Halloween Diary October 2015--Universal
Here we go: October is upon us and all is well. A day to day ride through a month of horror! Good times ahead!
The first day:
Dracula's Daughter (1936) ****/*****
This is what I wrote right after getting up from bed for work after watching it in the wee early hours of the first October morn: Pressed for time, I will say I just finished Dracula's Daughter, having started it in the wee early hours. I thought it was a great idea, punctuated by the brooding, cold gray of Northeast Mississippi this morning. As Dawn broke, no better way to get back with Van Helsing telling Dr. Garth that vampires are real, further emphasized in the sinister sensuality of Gloria Holden.
Be thou exorcised oh Dracula, and thy body long undead find destruction throughout eternity in the name of thy dark unholy Master.
I don't know what it was but this viewing, the scene where Countess Zaleska (Holden) and Lili in the painting room where vampiress chooses to obey the impulse to blood feed and draw from a penniless young woman needing food and shelter, with the blouse straps down exposing the naked shoulders, and the long look of desire from predator towards the prey had me seriously aroused. It really hadn't before, but I was laying in bed early in the morning, and it just kind of struck me. Gloria and Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger) sharing a long desirable glance. The subtlety is admired, to tell you the truth. There is often a lot in just a few words or shared looks. Irving Pichel all in black as her servant, wanting to be turned. There is always a character like this, isn't there? Why isn't he just turned by her? Why does she keep him as a human brute and not an undead devotee?
You know, this is the first woman's flat I've been in that didn't have at least 20 mirrors in it.
I kind of was amused at how his arrow just misses Garth for Zaleska. The ending kind of kicks in high gear with the secretary (Marguerite Churchill) is kidnapped to get Garth to follow Pichel's Sandor and Zaleska to Transylvania, with Scotland Yard's finest and Van Sloan's Van Helsing in hot pursuit. Something quite sensual also about the seductive gaze of Zaleska looking down at the dormant, comatose body of Janet (Churchill) while waiting for Garth. The intimate yearning but willpower due to her desire for Garth makes the scene really hum for me. Still, the use of Van Helsing is quite disappointing. He's just a guest star with not a lot of screen time. I think that is a mistake as the hum drum romantic entanglements of Garth and Janet kind of takes up too much off the thrill of Zaleska's presence (which should be center stage not Garth). The love triangle and chatty nature of the doc and his assistant makes sense considering how those involved in the film wanted it to not just be a hokey horror B-movie. Still, it looks great, and the burning of Dracula's body, and the Zaleska/Sandor content really does the trick for this Universal monster fan. Holden is an icon as far as I'm concerned.
My choice for the October 1st's official 7:00 movie:
The Mummy (1932) *****/*****
Jack Pierce's make-up was considered so outstanding that "Hollywood Filmograph" journal honored him with a special award which was presented at a ceremony by Karloff himself. After Pierce's death in 1968 the trophy was believed lost. A decade later when a sink was removed from an old make-up studio at Universal, it was rediscovered.
--I thought the above trivia was a cool tidbit. It shows us that treasures could be waiting anywhere. The significance of a recognition for someone who so deserved it discovered after a sink's removal...imagine the surprise!
Ralph Norton: He went for a little walk! You should have seen his face!
One of the all-time greatest lines in Universal horror! The Mummy might be deemed slow and lethargic, but just the makeup work alone and Karloff's performance make this must-see horror.
Helen Grosvenor: Do you have to open graves to find girls to fall in love with?
The humor is there...you just have to find it! The Mummy, among the Universal horror cannon, has it if we just see it sometimes.
Here's another classic line:
And in the eagerness to open the tomb regardless of the *curse* that might doom them:
The second film of my first night's lineup was Fruend's The Mummy for Universal Studios. I had picked up the Mummy Legacy set at Walmart two months ago for this month's occasion. I was jazzed to get into it very early into the month and watch all involved in the set. The first film is a treat for me just because of Karloff being in it. Van Sloan pretty much copying Van Helsing for this film doesn't necessarily confront Karloff's Imhotep like Lugosi's Dracula, but still he's very much the learned, occult wiz who has all the knowledge on how to do battle with the Mummy masquerading as a living (if old-faced) Egyptian, Ardeth Bey. The amulet is basically an Egyptian version of the crucifix for which saves dull-as-dishwater romantic lead, David Manners. God, this guy is bland and uncharismatic. Just as he was in Dracula.
Basically, as has been mentioned when other scholars talk Universal, regarding the similarities in Dracula and The Mummy, Zita Johann's Ms. Grovener is the Mina of this particular film, needing to be saved by something other than Van Sloan...the power of Isis will need to be called upon to keep Imhotep from stabbing her so he can have his love returned to him. The pool with all the fog taking us back in time 3700 years, and the sets/costumes, and art design involved was also a real treat for me. But this is all about Pierce and that makeup! Outstanding age makeup and the bandages. That black eye opening with Karloff still in the bandages, and his hand reaching for the scroll...splendid! Ardeth Bey in his Egyptian robes, and how that hatred for the White Man is so visible adds to the ongoing plot as he sets to use his powers to kill any human who dares to interrupt his mission to secure his beloved Anck-es-en-Amon.
