Classic movie site with rare images (no web grabs!), original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Friday, February 09, 2007




Jekylls and Hydes I've Known --- Part One





Who’s to carry the banner for silent films after the present generation of curators is gone? There’s a grip of fear I experience whenever one of them sickens or dies, for it seems there’s so few left that care. Are young people embracing pre-talkies? The names I see on DVD credits and on-line discussion groups have been familiar to me for years, so where are their successors? Graduate programs are said to be training students in film preservation. Maybe I’m too old to notice them in the field, but every time there’s an obit for a longtime silent enthusiast, I can’t help thinking of potential restorations and rediscoveries going with him, and how likely as not there won’t (eventually) be anyone left to champion the cause. Those (few) of us who remember sitting home on a schools-out snow day watching Blackhawk’s 8mm release of Sheldon Lewis as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde while normal kids were out sledding will surely understand the thrill of watching a thing seemingly old as Egyptian papyrus, but I couldn’t realistically expect many others to share such a peculiar enthusiasm. I mean, has anyone actually watched Sheldon Lewis as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? To do so willingly takes you way beyond mere purist status. In fact, all these silent J/H adaptations share an appeal limited to determined (if not obsessive) movie archeologists, yet they provide, as a group, the most potent link to long-past performing styles and thesping technique we’re likely to see. To sit and watch them patiently (and yes, you’ll need plenty of that) is to come tantalizingly near what theatre audiences experienced when these dynamic old barnstormers trod boards a century ago. Yeah, I know acting’s more "realistic" now, but oh, to have seen Jekyll and Hyde on stage! --- and performed by guys willing to pull out all the stops to thrill us. Those must surely have been the days …





Stage lion Richard Mansfield was playing Jekyll/Hyde within a year after Robert Lewis Stevenson’s novella was published (1886), and surviving records indicate his transformation sure enough gave women the vapors. Here at last was a part seemingly designed for matinee idols anxious to walk a wild side and fling shocks out to the gallery. No telling how many actors of varied talent cringed, crawled, and caterwauled after downing that potion. Definitely a money scene to guarantee breathless crowd reactions. Mansfield’s interpretation was legendary. He shunned make-up and used lighting effects to put over Hyde’s entrance. Too bad he died (1907) before movies could immortalize it. Others filled the breach, however, and that initial lab scene remained as foolproof as Eliza on the ice floes. Future director James Cruze mopped the floor with his writhing body in a 1912 single-reeler, while Brit producers whipped up a color version around the same time. For every Jekyll/Hyde that survives from the teens, at least two more are lost. Problem with these primitives is a thin line of demarcation between so-called dual personalities. Hyde’s just Jekyll with mussed-up hair and snaggle teeth. What this property needed was romance combined with menace, brutish Hyde’s total departure from idealized Jekyll. Going on as before would only assure a continuation of one-reel stunts --- indeed, parodies were already beginning to surface. Paramount/Artcraft (the Artcraft tag hung on prestige product) sought legit luminaries to attract carriage trade, and John Barrymore was their man of the moment as of 1919. He’d triumphed as Richard III on Broadway and was likened to Booth, Irving, and yes, Richard Mansfield --- all dead, and memories of each passing surely as their nineteenth century audiences headed toward eternal reward. Barrymore had enough dark side to host two or three Hydes, and separation of personality was something he knew all about (legend maintains JB slept off a drunk in Frisco digs while that 1906 quake opened fissures in the street below). If people were going to regard J/H seriously again, he’d be the natural one to take them there. Better money induced as well. I received five hundred dollars a week in the theatre, and fifteen hundred dollars a week in the movies, said Jack upon completion of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, so whoring out to flickers was pretty much a no-brainer for him. Doing it voiceless rankled. He likened that to pantomiming for someone through moving train windows. Topping Mansfield on a mute screen would be a tall order --- how do you erase rose-tinted recall of the Great Man’s stage changeovers? Barrymore resolved to do opening convultions sans make-up. Those less indulgent may titter over his lurches upon that first swallow, but customers then were mesmerized by a seeming onscreen emergence of fiendish Mr. Hyde from the benignly handsome cocoon of Dr. Jekyll. Truly an acting plateau for movies. This glinty-eyed, purse-lipped alter-ego would revisit Barrymore whenever he needed to pull a face for serious (Don Juan’s torture sequence) or comic effect (recognize Mr. Hyde laffing it up with Bill Fields for a proposed mid-thirties teaming?).























