Is it too soon to revisit our misguided friend Dr. Jekyll? I think it might be too soon. You see, I had expected to watch a different adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel, wait a week or two while I gathered my thoughts, and post something completely unrelated to this current project in the meantime. That was the plan! Earlier in the week, however, something struck me. It was a stray boot, and I still have a black eye. I should have ducked. Then something else struck me. A question – what is the earliest surviving adaptation of this particular story?

Guys!

Guys….

It’s definitely not the version I thought it was!

In this version, our good doctor and his bad side is played by James Cruze (and sometimes Hyde may be played by Harry Benham depending on who you ask). Directed by Lucius Henderson, this is supposedly based mostly on one of the earlier stage productions of the story.

To be frank (you can be Ethel), there isn’t much to review in this film. Apparently, while this is the earliest surviving film of Jekyll and Hyde, it’s not a complete version. What we have is, I guess, fragments of the film re-edited together to make some form of story. The said story is only approximately 12 minutes long and doesn’t even have title cards showcasing any dialogue. I mean, I had a good time inserting my own dialogue, but my version included a love story between a unicorn and a paperclip. It was really rather touching. It all happened off-screen.

So, given that this isn’t exactly a full-length film that I can just delve into, pull apart, and piece back together to get Frankenstein, let me just go over what elements remain the same.

1. Dr. Jekyll experiments and turns into Mr. Hyde.
2. Mr. Hyde continues to be a creep.
3. Mr. Hyde tramples over a child here, too. Jerk.
4. A murder is committed.
5. Dr. Jekyll still has no control over what is happening.
6. There is only one way this could have ended, as well.
7. Of course, still no explanation of why Jekyll decided this would be a good idea. I guess, just for funsies.

So, some of the roots are there, but at some point before this film, something else was planted because we have things that were definitely not in the source material.

1. My man Utterson up and vanished.
2. And, with him, Dr. Jekyll’s will.
3. Instead of my friend Utterson, we are introduced to the woman Dr. Jekyll is courting (hell, I don’t know the right word to use, so ‘courting’ it is) and her father.

Now, I don’t know what is missing from this film. According to Google, the demise of most of this movie was due to time. It just wasn’t preserved and so we will never get to see what the final product was or could have been.

I like to believe that somewhere in those lost scenes is my unicorn and paperclip love story.

Shut up, I can dream.

That being said, I’m trying to be kind to a movie that was lost with time and also a silent film, to boot, which is always difficult as an art form given how far film has come. So, the acting was over-the-top, but it had to be. Yet it was over-the-top in a not-great way. There was no title cards to be able to follow the story. That’s okay for someone like me who has read the book and has loved the story for many years. Yet, no title cards are not so great for those who may know nothing about this story. I kind of needed to have Utterson around, though I understand why a romantic interest would be introduced.

All in all, it’s not strong as it stands and that’s more sad than anything. I would have loved to see it in its entirety.

So, 3.5/10.

But, seriously, I need someone to write my unicorn and paperclip love story. Get on that.

Siemelle