The Black Cat (1941) ***/*****
This was a lot of fun! What a cast!
Basil Rathbone was always good as a brilliant hero and slick, sinister heel. This go-around, he’s the younger husband of Henrietta’s aging Myrna (Gladys Cooper, Twilight Zone fans know her quite well), having an affair with Henrietta’s no-good granddaughter, Margaret (Claire Dodd). Rathbone needs money for his failing business ventures (he’ll probably just wind up blowing this inheritance, too), and Myrna is the perfect foil to exploit as she will just about do anything to hold on to him. All the while, Margaret and Rathbone’s ‘Monty’ Montague have been planning to get together once the money is handed out. Alan Ladd (yes, that Alan Ladd, of Shane fame) is the son of Myrna, Richard, not at all trusting of Monty. Richard is quite an intense fellow. Anne Gwynne (she’s best remembered in House of Frankenstein, during the first tale involving John Carradine’s Dracula) is the younger granddaughter of Henrietta (the loyal devoted one who isn’t as ripe with avarice and so salivating for the riches and death of her grandmother) soon becoming a romantic interest for Crawford’s Gil. I think it is Gale Sondergaard as the enigmatic maid for Henrietta who is quite the monkey wrench in the works of the family’s stick fingers, proving to be an obstacle when an addition to the will states that she is entitled to the estate, to take care of Henrietta’s cats (she was a cat lady). If she dies, then the family will become heirs again.
Phantom of the Opera (1943) ***/*****
Let me say that it looked like Universal spared no expense to offer a lavish presentation…I mean what a production! However, horror fans will need to realize (or will realize) that Universal emphasized the Opera not the Phantom. There’s a LOT of music and singing, and the majority of the film not dedicated to opera focuses on a love triangle between a rising opera star, her potential inspector boyfriend and a baritone male opera star that adores her. Claude Raines, with that rich, textured voice, plays second fiddle here, and his name doesn’t even carry the damn movie. Universal wasn’t exactly giving Claude Lon Chaney status here. You can tell they were fawning all over the talents of Susanna Foster. Edgar Barrier is the only chief character that wasn’t higher than Raines, as the inspector trying to keep Foster’s Christine safe and the Phantom from continuing to terrorize those within the Paris Operahouse getting in the way of his paramour’s rise to the top of the opera world. Nelson Eddy gets the Red Carpet treatment as the baritone singer who sees that Christine has the voice of an angel.
Again, Raines is so wonderful an actor he can make the most out of any film that fails to really recognize his gifts. He gets the titular role, but it isn’t exactly like he’s treated as the headliner. His time with the mask off before the acid face bath is slim, but there are two big moments that show his skill as an actor. His forlorn affection for Christine when he meets her and doesn’t want her to leave his gaze (although she finds him rather awkward and pitiable), and the overtaking rage which turns into homicidal madness when he learns a music publisher plans to steal his concerto (for Franz Listz to perform possibly). His voice to Christine when he finally seizes her, taking her to his sewer home, gets over his obsessive desire for her to “perform only for him”, but a majority of the film has him moving about at a distance (and throughout the operahouse) or under the mask silent, waiting to capitalize on victims who stand in the way of “his Christine’s moment”.
I teared up when Christine got to perform for a crowd and orchestra in awe of her due to the Phantom’s listening from a lonely chamber in the sewer under the operahouse. This after he drugged an opera diva Christine was protégé to. This diva is played to hilt by Jane Farrar, ever bit the vindictive and self-absorbed star you’d expect to throw a tantrum at the notion her spot was taken by another after someone tried to poison her. It was the Phantom’s anguish and predicament that truly sells this to me. I liked Foster, don’t get me wrong, and if you are an opera fan, Universal made a film here that should suit your fancy. The horror that interests me just isn’t here. You have the infamous chandelier scene, but it is sanitized to where no one gets hurt (it lands just out of the way of the orchestra and stage performers.) The diva gets it along with her handler, but behind closed doors, the Phantom isn’t shown getting his hands dirty. The music publisher was a louse using his position and standing to attempt robbing a penniless violinist with a dire need to publish his work. That is what settles the deal in terms of sympathy. One of his hands loses feeling and isn’t as strong as it was 20 years ago. He paid for Christine’s tutoring with all his earnings (kind of crazy, but the film always enigmatically points to a connection between him and her from Provence), and his concerto would help continue to do so. An assistant to the publisher hurls the acid in the violinist’s face, and that leads to a manhunt (he strangles the publisher), where the Phantom is born (he robs the operahouse of a coat, hat, and mask), finding a hiding place in the sewers. I think Raines fans will like the first twenty minutes, but the rest is dedicated to opera and the love triangle. So there you have it. That production (the operahouse sets are a feast for the eyes), though, is a knockout.
All day Friday I wondered on what should get the October 2nd night slot. I decided that a Frankenstein double bill fit that bill.
