Tuesday, July 31, 2012

How to make a mummy (1932)

 When I first stumbled over this newspaper story about Universal's THE MUMMY, it appeared to be a not-so-subtle effort to present actor Boris Karloff as the heir apparent to the late Lon Chaney. The final paragraph pretty much clinched it, as it mentions Karloff used the dressing room once occupied by the PHANTOM OF THE OPERA actor. I have no idea if that little nugget of information is true or not, but the rest of the story, particularly the details of Karloff applying his own make-up, are certainly invented. As for FRANKENSTEIN the year before, make-up for THE MUMMY was created by Jack Pierce.
  


Boris Karloff Comes To Ritz
Creator of sinister roles in "Mummy" at midnight Sunday
Dec. 25, 1932

Karloff, noted creator of sinister screen roles and today acknowledged as filmdom's supreme make-up artist, has achieved a new and startling masterpiece of the make-up art with the mummy countenance which he uses in his latest picture, "The Mummy," coming to the Ritz Theater tonight for a midnight matinee performance.

Surpassing even the hideous "Frankenstein" in clearness, the "mummy" make-up took Karloff eight tedious hours to don. The transformation of the actor to Im-ho-tep, 3,700-year-old mummy, was accomplished in the following manner.

The face, of course, was the first consideration. It was dampened with water, and then completely covered with very thin strips of cotton - even the eyelids were not spared this nerve wracking process. Collodion was then applied and the mask touched up with spirit gum to hold it in place. Work was stopped at intervals in order that a drying machine might be applied to set the facial wrinkles. The next step was the pinning back of the ears. Make-up clay was used to give Karloff's head the serrated appearance of a mummy. Twenty-two different varieties of make-up paint were then applied to the actor's withered countenance.

Swathed from head to foot in bandages which had first been acid rooted and passed through a warm over, Karloff was ready to step on the set and submit to another eight hours of grueling work before the cameras. His supporting cast in this fantastic story of the reincarnation of an Egyptian mummy includes Zita Johann, David Manners, Arthur Byron, Edward Van Sloan and Bramwell Fletcher, Karl Freund directing.

It is interesting to note that Karloff occupies the same dressing room on the Universal lot formerly used by another make-up master, the late Lon Chaney.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Monster Serial: SON OF DRACULA (1943)

Welcome to the third installment of MONSTER SERIAL. During the next few months I'm going to attack some of Universal's best known franchises, starting with a look at the original DRACULA series.


SON OF DRACULA, 1943
Starring: Lon Chaney, Jr., Robert Paige, Louise Allbritton, 
Evelyn Ankers, Frank Craven, J. Edward Bromberg
Directed by: Robert Siodmak
 
WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? A woman with an interest in the occult invites the mysterious Count Alucard to visit her family's estate in New Orleans. The count begins a campaign to marry his hostess and steal away her family's land, but finds out too late that his new wife has manipulated him into granting her the immortal curse of the vampire.

WHAT'S IT REALLY ABOUT? I don't have a clue. Most of the plot revolves around a scheme to divide a family inheritance among siblings, so I'm tempted to suggest the movie is about how greed is such a powerful emotion that it can ever trump grief ... kind of like a gothic version of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE. Even though sex is the primary motive for the male leads, SON OF DRACULA downplays the sexual innuendo of the first two films. As heiress "'Kay Caldwell," Louise Allbritton portrays a character straight out of a James M. Cain novel, a woman who uses her sexuality to manipulate both Dracula and her former fiancee into achieving her goals. he pits the two idiots against each other in the final act, but otherwise the screenplay really doesn't have much to say about sex.


WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? I'm not sure that anybody has much to say about SON OF DRACULA today. It's one of the least-loved films in the Universal Monsters series and is a frustrating bore. There a lot of things it gets right, but SON OF DRACULA has the misfortune of having created such a portable template for vampire films that you probably won't recognize its meager successes.

Something the film gets right is its approach the the Dracula story. The appeal of Bram Stoker's original novel upon its original release was that it was a "modern" tale: Stoker took a primitive legend and placed it in the middle of contemporary London, a world its readers recognized. Many film adaptions miss the importance of this idea and insist on setting the movie in Victorian England or some other location in the distant past.

SON OF DRACULA not only tries to create a modern vampire story, but one that is uniquely America. And by setting the story in New Orleans, it let Universal maintain its creepy, fog-soaked atmosphere, something that would have been almost impossible had the film been set in Los Angeles or New York City.


SON OF DRACULA has a little fun with the vampire myth and establishes a pattern for vampire stories that continues to this day. "Establishes" might not be the right word, because the film lifts the skeletal structure of of 1931's DRACULA and tinkers with the formula to create something that's both familiar and unique. We still have the mysterious "foreign" stranger, the secluded country estate, the coffins, bats and fog machines. We also have the obligatory statements of incredulity as a learned medical professional puts for the bullshit hypothesis that a vampire is on the loose, followed by the slow acceptance by the supporting cast that they're living in a monster movie. If you've ever seen a vampire movie before, you've pretty much seen SON OF DRACULA.

While DRACULA'S DAUGHTER might not have been the BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN of the Dracula series, at least it made an effort to do its own thing. SON OF DRACULA is most notable for cooking up a generic formula for vampire movies that could be recycled infinitely. It's the spiritual cousin of a slasher movie.

