Kiss My Review

Mark of the Vampire - 1935

2012-02-24T21:27:00.000-06:00

Director: Tod Browning

Screenplay: Guy Endore, Bernard Schubert

Photography: James Wong Howe

Editor: Ben Lewis

Art Director: Cedric Gibbons

Associates: Harry Oliver, Edwin B. Willis

Recording Director: Douglas Shearer

Gowns: Adrian

Cast

Professor Zelen Lionel Barrymore

Irena Elizabeth Allan

Count Mora Bela Lugosi

Inspector Neumann Lionel Atwill

Baron Otto Jean Hersholt

Fedor Henry Wadsworth

Dr. Doskil Donald Meek

Jan Ivan Simpson

Chauffeur Franklyn Ardell

Maria Leila Bennett

Luna Carol Borland **

Sir Karell Homes Herbert

Innkeeper Michael Visaroff

** Carroll Borland's name is spelled Carol Borland in the credits, and

in other publications is spelled Caroll

“Mark of the Vampire” was made at MGM studios in 1935. Among the major studios, Universal was leading the pack in terms of horror in those days with Paramount probably a close second. MGM was way behind and trying to play catch up with this film. It is actually a remake of one of their silent Lon Chaney vehicles, “London after Midnight” from 1922. That film has been lost for decades, but one can hope that a print may turn up someday. “Mark of the Vampire” was MGM’s stab at duplicating “Dracula”, even to hiring the same director, Tod Browning.

Poster for "London After Midnight"

Right off the bat (or should I say, fake bat suspended by wires), let me say that this review will be full of spoilers. It’s difficult to discuss this movie without giving away the big plot “twist”. So if you have never seen the movie but plan to, and want to preserve the element of surprise, then stop now. Actually, if you can make it through to the end of the movie without your head exploding, THAT will be a bigger surprise than the plot.

“Mark of the Vampire” is one of the most confounding movies I have ever seen. The story is engineered with the precision of a watchmaker. Unfortunately that would be a watchmaker who is all thumbs and the final product runs about as efficiently as a water-logged cuckoo clock. Especially coming from a major studio, it contains more contrivances per frame of film than in any other silly flick I’ve seen. Compared to this, the plot of “The Mummy’s Curse” (see elsewhere on this blog) looks like the pinnacle of crystal clarity.

It is set in 1934 Czechoslovakia, (it’s original title was “Vampires of Prague”). Wealthy Sir Karell Borotyn has been murdered, his body found with two small puncture marks on the neck and drained of blood. The local doctor as well as all the villagers believe that this was the work of a vampire. Sir Karrel’s best friend Baron Otto is the next door neighbor and now becomes guardian to Sir Karell’s daughter, Irena. Inspector Neumann arrives from Prague to investigate the murder. He doesn’t believe in vampires, and the inquest is inconclusive.

We move on to a year later. Irena and her fiancé Fedor are about to get married. Before the wedding can take place, Fedor is attacked. He can’t remember what happened, but he has two bite marks on his neck. The vampire has struck again!! Sir Karells’s castle has been empty since his death, since Irena has been living in the guardian’s home. The villagers have a legend about vampires known as Count Mora and his daughter Luna. Creepy characters have been seen lurking around the castle, presumably the vampires . Bats are seen around the countryside, and the Count and Luna are seen in the shadows by the roadside frightening passersby.

Irena is attacked next. Professor Zelen, an expert on the occult, is brought in to investigate the weird goings on, and by golly he recognizes the work of a vampire when he sees it. He confides in the inspector and Baron Otto to help him defend Irena, and destroy the monsters.

Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore - right) pontificates to Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill - left), and Baron Otto (Jean Hersholt - middle)

As the panic grows, the professor goes through the usual spiel explaining what vampires are, for anyone in the audience who still doesn’t know. To make matters worse, Sir Karell has been seen walking in the neighborhood as one of the undead, much to Irena’s dismay. The inspector is still skeptical, until he and Baron Otto find Sir Karell’s coffin empty. They also peek through the window of the old castle and see Sir Karell, Count Mora and Luna acting all vampire-y. They see Luna seeming to fly from the balcony down to the floor, just like a bat!

Luna makes her landing.

As the professor leads his team into the castle to destroy the vampires, Irena is brought to the castle by Luna. Irena breaks down at the sight of her father, saying she can’t go on with it anymore. Now all is revealed to be a hoax which she is in on. The inspired scheme was to create this vampire scenario and shock a confession from the Baron when he sees the “resurrected Sir Karell” – the man he is suspected of murdering a year ago. Sir Karell is being impersonated by an actor, who just happens to look and sound exactly like the dead man.

The professor and inspector talk Irena into continuing with their carefully crafted charade. Baron Otto has been hypnotized by the professor to bid him replay the events of the evening of the murder one year ago. Irena and the phony Sir Karell act out their parts as the spellbound Baron arrives at the house and chats with the man he believes is his old friend. He puts what he thinks are knock-out drops into Sir Karell’s wine and then bids his friend a warm goodnight. After he leaves, Sir Karell drinks the wine and appears to pass out. The Baron re-enters and attempts to complete the murder. His motive? – he wants Irena for himself. He is interrupted by the Inspector, and the professor who brings him out of his hypnotic state. They have trapped their murderer. Whew!

We then cut to the final brief scene in a dressing room. We see “Count Mora” and “Luna” taking off their costumes and makeup and congratulating themselves on a wonderful performance. Their trunk is marked with the sign “Luna The Bat Woman”. One of the actors is putting the props away, including the wings we saw Luna flying around with earlier. They are actors who had been hired by the professor to impersonate vampires.

Holy smokes! That may have been long, but……hey!.... YOU try summarizing all that. And this is only the barest outline of the convoluted plot.

Lionel Barrymore has star billing. This very talented actor, who had many, many fine performances under his belt, plays his part as a combination of Groucho Marx and a community theater version of “Dracula’s” Professor Van Helsing. Actually, his eyebrows do most of the emoting. He raises and waves them like flags in shock, worry, scorn, anger or pretty much anything else. He rocks back and forth on his heels as he belittles or talks down to his audience, or as he whips the servants and the Baron into a terrified frenzy as he yells at them to make sure a weed he calls bat-thorn is placed on every door and window. He bobs up and down to demonstrate agitation, and throws his arms out and opens his eyes wide to register surprise. His speeches go on at great length and usually turn around on themselves with circular logic. Here is one small example:

Professor: “During the hours of darkness the vampire can’t even be harmed, let alone destroyed.”

Inspector: “If they can’t be destroyed then we are wasting time!”

Professor: (shouting angrily) “I DIDN’T SAY THEY CAN’T BE DESTROYED!!”

Well, actually you did.

This distinguished actor may have decided to just have some fun and earn a paycheck at the same time (the Sir Anthony Hopkins of his day). Or, it may be that even though he was one of THE Barrymores -- brother of John and Ethel, the First Family of the American Stage and Screen, etc.-- he was just as capable as anyone of being a ham. Or, it’s possible that he is overacting the part because he is playing someone who is playing a part – trying to convince Baron Otto that all this nonsense is true. His hysterical performance might be a little easier to take once you realize the role he is really playing. But frankly, it doesn’t make it any easier for me. Edward Van Sloan as “Dracula’s” Professor Van Helsing is subdued and dignified and much easier to believe as someone who knows of what he speaks.