"Frankenstein Friday"
Frankenstein (1931) & Bride of Frankenstein (1935) *****/*****
I decided to have myself a James Whale Frankenstein double feature tonight on Friday. I always seem to team these two up every October. It is just always so right to do so. You can definitely tell a difference in the freedom to go wherever he wanted (a comfort, if you will) in the second film. I can see why many choose the second over the first. I can enjoy both of them for their differences in approach. I mean, Ernest Thesiger and Una O'Connor given carte blanche to take their outrageous, over-the-top characters to the heights they desire. O'Connor might make or break the film for some people. Perhaps Whale let her go off the deep end with her whaling and whooping a bit too much, but I just roll my eyes and grin at it. Dr. Pretorius and his miniature characters "created from seed", the rampant Christian iconography, Pretorius eating chicken and drinking wine in a mausoleum with a skull and bones keeping him company until The Monster arrives looking for a friend, The Monster knocking over a Pope gravestone (!) in the nearest cemetery, Valerie Dobson "seeing death coming nearer, and nearer, and nearer", Fritz (poor Dwight Frye who rarely lives in these movies) finding a young female heart "fresh off the street", Bride arriving for like minutes at the end although they sure do count, and so on.
I'm not going to over-analyze it in regards to the homosexual content that might or might not be subtly intentional throughout (particularly when The Monster visits the blind hermit's house, finding his very first real friend). Watching both films with my kids, it was difficult talking about the little girl's death when The Monster accidentally drowns her. Explaining how The Monster came to be, and the ghoulish antics of the opening of Frankenstein was a bit of a challenge. My daughter and son love the Universal movies, so this opening two days has been a success. By far, to this day, the scene where the farmer carries his dead daughter in his arms as those celebrating Henry Frankenstein's wedding to Mae Clarke's Elizabeth see him and quit cheering, overtaken by the horror of it packs a wallop and is so distinctive. It is key in explaining the repercussions of Frankenstein's experiments. How the way he went about it spurned so much horror. And in Bride, I still am touched by the blind hermit and Frankenstein scene. Only when The Monster isn't seen, can he actually be welcomed into the comforts of another person. Kindness from Marie in Frankenstein, and the blind hermit in Bride are so scarce, no wonder there is such rage that exists from The Monster.
I
understand where Karloff might have been coming from in terms of
speaking more (being against it), but I disagree with him. I think it
differentiates the two characters and makes both Frankenstein films
unique. I think them being separated by different actors involved in
roles, new characters introduced and others excised, allows both films
to feel very much their own, instead of being too linked to each other
and joined at the hip. The command of presentation in how the films are
edited and faces are shot, particularly the spinning wheel in the iconic
mill scene at the end of Frankenstein when The Monster tries to get his
creator as the two stare into each others faces and the resurrection of
the Bride as Pretorius and Frankenstein attentively focus on their
handiwork coming to fruition, continues to astonish me. Always a good
time every October these two movies.
--------------------------
Going into Saturday, I decided to give Universal Horror three days at the beginning of October. Sunday I have some movies recorded from Turner Classics on Friday I'll give time to.
The Mummy's Hand(1940) ****/*****
A good cast, an eerie mummy, some fun magic tricks, a nice sense of humor (that isn’t too silly), swell pace, and those typically fine Universal Studios sets make The Mummy’s Hand a welcome October revisit. It really only loses some luster when the devoted Professor Andoheb (George Zucco) all of a sudden, right out of the blue, desirably lusts for an appealing magician’s (Cecil Kellaway, just a delight) daughter, Marta (Peggy Moran, sharp-tongued and pretty). It is just a ludicrous addition that pops up immediately to make a devotee to the High Priests of Karnak—who has done all (including using tana leave fluid to make a mummy kill) for his ancestry to secure their secret tomb of Ananka where it belongs—up and sacrifice it all for a woman he meets for like twice. The second time, her fainted body (after seeing the mummy Kharis entering her tent to almost kill her pops) is carried by Kharis (Tom Tyler) to the temple where Andoheb stays during the archeological expedition to “raid the tombs of the dead”. Motivated to murder if necessary by the High Priest of Karnak (Eduardo Cianelli), Andoheb abandons his principles for an urge that arrives after the mummy brings her in. It flies in the face of everything that had taken place before it. It is minor amongst everything else, though, so I’m not all that hung up on it.
Son of Dracula (1943) ****1/2 / *****
Taking a lesser part in this film compared to The Wolf Man is Evelyn Ankers, the younger sister of Allbritton. Their father, the Colonel over a plantation in Louisiana called The Dark Oats, is in a wheelchair and in order to get her control over the property, Kay is willing to allow Dracula to kill him! This is one of the reasons I find the film so fascinating to watch. The obsession to live and not die drives Kay to commit unspeakable acts.
This film has my favorite opening credits sequence, a hand
working through cobwebs and dust to unveil the title Son of Dracula. It is a
fun chance to see Chaney in a rare villain role, *sinking his teeth* into a
part so synonymous with horror down through the ages. His face is almost always
full of repulsion for those around him (puny humans to drain dry), and disdain.