But the script isn't a complete pageant of cliche. The movie's twist, that Dracula has been manipulated by his victim into making her immortal, gives the story a dimension not see in the previous films. Louise Allbritton makes for an interesting femme fatale, one that both cast and audience will underestimate until its far too late. Dracula is just another victim in the film, and is reduced to begging for his life during the final scene as he watches his coffin go up in flames.

IS IT TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT ITSON OF DRACULA doesn't make a lick of sense. He arrives in New Orleans under the assumed name of "Count Alucard," an alias that's cracked within seconds by the first person to see the name. Even though the movie is called SON OF DRACULA, it's revealed that Chaney is playing the actual Count Dracula. The villain is reduced to the role of gigolo in the movie, an a particularly stupid one, at that.


The casting of Lon Chaney Jr. in the title role is unforgivable, and one of the worst cases of miscasting this side of John Wayne in THE CONQUEROR. He's outrageously silly as Dracula. While revisiting the movie last week, I found myself actively hating him in the role. It's one of the laziest performances to ever appear in a Universal horror movie. Chaney is such a disaster that the rest of the movie could have been ROSHOMON and it wouldn't have mattered.

Universal did a piss-poor job of managing its Dracula franchise. What was briefly the crown jewel in the studio's horror line had become a B-movie cliche by the third film. Granted, the world had changed quite a bit since the debut of DRACULA, but that didn't stop Universal from squeezing a memorable series out of FRANKENSTEIN, technically the most limiting character in their roster. SON OF DRACULA jettisoned all narrative connections to the previous movies, and later Dracula movies would return the favor by pretending this movie didn't exist, either.

Also, the movie is aggressively racist, which doesn't have much to do with the plot, but certainly affects the viewing experience.

Up next: House of Frankenstein, 1944

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Tumblr of the Day


Bela Lugosi, from the stage production of DRACULA.

"Weird" DRACULA opens in Oskaloosa, 1931

 

Weird Scenes in "Dracula" Vampire Drama
The Pella Chrionicle, May 28, 1931

Fastnacht—the night of evil; swirling fog, and wolves howling in the mountain passes; a solitary traveler waiting at the crossroads; the clatter of approaching hoofs, and a coachman with feverish eyes glowing above his great muffler.

The traveler enters the coach, which continues on its headlong flight; but as soon as it is again under way, the driver disappears, and his place is taken by a giant bat which flaps over the heads of the galloping horses. Silence settles over the misty land.scape. The mysterious coach is swallowed up by the dense fog, and makes its way to the crumbling castle of the terrible Count Dracula, vampire!

This is one of the opening scenes of "Dracula," Universal's strange motion picture drama which was adapted from the stage success of the same name, and which comes to the Rivola theatre, Oskaloosa, Friday and Saturday, May 29, 30.

The cast is headed by Bela Lugosi, who created the title role of "Dracula" on the stage, and other players appearing in prominent roles are Helen Chandler, David Manners, Edward Van Sloan, Frances Dade, Dwight Frye and Herbert Bunston. Tod Browning directed.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Tumblr of the Day

Bad reviews can't stop WHITE ZOMBIE (1932)

"White Zombie Is Given Pan By 
Gotham Critics, But Public Wanted It"

The Big Spring Texas Daily Herald, Sept. 23, 1932

Within the past decade a play blossomed forth on Broadway and was mercifully "panned" by Gotham's leading dramatics critics. Notwithstanding critical derogation, the play ran on and on — for four years. The public knew what it wanted, and wanted "Abie's Irish Rose."

Within the past month a picture opened at the Rivoli on Broadway and was panned as "Abie's Irish Rose" had been panned. But the public flocked, regardless. And kept on flocking until New York in particular and the county in general realized that the screen had a new sensation. That sensation is "White Zombie." Clan analysis reveals that there is nothing strange about the public clamor for "White Zombie." It is the first picture in ages with a theme never before used for the screen, and its plot is motivated by superstition and  manifestations of the supernatural.

"White Zombie" is coming to this city to be exhibited at Ritz Theatre. Said to be more spooky and fantastic than "Dracula" and "Frankenstein," it promises the ultimate in thrills. Bela Lugosi (the "Dracula" of screen and stage) plays the leading role.

"In order to get the fullest measure of thrills in 'White Zombie,'" says Manager J. Y. Robb, "one should attend a midnight performance of the picture; and in order to accommodate those who want their thrills at their thrillingest, we will hold a midnight show Saturday, starting at 11:30 o'clock. Regular performances will be held Sunday and Monday."

Mr. Robb states further that persons not in tip-top physical condition should refrain from attending exhibitions of this weird picture

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Monster Serial: DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)

Welcome to the second installment of MONSTER SERIAL. During the next few months I'm going to attack some of Universal's best known franchises, starting with a look at the original DRACULA series.


DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, 1936
Starring: Otto Kruger, Gloria Holden, Marguerite Churchill, Edward Van Sloan, Gilbert Emery and Irving Pichel
Directed by Lambert Hillyer 

WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Prof. Abraham Van Helsing recruits a former pupil to defend him against charges of murder in the deaths of Dracula and Renfield. While he admits to killing Dracula, he insists the slaying was necessary because the Transylvanian nobleman was actually a vampire. Rather that hiring an attorney, he enlists the aid of psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Garth to prove his innocence. Meanwhile, the count's daughter, Marya Zaleska, steals the body of Dracula from Scotland Yard and destroys it, hoping it will break the chain of her family's curse. She soon learns that her father's death has not changed her fortunes and seeks Garth's help to break her spell of vampirism.