Donald Meek, Lionel Barrymore and Jean Hersholt

As happens so often in films and plays, the servants in our film exist primarily to provide comic relief. The only problem is that they aren’t funny and are frequently very annoying, particularly the maid. Actor Donald Meek who plays the cowardly, gullible local doctor is much more genuinely amusing. He was in movies for twenty years until his death in 1946, and played countless roles. His characters frequently could be described best by the actor’s surname. Donald Meek is one of my favorite old-time character actors and his name in the credits is always welcome.

Another very welcome name is Lionel Atwill. Here he provides his patented gruff disdain for simple-minded superstition. Atwill had to have been in more horror films of the 1930’s and 40’s than any other actor. He was always strong and stalwart whether playing a mad scientist (“Doctor X”, “Ghost of Frankenstein”, “The Vampire Bat”, "Man Made Monster"), the local inspector/mayor/etc. (“Son of Frankenstein”, “Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman”, "House of Frankenstein", "House of Dracula") or some other type of madman ("Murders in the Zoo", “Mystery of the Wax Museum”). In addition, he showed off his comedic talent in the 1942 Jack Benny/Carole Lombard film “To Be or Not to Be”.

The name Jean Hersholt will be familiar to anyone who has ever watched the Academy Awards. The Danish born actor was popular in both leading and character roles in everything from the villain in von Stroheim’s silent “Greed”, to the kindly small town Dr. Christian in the radio/movie/TV series named for that character. He was presented with two honorary Oscars in 1940 and 1950 for his work in founding the Motion Picture Relief Fund. The annual award for humanitarian work still bears his name.

In “Mark of the Vampire” Hersholt does great work with a tricky role. Most of the time Baron Otto appears genuinely honest and caring. We see his other side as his face instantly changes from gentle warmth to cold ruthlessness when he unknowingly re-enacts the murder of his friend. That moment could easily have been over-acted buffoonery, but he renders it with finesse.

Elizabeth Allan plays Irena with grace and intelligence, never playing down to the material. Irena is a similar character to the heroine ‘Mina’ played by Helen Chandler in “Dracula”.

Henry Wadsworth has the colorless, thankless David Manners-type role as the fiancée who is useless in a crisis. He is often in a state of full or near unconsciousness. His biggest contribution is to suggest that the best thing he can do for Irena is to take her away from all the danger as soon as possible, only to be shot down immediately by the irate professor. The same scene was played out with the characters of Jonathan Harker and Professor Van Helsing in “Dracula”.

Caroll Borland inhabits the role of Luna. She was a teenager when she saw Lugosi in a re-release of the movie “Dracula” and developed a crush on the much older actor. She started a correspondence with him and they eventually met. Borland landed a small role in a revival of the play, and spent a great deal of time with Lugosi becoming a close friend. She has no lines as the vampire girl here; she speaks one line in the final scene as the actress. Her vampire look – the white face and long, long hair-- has become iconic.


Elizabeth Allan as Irena, and Carol Borland as Luna

Bela Lugosi plays Count Mora. Well, he plays the actor playing Count Mora. He also has no lines until the scene in the actor’s dressing room. Lugosi has the most delightful moment in the movie, as he swirls his cape around while announcing to the others that he was great in his role of the Count: “I gave ALL of me!” His unimpressed actor colleagues respond to this by telling him to take off his makeup and help put the props away. It’s a nice little touch of self-parody on Lugosi’s part.

Bela Lugosi as Count Mora, looking particularly sinister

By the way, you notice a dark blotch on the right side of Lugosi’s temple? That is a bit of plot that did not get explained in the final script. Originally, Count Mora was supposed to have murdered Luna and killed himself with a bullet to the temple, after an incestuous relationship. I can’t really imagine how that would have been handled in the film. But I suppose it was too late to change Lugosi’s makeup, so Count Mora’s strange look remained a mystery.

Which brings me to the subject of how much of “Dracula” was ripped off by MGM in this movie. Here are some bits that I have noticed which are either identical or very similar in both films:

The opening scene with villagers, including cooing baby in cradle, praying to protect themselves from the demons.
The local innkeeper explaining to the English travelers why it is dangerous to travel on their roads at night.
Michael Visaroff plays the innkeeper role in both films.
As the Count and Luna descend the stairs in the creepy castle it is obvious that the set is almost identical to the Universal “Dracula” set.
As they walk down the stairs, they appear to have walked through a huge cobweb without disturbing it.
In the castle we see shots of little critters -- bugs, spiders and possums. Sadly, “Mark of the Vampire” has no armadillos.
A scene between Irena and Fedor sitting on a divan near the terrace, is very similar to a scene between Mina and Jonathan Harker in “Dracula”.

Count Mora and Luna in "Mark of the Vampire"'s creepy castle

Castle in 1931 "Dracula"

And here are a few things that drive me nuts about the movie:

In spite of all the precautions, all the bat thorn on the windows and doors, the vampires come and go in the house at will. Whenever the professor announces that the house is now safe, you can rest assured that it isn’t.

Count Mora making himself at home

There is so much confusion in the house -- vampires showing up willy-nilly, the servants running in and out of rooms screaming, chopped up non-sequitor conversations held in different rooms – it’s more like a door slamming bedroom farce than a horror/mystery.
The names Zelen, and Borotyn are pronounced differently by different characters. Borotyn is sometimes pronounced Baratin, BORotin, BoroTEEN, or BoRRRotin. Lionel Barrymore prounounces it differently in each scene. Continuity, please!!!
The way the professor barks at everyone. Most of the others are either "fools!" or "idiots!"

The castle is full of dust thick over everything, and cobwebs everywhere. But a few minutes later when Irena and the fake Sir Karell are acting their part for the Baron, everything is tidy and spotless. There were some very speedy cleaning elves at work there!
The actors playing Count Mora and Luna are CONSTANTLY living their parts, even when no one is around. When the inspector and the Baron are peeking in the window they just happen to catch Luna "flying" like a bat. That is some precise staging. Or else, Luna is flying around every few minutes, just in case someone is looking.
Every single time, and by that I mean, every single time that we either see the creepy old castle, or the vampires no matter where they are, we hear a soundtrack of low moaning and groaning. I suppose it is atmospheric and perhaps it is effective in a way. However, I found it annoying after the first few times. It reminded me of a very funny line from the movie "Love at First Bite". Count Dracula, played by George Hamilton, is playing the piano in his castle. Wolves are howling outside, very loudly. He finally becomes so exasperated with the interruption that he yells at them: "Children of the night! SHUT UP!!" That is what I wanted to say to "Mark of the Vampire".

