the film story excels; we get the real dissolving view as the drug begins to manifest its influence, in place of the crude facial manipulations employed on the stage. The London atmosphere is fairly well presented. Jane Gale and a capable company assist Mr. Baggot. A powerful presentation of a famous story. - The Moving Picture World, March 8, 1913
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
