User Reviews

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

*** (out of 4)

Third version of this classic tale from 1920 isn't nearly as known as the Barrymore version nor is it sought after like the lost Murnau version. In this version Sheldon Lewis plays Dr. Jekyll who drinks a potion that turns him into the murderous Mr. Hyde. This is certainly a lot better than the reputation would have you believe and it could stand next to the Barrymore version and I'd argue that it's one of the better versions all around if you accept it as a cult item that tells the story so unlike any other version from the silent era. The film runs a very fast paced 47-minutes and best of all is that the majority of this running time deals with the murderous Jekyll. The violence is a lot stronger here than in any of the silent versions I've seen and the ending is nicely done until we get something else tacked on. Lewis is good, if over the top, as Jekyll but the transformation scenes are rather weak. Certainly worth searching for.

This was a film that I didn't know existed and actually got confused as this is the same year as the John Barrymore version. It was through some research that I discovered it and was glad to see that I could watch this on Amazon Prime. The synopsis is Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself.

Much as the synopsis states, we have Dr. Jekyll who runs a hospital for the poor. He looks up to his mentor Dr. Lanyon (Alex Shannon). He's married to Mrs. Lanyon (Dora Mills Adams) and they're looking over their niece Bernice (Gladys Field). She is engaged to be married to Dr. Jekyll, but her patience is wearing thin as he always shows up late or not at all to their plans.

The problem is that he is engrossed in his work. He has a child that is in a coma, but still alive. This makes him question if people have souls if she can be on the edge like this while still being alive. This deduction doesn't really seem to make sense, but I rolled with the idea. He is so wrapped up in what he's doing, he misses another date with Bernice and this is the last straw. She breaks off the engagement to be with a childhood friend, Danvers Carew (Leslie Austin).

This depression causes Dr. Jekyll to create an elixir that will be able to bring out the bad side within him. He believes that no matter how good someone is, they have both good and evil. This causes him to become Mr. Hyde (Lewis) an uglier and evil version of him. Dr. Jekyll sets him up with a place to stay. No longer having Bernice, Dr. Jekyll decides to indulge in becoming Hyde who wants to seek revenge for everything that has happened to Jekyll.

I should lead off my analysis of the movie with that it is difficult to hold things against this version as it is one of the earlier versions of it. With that said, this one does something different from versions that I will compare it to. I would have to say that I did find this version to be slightly problematic with how Jekyll gets to the idea to indulge himself, but I like the changes it makes for what Hyde does.

What I mean by those last few statements is that, he decides to explore this due to the questioning of the soul. That makes sense for a man of science. I just don't understand the leap to the good and evil aspect. This is a hallmark of the story from Robert Louis Stevenson, so it makes sense to have it here. That's something that I really like. I also like incorporating that Hyde is getting revenge for what happened to Jekyll, even though it is his own fault. As humans though, we don't always like to take ownership for our actions, which I think we're getting at here with the Jekyll and Hyde concept by giving in to our darker desires.

Something else that we get to see is Jekyll and Hyde having to answer for their crimes. Other versions have something happening to them and people realizing they're one in the same. This one comes to this conclusion and still holds Jekyll accountable as they realize the truth. I happened to enjoy this and how the movie ends to be honest.

This movie is credited as being 40 minutes, but the version I watched on Prime was an hour. I do think that for the most part, this is paced fine. If anything, I think they should have added even like 10 more minutes to really flesh out my issue of how they get to the idea of figuring out the duality within man. I think with that, this would have come up higher. It is hard to fault the movie too much, this is still early cinema, but there are films from the year that handle this idea better.

As for the acting here, I thought it was good actually. We really follow Lewis and I thought he did a really good job as Jekyll and Hyde. This is a tough role, especially without sound to really convey the difference between the two. I think he does a fine job in this respect. No one else in the cast really stood out to me, but they did just fit and round this out for what was needed in support of Lewis.

Being this is an early film, there's not much to the cinematography. The version I watched really hadn't been cleaned up all that much, but again, there are movies from this year that play with filters where this one really didn't do that. They also didn't attempt to do a transformation scene into Hyde or back. I'm betting they really didn't know how to do it, so they just elected to avoid trying. It is a shame with what others from the year were doing. I like give the movie credit, I did like the title cards they used where they would have drawings of this version of Hyde or other things on it. I thought that was a decent touch.

The last thing to cover would be the soundtrack, but much like the other silent films, it is hard to know what was really synced up with what we're seeing. I do feel that the score they used worked. It wasn't great and didn't really stand out to me, but it also didn't take me out of what they were trying to do. It just seemed to fit in my opinion.