George Hamilton as Count Vladimir Dracula in "Love at First Bite"

The trick of draining the body of blood? Just use a pair of small pincers to make the holes, then hold a water glass above a flame, and then put the glass over the wound. I'll let the professor explain it: "the hot glass over the wound creates a powerful suction". Really ?? And that glass is going to hold eight pints of blood? Really??
There is a third vampire in the castle scenes. He has no lines of dialogue, he is simply seen sitting or walking around. He is not named, not identified nor referred to in any way. There were some scenes edited out of the final version of the film, so possibly he was explained in one of those bits. However, never fear! I may have this figured out. In the movie's final scene the same man is playing one of the actors putting props away, so he must have been pressed into service to play a vampire in the professor's plot. But who was his character? I think I have that too -- during the inquest the doctor says that a farmer had been killed and that he saw the same marks on the neck of that victim. So maybe this guy was supposed to be the undead farmer. Or maybe I just need to pour myself a drink, relax, and not think about it any more.

(from left to right) Luna, "Sir Karell", unknown vampire guy, Count Mora

Even before the murder, villagers are talking about the vampires that haunt the castle. I guess we are supposed to think that Baron Otto has been running around for months faking vampire attacks. Or else, someone else was doing it, or maybe there was …..I give up. I have a vision of all the writers on this movie, and there were quite a few, being locked up in separate rooms. They are told to each write a page of script. When all the pages are assembled they are thrown up in the air, and however they come down, that’s how the movie is shot.

The thing about this movie that is more than annoying or confusing is the lame, inexcusable device that the “vampires” are just actors. That kind of trick would be unthinkable today. But even in 1935 it had to be a disappointment to many in the audience.

“Dracula” in 1931 was the first American talking horror film that did not have a logical non-supernatural finale. It left us with the thought that vampires are very real. Before that, Hollywood movies had reassured audiences that all was well and there was nothing that could not be explained. The mystery could always be cleared up by showing us that the “monster” was some bad guy wearing a mask. Horror films finally had started to grow up in 1931. But “Mark of the Vampire” took a step backwards, treating the audience like children who need to be comforted at bedtime. Phooey!!

MGM threw a lot of money and talent at this project in terms of director, photographer, production designer and actors. (I suppose you could look at this and imagine what Tod Browning could have done with “Dracula” in 1931 if he had the money and prestige of MGM behind him instead of Universal.) In spite of the glossy look of the film-- it is beautifully photographed by James Wong Howe-- it remains one of the most disappointing, perhaps THE most disappointing movie for horror fans – old time horror fans at least. The “twist” is so ridiculous it is insulting.

However, if you can just sit back and watch it as a bit of movie history and not take it seriously; if you can think of it as a silly fairy tale, you might be able to enjoy it. Having said all that, and this may sound unlikely, but I think that if you watch it for a second time, you will enjoy it more than you did the first time you viewed it.

By the way, the funniest line in the movie is spoken by Inspector Neumann:

"We all thought our vampire scheme was so simple, so certain of success. We never thought we'd fail."

Are you kidding??? “Inception” had a simpler plan.

Obviously, if you have made it all the way through this review then you have either already seen “Mark of the Vampire”, or don’t care about knowing in advance a movie’s surprise ending. But, as your faithful reviewer I promise to always let you know if there are any plot spoilers in what I write.

Oh, by the way… Rosebud was his sled, Kevin Spacey was Keyser Söze, and Bruce Willis was already dead.

Island of Lost Souls - 1933

2012-02-11T21:34:00.047-06:00

“What is The Law?

Not to run on all fours. That is The Law. Are we not men?

What is The Law?

Not to eat meat. That is The Law. Are we not men?

What is The Law?

Not to spill blood. That is The Law. Are we not men?

His is the hand that makes!

His is the hand that heals!

His is the House of Pain!”

Director: Erle C. Kenton

Screenplay: Waldemar Young, Philip Wylie

(from the novel "The Island of Dr. Moreau" by

H.G. Wells)

Photgraphy: Karl Struss

Art Direction: Hans Drier

Makeup: Wally Westmore

Cast

Doctor Moreau Charles Laughton

Edward Parker Richard Arlen

Ruth Thomas Leila Hyams

Sayer of the Law Bela Lugosi

Panther Woman Kathleen Burke

Montgomery Arthur Hohle

M'Ling Tetsu Komai

Capt. Davies Stanley Fields

Donohue Paul Hurst

Ouran Hans Steinke

"Island of Lost Souls”, released in January of 1933, is one of the classic horror movies that is less well known and seen much less often than others such as “Frankenstein”. It was considered shocking at the time of its release; and still has power to, if not shock, at least to surprise, maybe to disturb, and possibly to horrify.

Although the Production Code was not in full effect in 1933, some things were considered too offensive to be allowed by censors. It was banned in

England

until 1958. Local authorities everywhere had the power to edit out from their copy of the film whatever was too raw for their delicate sensibilities. The film was chopped up in many different ways in different places, and only recently has been restored to its original form.

In 1932 movie studios were feeling the effects of the Depression. Declining numbers of patrons meant declining ticket sales which meant declining profits. Several studios were to declare bankruptcy in the early 30’s. However, Universal had done well with “Dracula” and “Frankenstein” in 1931, and Paramount’s film adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” became one of the top ten money makers of 1932.

Paramount had a reputation for classy, expensive productions drawing from their deep pool of talent . Frederick March won an Oscar for his dual portrayal of Jekyll and Hyde. For the part of Ivy, the flirtatious and alluring dance hall girl who had the misfortune to catch the eye of Mr. Hyde, the studio chose blonde Miriam Hopkins. She had signed with the studio in 1930 after a successful Broadway career, and Ivy was one of her first big film roles. The movie mixed sex with prestige, utilizing a suggestive script and lingering shots of Miriam Hopkins legs, with classic literary source material and an A-list cast. Horror movies seemed to be the wave to ride, so Paramount tried to duplicate their success with a similar project for 1933. Horror, mixed with sex of course.

Miriam Hopkins as Ivy -- tempting Dr. Jekyll

The 1896 novel “The Island of Doctor Moreau”, written by H.G. Wells was selected as their next horror project. The book tells the story of a castaway who finds himself on a small island occupied by Doctor Moreau, a scientist who had to leave

England

due to public outrage over his notorious experiments. The other occupants of the island are the half-man, half-beast results of Moreau’s surgical attempts to create humans from animals. The book had a strong anti-vivisection message and was instrumental in encouraging the start of animal anti-cruelty organizations.

1896 edition

H.G. Wells, 64 years old and still very active, was paid $15,000 by Paramount for the rights to “The Island of Doctor Moreau”. Two unauthorized adaptations had already been filmed. The first was a 1913 silent, 23 minute French version titled, “Ile d’Epouvante”, or “Island of Terror” when released in the

U.S.

A 1921 German film titled “Die Insel der Verschollenen” (“Island of the Lost”) featured an opium addicted scientist who was attempting to create an artificial human.

Translating the novel into a screenplay wasn’t a breeze, as Paramount hired eleven different writers to take a crack at it. Final screen credit went to Waldemar Young and Philip Wylie. They spiced up the story with the requisite ingredient of sex by creating a new character, “The Panther Woman”. The vivisection/mad scientist angle was kept, but the other thrust of the film (pardon the expression) is, well…not to put too fine a point on it-- bestiality.

