Breaking News
Loading...
Saturday 25 September 2010

Info Post



I'd like to preface this by extending thanks to those who requested films for me to view and write about. I appreciate your readership and involvement! So, without further ado:


Dracula's Daughter (1936)


Apparently (according to this marvelous book about Universal horror), this was to have been filmed by James Whale from a script by R. C. Sherriff which was a loose adaptation of Bram Stoker's short story, Dracula's Guest. It would have been something of a prequel, beginning in the middle ages, with the count ravaging the land and abducting women, one of whom would become his adoptive daughter. The story would then flash forward to shortly after the events of the first film, focusing on said daughter. It seems this take was rejected outright for having such "horrific and sexual implications". I personally would have preferred that to the resulting effort, especially if Bela Lugosi would have reprised his role as the Count.


What we have in its stead is a bizarre, leaden affair with some admittedly decent atmosphere, but an unfortunate preponderance of vaudeville and Keystone cops styled humor. It picks up in the crypt of Carfax Abbey with Edward VanSloan's Van Helsing confessing his murder of Dracula to two policeman who promptly arrest him. In custody, he pleads with the chief of Scotland Yard to send for Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger), a former student of his whose eminence in the field of Psychiatry is inexplicably supposed to help prove his innocence. Meanwhile, a strange, mannish woman (Gloria Holden playing the Countess Maria Zaleska) absconds with her father's corpse and cremates it in an effort to free her from the curse of vampirism. This rite does not have the desired effect, so Zaleska fixates on Garth and his Psychiatry to either release her from the bonds of eternal hunger, or failing that, to join her in damnation.


The problems with the film are many. The aforementioned humor, never my favorite element in genre fare, is disproportionate and totally at odds with the tone of the film. Kruger is a terrible lead. A chain smoking, ugly bully of a man. A puny gadfly that is never heroic or likable, let alone seemingly capable of offering any help to the Countess, VanHelsing or his kidnapped secretary he rushes off to ostensibly save in the third act. I frankly can't imagine what it is he's supposed to do for anybody here, so his character is pointless. Gloria Holden as Dracula's Daughter fares better. She has a striking look, that of the haunted, haunting kind. But her presence is undermined by the decision to present her ordeal as a psychological malady as opposed to a supernatural curse. This esoteric approach was done deftly in the Val Lewton RKO thrillers of the 40's, however here it's a total misfire, robbing the film of any right to refer to itself as horror. Much has been made of the purported Sapphic underpinnings that sailed past the censors at the Breen office, but it's much ado about nothing really.


It's not entirely without its charms though. VanSloan is always a welcome presence and the androgynous brute Sandor (Irving Pichel) who serves as the Countess' right hand man is a marvelously off putting heavy with a wonderfully sonorous speaking voice I could have stood to hear a great deal more of. It is an interesting film, if not a successful one.


Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)


The last significant monstrous creation from the studio, coming more than a decade past the horror heyday of the 30's and early 40's, The Creature is something of an anomaly. Science fiction/Adventure film at heart, the film eschews the blue print of a Gothic, old world European setting for the Amazonian jungle in then modern day. A group of scientists funded by a wealthy, assholish entrepreneur journey down the Amazon in search of the fabled Black Lagoon and the unspoiled wonders they expect to discover contained therein. They of course encounter the Creature, an aquatic missing link who seems intent on carrying off the fetching Kay (Julia Adams), the paramour of the expeditions lead scientist (Richard Carlson). They clash with the Creature several times after he makes some unwanted amorous advances on our understandably recalcitrant heroine, inexorably leading to a violent confrontation between man and fish-man.


I've never been a big fan of this film, but hats off to Voodoo Doll from the Deadpit boards who recommended it to me, cause this viewing really did the trick. It's fascinating how forward thinking and compassionate toward that which we do not understand this film is. Sure, it's action packed and contains the prerequisite monster attacks and human reprisals, but a great deal of lip service is payed to the plight of the natural world and how a commerce based society tends to ruthlessly infringe upon the environment in the interests of financial gain and personal glory. Richard Carlson is remarkable as the lead. The total antithesis of Otto Kruger in Dracula's Daughter, he's thoughtful, compassionate and heroic in a way that makes him a joy to root for and the sort of action film lead we could do with a bit more of these days. Once he's ensured the safety of his woman and crew, he calls off the attack on the Creature, allowing it to slink back into the swamp. A refreshing change of pace to the mass murdering lunkheads who've populated the silver screen this last summer.


The Creature himself is an astonishing example of make-up FX that was surely considered the apotheosis of the craft in its day. The stunt swimming by Riccou Browning adds a believable physicality and credible menace to the monster. The underwater sequences are clearly filmed in a set dressed tank, but, far from detracting from the film, benefits it by lending an eerie, otherworldly atmosphere. In fact, all the film making is beyond reproach. The action scenes are masterfully edited and the underwater photography is crystal clear. All the while choreographed in such a manner that it's clear where people are in relation to the Creature at all times, a much appreciated detail, oft overlooked by today's film makers. All in all, this is an excellent example of film making and open minded, respectful science fiction and I recommend it highly.



The Invisible Man (1933)


Fresh off the monumental success of Frankenstein (1931), individualistic auteur James Whale brought this wicked tale of science, horror and madness to cackling life. The story is simple: A lone man (in possibly the most gloriously atmospheric opening in all of Universal horror) trudges into town through a blizzard, pelted by snow and howling, maniacal winds. He enters the local tavern/inn, cutting a peculiar figure, his face completely bandaged, wearing black goggles and a fake nose. He demands a room, to which he retires and begins performing clandestine scientific experiments with unknown chemicals. After some time dealing with his cursing and general orneriness, the innkeeper attempts to eject him, at which point he reveals that he is completely invisible. He discards all his clothing and runs rampant through the town, mischievously tormenting the villagers on his way out. This creates a panic throughout the countryside and as he forcibly enlists the assistance of a former colleague, law enforcement officials alert the public to this unseen deviant in their midst. A cat and mouse game ensues, with the Invisible Man losing touch with his sanity and humanity, and what was pranksterish tomfoolery rapidly escalates to murder and mass scale terrorism.


Good lord what a wildly entertaining film! James Whale's penchant for dark cynicism, morbid humor and dry wit is given free reign here and the results are brutally hilarious. It's actually kind of shocking to see what a nasty, unrepentant son of a bitch the Invisible Man becomes with the many stranglings, beatings and bludgeonings he inflicts upon the terrified and unwitting. Whale's endlessly inventive use of peculiar camera angles are matched note for note by John P. Fulton's groundbreaking optical effects in this campy symphony of horrors. Special mention must also be made of the performance of Claude Rains as the titular menace. His harsh baritone barks orders and threats as if he were born to do so and he convincingly portrays the characters bitter frustration and eventual descent into an outright megalomaniac.


I can appreciate the humor in a Whale horror film much more than his contemporaries. There's a winking intelligence behind it and one can't help but picture the erudite English gentleman behind the camera giggling with delight at the mayhem he's orchestrating. One caveat though: I know Whale had a profound affinity for Una O'connor and her shrieking histrionics, and I can tolerate her in small doses in Bride of Frankenstein, but he could have reined her in a bit on this one. Her over the top caterwauling threatens to make some of the first 20 minutes a tad tortuous. That minor complaint aside, this is a playful, clever and pitch black film. Shockingly violent and malevolent for the time, it's every bit as entertaining today as it no doubt was when first released.


Thanks again to all for the recommendations. This has been so much fun I'm going to follow it up with a slate of films featuring the inimitable Bela Lugosi. See you all for Part 2!


0 comments:

Post a Comment