A Milestone in American Horror Features

DLewis

It is sometimes said that Paramount's 1920 production of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is the first American horror film. It seems hard to qualify that now, given the existence of the Edison Company's "Frankenstein" and at least two among three earlier, short film adaptations of Stevenson's story. Nevertheless, Paramount's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" may still be the earliest American horror feature, and certainly is the earliest one that we can still see. And yet it is not fully an artifact, as it still packs some measure of thrills and horrific punch, largely due to the bravura performance of its star, John Barrymore, then primarily known as a popular stage actor despite a small number of forgotten movies he'd already appeared in, all but one being lost today. Helmed by stage veteran John S. Robertson -- who would go on to a long career as a Hollywood film director and also co-wrote the stage play of "Dracula" that brought Bela Lugosi to prominence -- this adaptation of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was largely based on Thomas Russell Sullivan's 1887 stage play, which adds a love interest and eliminates the character of Utterson in Stevenson's novella. Barrymore would have been very familiar with the play, and with the actor who most famously toured in it, Richard Mansfield. Interestingly, Sheldon Lewis, who starred in the indie quickie knockoff of Barrymore's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" also appearing in 1920, also used Mansfield's performance as a reference, but emphasized different aspects of it from Barrymore. Though he had already directed several films, Robertson's direction here is uneven, ranging from something slightly more ambitious than just filming the stage play up to fairly lively cinematic action, though a fair amount of this is in the choppy second third. There are at least two versions of this film on the market, and content can be quite variable in terms of both run times and shots used. In the second third continuity is hard to follow; it is better than in the final third, but there is still some material missing. Overall, it still plays fine, though it helps to know the story. Nita Naldi -- in her film debut -- is earthy and sensuous, and the film also offers a rare glimpse of the ill-fated Martha Mansfield, though as the long-suffering bride-to-be perpetually unable to figure out just what is going on, Mansfield has an unenviable role. It's Barrymore who steals the show -- while some comment that his acting is too melodramatic and over the top, by the standards of Victorian theater it is exactly what it is supposed to be and more. Some sources state that Barrymore didn't use makeup to appear as Hyde, and this is incorrect -- there is makeup on both his face and hands, but for it to work, and to terrify, it is up to Barrymore. He does so spectacularly, even though the nature of the makeup job tends to change, making Barrymore in some scenes merely like a creepy creepster and in others a more genuine monster, an effect some suggest was intentional. More than a hundred film versions of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" have been made since this one in 1920, and despite its silence and great antiquity, is still the favorite adaptation of this property for many viewers, owing to its totally authentic Victorian atmosphere and the sheer power of the lead portrayal. The trivia isn't right; the Astoria studio was still under construction when this went into production and it was shot upstairs at the Amsterdam Opera House on West 44th St. in Manhattan, at odd hours, as Barrymore was playing one role on the stage and rehearsing another at the time. One of the first American features shot entirely indoors with artificial light, the film benefits from the rather cramped and claustrophobic settings, not to mention well chosen set decor.

score /10

DLewis 23 October 2011

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2507419/