He achieves the authoritative stance among those that try to cross him. He’s
still actually a rather limited character, more talked about than seen. It is
Kay who winds up being front and center. She uses him for her own benefits. He
winds up being sacrificed after he’s no longer needed. He transforms into mist
and a bat, even coming out of his coffin which arises from a swamp at one
point! Carefully darkened thanks to the successful photography, the bat effects
sequences aren’t too cheesy, which is a plus in the film’s favor, too.
I think
the mythos around Dracula and his threat to mankind in the States, out of
Europe, are successfully brought to us. He ultimately is emasculated by the
very one he gives the vampire kiss.
The first day:
Dracula's Daughter (1936) ****/*****
This is what I wrote right after getting up from bed for work after watching it in the wee early hours of the first October morn: Pressed for time, I will say I just finished Dracula's Daughter, having started it in the wee early hours. I thought it was a great idea, punctuated by the brooding, cold gray of Northeast Mississippi this morning. As Dawn broke, no better way to get back with Van Helsing telling Dr. Garth that vampires are real, further emphasized in the sinister sensuality of Gloria Holden.
Be thou exorcised oh Dracula, and thy body long undead find destruction throughout eternity in the name of thy dark unholy Master.
I don't know what it was but this viewing, the scene where Countess Zaleska (Holden) and Lili in the painting room where vampiress chooses to obey the impulse to blood feed and draw from a penniless young woman needing food and shelter, with the blouse straps down exposing the naked shoulders, and the long look of desire from predator towards the prey had me seriously aroused. It really hadn't before, but I was laying in bed early in the morning, and it just kind of struck me. Gloria and Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger) sharing a long desirable glance. The subtlety is admired, to tell you the truth. There is often a lot in just a few words or shared looks. Irving Pichel all in black as her servant, wanting to be turned. There is always a character like this, isn't there? Why isn't he just turned by her? Why does she keep him as a human brute and not an undead devotee?
Countess Marya Zaleska:
Sandor, look at me. What do you see in my eyes?
Sandor: Death.
Sandor: Death.
You know, this is the first woman's flat I've been in that didn't have at least 20 mirrors in it.
I kind of was amused at how his arrow just misses Garth for Zaleska. The ending kind of kicks in high gear with the secretary (Marguerite Churchill) is kidnapped to get Garth to follow Pichel's Sandor and Zaleska to Transylvania, with Scotland Yard's finest and Van Sloan's Van Helsing in hot pursuit. Something quite sensual also about the seductive gaze of Zaleska looking down at the dormant, comatose body of Janet (Churchill) while waiting for Garth. The intimate yearning but willpower due to her desire for Garth makes the scene really hum for me. Still, the use of Van Helsing is quite disappointing. He's just a guest star with not a lot of screen time. I think that is a mistake as the hum drum romantic entanglements of Garth and Janet kind of takes up too much off the thrill of Zaleska's presence (which should be center stage not Garth). The love triangle and chatty nature of the doc and his assistant makes sense considering how those involved in the film wanted it to not just be a hokey horror B-movie. Still, it looks great, and the burning of Dracula's body, and the Zaleska/Sandor content really does the trick for this Universal monster fan. Holden is an icon as far as I'm concerned.
My choice for the October 1st's official 7:00 movie:
The Mummy (1932) *****/*****
Jack Pierce's make-up was considered so outstanding that "Hollywood Filmograph" journal honored him with a special award which was presented at a ceremony by Karloff himself. After Pierce's death in 1968 the trophy was believed lost. A decade later when a sink was removed from an old make-up studio at Universal, it was rediscovered.
--I thought the above trivia was a cool tidbit. It shows us that treasures could be waiting anywhere. The significance of a recognition for someone who so deserved it discovered after a sink's removal...imagine the surprise!
Ralph Norton: He went for a little walk! You should have seen his face!
One of the all-time greatest lines in Universal horror! The Mummy might be deemed slow and lethargic, but just the makeup work alone and Karloff's performance make this must-see horror.
Helen Grosvenor: Do you have to open graves to find girls to fall in love with?
The humor is there...you just have to find it! The Mummy, among the Universal horror cannon, has it if we just see it sometimes.
Here's another classic line:
Doctor Muller:
Look - the sacred spells which protect the soul in its journey to the
underworld have been chipped off the coffin. So Imhotep was sentenced to
death not only in this world, but in the next.
Assistant: Maybe he got too gay with the vestal virgins in the temple.
Doctor Muller: Possibly.
And in the eagerness to open the tomb regardless of the *curse* that might doom them:
Sir Joseph Whemple:
(translating) "Death... eternal punishment... for... anyone... who...
opens... this... casket. In the name... of Amon-Ra... the king of the
gods." Good heavens, what a terrible curse!
Ralph Norton: Well, let's see what's inside!
Dr. Muller: If I could get my hands on you, I'd break your dried flesh to pieces.
Imhotep:
Anck-es-en-Amon, my love has lasted longer than the temples of our gods. No man
ever suffered as I did for you.