In the film “Island of Lost Souls” we meet Edward Parker, shipwrecked in the South Seas while on his way to Apia to marry his fiancée Ruth, who is waiting for him there. He is rescued by the S.S. Covena which is carrying a load of cargo to Dr. Moreau’s island. While on deck with Dr. Montgomery, assistant to Moreau, Parker sees the strange, mute, hulking ship’s crew, and the cargo; cages of wild animals. When Parker encounters the ship’s drunken captain cruelly beating Montgomery’s servant M’ling, he knocks out the bully. As Parker leans down to help M’ling, he sees his furry, pointed ears. M’ling sits up and shakes himself like a wet dog after a bath; then with a wild growl, attacks the captain. Things are not quite normal on the Covena.

When the ship docks with Moreau’s schooner the cargo is unloaded. The captain, still holding a grudge against Parker, advises him that he is getting off, then unceremoniously picks him up and chucks him overboard onto the deck of Moreau’s ship. Moreau protests, but has no choice but to offer Parker the hospitality of his island. Quickly the wily doctor realizes the opportunity that, literally, has dropped into his lap.

After landing, Moreau guides Parker through the jungle to his compound, cracking his whip at the bizarre creatures who are spying on them from the brush. “Odd looking natives you have here” Parker says casually. “Don’t be alarmed, Mr. Parker” assures Moreau. Uh-huh. Go ahead Mr. Parker, there will be plenty to be alarmed about.

Dr. Moreau loses very little time introducing Parker to Lota, the only woman on the island. Parker accepts this attractive, exotic young woman as a native Polynesian, not suspecting that she is the most successful result of the doctor’s attempts to transform animals into humans.

The Panther Woman

Moreau informs Montgomery of his ulterior motive – to find out how human she really is. Watch him at the end of this clip, as he claps his hands and rubs them together in delight.

After the attraction, his goal is to find out if a successful mating resulting in offspring is possible. Mr. Parker, now would be an especially good time to start being alarmed.

Moreau plays Peeping Tom to their get-to-know-you session, his face registering creepy anticipation and excitement. However, the scene is broken up when Parker hears an agonized scream from Moreau’s lab. Rushing to the doorway, he sees Moreau and Montgomery performing surgery on what appears to be a conscious man. He tells Lota:

“They’re vivisecting a human being! They’re cutting a living man to pieces! Now I know about his natives, they are his victims. You or I may be next”.

He takes Lota with him to escape through the jungle, but they come upon a village inhabited by the man-beasts. They are surrounded by dozens of creatures, all walking upright, having features that are animal but almost human.

The leader of this group is The Sayer of the Law, played by Bela Lugosi. The actor is unrecognizable under a bulk of facial hair, but there is no mistaking that voice. As the beasts converge on Parker and Lota, Moreau suddenly appears on top of the hill. He sounds a gong to gather the villagers, who all kneel at his feet. He cracks his whip with each question, “What is the Law?”, punctuating this perverse parody of a religious declaration of faith. It is filmed by firelight, the camera looking up at Moreau who gloats with the power he holds over his victims -- their deranged god is in his heaven and all is not right with the world.

Parker is understandably worried about his fate, however with Moreau's pistol and this bit of assurance that he can defend himself, our hero allows the doctor to take him on a tour of the lab-- the House of Pain.

Moreau explains to Parker his experiments, saying:
          "All animal life is tending toward the human form....with these (discoveries)
          I have wiped out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution."

   At the operating table he uncovers the creature whose cries we heard earlier. In one of the most shocking scenes in the movie, Moreau casually handles him as he would an inanimate object. The man-animal’s shrieks of agony are gut-wrenching. Parker’s expressions of horror and disgust are dismissed with a wave of a hand. In the clip below you see Laughton’s deft portrayal of a charming, gracious, intelligent and completely insane sadist. Notice how he drapes himself over the seat and giggles as he describes his triumphs.

Moreau’s question about what it means to feel like god, was one of the most frequently censored. Laughton delivers the line with an eerie calm, unlike Colin Clive, who hysterically made a similar observation in “Frankenstein”. That scene also was censored for many years.

By the way, if anyone said to me, "I hope you sleep well" the same way Moreau says it to Parker, I don't think I would ever sleep well again.

Later, when Parker succumbs to Lota’s sweetly innocent charm and kisses her, he sees her sharp claws. Her hands are starting to revert to the animal paws. He confronts Moreau:

“Moreau, you don’t deserve to live! Those creatures out in the jungle weren’t horrible enough. But to have created something as tragic as that girl. It’s criminal. I could have overlooked those others, I could have shown you that much consideration. But not now.”

Moreau storms into Lota's room, demanding to know how Parker discovered the truth. Laughton is wonderful in this scene, moving from fury to despondency to elation. Kathleen Burke, in her first film role, does a terrific job with Lota's shame and helplessness.

Meanwhile, Ruth has been informed of Parkers rescue and obtains passage on a ship to the island. After she is reunited with her fiancé, Moreau convinces Ruth and the ship’s captain that it would be safer to spend the night as his guests rather than make the trek back through the jungle after dark. One of the servant beast-men, Ouran, takes every opportunity to leer at Ruth, which is noticed with delight by the good doctor. Moreau says to Montgomery, “Maybe I won’t need Parker.” Now would be a good time for Ruth to start being alarmed.

As Ruth gets undressed for bed, Ouran gazes up at her window with primitive yearning. There is a nice touch as she starts to blow out her candles, hesitates to leave herself in the dark, so leaves two candles burning. The scene changes to Moreau downstairs, blowing out all three in his candelabra. As if he is insisting on a romantic mood for the “lovers”.

Ouran bends the bars on the window of Ruth’s boudoir and starts to climb in, to have his way with her.

Her screams bring Parker, who shoots at the apeman, scaring him off. This attempted rape, sanctioned and blessed by Moreau, moves Montgomery to inform Moreau that he has (finally!) gone too far, and he tells the couple that he will flee the island with them.

Their escape would upset Moreau’s plan, so he sends Ouran out to kill the captain. He tells Ouran that it is alright to not observe The Law tonight.

Ouran does so, breaking The Law about not spilling blood. This enrages the other beast-men who then decide that their “god” is very fallible indeed. He broke The Law and now deserves to die for all the suffering he has inflicted on them.

When Moreau attempts to control them as he always has, they chant “Law no more!” as they close in on him. The creatures depose their white-suited god, and it all ends very badly and ironically for Dr. Moreau in the House of Pain.

The makeup by Wally Westmore is amazing. Near the end of the movie, the beast men advance on Moreau, coming toward the camera. We see the faces in closeup, each one more grotesque that the one before. The makeup might have been a grim reminder to the audience of the "Great War", WWI. Many of the survivors of that real-life horror returned home with severe disfigurements. One of the beast men hobbles on one human leg and one animal leg with a hoof for a foot. It looks completely realistic. I wonder if they managed to find an extra who was missing a leg, and so could wear a prosthesis made up to look beastly.

Director Erle C. Kenton started in silents, continued to work through the sound era and later in television. His reputation was as a competent but not brilliant director. Other horror credits include the Universal monster parties: “Ghost of Frankenstein” in 1942; as well as “House of Frankenstein” and “House of Dracula”, both in 1945. These movies are all a lot of fun for horror fans, but are unremarkable artistically.

