Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

A very effective silent film of a classic

Posted : 1 year, 9 months ago on 6 August 2022 02:50

The story itself is classic status, with an iconic titular character that is been imitated many a time but rarely equalled and a story that still chills me to the bone every time I read it. This 1920 silent film is very effective. For my money the best Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is the 1931 film with Fredric March(I was disappointed in the 1941 film with Spencer Tracy personally). This still doesn't stop me from really liking this though. Some of it is rather slow, and not helped by some sequences that could've been shorter or excised. However, the costumes, sets and photography are wonderful and not at all dated, all the pivotal scenes are done with the correct atmosphere- true the transformation sequence is overdone slightly but it is also quite scary- and the ending doesn't disappoint either. The direction is skillful, and John Barrymore is superb and genuinely frightening especially with the eyes and the hands. Overall, very effective. 8/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Posted : 11 years, 2 months ago on 26 February 2013 07:52

If there is any classic figure from horror novels which actors aspire to play, I suspect that it is Dr. Jekyll and his animalistic id Mr. Hyde. Not only does the character allow for an actor to portray two distinct personas, but Mr. Hyde allows them indulge in both playing dark and naughty, and masking themselves underneath layers of makeup and costuming. It’s the chance to lose all semblance of themself in a role, and that’s probably why great cinema icons like Spencer Tracy and John Barrymore have tackled the role.

This 1920 version may not be perfect, but Barrymore’s central performance gives the film a great boost and goes a long way to making it a near-masterpiece. Sometimes great acting can sell a project better than anything else on its own. If Dreyer didn’t have Falconetti as the center of his Passion of Joan of Arc, that filmed would have buckled under its own adventurous artistry and probably wouldn’t be remembered as the great classic that it is.

A similar thing is going on here with Barrymore’s take on the Robert Louis Stevenson story. Director John S. Robertson is no Dreyer though, so he never creates as much atmosphere or visual splendor to work in tandem with the bravura performance that his star is giving, but he also never sinks the film. He smartly knows when to back off and let Barrymore go in fits of wild abandon, and he does manage to create two striking and memorably disturbed transformation scenes.

The first transformation scene has Barrymore twisting and contorting his body and facial muscles into Hyde without the aid of makeup. There is a cut to him appearing in full regalia, but that image doesn’t linger or unnerve as much as the sight of Barrymore’s actorly fits. It’s practically early-method in its intensity and commitment as he rolls his eyes to the back of his head, reaches out to the air and slams his body down on the floor. It’s riveting and alarming at how little regard is being kept for his body’s well-being as he risks injury to sell us on the idea of Hyde’s takeover.

The other transformation scene is more complicated and a vastly trickier bit of editing. As Jekyll sleeps in his bed, a giant white spider with the head of Hyde comes out from underneath his bed, crawls on top of him and they merge into one being for a brief second. And then Hyde is lying in the bed. The special effects work holds up after all of these years, and Hyde’s malevolent smile as he takes over sells the scene.

The duality at the center of story is typically simplified as two archetypes battling over dominance. Jekyll here is all good, he borderlines on the saintly in fact. He isn’t just a respected doctor, but a doctor who runs a free clinic for the poor. And his transformation into the monstrous Hyde is sold by the actor’s leering looks and willingness to look more like an animal than a man in his body carriage and physical gestures. His smile and eyes frequently give the impression of impending sexual violence while dressed up as the hunchbacked, balding, tattered and clawed Hyde.

The only thing that could have made Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde better was a director who could match wits and imagination with Barrymore. I wonder what could have happened if a German expressionist had taken the project into darker, more cerebral and surreal territory. It’s a little muzzled compared to a work like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or Nosferatu, but as a star vehicle, it soars. And it’s never less than captivating at every twist and turn.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Posted : 12 years, 3 months ago on 12 February 2012 03:13

Before there were some short films on the history of the doctor with a split personality, but this is the first feature film history adapting Stevenson's classic novel.

To the distant date it was shot, the merits of the movie are quite remarkable. To highlight the great performance in both roles, medical and alter ego, John Barrymore. Lon Chaney's contemporary, the characterization of American actor as Mr. Hyde is perhaps the most shocking, the most malignant of how many have been made. If most conform to the simian version of the original, Barrymore has a being closer to the diabolical, with all its features (including the head) so pointed, almost sharp. This is without doubt one of the greatest achievements of movie.

Despite the continuous and monotonous accompaniment of violin music and the story is told with some awkwardness, without sufficient inclusion of spoilers, it will highlight a risky, innovative for its time, in presenting unusual environments such as den opium or brothel, places with an atmosphere, an atmosphere very well developed.


0 comments, Reply to this entry