The second film of my first night's lineup was Fruend's The Mummy for Universal Studios. I had picked up the Mummy Legacy set at Walmart two months ago for this month's occasion. I was jazzed to get into it very early into the month and watch all involved in the set. The first film is a treat for me just because of Karloff being in it. Van Sloan pretty much copying Van Helsing for this film doesn't necessarily confront Karloff's Imhotep like Lugosi's Dracula, but still he's very much the learned, occult wiz who has all the knowledge on how to do battle with the Mummy masquerading as a living (if old-faced) Egyptian, Ardeth Bey. The amulet is basically an Egyptian version of the crucifix for which saves dull-as-dishwater romantic lead, David Manners. God, this guy is bland and uncharismatic. Just as he was in Dracula.
Basically, as has been mentioned when other scholars talk Universal, regarding the similarities in Dracula and The Mummy, Zita Johann's Ms. Grovener is the Mina of this particular film, needing to be saved by something other than Van Sloan...the power of Isis will need to be called upon to keep Imhotep from stabbing her so he can have his love returned to him. The pool with all the fog taking us back in time 3700 years, and the sets/costumes, and art design involved was also a real treat for me. But this is all about Pierce and that makeup! Outstanding age makeup and the bandages. That black eye opening with Karloff still in the bandages, and his hand reaching for the scroll...splendid! Ardeth Bey in his Egyptian robes, and how that hatred for the White Man is so visible adds to the ongoing plot as he sets to use his powers to kill any human who dares to interrupt his mission to secure his beloved Anck-es-en-Amon.
The Black Cat (1941) ***/*****
This was a lot of fun! What a cast!
While most of the cast play second fiddle to Broderick
Crawford of all people (playing the slapsticky, bumbling, often stumbling, but
meaning well dolt), it is still so neat to see the names assembled in this
whodunit old dark house Universal Studios B-movie.
Old Henrietta. Poor Henrietta. She has lots of money and
cats, and her vast estate and furnishings worth quite a bit. Crawford and Hugh
Herbert are hoping to get Henrietta (Cecilia Loftus) to agree that after she
croaks, her house and its substance can be sold by them! Yep, quite a rather
morbid enterprise! Anyway, the greedy heirs assemble to see what the will
offers them and Henrietta just won’t kick the bucket soon enough as far as they
are concerned.
Basil Rathbone was always good as a brilliant hero and slick, sinister heel. This go-around, he’s the younger husband of Henrietta’s aging Myrna (Gladys Cooper, Twilight Zone fans know her quite well), having an affair with Henrietta’s no-good granddaughter, Margaret (Claire Dodd). Rathbone needs money for his failing business ventures (he’ll probably just wind up blowing this inheritance, too), and Myrna is the perfect foil to exploit as she will just about do anything to hold on to him. All the while, Margaret and Rathbone’s ‘Monty’ Montague have been planning to get together once the money is handed out. Alan Ladd (yes, that Alan Ladd, of Shane fame) is the son of Myrna, Richard, not at all trusting of Monty. Richard is quite an intense fellow. Anne Gwynne (she’s best remembered in House of Frankenstein, during the first tale involving John Carradine’s Dracula) is the younger granddaughter of Henrietta (the loyal devoted one who isn’t as ripe with avarice and so salivating for the riches and death of her grandmother) soon becoming a romantic interest for Crawford’s Gil. I think it is Gale Sondergaard as the enigmatic maid for Henrietta who is quite the monkey wrench in the works of the family’s stick fingers, proving to be an obstacle when an addition to the will states that she is entitled to the estate, to take care of Henrietta’s cats (she was a cat lady). If she dies, then the family will become heirs again.
Once Henrietta is stabbed by a needle pin in her cat
crematory thanks to a secret passageway the killer knew about (Henrietta has
the house renovated and only a certain few would know of the variety of hidden
passages), and then someone hangs the maid, Abigail, does Gil start to pursue
the identity of the killer…as you might expect he’ll literally stumble on the killer
in the act of nearly cremating a relative in the oven!
This is full of shadowy movements by suspicious family
members/staff (Lugosi is in a secondary, not-so-flattering part of Eduardo, the
gardener…man, how far he fell in ten years time!), beautiful noirish
lighting/darkness, hangings, red herrings, a twist on the identity of the
killer that is a nice touch, a thunderstorm picking up, the aforementioned
secret passageways, a whole lot of viable suspects to choose from, and the sets
on the Universal back lot that are put to great use. Even the lowest budgeted
B-movies for Universal look swell.
Crawford talks fast, sweetens the heart of Gwynne who
herself will be in harm’s way when she learns too much, and Sondergaard is lit
so well and acts so delightfully strange, her aura of sinister is a gas.
Herbert’s Mr. Penny is just a bit too much. He’s one of those “antique gurus”
that inspects and analyzes the worth of the furniture, items, and objects
Henrietta collected (paintings, cabinets, chairs, etc), always walking into a
secret passageway or inadvertently acquiring a will that others might want to
have in their possession. He is the direct tool to amuse you, but I think he is
just a bit overexposed. Add Crawford mugging for the camera to tickle your funny
bone, and add physical humor to the role (this is just something he isn’t known
for which makes this character a curio), Rathbone looking every bit the
scheming lecherous husband just anticipating cold hard cash wrinkling in his
hands, and Lugosi always peeking in windows and behind curtains, and “The Black
Cat” has a little bit of everything. Could be a gem to be discovered by horror
fans looking for such in October.
