deickemeyer 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

skybrick736 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.

Cineanalyst 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 vivant 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.

MARIO GAUCI 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…?!