 

WHAT'S IT REALLY ABOUT? Sex. More specifically, gay sex. This is Universal's famous "lesbian vampire movie," but keep your pants on ... it's not exactly Girls Gone Wild. While it's no more salacious than its predecessor, the subtext of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER isn't exactly subtle. Zaleska is cursed by impulses she can barely control and turns to modern psychology for help. And my "modern," I mean "hopelessly antiquated." The medicine on display in this film is as out-of-date as the superstitions on display, making it almost a battle of ignorances among the main characters. DRACULA'S DAUGHTER gets bonus points for never referencing Sigmund Freud, though.

What's more interesting is that the movie uses the idea of sexual urges almost interchangeably with the occult. It's a novel idea because both concepts reach out to us from invisible realms and physically affect the world despite having no physical presences of their own. When Zaleska turns to Garth for help, it's because she's trying to repress those urges. Occult superstitions demand that her only salvation is death; but science suggests that her behaviors can be adjusted to allow for proper socialization and let her live as a "real woman," whatever the hell that means. It's about as rational an idea as James Bond fucking the gay out of Pussy Galore, but DRACULA'S DAUGHTER suggests that hardline conservatism isn't our only option for dealing with "freaks." It's not the most enlightened point of view, but it was 1936.


WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Barnabas Collins is credited as the first "sympathetic vampire," but DRACULA'S DAUGHTER beat him to the punch by three decades. Countess Zaleska is the not only the first cinematic vampire to resent her own condition, but the first to seek out a scientific "cure," as well. For a movie about vampires, the occult plays little role in the film. Marya Zaleska is a self-hating sexual predator whose "curse" might be a garden variety mental illness. In many ways, she's got more in common with Larry Talbot in THE WOLF MAN than with DRACULA.

The movie's tone is also quite different from Universal's other monster movies. The first two acts play like a traditional film noir, with the roles of Jeffrey Garth and his assistant Janet heavily inspired by William Powell and Myrna Loy in THE THIN MAN. Garth isn't that interesting of a character, by Marguerite Churchill as his playful assistant is a joy to watch. The movie comes to life whenever she's on screen, even if most of those scenes are more comedy than horror.

Irving Pichel as Sandor is also magnetically creepy. Equal parts Lon Chaney Jr and Lurch from THE ADDAMS FAMILY, Sandor has been working as Zaleska's henchman in hopes that she would "reward" him by turning him into a vampire. If Zaleska is the first sympathetic movie vampire, then Sandor is the first big screen character who ever wanted to become a vampire. He's a lot scarier than Zaleska because his motives are greedy and uncertain.


It's not until the movie's final act to we see any of the imagery usually associated with Universal's monster movies. Zaleska flees to Transylvania with Janet as a hostage. We briefly revisit Dracula's castle as the movie's dual tones collide: Garth, in Humphrey Bogart drag, mounts the stairs of Dracula's castle with a pistol in hand. Even though it's a short scene, it's one of the most compelling images to ever emerge from Universal's monster stable.

IS IT TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Gloria Holden isn't the most seductive leading lady that Hollywood ever produced. It's not that she's unattractive, but Holden comes across more like a repressed college professor than a destroyer of men/women. Her repressiveness is a serious hindrance for the movie because it demands its femme fatale be chaste. DRACULA'S DAUGHTER suffers from much of the same repressiveness of its title character.

There's also an ickyness to the movie's sexuality that comes across a lot more overtly rape-y than in DRACULA. Zaleska's first victim is a man she meets on the street, but we don't see the actual attack. The film spends a bit more time on her next victim, though, a homeless young woman lured back to her studio for a job as an artist's model. Zaleska plies her with wine and convinces her to take off her blouse. Zaleska becomes impatient and attacks the mostly nude woman, who is next seen being loaded (fully clothed) into the back of an ambulance. She later dies as Garth uses a "hypnosis machine" to dig into her memories to determine what had happened to her. "Consent" seems to be an unfamiliar word to both the heroes and villains of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER.


The movie also suffers from the same abbreviated ending as DRACULA. The film wants to be a psychological thriller and romantic comedy for its first two acts, but that's not what audiences want to see (then or now) from a movie like DRACULA'S DAUGHTER. When I watch a Universal monster movie about a vampire, I expect to see coffins and cobwebs sooner than the final reel.

Also, Van Helsing comes across like a smug douche. But that's neither here nor there.

VERDICT: DRACULA'S DAUGHTER is too great a cinematic curiosity to be dismissed. It's an oddity among Universal's other films in that it tries to rise about its pulpy roots, but it's not entirely successful in any of its efforts. And the idea of making a sequel to one of the most influential horror movies ever without porting over the title character took serious balls. DRACULA'S DAUGHTER is not a cheap looking movie, but it's a cheap concept because it pays only lip service to the original film without expanding much on its world. It's just another vampire movie that happens to have DRACULA in its title.

UP NEXT: SON OF DRACULA (1943)
PREVIOUSLY: DRACULA (1931)

Tumblr of the Day

BORIS KARLOFF and lifemask.

Friday, July 20, 2012

FREAKS isn't "just another circus story" (1932)


Director Tod Browning Holds Better 
Thinking Requisite to His Trade
The Oakland Tribune, Jan. 10, 1932

By WOOD SOANES

TOD BROWNING was "at home" the day I decided to visit him at the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, which was not only a lucky break for the Interviewer but a distinct novelty for the director.

For Browning was at that particular time in the throes of creation on the matter of "Freaks" and, as a rule, when this MGM ace, who specializes in macabre productions, is plotting out a picture, he is not in his office at all.