“Island of Lost Souls” was photgraphed by Karl Struss, one of the most talented cameramen in Hollywood. He started in 1919 and worked until the 1950s. He created the seamless illusion of Frederick March changing from Jekyll to Hyde using camera filters only, so separate transition shots were not needed. (In “The Wolf Man”, Lon Chaney is filmed several times in the same physical position in separate shots wearing progressive makeup effects.) Struss shared the first cinematography Academy Award in history, for “Sunrise” in 1929, and was nominated again for his work on “Jekyll”. I suspect the main credit for the look of “Island” should go to Struss, and not to Kenton.

There are several unusual or striking camera shots. We get an understated introduction to the sly Dr. Moreau. The camera looks downward to Moreau's ship from the point of view of Parker on the deck of the Covena. It then pans from the left where the animals are being loaded aboard, and sweeps along the deck to the right where Moreau sits surrounded by his dogs. We don’t see his face at all for several minutes. He is mysterious, but appears deceptively ordinary; just as he initially deceives his guests with his quiet good manners.

Our first view of Lota is in shadow from the back. We don’t see her face, only a frame of wild hair. Moreau enters her room and paces back and forth in front of her, humming to himself, as he gives her instructions about how to behave with Parker. She responds with a soft “Yes” to each order. Suspense is built before we actually get a good look at her.

Another beautiful scene shows Lota and Parker sitting by the pool. For a moment the camera focuses on the water and we see only their reflections in the ripples. In another context this would be very romantic, but here the irony is painful.

Scenes set in the jungle are dark and ominous, but the interior shots are even more sensational; filled with light and shadow. Both mood and character are described in the noir effects via window blinds, bars or candlelight. The horizontal shadows from the window bars or screens give each interior shot the incongruous feeling of claustrophobia, in spite of the open airiness of the house. The camera filming Parker through bars on the window makes it very clear that he is no more than the other beasts on the island. The flicker of a cigarette being lit paints a scene with mystery and menace. Shadows thrown up on a wall behind characters running into the jungle, growing larger as the figures recede into the distance; shadows chasing shadows.

But what makes this a particularly outstanding film, is Charles Laughton’s Doctor Moreau. Laughton plays this part with relish, as he did all his roles. When he speaks of creating his creatures, you see him grin with a naughty child’s glee. His face is that of a satanic cherub. He underplays the role, convincing us very quietly of Moreau’s madness. The doctor enjoys the brutality, his soul is drenched in the pleasure of torture. Though he claims to be a scientist, the cold, clean impersonal attitude is merely a mask for a sadist with a god complex. After finishing this film, Laughton started “The Private Life of Henry VIII” in England which was released later in 1933. He won that year’s best actor Oscar for his role as the much-married monarch. Six years later he starred as Quasimodo in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” for RKO Studios.


Laughton as Henry VIII with Elsa Lanchester as Anne of Cleves

Richard Arlen is the handsome, virile leading man with a simple role: He is there to represent us, the audience. His arrival not only moves the plot forward, but lets us experience Moreau's madness as he encounters it. Parker also expresses our revulsion. However, he doesn’t really do very much, he mostly reacts. His disgust with Moreau seems to take a long time to build up. Why is he so reluctant? He only gets really upset when he realizes Lota is one of the creatures. Before that he says that he could have overlooked the other monstrosities on the island out of consideration for Moreau. Consideration? Why? He was outraged in the House of Pain when he witnessed the torture that went on there, but later he seems to calm down. His reactions seem a little confusing. It could perhaps be explained by the fact that there isn't really much he could do at the moment, and survives at the whim of a madman. I don't know. It just feels odd to me.

However weakly the character was drawn, Arlen does a good job conveying the emotions Parker is feeling. His face is expressive and he uses his voice without shouting or overplaying the character. And when Parker finally decides that enough is enough, he throws a pretty convincing punch to Moreau's jaw.

Arlen had many other action roles, starting in 1920. He starred in, and did his own flying, in 1927’s Best Picture winner, “Wings”. He had been a pilot with the Royal Canadian Flying Corps in WWI. In 1933 he played a much different role in the film “Alice in Wonderland” – the Cheshire cat. Maybe something Dr. Moreau said made sense and he decided to try out being an animal.

Cheshire Cat Richard Arlen in "Alice in Wonderland"

Richard Arlen in "Wings"

Handsome, isn't he?

Richard Arlen in.....oh, who cares! Isn't he gorgeous?

Another photo of Richard Arlen. I just can't help myself.

Leila Hyams was the leading lady (the sympathetic one), in MGM’s ”Freaks”, another movie which was reviled, censored and banned in many places. She doesn’t have a lot to do either. She is pretty, she worries, she screams. She has the role of the white woman threatened with a fate worse than death from the dark natives. However, her character does show some moxie when she stands up to the captain of the Covena, and then bravely travels to parts unknown to rescue her fiancé.

Leila Hyams as Ruth Thomas

Kathleen Burke is very good as vulnerable, pitiable Lota; particularly since this is her first movie role. She is heartbreaking in the brutal scene with Moreau as she writhes in terror at the thought of more House of Pain. With Parker she is curious and sensuously feline. As he strokes her hair she leans into his touch and you can almost hear her purr. Lota bravely risks her life to protect Parker and the others. Is this just animal instinct – her panther nature taking over? Or is it a woman’s love and devotion? Or as Moreau would say, “a woman’s emotional response”? Maybe it is more proof of just how human she is – more human (and humane) than either Moreau or Montgomery.

Chicago born 19 year-old Burke won a nationwide contest over 60,000 other entrants to be “the Panther Woman”. This was her first film, and she made several more, playing exotic roles most of the time. She married the boyfriend who followed her to Hollywood, but they divorced a year later. Burke retired from the movies in 1938.

Bela Lugosi is great as The Sayer of the Law. It’s one of his best roles, even though it is very small. We see him in two scenes only, but he is so over the top in his portrayal that the interpretation fits the character like a glove (a furry one).

The part of Ouran, the beast man who takes a shine to Ruth, was played by professional wrestler Hans Steinke, known in the ring as “The German Oak”. His story is pretty interesting, you can check it out at http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Movies/2007/12/31/4747378.html. Hans had the opportunity to show off one of his wrestling moves in the film. Ouran fights over Ruth with another apeman, Golo, played by a fellow pro wrestler, Harry Ekezian. Apparently Ouran won.

The only music in the film is over the title and the end credits. The main theme has an opening fanfare which has a George Gershwin-esque “Rhapsody in Blue” feel, then shifts into a quiet, moody jungle drum arrangement.

The music under the end credits is completely different. Instead of the bombast at the opening, suddenly we hear a sprightly, playful melody which could easily have been used for a Little Rascals short. It’s so wildly incongruous, after the seventy minutes of torture, perversity and blasphemy we have just witnessed, you might suffer whiplash. Perhaps the idea was to send the theater patrons out with a song in their hearts and a light step after the dark night of the (lost) souls they just witnessed.

