Saturday Evening with The Mummy (1932)

Dr. Seward, Van Helsing, Mina, Dracula, and Harker...well, not really but close

Nothing saddens me more than when I do a search on the IMDb for “The Mummy” and the only two results that pop up are the Tom Cruise disaster from 2017 and the 1999 version with Encino Man. I’ve been on record to say that I’m not a big fan of the Universal sequels (except the direct sequel, “The Mummy’s Hand” which I thought was almost as good but just not quite) but I’ll take any of them over the 1999 film much less its franchise. I’ve not seen the Cruise film, and I’m a Tom Cruise Movie Star fan, so that tells you something. I was thinking about “The Mummy” (1932), directed by the great cinematographer, Karl Freund, Saturday afternoon as I decided to wait on Critters II (1988) until April, after considering a viewing this evening. I wanted to continue my series on favorites I’m commenting on one last time as I move through the Universal series, Hammer series, the slasher franchises, and old favorites from the 80s, so “The Mummy” was another film and franchise I wanted to put words to one last time. Karloff left such a legacy on film and television. I really need to get around to “The Veil” someday. I have watched a few “Thriller” episodes but he’s not but a narrator for most of that series. “The Mummy”, though, is a film among that legacy I truly cherish. The pacing is deliberate, with many considering it quite slow and glacial. I never have been bothered by that. I guess you could say the pacing is very much like Ardeth Bey.

You get a lot, too, in those opening minutes. About the Egyptian gods and curses, scrolls, sealed caskets, mummies accursed for actions deemed sacrilegious. With reincarnation, pursuit of immortal love and killing of the human shell to do so, competition for the love of Helen (or is that Anck-es-en-Amon?) between Sir Joseph Wemple’s son, Frank (the ever dull David Manners) and Imhotep (Karloff, hiding under the alias of Ardeth Bey), Imhotep looking into his pool which can recall the past and even give him visual reach into homes, such as Joseph Wemple’s quarters in Cairo, offering Helen (in a trance) a recollection of his princess’ death and attempt to resurrect her which dooms him to blasphemous Egyptian damnation, and Egyptian scholar and occult scientist, Dr. Van Hels—er, Dr. Muller, trying to come up with a way to defeat Imhotep.

Universal rolled out the budget to bring to life Egyptian tombs, scrolls, Nubian slaves and Pharoahs, princesses and gods, giving us the Pyramids and Cairo locals helping the British Museum to unearth artifacts and tomb archeological finds of great scientific significance. Hammer Studios’ “The Mummy” (1959) does more with the curse part of the Universal Mummy sequels instead of following the 1932 classic as closely, which I actually don’t mind. And I like that the Mummy sequels didn’t follow the Karloff Mummy at all. I think it is satisfying as a fan of the 1932 film that it sort of stands alone, with some of its details pulled while it remains somewhat intact as a film on its own. If “The Mummy” (1959) does take anything from the 1932 film it is the Imhotep retelling of what happened to him, his extreme adoration and dedication to Anck-es-en-Amon that he’d be willing to go against their sacred beliefs in order to resurrect her, including being wrapped up and boxed away, with the Scroll of Thoth also casketed and buried in order for the attempt to never even be considered again. So sour was the Pharoah of Imhotep, that once the Mummy and Scroll were buried, those involved in their burial were also killed in order to keep the secret. But Imhotep, once a young and ignorant scientist/archeologist of Wemple’s in 1921 drew out the Scroll from its casket (sealed with warning not to open it or be cursed) and read an excerpt resurrecting him from his limbo in a damned afterlife, made sure his princess would be found. No damnation would keep Imhotep from at least trying to bring Anck-es-en-Amon back, her spirit reincarnated down through the generations, now home inside Helen, a half British/half Egyptian young woman visiting Cairo from the Sudan.

Now in regards to the oft-mentioned Dracula (1931) correlations, I watched one scene and couldn’t help but see the film play out in almost vivid detail. Dr. Muller shows Imhotep a photo of him as the Mummy and partially transcribed hieroglyphics which resurrected him. It might as well be the mirror that Dracula slapped out of Van Helsing’s hand. Van Helsing telling Dracula he must destroyed and Muller letting Imhotep know that if he could he would crush his dried flesh with his hands. The protective charm Muller provides Frank that is sort of an Egyptian version of the crucifix. Imhotep wanting to kill Helen so she can return as Anck-es-en-Amon, similar to Dracula’s desire to make Mina his vampire bride. Sir Joseph Wemple worried about his son, while Dr. Seward was worried about his daughter. Harker hoping to keep Mina safe, Manners’ Frank trying faithfully to protect Helen. Helen seemingly unable to overcome the drawing power of Imhotep while Mina seems incapable of resisting the pull of Dracula. The signet ring on Imhotep’s finger, his sinister eyes with their dark intensity, the disregard for mortals; Imhotep has very fascinating similarities to Lugosi’s Dracula. Of course, the Karl Freund and Balderston connections are glaring reasons for this obviously. I guess maybe that might be why I love this version of “The Mummy” so much.

Slight “adjustments” are made to distinguish the two films, though. Sir Joseph’s death, Frank and Muller’s inability to stop Imhotep (it is Helen who calls for help from god Isis, ultimately responsible for Imhotep’s eventual deterioration from rough old flesh to skeletal remains), the differences in history as Dracula remained active down through centuries while Imhotep was buried until being resurrected in 1921, and Helen being a human with Anck-es-en-Amon’s reincarnated spirit existing within her. I always remain spellbound by Freund’s emphasis on eyes. Pierce, of course, is maybe the major star here, alongside Karloff, with the age makeup, but I and many others have discussed that ad nauseum. Interestingly, though, I think “The Mummy”, though, suffers similarly from the same fate as “Dracula” in the abrupt ending category. Both seem to feel as if something at the end was rushed and sequences shot were left on a cutting room floor no longer available. If footage was treated with historical significance as the Egyptians did for their buried dead royalty…Universal Studios, if they had vaulted up all that early footage, what treasures fans of that material could enjoy today. I hurt at the thought of all that history lost to mishandling and misappropriation.

“Come out under the stars of Egypt…”

Mudie's Professor Pearson isn't seen again in the film

Frank Wemple and Prof. Pearson at the seal of the princess's tomb