Instead one may find him perched on a red fire hydrant located in one of the busier sectors of the lot.  They call it the Browning hydrant, just as they call that bit of transplanted jungle in which some of the major scenes of "The Cuban Love Song" were filmed, the Browning river. And when Browning is atop his favorite hydrant, it is not good policy to disturb him.

Everyone from truck drivers and executives to press agents and extra folks respect his public privacy. The office that the studio has provided for him is one of the more spacious cubicles consisting of two compartments, but it is devoid of conventional furnishings. In the outer anteroom is Browning's secretary, whose chore it is to keep track of his migrations and shoo pests away from the screen door. In the inner sanctum is a huge globe with all the trimmings for measuring distance and location; a shelf full of books on travel, occult, biographical and scientific subjects; one easy chair of the sprawling sort; one slightly more
conventional; and a third that classifies as a straight chair.

The first thing the visitor notices about the room is that it has no desk, and therein is the key to Browning's character and the secret of his success as a director. Nearly every other director in Hollywood not only has a desk but has it cluttered up with papers. Browning argues that the best place to keep a story is in your head until it is fully completed. Then it is a simple matter to dictate the yarn to a stenographer, thus conserving time and energy.

Willis Goldbeck was closeted with Browning on the morning in question, had been with him for four consecutive working days — days that, Browning revealed, had been consumed chiefly by argument. It is Goldbeck's chore to argue with 'Browning, to act as audience for his ideas, to offer plot suggestions, and when the battle is over to assemble the material for the final draft of the story. He is, incidentally, one of the few writers who can work with the director.

It isn't, intimates of Browning explained to me, that he is the traditional temperamental director, but that he requires an aide who will know when to apply either sugar or spurs, who can sense the moment for debate or acquiescence. Goldbeck through long acquaintance with Browning and his moods is able to do this in a practically painless fashion so that both he and the director emerge from the joust hale, hearty and friendly, and the picture usually emerges as something of moment.

"We've been trying to get one scene fixed for four days," Browning began after the introductions, "and I'm  not sure we have it now. This picture will not be in the usual run and I am having many problems with it. I have the story well in mind but it just doesn't seem to jell when translated into camera and microphone terms. I don't want to tell just another circus story, I want to tell one with a different slant.

"Up to now the freaks in the circus have been treated simply as freaks in literature and on the screen. Most of them are abnormal physically, it is true, yet my inquiry has proved to me that most of them are the same as you and I. In this picture — and I believe we'll call it 'Freaks' — I'm trying to get not only behind the scenes but under the skin of the sideshow folks, to show them as they are with all their romance, humor, heart-ache and tragedy. But it's not as easy as it sounds.

"The public is a curious composite. It will accept wholeheartedly a screen romance between two palpable morons; it will digest cheerfully the conversion of a congenital idiot into a Robin Hood; it will cheer the love
excursions of a girl who couldn't get past the kitchen door in a decent home in life; and it will reveal other strange quirks. But will it accept the love of two dwarfs? I wish I knew the answer.

"That's one of the interesting sides of my particular work in pictures. I don't have to follow a beaten track. In fact, if I do follow one, I am doomed. The result is that I get a lot of fun out of a picture while the other fellows often have a dull time, even a hectic time, trying to conjure up new ways to tell an old story. But life isn't milk and honey for me all the time. Take this congress of freaks for example.

"When I first outlined the story, a sketch was sent out in the publicity. It was expedient that I get types and it was not possible to gather them from the usual sources. I had to broadcast a call for anyone with anything abnormal. I urged them to send photos to the studio, but these are hard times and they took no such chances. They came in person, and they sent letters by the ton. 'I have three thumbs!', 'I have dancing eyes!',' 'I can swallow my own nose!'

"My applicants ranged front a giant to a dwarf barely over two feet tall. There was a 'dog-faced boy' who said that despite his canine lineaments he's a strict vegetarian; another application is from a 'human pretzel' who can bend his body into 'granny knots'. Some of' course have already been hired such as Johnny Eck, the boy with only half a body; Coo Koo, 'the bird girl', Pete Robinson, 'the human skeleton'; and Little Martha, the armless wonder.

"Others who are en route are Randian, known as 'the living torso', who gets along without either arms or legs; Schlitzie, 'the pin head woman'; Olga, a bearded woman; Josephine Joseph, half man and half woman; the famous Hilton Sisters, Siamese twins; and Hurry Earles of 'The Unholy Three' and his sister Daisy, who will have the chief freak roles. Daisy is making her screen debut."

Discussion of the problems of this picture inevitably led back to the late Lon Chaney, with whom Browning was associated for so many years; and, also inevitably, to the question of whether there would ever be a successor to Chaney.

"No," said Browning, "at least a thousand successors have been proposed to me alone and many more have been groomed by rival directors and studios. They all seem to forget that Chaney was more than a mere technician. He was an actor; and an actor has to be able to think. That's the chief trouble with the Hollywood actor as a mass. He isn't able to think, so when the public wearies of his type, he is finished.

"Chaney's success was built on the fact that he never stood still. Once he finished with a characterization he did not go back to it. Oftentimes his efforts were not successful—no one can achieve perfection—but they  were always interesting.  Even if a man could be found who looks like Chaney and can be made up like Chaney for that type of role, I doubt very seriously if the public would accept him. The public must make
its own favorites.