Now with that said, this version does seem to have an interesting take on the source material and that is something I can appreciate. I do think there's a bit missing from it though to really put it all together though. It wasn't boring, which is good. The acting I thought worked for what they needed. The soundtrack wasn't great, but I thought it fit the feel of the movie overall. Not the best version of this tale I've seen, but it's better than some of the ones I've seen previously. I'd have to say this is above average overall in my opinion.

I've seen this version of R. L. Stevenson's famous, much-filmed story only once, over 30 years ago, but it was a truly memorable experience. There are moments which remain vivid in my memory even today, not because it was a great film or even a good one, but for quite the opposite reason. Before describing the circumstances under which I saw it, however, I should clarify that this particular version should not be confused with the far superior one starring John Barrymore that was also produced in 1920. Certainly anyone who has seen both movies could not mistake one for the other, any more than one could mistake a two-dollar bottle of Malt Liquor for fine claret, and yet I know of one occasion when this occurred . . . concerning the films, I mean, not the booze.

When I was a kid in Tulsa, Oklahoma, there was a local museum that offered a silent movie every Sunday afternoon. The prints tended to be battered, washed-out 16mm dupes, projected at the wrong speed and without music in a room which could not be adequately darkened. Needless to add, these were not optimum conditions for one's introduction to the works of Griffith, Eisenstein, Fritz Lang, etc., but in those pre-cable, pre-video days, it was just about the only way to see the films. Comedies usually transcended this treatment, but silent dramas suffered badly. To make matters worse, most of my fellow viewers -- and usually there weren't many -- seemed to believe that all silent films are, by definition, funny, so accordingly they'd hoot 'n' holler at them silly Old-Time flickers.

Nonetheless, it was exciting to learn that the museum would be showing the John Barrymore version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, for I'd wanted to see that one ever since I first heard about it. I attended the screening with a friend, both of us in a state of high anticipation. But perhaps you've already guessed the punchline: Yep, they got the wrong print. Imagine our disappointment when, without explanation or apology, the projectionist started the film, the opening credits flashed on the screen, and we learned that our featured player for the afternoon was someone named Sheldon Lewis. Who the hell is Sheldon Lewis, you ask? Well, as it turned out, he was a guy who starred in a really bad version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and this was one occasion when our fellow viewers' mockery of silent drama was fully justified and richly deserved, for this movie proved to be one of those so-bad-it's-funny experiences that gets better (i.e., worse and therefore funnier) as it goes along. Indeed, once we'd recovered from our disappointment at missing Barrymore, my friend and I couldn't help but join in the laughter.

The casting was only the first of several surprises we encountered. The second was that, instead of setting the story in late Victorian London, the producers had updated it to "contemporary" New York, doubtless because it was easier on the budget that way. Next we found that, in place of the kindly if somewhat repressed Dr. Jekyll we were accustomed to, this Jekyll was a wild-eyed radical, a Free Thinker full of decadent liberal notions who boasts of his atheism. Hmmm, we wondered to ourselves; if this is Sheldon Lewis' Jekyll, what is his Hyde going to be like?

We soon found out. And folks, you haven't lived until you've seen Sheldon Lewis' Mr. Hyde, a hairy, eye-rolling, quivering spazz, a crazed Proto-Hippy Clown of Evil. It's an astonishing performance, a thing of twitches, tics, and conniption fits for which the term "hammy" is woefully inadequate. Jerry Lewis (any relation?) could only dream of being this funny. I cherish indelible memories of watching Sheldon Lewis spazzing his way down streets and through alleys while the museum audience, we happy few, roared with laughter. Two images I retain: towards the end, when cops show up to break down the door of Hyde's laboratory, they're dressed in the genuine uniforms of the era which we couldn't help but associate with the Keystone Kops, which of course added to our amusement, but these cops earned their laughs by performing the clumsiest, most inept job of door-crashing ever captured on film. And then, so help me (Warning, "spoilers" ahead, unless you were at the museum that day) Dr. Jekyll wakes up, back in his study where he'd fallen asleep before his fireplace, only to realize that none of it -- the potion, the transformations, the murders, the ludicrous over-acting -- none of it had happened because, yes, It Was All a Dream, a Horrible Dream! Instantly reformed, Jekyll leaps up a changed man, throws his notebooks into the fire, renounces his Free Thinking ways and yelps: "I believe in God!" And for the finale, unless my memory deceives me, I believe Jekyll actually sees a glowing figure of Jesus over his fireplace, and kneels humbly before the Savior as the image fades out.

Just an hour or two earlier none of us had ever heard of Sheldon Lewis, but by the end of the screening that day the man was a hero and his work had conquered all skeptics. I recommend this film heartily, but respectfully suggest that, for best results, it should be viewed in the appropriate frame of mind, i.e. at least three sheets to the wind, in a room full of like-minded, Free Thinking bad cinema enthusiasts.