Phantom of the Opera (1943) ***/*****
Let me say that it looked like Universal spared no expense to offer a lavish presentation…I mean what a production! However, horror fans will need to realize (or will realize) that Universal emphasized the Opera not the Phantom. There’s a LOT of music and singing, and the majority of the film not dedicated to opera focuses on a love triangle between a rising opera star, her potential inspector boyfriend and a baritone male opera star that adores her. Claude Raines, with that rich, textured voice, plays second fiddle here, and his name doesn’t even carry the damn movie. Universal wasn’t exactly giving Claude Lon Chaney status here. You can tell they were fawning all over the talents of Susanna Foster. Edgar Barrier is the only chief character that wasn’t higher than Raines, as the inspector trying to keep Foster’s Christine safe and the Phantom from continuing to terrorize those within the Paris Operahouse getting in the way of his paramour’s rise to the top of the opera world. Nelson Eddy gets the Red Carpet treatment as the baritone singer who sees that Christine has the voice of an angel.
Again, Raines is so wonderful an actor he can make the most out of any film that fails to really recognize his gifts. He gets the titular role, but it isn’t exactly like he’s treated as the headliner. His time with the mask off before the acid face bath is slim, but there are two big moments that show his skill as an actor. His forlorn affection for Christine when he meets her and doesn’t want her to leave his gaze (although she finds him rather awkward and pitiable), and the overtaking rage which turns into homicidal madness when he learns a music publisher plans to steal his concerto (for Franz Listz to perform possibly). His voice to Christine when he finally seizes her, taking her to his sewer home, gets over his obsessive desire for her to “perform only for him”, but a majority of the film has him moving about at a distance (and throughout the operahouse) or under the mask silent, waiting to capitalize on victims who stand in the way of “his Christine’s moment”.
I teared up when Christine got to perform for a crowd and orchestra in awe of her due to the Phantom’s listening from a lonely chamber in the sewer under the operahouse. This after he drugged an opera diva Christine was protégé to. This diva is played to hilt by Jane Farrar, ever bit the vindictive and self-absorbed star you’d expect to throw a tantrum at the notion her spot was taken by another after someone tried to poison her. It was the Phantom’s anguish and predicament that truly sells this to me. I liked Foster, don’t get me wrong, and if you are an opera fan, Universal made a film here that should suit your fancy. The horror that interests me just isn’t here. You have the infamous chandelier scene, but it is sanitized to where no one gets hurt (it lands just out of the way of the orchestra and stage performers.) The diva gets it along with her handler, but behind closed doors, the Phantom isn’t shown getting his hands dirty. The music publisher was a louse using his position and standing to attempt robbing a penniless violinist with a dire need to publish his work. That is what settles the deal in terms of sympathy. One of his hands loses feeling and isn’t as strong as it was 20 years ago. He paid for Christine’s tutoring with all his earnings (kind of crazy, but the film always enigmatically points to a connection between him and her from Provence), and his concerto would help continue to do so. An assistant to the publisher hurls the acid in the violinist’s face, and that leads to a manhunt (he strangles the publisher), where the Phantom is born (he robs the operahouse of a coat, hat, and mask), finding a hiding place in the sewers. I think Raines fans will like the first twenty minutes, but the rest is dedicated to opera and the love triangle. So there you have it. That production (the operahouse sets are a feast for the eyes), though, is a knockout.
All day Friday I wondered on what should get the October 2nd night slot. I decided that a Frankenstein double bill fit that bill.
"Frankenstein Friday"
Frankenstein (1931) & Bride of Frankenstein (1935) *****/*****
I decided to have myself a James Whale Frankenstein double feature tonight on Friday. I always seem to team these two up every October. It is just always so right to do so. You can definitely tell a difference in the freedom to go wherever he wanted (a comfort, if you will) in the second film. I can see why many choose the second over the first. I can enjoy both of them for their differences in approach. I mean, Ernest Thesiger and Una O'Connor given carte blanche to take their outrageous, over-the-top characters to the heights they desire. O'Connor might make or break the film for some people. Perhaps Whale let her go off the deep end with her whaling and whooping a bit too much, but I just roll my eyes and grin at it. Dr. Pretorius and his miniature characters "created from seed", the rampant Christian iconography, Pretorius eating chicken and drinking wine in a mausoleum with a skull and bones keeping him company until The Monster arrives looking for a friend, The Monster knocking over a Pope gravestone (!) in the nearest cemetery, Valerie Dobson "seeing death coming nearer, and nearer, and nearer", Fritz (poor Dwight Frye who rarely lives in these movies) finding a young female heart "fresh off the street", Bride arriving for like minutes at the end although they sure do count, and so on.