"And this lack of thought doesn't apply to acting alone. To it can be traced, through the stories and their presentation, much of the reason for lessened interest in program pictures. It is far better to take an extra six weeks and put that much additional thought on a production, than finish it two weeks under schedule. The chances of failure are reduced an appreciable degree and the chances of success greatly enhanced.

"But directors should do their thinking before they begin shooting. So many of them want to get into action in a hurry that bad pictures result. After production has started is no time to begin making script changes.  Naturally there must be some revision, but we all allow for that. Hollywood needs more homework and less studio activity. A great painter always has a plan before he starts to work, yet we who are employed on a huge canvas rely on the inspiration of the moment. The muses are often very fickle."

"Speaking of preliminary thought," I said to Browning, "Just how much time do you give to the preparation of a story?"

"That depends upon how much work has been done by the author," he answered. "In 'Freaks' I am bringing to the screen material that I have had in hand for seven years. Much of it goes back to my own experiences. I ran away from home at 15 to launch a 'wild man' act in a carnival sideshow and I got a pretty good insight to the business during years as a side show barker, spieler, clown, acrobat, connection worker and general man of all trades."

Eventually circus life palled on Browning, however, and he picked up a song and dance routine and went into vaudeville. There was a time when he and his wife ranked headline honors as "Tod and Alice Browning." Later, he tried the legitimate endof the business and got into Los Angeles with a production. His old vaudeville friend, Charlie Murray, got him job an a movie comedian. And then a lucky automobile accident halted his career.

While he was in a plaster cast he started writing screen stories and when he emerged from the hospital asked for a chance to direct. He was assigned to "The Virgin of Stamboul" and promptly startled Hollywood and enraged his bosses by assigning Priscilla Dean, a young woman who had been playing bits in comedies, to the stellar role. Miss Dean became an overnight sensation and Browning could do no wrong from that time on.

When he was engaged by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer he was assigned to direct Lon Chaney, whom he had directed in small roles at the beginning of the star's career. The combination was an ideal one and was terminated only by Chaney's death. "The Unholy Three" was the first of his Chaney creations and it was followed by many other sensations.

After Chaney's death Browning was rather at a loose end for a time and while adjustments were being made Browning moved to Universal, on loan, for "Dracula."'

Tumblr of the Day

Thursday, July 19, 2012

King King is Coming, Part 3 (1933)


"King Kong" finds a deadly dinosaur threatening Ann, whom the ape deposits in the crotch of a high tree for safety while he does combat with the Tyrannosaurus,measuring nearly seventy-five feet from nose to tail. Afraid as she is of her fate in the hands of "King Kong" she still wants the great' ape to win.
The open mouth of the Tyrannosaurus is far more terrifying.


No sooner has "King Kong" dispatched the dinosaur than  another monster ages old — a water serpent— raises its long neck from a pool. Driscoll, Ann's lover, gamely trailing the ape, watches "King Kong" crush - this monster's head in his mighty grip. He wonders,' why "King Kong" has protected Ann instead of devouring her.


Home at last at the top of Skull Mountain, "King Kong" proceeds to inspect the wonders of the golden beauty that is now his. He is so fascinated as he tears off Ann's sheer garments that he does not note the
approach of a Pterodactyl, giant-winged reptile, until it has ravenously snatched Ann out of his paws.


Now the Beast has lost his Beauty! Driscoll, hiding in the darkness, watched his opportunity to steal Ann away. there is but one help for their safe escape and that is to drop thousands of feet into a lake.

Tumblr of the Day

Val Lewton: Horror movies a distraction from war (1942)

Director Jacques Tourneur, left, and Simone Simon on the set of  CAT PEOPLE.
Get Set For Horror Pictures;
RKO Is Going To Turn 'Em Out
Big Spring Herald, Oct. 9, 1942

By ROBBIN COONS
HOLLYWOOD—Mr. Val Lewton, gentleman with a sense of humor, has the horrors.


They were wished on him by Mr. Charles Koerner, a gentleman with a cense of- business and movie titles, and Mr. Lewton is having a wonderful time. Mr. Koerner is the latest in the long line of production chiefs at
RKO. Mr. Koerner, a showman with an eye for. a showman's dollar, is out to do a job of moneymaking for the movie lot where, bearing out the old saying, nothing has been permanent except change.

Mr. Koerner picked on.Val Lewton, who used to be story editor for David O. Selznick, to make some money via the horrors. That made Val Lewton a producer. "A producer," as the Great Selinick told Val, "is the only one in pictures who has any fun."

Charlie Koerner thought people were in the mood for horror picture now. Charlie Koerner thought up some titles: "The Cat People," "Seventh Victim," "The Leopard Man," "I Walked With a Zombie.'

All Val Lewton has to do is turn out pictures to fit the titles. He has finished one. "The Cat People" is all  about a lovely girl (Simone Simon) who goes through life expecting momentarily to turn into a cat, because
her mother did. And—what do you know?—she does. She's going along peaceful as you please, minding her knitting, but the minute love (Kent Smith) hits her, she can't be sure any more, because that's when cat people turn into cats. So it's a fine, spooky how-do-you-do before the non-cat girl (Jane Randolph) lands her non-cat man.

This, of course, is based on an old Serbian legend—concocted by Val Lewton and writer DeWitt Boodeen.
Horror has led Vel Lewton and Bodeen into a picnic of research. They've been reading hundreds of books on the occult, the mysterious, the satanical—and they've learned things. Val can rattle off dozens of odd items about cats, but we'll save those for cat-lovers and another day.