For all his epoch-making on stage and screen, John Barrymore might never have realized he was the very first Famous Monster Of Filmland as well. I’ll not extend those laurels to Charles Ogle of 1910 Frankenstein fame, as his lumbering hulk was no different from Hyde pretenders that had preceded JB. Jack knew how to morph that chiseled profile into a thing splendidly grotesque. What is it we find so arresting about the pinhead look (with Freaks' Schlitze being its primary girl/boy pin-up)? Barrymore sensed our need and convincingly raised his scalp to a point that’s absolutely hypnotic from the moment he tips that similarly customized hat (we need more pinheads in movies!). Elongated fingers are another fun ugly element, and you’d swear the things were long as corn stalks by closing reel time (one spastic moment sees a digit flying off his hand). Barrymore even assumes the role of giant tarantula (with Hyde head!) slithering into Jekyll’s bed during a nightmare sequence. Such details are restored to us by way of Kino’s Collector’s Edition DVD. Quality here is leagues better than what Blackhawk served up in 8mm days, though David Shepherd’s Image version contains five or so minutes denied us on the Kino disc. I got the clearest look yet at Nita Naldi’s pub temptress, a smokin’ antidote for Gish/Pickford overdoses we often got before the twenties started roaring. She was a Barrymore discovery (insert carnal inferences here), and Jack’s exhaustion at filming’s close (for which I’d not altogether blame her) was such that he repaired to sanitarium grounds for R&R. That’s where he drew this self-portrait. Looks to have been pretty hung up on the duality thing, but again let’s admire JB’s facility with sketchpad. Reviews back home were glowing. Had a lesser name played so monstrous, local censors might well have been aroused, but Barrymore’s was a sacrosanct name, so he got away with horrors they’d not have tolerated otherwise (and how about that scene where JB bludgeons the guy, then impliedly drinks his blood?). The actor may have gotten his highest compliment when Robert Louis Stevenson’s stepson declared his performance the superior of legendary Mansfield’s (and note how these trade ads stoke the competition). By the by, another Mansfield participant was ill-fated Martha (shown here as Hyde looms behind) , already a prominent name when she played Jekyll’s fiancée opposite Barrymore. The actress came to a grisly end four years later (at age 24) when a carelessly tossed match caught her period dress on fire (donned for The Warrens Of Virginia). She went up like one of Henry Jarrod’s wax figures. Even the intervention of a close-by leading man went for naught toward saving her.


































Scavengers meanwhile laid in wait. One of them got out a catchpenny version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde within weeks of Paramount’s opening. Sheldon Lewis restored those pinwheel transformations audiences missed since nickelodeon days, but this was no advance on the performing arts (a little of Lewis --- and yes, that goes a long way --- is featured among extras on Kino’s DVD). Barrymore’s Jekyll and Hyde went with MGM after they acquired the negative from Paramount in March 1940. Copyrights weren’t renewed, so it quietly lapsed into the public domain within a decade after that. Home movie merchants had J/H on the street soon after. Dupes fermented in numerous bathtubs, and you can imagine the quality of these. Archivist/collector James Card sighted an original soon after WWII in one of those Midas vaults at Rochester’s Eastman House Theatre. I assume that’s the print from which latter-day incarnations derive. Blackhawk had a thirty-minute 8mm abridgement you could get for $21.98 in 1972. I’m told Warners makes it available upon request as well. Could this be the definitive incarnation from surviving Paramount elements? The chain of ownership from Metro’s 1940 buy would place it now with Warners, along with the later Fredric March version. Maybe a DVD from them would give us the definitive Jekyll and Hyde with Barrymore.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Chris U. said...

Lovely poster up top.

8:47 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

Great post, can't wait for number two! I agree with you that some young people need to start picking up the banner for silent films (I am a young person who wishes I had the means to do something about it). But today of course the community wouldn't be the same - now you don't need to go to a revival house (heck, here in Britain they don't seem to have ANY) you just get them on DVD and keep your weirdness to yourself. Still, it doesn't lend itself to big restoration projects or any real celebration of the artform though, does it?

7:42 PM  
Blogger East Side said...

I can't remember if I had the James Cruze or Sheldon Lewis version from Blackhawk... but I know I was up in my room watching it those very same days you were.

The first time I saw the Barrymore version was at a public screening in the lobby of the Citibank building (New York) in the '80s. It went over really well -- really packed a punch, even then. My mother saw it when she was a kid, and remembered as being one of the scariest things she'd ever seen.

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Laughing Gravy said...

Thanks for your usual fascinating article.

I was exposed to silent films early... a junior high teacher took us on a field trip to see MODERN TIMES when it played the local art house (which later became a porno theatre, which I frequented as a youth from time to time, sans the teacher, naturally). In the early 1970s, channel 43 in Cleveland had a weekly Saturday night silent film program, where I was introduced to many films that remain all-time favorites, including THE LAST LAUGH and Chaney's HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. I show silents to the kids these days, and they enjoy them, and like to read the title cards allowed, sometimes in character voices. Getting used to that, they will also watch subtitled foreign films sans complaint, and in fact bitched one time when all I had was a dubbed version of something. Kids. Go figure.

10:28 PM  
Blogger East Side said...

by the way, GREAT photo of Fields and Barrymore! Never seen it before.

11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of us would like to pick up the work of th old historians/archivists, but haven't the foggiest idea of where to begin.

For what it's worth, I'm a Gen-X'er, but my favorite movies are classics, preferrably from the first half of the 20th century.

Yes, I wouldn't mind spending the rest of my life working for the preservation and care of the old classic films.

But where to start?

2:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014