Arthur Johnston and Sigmund Krumgold are credited with the score. I have not been able to find out which composer wrote which piece of music. Krumgold was a busy composer and music director in Hollywood during the 1930s and 40s. Johnston composed the music for many well known film scores, working with some of the most popular and successful lyricists of the time. His song “Pennies from Heaven” was nominated for an Academy Award in 1937.

Since 1933 there have been two more direct adaptations of the novel; the 1977 film with Burt Lancaster in the title role, and the 1996 mess which starred Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer. The less said about both of these movies, the better.

Award-winning, acclaimed, method actor Marlon Brando as Moreau. Don't go there. Just try to remember him in "On the Waterfront", ok?

Surprisingly, “Island of Lost Souls” was not the first film to explore the topic of bestiality. The mad Doctor Mirakle in 1932’s “Murders in the Rue Morgue” was obsessed with trying to mix the blood of his ape with a human female. In “Jekyll” Frederick March’s makeup as Mr. Hyde made him appear more simian than human, and it was abundantly clear that Hyde and Ivy had an intimate relationship. “King Kong”, released in March of 1933, can be interpreted easily as having subtexts of miscegenation and even bestiality; diluted with the ‘beauty and the beast’ element of course. But on the other hand, what exactly was Kong going to do with Fay Wray? I mean, really. Sometimes size does matter.

No matter how many times I see this film, it always works for me. Audiences are not as easily shocked today as in 1933, and heaven knows I’ve seen my share of pretty scary movies. But as far as I’m concerned, the final scenes of Moreau pursued and surrounded by the beast-men and the sound of his screams as they exact their vengeance in the House of Pain are as unnerving as a horror film gets. I don’t need to see exactly what the creatures are doing to him on the operating table, what I imagine is grisly enough. Besides, he deserves every second of what he gets.

Did I mention how handsome Richard Arlen is?

A FEW TIDBITS

1. Charles Laughton was pretty handy with that whip. He learned how to use one for a previous stage play.

2. Supposedly, H.G. Wells was very unhappy with this adaptation of his novel. He had better luck later in 1933 with the Universal production of “The Invisible Man”. He had script approval on that one, and was reported to be very happy with the outcome.

3. About Bela Lugosi. He was a big star in 1933. “Dracula”, released in 1931 had been a great success and people knew his name. Why would someone of that stature take such a small role as Sayer of the Law? Not to mention the fact that he is buried under a lot of makeup.

One story about him says that he had turned down the role of the creature in “Frankenstein” because he felt that he was now a star and didn’t want to play a character who had no lines, and who was under layers of makeup. The role went to Boris Karloff of course, and his career was made. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Another story is that he was considered strongly for the role in “Frankenstein” and made a test reel with Robert Florey, the director who was originally selected for the film. Lugosi created his own makeup, which was very thick with big hair, and made his head look enormous – sort of like the makeup for “The Golem”. It was awful, and a different look was created for the creature. Lugosi was also not particularly good in the test reel. So, Bela and Florey were out, and Karloff and James Whale were in.

Which story is correct? Lugosi's version was that he had been offered the "Frankenstein" role and had turned it down? Of course, he could say whatever he wanted to. Maybe it was even true.

In 1935 Lugosi made a film in

England

, "Mystery of the Mary Celeste", known also as “Phantom Ship”. It was not a large role, but it was interesting and he was quite good in the drama. After that finished, an English production company offered him a two film contract, for $12,500 per film. But, Lugosi turned down the deal because his beloved dogs would have had to stay in quarantine for six months before they could join him. This would have been much, much more money than he had been making. For “Island of Lost Souls” his contracted fee was $850. Would his career have taken a different road if he had made a different choice?

Lugosi spent money freely, sometimes much faster than he made it. He enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, but he was also a very generous man to his friends. Throughout his life he was bankrupt or close to it many times.

Ok, let’s look at all this. Bela Lugosi had many demons, one of which was making poor business decisions. Maybe he took the role in “Island of Lost Souls”, even though it was under a ton of makeup and the fee was small, because he was broke and needed money. It was a job. For heaven’s sake, didn’t the poor man have an agent???

4. The 1976 song “Jocko Homo” by the band Devo was inspired in part by this movie. The song has the refrain – “Are we not men? We are devo!”

5. Tim Burton, as a 13 year old budding filmmaker, made a super 8 movie called “The Island of Doctor Agor”. It was inspired by our film.

6. A strange piece of trivia which I have found in several sources is the possible, unconfirmed presence of Alan Ladd, Randolph Scott and Buster Crabbe as beastmen. They are not listed officially in the credits for this movie anywhere that I have found. It seems unlikely that any of the three actors would work as extras. But if they were contract players at Paramount, I suppose anything is possible.

Alan Ladd was still listed as “uncredited” in most of his movies at that time and for a few years after. His big break didn’t come until 1942 with the role of gangster Philip Raven in “This Gun for Hire”, opposite Veronica Lake. So he may be a possibility.

But Randolph Scott was getting credited roles consistently in 1931, and was only 2 years away from his leading role in “She”. A beastman? Unlikely.

It's highly possible that Buster Crabbe could have been used as an extra. Paramount made “King of the Jungle”, a Tarzan rip-off in 1933, with Crabbe playing Kaspa, the Lion Man. He posed for publicity pictures with his feline cousin the “Panther Woman”.

Many extras were used for the beast scenes in “Island of Lost Souls”, and if they needed a couple of guys with tall, hunky physiques, then …who knows?

Peter Schickele - the Hippest of the Hop

2012-02-04T23:39:00.000-06:00

Ok, ok, I know you've already seen this video. It's had millions of hits on youtube, and wherever else. A friend sent it to me some time back. It's funny.

But it also reminded me of Peter Schickele.

Now, for those of you who don't know who he is...http://www.schickele.com/

His radio show, Schickele Mix, was heard on our local classical music station here in Chicago for years. It has been off the air for way too long. It was a very funny, very smart hodge-podge of music of all types and his own commentary. As he said at the beginning of each show, it was..."Dedicated to the proposition that all musics are created equal". He would also quote Duke Ellington..."if it sounds good, it is good".

Please click on the link to his site for a more intelligent description of his work than I could ever provide.

Anyhoo, Peter Schickele -- musician, composer, educator, comedian, creator of PDQ Bach, all-round brilliant guy -- and rapper. One of his compositions is called "Classical Rap". And it just might be the prototype for the above Whole Foods opus. No video, unfortunately. But then again, no commercial for any Entire Groceries store either.

This piece can also be found on the Telarc disc, "Oedipus Tex & Other Choral Calamities". That would be Oedipus (my friends just call me Ed) Tex, that is. It still makes me laugh.

He would close each program with..."and remember, it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi". Nice. I miss hearing you each week, Professor.

Farewell Coco

2011-12-31T02:41:00.002-06:00

A New Orleans musician named Coco Robicheaux died recently. He had a deep growl of a voice and a beautiful soul. During his life he lived in a lot of places, had three marriages, a daughter whom he was crazy about, recorded his music, and kicked a 35 year substance abuse habit. He also had a regular gig most Saturday nights for the past 12 years or so on Frenchman Street at a place called the Apple Barrel, playing his guitar and singing blues that you could feel all the way down. He was unique and will be missed by many.