He, too, seriously, is sold on horror, and here's why: "People are worried. There's a war, and whether they know it or not, they're scared. It's a very real fright—and a horror picture can be the antidote. They can sit in a theatre and look at a story that's fantastic, with no connection to reality whatever, and shudder and groan,
and tremble just as if it were real."

Horror scenes are taken for granted. Like, the 2 a.m. when the black leopard got loose on the sound stage. Setting? Dark and shadowy, an old beach scene on one side, the "Cat People" set on the other, and the leopard wandering around loose, escaped from his keeper. Death and fury stalking, and the set crowded with extras.

"That was horror," says Val Lewton. "You know how they took it? Calmly. People said, "The cat's loose—look out' and went on with their gin rummy.!"

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

"Phantom Red," the fashion hit of 1925


1925's THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was an unprecedented success. Not only was it the one of the first mainstream horror hits, but it was  also the grandfather of the entire "Universal Monsters" series of movies. Above is a department store newspaper ad from October 1925, in Bridgeport, Conn., for a business trading off the success of the film by promoting a color called "Phantom Red." A small segment of the film was shot in color, a scene showing the Phantom crashing a costume party dressed as "The Red Death." It makes me wonder what McDonald's would have done with such a marketing opportunity.

Tumblr of the Day

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

"Unnatural occurrences" plague DRACULA crew (1929)


"Famous stage play DRACULA to be at Nile Theater Monday night"
The Bakersfield Californian, July 15, 1929

There is a superstition prevalent that actors who have played in "DRACULA," the horror thriller coming to the Nile theater Monday, have been very successfully professionally, but unlucky In private affairs.

In the New York company which is seen here, many unnatural occurrences are reported to have happened prior to the New York opening. In New Haven. Conn., the stage manager, a man noted for his coolness under fire, became a temporary victim of asphasila. The leading woman lost her voice for no accountable reason. In Asbury Park, N. J., the photographer who was to take publicity scenes, fell into the orchestra pit. The focusing screen of his camera was smashed without apparently being touched by human hands. Light signals from the stage manager to the electrician went "dead" for no seeming reason.

As yet, nothing of this nature has happened to the company since it came to California.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Bela Lugosi Vs DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)

Bela Lugosi visits Gloria Holden on the set of Dracula's Daughter, 1936.
HOLLYWOOD,
by PAUL HARRISON
The Chester Times, Feb. 24, 1936

HOLLY WOOD, Feb. 24—Dracula is dead, and chief celebrant at the obsequies is Bela Lugosi.

Dracula is dead, and Lugosi. who created the monster, hopes that all memories of Dracula will die, too. Dracula made Lugosi famous and then, in true Frankenstein fashion, ruined him. The actor hopes now that he can go on being just an actor, and not a horror-master. With the movies' genius for reincarnation, nobody was sure that Dracula had drawn his last evil breath until Universal began filming "Dracula's Daughter."

Lugosi isn't even in it. The picture will show a Draculanean dummy on its bier, deader than a doornail. So Lugosi looks ahead, as he did in the days when he was a leading man in the Hungarian National Theatre, playing Ibsen, Shakespeare, and such. At 48, his days as a romantic star are over, but at least he can do a, variety of roles — most of them sympathetic ones.

He wants to justify the fan mail that Dracula used to receive. A sample: "We women can see in your eyes that you are really a good man. You should play 'sympathetic parts, too."

Own Life a Trial
There has been horror though his own life. When the war interrupted his acting he was wounded, gassed, shell-shocked, and invalided home a captain. Later hs became identified with the wrong side of one of the several revolutions which followed the collapse of the Central Powers, and fled for his life.

He appeared in German movies and sailed for America on a ship that tried its best to sink all the way across the Atlantic. He knew scarcely a word of English when he landed in New York and started out to rebuild his career.

His heavy accent might have been an insurmountable handicap if a producer hadn't seen him in a Hungarian play and recommended him for the role of "Dracula." It played three years, grossed $1,900,000, and later was made on the screen.

But the play typed Lugosi as a heeby-jeeby man. His part in the English "Mystery of the Marie Celeste" was his first return to straight drama. Recently came his part as the "good" actor opposing Boris Karloff in "The Invisible Ray," and two more sympathetic roles with follow. So Logosi seems to have shaken off Dracula's ghost.

Well Guarded
He lives in a big house surrounded by a wall and five menacing dogs to see them and the master's private arsenal, you'd think he still feared reprisal by his Hungarian political enemies of 1919. He doesn't, though. Lugosi is an American citizen, and really a very friendly fellow. He'll show you his stocks of imported wine, and the nauseous sulphur water that he drinks, and his treasured books and oil paintings. His fourth wife, a pretty girl of Hungarian descent who formerly was his secretary. She washes his shirts.

Keeps In Condition
The actor's remarkable physical condition wasn't attained without a good deal of self-discipline. He rises early, at 5 or 6 a. m., drinks fruit juice and sulphur water, calls his dogs and hikes 10 or 15 miles m the hills. Returning, he has bit more fruit juice, or maybe some raw vegetable juice. No solid food until night; then he has raw vegetables and a pound of meat, rare.

Lugosi is a cover-to-cover reader of a dozen leading national magazines. He's one of the few Hollywoodsmen who take citizenship seriously; conscientiously register and votes in every election.  Methodical too; his days are charted to the minute. Not like Hollywood, his parties consist mostly of music,
a little rare wine, and conversation.