I'm not going to over-analyze it in regards to the homosexual content that might or might not be subtly intentional throughout (particularly when The Monster visits the blind hermit's house, finding his very first real friend). Watching both films with my kids, it was difficult talking about the little girl's death when The Monster accidentally drowns her. Explaining how The Monster came to be, and the ghoulish antics of the opening of Frankenstein was a bit of a challenge. My daughter and son love the Universal movies, so this opening two days has been a success. By far, to this day, the scene where the farmer carries his dead daughter in his arms as those celebrating Henry Frankenstein's wedding to Mae Clarke's Elizabeth see him and quit cheering, overtaken by the horror of it packs a wallop and is so distinctive. It is key in explaining the repercussions of Frankenstein's experiments. How the way he went about it spurned so much horror. And in Bride, I still am touched by the blind hermit and Frankenstein scene. Only when The Monster isn't seen, can he actually be welcomed into the comforts of another person. Kindness from Marie in Frankenstein, and the blind hermit in Bride are so scarce, no wonder there is such rage that exists from The Monster.
Going into Saturday, I decided to give Universal Horror three days at the beginning of October. Sunday I have some movies recorded from Turner Classics on Friday I'll give time to.
The Mummy's Hand(1940) ****/*****
A good cast, an eerie mummy, some fun magic tricks, a nice sense of humor (that isn’t too silly), swell pace, and those typically fine Universal Studios sets make The Mummy’s Hand a welcome October revisit. It really only loses some luster when the devoted Professor Andoheb (George Zucco) all of a sudden, right out of the blue, desirably lusts for an appealing magician’s (Cecil Kellaway, just a delight) daughter, Marta (Peggy Moran, sharp-tongued and pretty). It is just a ludicrous addition that pops up immediately to make a devotee to the High Priests of Karnak—who has done all (including using tana leave fluid to make a mummy kill) for his ancestry to secure their secret tomb of Ananka where it belongs—up and sacrifice it all for a woman he meets for like twice. The second time, her fainted body (after seeing the mummy Kharis entering her tent to almost kill her pops) is carried by Kharis (Tom Tyler) to the temple where Andoheb stays during the archeological expedition to “raid the tombs of the dead”. Motivated to murder if necessary by the High Priest of Karnak (Eduardo Cianelli), Andoheb abandons his principles for an urge that arrives after the mummy brings her in. It flies in the face of everything that had taken place before it. It is minor amongst everything else, though, so I’m not all that hung up on it.
A young but wise-beyond-his-years
archeologist, Steve (Dick Foran) and his wise-cracking buddy, Babe (Wallace
Ford, the oft-used comic relief buffoon, who keeps failing miserably at a rock
trick taught to him by Kellaway’s “Great Solvani” (of Brooklyn NY)), find a
gutted pot that might just have directions to the tomb of Ananka. Andoheb tries
to thwart their efforts by telling them the pot is a forgery. Then, when that
doesn’t work, he sicks the mummy on them. Along with Steve and Babe (and their
benefactor of the expedition, Solvani, and his angry daughter (feeling he gave
away their every dime for a false notion of riches), is the imminent Dr. Petrie
(Charles Trowbridge). Petrie has those bottle cap lens glasses just perfect to
emphasize terror when Andoheb (a colleague of his when the two of them studied
the history of Egypt in Cairo) turns Kharis on him.
Great line: Children of the night, they howl about the Hill
of the Seven Jackals when Kharis must be fed. (the High Priest when hearing the
jackals sound off)
Son of Dracula (1943) ****1/2 / *****
Son of Dracula, Robert Siodmak’s contribution to the
Universal Horror canon, always was one of my favorites of the “secondary
players” due to the imaginative uses of the vampire’s supernatural abilities,
noirish presentation, and how Dracula is used as a patsy by the *real villain*,
a young woman (that was *always morbid*, fearing death) named Kay (Louise
Allbritton) so he can grant her eternal life to share with her *true love*, a
young man she’s actually engaged to, Frank Stanley (Robert Paige). Chaney’s performance
is a subject of debate. I think his American accent interferes with his being a
Hungarian “descendent of the Count”, but I like how he’s a menace. He pushes
his strength around, laying waste to Frank, poor guy just trying to lay claim
to the woman the Count took as his bride. Frank actually shoots him in cold
blood after being thrown to the ground. It is an interesting scene, in that he
would be an absolute murderer. The bullets “go through him” until Kay is hit by them instead. So Kay is nearly
killed until Dracula “saves her” by granting her the eternal life she so
desired. Soon Kay just needs Dracula out of the way, turning into a bat, flying
into Frank’s jail cell (he turned himself in for killing Kay), informing him of
where the Count’s coffin is located and the method behind his destruction.
Taking a lesser part in this film compared to The Wolf Man is Evelyn Ankers, the younger sister of Allbritton. Their father, the Colonel over a plantation in Louisiana called The Dark Oats, is in a wheelchair and in order to get her control over the property, Kay is willing to allow Dracula to kill him! This is one of the reasons I find the film so fascinating to watch. The obsession to live and not die drives Kay to commit unspeakable acts.
