Showing posts with label Tod Browning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tod Browning. Show all posts

Monday, March 18, 2013

Bela Lugosi in THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR (1929)



"Weird effects in mystery talker"
The Chronicle Telegram
Nov. 13, 1929

Microphones that follow actors through doors, and cameras that that whirl over their heads in fantastic arabesques furnish the uncanny effects in the strangest drama of the year. Tod Browning's talking film production of "THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR." which comes tomorrow to the Capitol Theatre.

With Margaret Wycherly in the role she created in the stage play, and Bela Lugosi, creator of the role of "Dracula," as the uncanny detective, the creepy, gripping drama of the stage was filmed with many effects impossible before the footlights.

The uncanny seance is sensational denoucement and the details of the strange murder plot in Mysterious India, are all produced with strange light effects, sinister shadows and other remarkable detail.

Monday, July 23, 2012

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

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."'

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.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Lugosi vows to never again play DRACULA (1931)


Spooks Will Invade Strand Theatre 
Wednesday 10:30 p.m.
The Kingsport Times, June 12, 1931.

One of the most famous of all actors on stage or screen would like to forget the character that made him famous! Audiences on Broadway were thrilled for more than two years by his artistry; millions of picture fans throughout the country are being fascinated by the startling impersonation he gives on the screen. But the character haunts him, and he never wants to play it again.

The actor is Bela Lugosi, and the character is Count Dracula in the most startling of all plays or pictures — "Dracula." Bram Stoker, the famous English novelist, wrote it first as a novel — this terrifying narration of an "undead" being who rises from his grave at night and through his horrible influence brings death and suffering to his victims.

For more than a thousand nights, Lugosi played it in the theatre. Then when the Universal Studios decided to produce the great story as a picture, Lugosi was the natural choice for the role he had made so famous on
the stage. At first, it was difficult to prevail upon him to appear on the screen. He had lived with the horrible vampire character so long on the stage that he wanted to forget, and how could he forget if  he played it again on the screen?

But he finally consented, and  for weeks at the Universal City studios while the picture was in production, he lived again the startling', fantastic role of Count Dracula. Those who have seen both play and picture assert that his impersonation for the films is even greater than his stage work.

But, now that the picture is finished and shortly to be shown at the Strand Theatre, Lugosi says he will nver play the role again.And Lugosi's determination is in itself a great tribute to his ability as an actor. If he had  been able to act the part mechanically —had not thrown himself heart and soul into the role—it would not have the terrors that it now has. But a great artist does not play mechanically, and Lugosi is a great artist.  Thus, each night in the theatre and for many days at the picture studios, his nervous system has been  subjected to a terrible strain.


"Dracula" brought him fame and fortune, but Lugosi, wants more than anything else, to escape from Count Dracula. It is well, however, that he die not reach this decision before the marking of the picture—well for the millions of fans who will be fascinated by his great work on the screen.

When "Dracula" is shown at the Strand Theatre, local theatre-goers will see one of the most remarkable casts ever assembled. Besides Lugosi, two other, players of the original stage cast appear — Edward Van Sloan and Herbert Bunston. In addition, there are many other favorites, including David Manners, Helen Chandler, Dwight Frye, Francis Dade, Charles Gerrard and Joan Standing.Tod Browning, creator of weird and unusual films, directed the picture.

In addition to .the feature, "Dracula," there will be a stage show in the form of Ali-Din. Ali-Din will present a spook party featuring spirit slate writing, talking skulls and handkerchiefs taring into snakes.

The admission will be the same to everyone. No half fare tickets will be sold as the program is not recommended for children under twelve. The box office opens at 10:15 — program starts at 10:45.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...