Lugosi hasn't a single close friend in the movie business. He's voluble about his love for America but doesn't care much about Hollywood. Recently, on the occasion of their fourth wedding anniversary, he took his wife to the Trocadero. It was their first turn at night clubbing.

King King is Coming, Part 2 (1933)

In 1933, RKO produced a six-part illustrated comicstrip that ran in newspapers across the country to promote KING KONG. This is the second installment. The captions are reproduced here as they originally ran.



What queer world is this? A fifty foot ape carrying off a white girl! And now the crew of the Adventurer hurrying to rescue Ann finds minster reptiles from prehistoric ages - monsters believed non-existent for millions of years! Bullets making no dent on the dinosaur's horned hide, they try gas bombs!



Another prehistoric reptile — the Brontosaurus, astounds Denham, Driscoll and members of the crew fighting their way through jungle - and swamps to rescue Ann. The monster overturns their raft, catches men betweeen its teeth and shakes them as a terrier shakes rats. Camera prcious gas bombs and lives are lost.




What chance has pjgmy against the huge, fantastic beasts of this nightmare "Skull' Island.'' An injured Triceratops on one bank. Great, hungry crawling things beneath. On the other bank "King Kong," shaking the trees until the men fall to a hideous death in a precipice, Driscoll and Denham, escaping to opposie cliffs, watch the tragedy helplessly



Unable to move from his narrow ledge on the cliff, Driscoll stabs furiously, at the great paw of "King Kong," who has discovered him. But his knife makes no more impression than the scratch of a pip on a man's hand. A scream from Ann draws "King Kong's" attention to a new enemy.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Monster Serial: DRACULA (1931)

Welcome to the first installment of MONSTER SERIAL. During the next few months I'm going to attack some of Universal's best known franchises, starting today with a look at the original DRACULA.


DRACULA, 1931
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan, Herbert Bunston, Frances Dade, Joan Standing, Charles K. Gerrard
Directed by Tod Browning

WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? An adaptation of the 1924  stage play by written by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston, DRACULA is a second generation adaptation that takes many liberties with the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. In the film, a solicitor named Renfield falls under the thrall of a mysterious Count Dracula while visiting his home in Transylvania to discuss leasing an English abbey.The legal consultation soon turns violent as the Count and his wives attack Renfield in the night. When next we see the doomed solicitor, he's the only warm body on a ship of corpses that's sailed into an English harbor. Driven mad his experiences, Renfield is arrested and institutionalized in a London asylum. Dracula soon turns his violent attentions to the daughter of the asylum's administrator, but meets his match in Prof. Abraham Van Helsing, an unorthodox scientist with a fascination for the occult.



WHAT'S IT REALLY ABOUT? Sex. I mean, have you seen DRACULA? That photo at the top of this post pretty much summarizes the film. There are few scenes in the movie that aren't overtly about sex, particularly oral sex, starting from the moment poor Renfield sucks at a wound on his own finger. Dracula puts his mouth on half the movie's cast and doesn't appear to have a sexual preference.

Contrary to popular belief, though, it takes more than sex to hold people's attention, especially during the many decades since DRACULA was first released. If it was just some creaky old film about outdated sexual mores, who would care? But there's something else going on in the film that continues to speak to audiences, even if we have to listen a little harder these days to hear the message. DRACULA is more than just a movie about sexual confusion. It's a movie about fear of the future.

The many subtexts of DRACULA are well established. So much of what people take away from the story depends on when and where they first experience it. It's been called a story about repressive homo- and heterosexuality, xenophobia, a Biblical parable, class warfare and just about anything else you want to read into it. Complicating matters are the great many unanswered questions, the most pressing being "Why did Dracula travel to England?" The 1931 movie makes no effort to answer this question (or any of the other riddles of the novel), deciding instead to hang its entire narrative on a conflict in belief systems.


DRACULA is a movie about the fear of change, a warning for us not to abandon superstition without first putting it to the rigours of the scientific method. It's a concept that gives the film an unusual perspective, to say the least. Dracula's nemesis in the film, Abraham Van Helsing, has the unpleasant task of informing the cast that adherence to logic and reason have left them open to attack from a mythical being. This is Van Helsing's traditional role in just about every variation of the Dracula story: the learned academic who has more faith in superstition than science. In one scene, Van Helsing paraphrases Charles Baudelaire while advising that the vampire's greatest weapon is convincing the world he doesn't exist. You won't find many scientists, then or now, with the balls to say something like that out loud.

While the character of Dracula challenges the beliefs of the movie's characters, the movie stands as a (not entirely well-reasoned) defense of faith. The story demands the cast and audience believe in something that can't be scientifically proven, and invents a monster as "evidence" of the importance of faith. DRACULA is a fun film, but has a prominent anti-intellectual bias. But that's true for most horror films, which tend to devolve a game of  "Kill the Freak" during the final reels.


WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye, mostly. Lugosi's screen presence, especially in DRACULA, can't be overstated. He's amazing in the film, and brings a theatricality to the role that immediately puts him at odds with the younger, mostly American cast. I can't really call what he does in DRACULA "acting" because his performance is raw charisma, but I can't think of another actor of his time who could have pulled off this role. If you think it's easy, watch the Spanish language version of DRACULA released in the same year. It manages to do just about everything better than the Tod Browning film except in the casting of its leading man.