Interestingly, Doctor Brewster (Frank Craven) and an
authority in Dracula from Hungary, Professor Lazlo (J Edward Bromberg) are the
ones featured prominently in the film. Their input on how to stop Dracula is
crucial to providing answers to the audience. They factor very little in
helping Frank or Kay, but their talks are to establish Dracula in an America of
the modern audience of 1943. How a vampire could exist, against a law enforcement
not susceptible to such an idea, until they have no choice but accept what is
right before their very eyes. The voodoo priestess at the opening gives Kay a
spooky aura that continues until the very end. She’s an intriguing character…quite
noirish, if I say so myself.
House of Dracula (1945) **1/2/*****
House of Dracula (1945) **1/2/*****
House of Dracula gets the monsters in (including a rather
neat “Jekyll & Hyde” performance towards the end by Onslow Stevens who
steals the film from the likes of Universal stalwarts, John Carradine and Lon
Chaney, Jr.), and doesn’t overstay its welcome. Using “science to cure the
inflictions on vampires and werewolves” was always a positive in its favor. This
is the very definition of a rushed production.
As a film regarding the Frankenstein Monster, this is a sad
bookend to the character so fundamental to the Universal Horror brand in the
30s. Even Ghost of Frankenstein treated The Monster better than this. I even
feel bad for Glenn Strange who never had a chance to prove if he could take the
character and do anything with it. He didn’t get to in House of Frankenstein,
either. Just a poor excuse of the use of The Monster, no other way to say it.
Dracula gets some rub here, with Carradine given a bit more
mischief to cause, but if you were to actually time how long he’s in the very
film which carries the character’s name it might be fifteen to twenty total
minutes. The movie barely breaks 60 minutes and yet the screenplay tries to
squeeze in 90 minutes of content. You have the science of Dr. Edelmann
(Stevens) attracting Dracula and Talbot, and his courtesy (and curiosity in if
he could use his genius to help them) ultimately leading to his end…especially
when he must defeat Dracula in order to rescue his nurse from the vampire’s
unholy advances. You have the hunchbacked nurse Edelmann wishes to cure, using
the same procedure (softening bone) to perhaps help Talbot of his lycanthropy.
Chaney, Jr. was just out of real estate with the Talbot character. There just
wasn’t anywhere else to take the character. He’s mining the same agony/misery
similarly in the other “Monsters All-stars” *extravaganza* “House of
Frankenstein”, but at least he finally gets peace from the Full Moon Curse.
Looking upon the rising full moon cured is a nice satisfactorily pleasant
development that allows us to see Talbot leave at least one Universal film with
a future ahead of him not offering werewolvery or destruction of innocents.
One murder I just detest is of the hunchback assistant. It
was highly uncalled for and unnecessary. The police were breaking in and the
mob of villagers (led by Steinmuhl, played by Skelton Knaggs, mimicking Dwight
Frye’s gallery of uglies) with their lighted torches and waving clubs were on
their way. You could allow the poor girl to get her own happy ending, yet
perhaps out of a sense of sadism in the writing, instead the nurse is strangled
by “Dracula Edelmann” and tossed to side like garbage. It is rather unfortunate
that this is a devoted and kind nurse’s fate. Why doesn’t she just fucking run
when it appears this isn’t the gentle doctor she’s known for quite some time?
Yet she walks towards him even as he
shows signs of possession…it doesn’t make sense!
The Monster is introduced underneath the castle of Edelmann,
found with the skeletal remains of Karloff’s evil scientist from House of
Frankenstein (tying this film to it). Edelmann using mechanics (he’d have no
reason to own) to revive The Monster doesn’t even fit his personality. It is
just an intrusion that feels stuffed into the narrative as if director Earl C
Kenton was forced into including the character even though the story had no
room for it. Dracula has importance in how his evil causes a curse upon all of
those who tried to help him. He’s driven by the need to hurt, and his
attraction to Miliza (Martha O’Driscoll), with Edelmann’s disruption of this
desire to have her as his, Dracula leaves behind a malignant blood that does no
one any favors. Unfortunate as the monster is Lionel Atwill, cast as a police
inspector demanded upon by the villagers to do something about the strange
goings-on up there at Edelmann’s. He has little more than a few lines and a
character any extra with little clout in the biz could have portrayed. I think
The Monster tosses him into a machine full of dials and buttons (similar to how
his surgeon died in Ghost of Frankenstein) and he’s electrocuted, but all of
this happens in a clusterfuck of explosions, fires, gunshots, mobs of men
trying to get into the place, and the lab going up in flames once again. The
house toppling down on The Monster is a copy of previous films. It is rather a
blitzkrieg of converging elements combusting in a finale that seems hurried and
speed through to get the film in the can.
Still, it is fun enough, as a diversion, but when you watch
this back to back with Son of Dracula, the differences in an inspired
production and uninspired one are staggering. I think you can just see in House
of Dracula the studio’s deteriorating relationship with the Universal Monster
once such a thriving part of their financial success. The 40s is similar to the
90s in that horror took a break and the decade had its gems among a rather
uninspired duration.
Comments
Post a Comment