I tried to catch him whenever I was in New Orleans, but hadn’t seen him for awhile. Lately, on each of my visits I didn’t see his name on the local what’s-going-on-this-week calendar. I just figured I was unlucky enough to be there when he was either taking a break or playing an out of town gig. When my friend Margaret told me about his sudden death, I mourned for the loss of such an artist and kicked myself for not trying harder to catch up with him the last time I was in town.

I wish I could honestly say that I knew him well, but I can’t. I was just a fan. But from his songs as well as everything I have ever heard about him, he was a deeply spiritual (as opposed to religious) man who said in one of his songs….

“Sometimes I walk

all by myself,

I don’t wanna talk to no one else.

I close my eyes

and I feel the spirit rise.

And it feels so good to me

I can tell I’m supposed to be.

And it move my soul

when the spirit takes control.

Sometimes I’m down

and it comes to me,

Lift me up,

get me feelin free.

It take me by my hand

till I finally understand.

And then I know how it feels to be

when my soul is in ecstasy

And I feel so strong

When the spirit carries me along.

I walk with the spirit by my side,

I talk to the spirit as my guide.

I see my light shining up above,

and I’m walkin with the spirit of love.” **

**Walking with the Spirit, Coco Robicheau, 1993

Everything I know about poetry I learned in…… ok, I’ve never learned anything about it. But I love that song.

On November 25, 2011 Coco walked into the Apple Barrel for the last time. He said hello to old friends, kissed one of his female friends, as well as the bartender Sara. He took his seat at the bar and ordered tequila. When Sara turned around to hand him the drink, Coco was slumped over. Friends laid him on the floor and tried to find a pulse. It was there briefly and then it wasn’t. He was 64 years old. If the universe ever gets anything right, then right now Coco is walking with the spirit; walking very gently on those golden splinters .

My point here really is about how you go out, and especially about last words. If you have to go, it could be worse than sitting in one of your favorite bars with friends, ordering tequila, and then….snap. Not bad, in fact most ways to go would be worse. According to one of the people who was there, his last words were “I’m home”. Or according to someone else, “The next round’s on me”. Both of those possibilities are eloquent and beautifully apt. Or, you could consider his songs his last words. I wonder if Coco would have come up with something else if he had the chance. (One thing is for certain- if Elvis had it to do over, I bet he would choose another way to go than the one he got. Pretty much any other way.)

It’s something to think about. How do I want to go? What would I want my last words to be? I’d like to say, “Either that wallpaper goes or I do” as Oscar Wilde was supposed to have said. Or even, “Get my swan costume ready” as ballerina Anna Pavlova was supposed to have said. I really hope it would be something like what Joan Crawford was supposed to have said, “Damn it, don’t you dare ask god to help me.” Or even better, “I’ve had eighteen straight whiskies, I think that’s the record”, supposed to have been said by Dylan Thomas. (Maybe I’ll try to say that even if I haven’t been drinking.)

At any rate, I’ve been trying to come up with something. I’ve sometimes joked that I want to die torn apart by wolves. Appropriate last words then would probably be…”Bon appetit!”. But would I have the presence of mind to think of that? And wouldn’t a fatal wolf attack be difficult to organize properly? Besides, I would really need someone to be around to hear my monologue. If you say your final words in the forest and no one hears them, are you still dead?

What if I have my last words all ready and then something happens to screw it up? Here’s a scenario too horrible to contemplate: I’m on my deathbed. Loved ones are gathered around, sobbing quietly, or maybe hysterically. I’m feeling pretty punk and I’m ready to go. I speak my final dignified and/or hilarious epitaph to the rapt audience. I close my eyes and drift gently into the arms of peaceful oblivion. Then, a few hours later I wake up from a restful sleep feeling much better. I live for another…., whatever – hours, days, months or years. My brilliant “last words” were a waste of breath. Now I have to start all over. It’s a problem.

I guess it’s best to be prepared with a variety of “last words”. You just never know when you will be speaking your last. If you really want to be ready you have to make sure you are always prepared. You need to have something worked out, or at least make sure that everything that comes out of your mouth is memorable. Who could manage that, besides Oscar Wilde? How many of us are that witty? None.

It’s sort of like the problem actors have. When they reach a certain age, they should start choosing their roles very carefully. Here you were, a respected actor with a string of awards under your belt, a resume of Shakespeare and Brecht and Mamet. But your last role was as the parent of some ex-SNL alum in their latest cinematic stinkbomb. Do you really want that in the first paragraph of your obit?

To be realistic about it, I guess I know what my last words probably will be. If I had to go by what I always say when I stub my toe, or drop something, or, well, pretty much anything , they will be, “FUUUUUUCK!!!” Not particularly dignified I admit, but it is pithy.

I'll keep working on it. And if I ever see Coco again I will congratulate him on his elegant departure, and probably make some lame excuse for my own inevitably inelegant exit.

Here is Coco in a scene from the HBO series, “Treme”:

Maniac - 1934

2011-12-16T13:50:00.003-06:00

Director:                 Dwain Esper
Writer:                     Hildegarde Stadie
Asst.Director:    J.Stuart Blackton, Jr.
Photographer:       William Thompson
Editor:                    William Austin

Cast
Don Maxwell Bill Woods
Dr. Meirschultz          Horace Carpenter
Buckley                      Ted Edwards
Mrs. Buckley             Phyllis Diller (no, not the comedienne)
Alice Maxwell            Theo Ramsey
Maizie                       Jenny Dark
Marvel                        Marvel Andre
Jo                               Celia McCann
Embalmer                 J.P. Wade

no kisses!

This might possibly be the weirdest movie I’ve ever seen, not to mention one of the worst. And that’s saying something. I can appreciate a poorly made film that is entertaining in spite of itself, especially if it feels as if some sincere effort to make a good movie was behind it. But not “Maniac”; from the first shot of the title it has the scent of incompetence. Additionally, it is so distasteful, so perverse, so joyless, so skin-crawlingly creepy in a sick way that I just can’t give it any credit for entertainment. Throw in exploitative misogyny and misanthropy with a misconceived mise en scene, and you have a bad movie. Not to mention a lot of words that start with ‘mis’.

The acting is laughable. The direction and editing stink (let’s not mince words here). The continuity is non-existent. The sound and photography are poor and not synched properly. The story is ridiculous and the script is so absurd and filled with non sequiturs that it’s hard to believe it was written by a human. The only good thing you can say about the dialogue is that between the mush-mouthed actors and the bad recording it's hard to hear. Production values must have been considered mythological, sort of like unicorns. (Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?)

“Maniac” uses the unique device of intertitle cards with simple and usually incorrect meanings of psycho-medical terms such as ‘paranoia’ or “dementia”. This is supposed to fill us in on the medical explanation of the psychopathy we are witnessing on screen, as if we are watching a dramatic recreation of a case history. For example:

These cards are shown over sentimental music which starts and stops abruptly and would be more suitable for a scene of kittens playing with a ball of wool than discussions of violent abnormal psychology.

I will now indulge myself while trying your patience at the same time. The use of that same limp device in this review will surely help you in understanding the abnormal cinematic-pathology I am describing. Sorry, no music.