I can't say enough good things about Dwight Frye, either. His work in Dracula is a legitimate performance, presenting Renfield (no first name is ever given) as both a foppish sophisticate and an unhinged maniac. Renfield is hugely sympathetic in the film. He's not only the movie's heart, but which the story's ironic voice of reason, too. In one scene he interrupts a conersation about vampires by asking "Isn't this a strange conversation for men who aren't crazy?" It's a simultaneously witty and tragic moment. If Frye were a young man today, I've no doubt his professional calender would be a busy one.


Edward Van Sloan is also impressive as Van Helsing. There's an unspoken respect between Van Helsing and Dracula in this film, which makes their conflict especially interesting. The best scenes in the movie involve these two actors, which brings us to ...

IS IT TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Outside of Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloan, the cast is terrible. Helen Chandler's life was fucked up enough without heaping posthumous scorn upon her, but she's got crazy eyes and comes across in the film like a condescending bitch. David Manners does what he can with the role of Jonathan Harker, a role that's defeated better actors*, but he mostly just stands around and adds perspective to the photography. There were a few other actors in the movie, but you'll have forgotten about them before the movie's over.


Speaking of the movie's end, I'm not sure what was taking place behind the scenes of DRACULA, but there must have been some kind of trouble. DRACULA doesn't end as much as it just ... stops. We get a two-second music cue to tell us the ending is a happy one and THE END. Had I seen this movie in the theater in 1931, I would have been sure the projectionist had dropped a reel somewhere.

I love Tod Browning. I don't think you get movies like FREAKS, DRACULA and WHITE ZOMBIE on your résumé unless you know what you're doing. But DRACULA is a jumble of unfocused ideas, ranging from the weird (the vampire beetle with his tiny beetle coffin) to the offensive (the asylum orderly who's constantly badgering Renfield and calling him "flyeater" and "crazy.")

Some of the movie's problems come from adapting the stage play, which has been popular among casual audiences despite being less-than-loved by fans of the original novel. The play makes numerous concessions to consolidate the story for the stage, concessions that were unnecessary for a movie. DRACULA has an epic feel at the start, but becomes stagebound during its second half. Not even the stellar camerawork of Karl Freund could make the climax of DRACULA look anything other than stagey.


Ultimately, the elements trimmed from the story to make it fit onto a Broadway stage undermine many of the movie's messages about faith and the misguided devotion to reason. Dracula, a creature of superstition, tried to adapt to metropolitan life and failed spectacularly. It's not faith or righteousness that triumphs, but Dracula's own inability to fit in that brings him to his doom. I don't know how long he survived in Transylvania (a century? more?) but he lasted only a few weeks in London before someone caught wise and stuck a piece of timber through his heart. If it hadn't been Van Helsing, it would have been someone else. The guy was running around the woods the woods at night in a tuxedo ... how did he expect that WOULDN'T draw attention? (This failure to adapt is directly addressed in the novel. Dracula escapes England and flees to the relative safety of his castle in Transylvania.)

VERDICT: This is certified classic, and I have no intention of disputing it's standing. I love every weird, malformed frame of film that makes up DRACULA, even if I can't endorse its every failing. If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you've already seen it, watch it again. And make sure you tell me what you think about the movie in the comments below.

Up Next: DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)

*Yeah, I just did that.

Ape Vs. Tyrannosaurs in KING KONG (1932)


"King Kong Planned To Thrill Picture Audiences" 
The Laredo Times, May14, 1933

With a sensational mixture of the prehistoric and the modern in a story of fantastic imagination, RKO-Radio makes a bid for an all-time record with its spectacular production, "KING KONG," featuring Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong and Bruce Cabot and in the same role a great animated 10-foot-ape, built to a proportion comparable with monsters of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, "King Kong" will be presented at the Rialto Theater 3 days more.

As a production, "King Kong" was two and a half years in the making. Early in 1929 the first research inquiry was sent to leading paleontologists throughout the world. The studio had a vital interest in the appearance and habit of such primitive monsters as the pterodactyl, the brontosaurus, the tyrannosaurus and the dinosaur.

Did these formidable creatures, now extinct, run, hop, or fly when in fast pursuit of their prey? What, exactly, were their proportions? Active reconstructions of such monsters were to enact roles in the motion picture. It took a year and a half of tremendous work to collect the data, assemble it for practical purposes and construct dozens of reptilian and other monsters in exact scale. During that time and before a camera crank  was turned, the studio had created the largest and most varied collection of prehistoric colossi in the United States.

Man-Made Monsters
In the early part of 1932 Merian C. Cooper, world traveler, adventurer and associate producer for RKO-Radio Pictures, started filming operations with director Ernest B. Schoedsack, his old partner on many foreign trails.

It wasn't just a case of pointing a camera at a group of people. Scores of creatures dating back into the dawn of life had to be animated in smooth motion and in relation to the normal movements of human beings opposite to whom they were to perform. The methods employed in constructing them and photographing them are known to no one outside of Cooper. Schoedsack and their scientist assistants.

In Terrific Combat
The magnitude of their year's task at the camera is clearly seen in the results. One scene shows a battle between the mammoth ape and a tyrannosaurs, largest of prehistoric reptiles.

Still another is a desperate running fight between this giant ape, "King Kong," and scores of men while a white girl is held tightly clutched in the beast's paw. The most spectacular scene of all concludes the picture. "King Kong,'' seeking to escape the torments of man climbs the tallest structure in New York, and there, with the girl at his feet, waves a losing battle against a squadron of army pursuit and bombing planes.

It is said that the prodigious phantasy "King Kong" makes insignificant any film heretofore produced.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...