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.

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 IT?  SON 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

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.

Tumblr of the Day

HOUSE OF WAX, 1953

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

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)