Exploitation - treatment of someone, or the use of a situation in a way

that is wrong, in order to get some benefit for oneself. Or, the process

of making use of something so that you gain as much as possible

from it.

Macmillan Dictionary, 2009

“Maniac”, made by the husband and wife team of Dwain Esper and Hildegarde Stadie, is one of the little known but classic exploitation movies of the 1930’s, a decade rife with exploitation. You might say it was a golden age – if such a phrase is appropriate to describe such a phenomenon. It can be mentioned in the same breath as beauties such as “Child Bride” “Marijuana”, “Delinquent Daughters”, “The Road to Ruin”, “Mad Youth”, and probably the best known of this ilk, “Reefer Madness”.

All of these movies were made behind the front of being “educational”. This misnomer is the mother of all phony-baloney covers. It was merely an excuse to pander to the lowest common denominator which exists in us all, whether we like to admit it or not. It was an excuse to show the audience wild parties, marijuana use, drinking, nudity, sex, young innocent girls in the throws of abandoning their morals, and boys more than willing to help them out with that, not to mention the satisfying sight of the morning after hangovers and regrets.

Exploitation films – films made with little or no attention to quality

or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure

sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect

of the product.

The Film Encyclopedia, by Ephraim Katz. 1979.

We are shown the depths to which young people are dragged by the above vices. Of course, we first get to enjoy the sight of them enjoying the vices. In order to create some sort of “story” violence, greed, lust ( and let’s throw in gluttony, sloth, envy and pride as well), are all coated with thin layers of lame plots which purport to warn the audience of some vile social threat of which we must all be made aware. For example, “Reefer Madness” ostensibly existed to warn parents of the dangers of that “narcotic” marijuana. Its original title was “Tell Your Children” – that could have been the title to any of these flicks.

In order to get around local moral restrictions as well as the film industry Production Code, these movies included “educational speeches”, or at the very least absurd plot devices intended to mete out the harshest possible life lessons for the teens in the story. They all included at least one violent death, and usually a few prison sentences for the survivors at the finale.

Production Code – A self-regulatory code of ethics created in 1930

by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of

America

and put into effect in 1934. The code set forth general standards

of “good taste” and specific do’s and don’ts concerning what

could and could not be shown in American Movies. Among

the general principles of the code was the requirement that “no

picture shall be produced which will lower the standards of those

who see it”. Its seal of approval was denied any film that did

not meet its morality standards, a risk few producers dared take.

The Film Encyclopedia, Ephraim Katz. 1979

The advertising and marketing are done in a shotgun manner. Get the movie into a small town movie theater, market the hell out of it, show the movie, grab the money and get out of town quick.

“Maniac” achieves a weird one-up-manship over a movie like “Reefer Madness”. Not only are the immorality and nudity ramped up, so are the violence and just plain goofiness. Any attempt at “acting” is purely accidental. “Maniac” makes “Reefer Madness” look restrained, not to mention polished and professional.

The story involves Don Maxwell, a former vaudeville performer who specialized in impersonations, and is now lab assistant to mad scientist Doctor Meirschultz. The crazy doctor has developed a serum when injected into a dead body will achieve re-animation. Doctor Meirschultz has some sort of ‘goods’ on Maxwell, evidently the police would be interested in finding out where he is. This forces Maxwell to assist the scientist in his nutty experiments. When the doctor gets the inspired idea to have his assistant shoot himself so he can be re-animated, Maxwell turns the tables on the good doctor and shoots him instead. When patients start showing up to see the doctor, Maxwell – remember, he can do impressions - is able to impersonate the loony doctor with ease. A fake beard, a pair of glasses, whiten his hair and voila!

Phony doctor

With extraordinarily poor timing, Mrs. Buckley brings her husband to see Dr. Meirschultz. Mr. Buckley has a delusion that he is “the orangutang murderer in Poe’s murderer in the rue morgue” (sic). This woman’s performance is so embarrassingly bad it would be worthwhile only if it came with a free coffee coupon. The character of the insane husband seems to exist solely to include a scene of a woman (the re-animated one) being abducted and attacked by him. This actor gives what is probably the best performance in the film. Seriously. At least he’s trying. Here he is transforming into the ape after the phony doctor has risked a possible malpractice suit by mistakenly injecting him with "hyper adrenaline". You also get a taste of the wife’s performance.

Another memorable performance is given by an actor un-named in the credits. His character seems to live next door to the doctor and runs some kind of cat ranch. Yes, you did read that correctly. He raises the cats in order to skin them, sell the pelts, feed the carcasses ….well, I’ll let him tell you as he explains it to a visiting detective.

This brings me to the subject of subtext. ‘Cats’ seems to be a subtext in this film. Not just cats, but inexplicable scenes of cats fighting with other cats, cats in cages, cats chasing mice, cats tripping Maxwell as he is about to steal a dead body from a mortuary, Maxwell popping out a cat's eye and eating it, and a cat eating a human heart that the doctor had been keeping alive in a jar. In other words, cats.

Subtext: 1. an underlying theme in a piece of writing.

2. a message which is not stated directly but can be inferred.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged

10^th Edition. 2009

Subtext. This image was not taken from the film.

Another important subtext to this film is ‘women’. Specifically, women who are partly or completely undressed, women being fondled by the phony doctor, women who are being kidnapped and attacked by ape-men, women in the bathtub, women dancing around their bedroom in their skivvies, or women fighting and ripping each other’s clothes off. There is absolutely no reason for any of these scenes. Wait a minute, there is absolutely no reason for ANY of the scenes in the movie. So, I guess it really doesn’t matter. Okay, there IS a reason for the ‘woman’ scenes. Titillation of the audience.

More subtext. This image is from the movie.

On second thought, the word ‘subtext’ might be giving it too much dignity.

The two mad scientists arrive at the morgue to steal a corpse for the re-animation deal. In order to not look suspicious (!) Maxwell impersonates the coroner. (Really, how could this guy not have made it in show biz?). While they are reviving a corpse with the wonder fluid, two morgue attendants provide some running commentary on their jobs. At least I think so. It’s hard to tell since they both seem to have missed Elocution Day in acting school. One of them sounds like Billy Bob Thornton in “Sling Blade”. However, he sounds like Sir John Gielgud compared to the other one who says something like…. “Buhtwin de gunsturs anthe awtodrivurs wedonneed anuthur warta carry offthe popalayshun.” Sorry, that's the best I could do.

There is a distasteful hint of necrophilia when the attendants discuss the “beaut” that just came in. They are referring to the corpse of a recently attractive young woman. However, in this movie necrophilia might be considered a light and breezy plot point. These two would probably creep out Leatherface.

The movie not only mentions “Murders in the Rue Morgue”, but also cribs substantially from Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Black Cat”. In order to hide the scientist’s corpse from the police, he walls it up in the basement. Unbeknownst to him, the cat he hated has also been trapped behind the brick wall, and gives him away with its cries when a group of pretty lethargic police finally show up. Poe receives no acknowledgment in the credits and I have the feeling that the Baltimore genius would be just fine with that.

I forgot to mention that during the scenes in the laboratory there is an irritating noise which sounds like someone a few feet away using a typewriter. Probably finishing the script for the next scene. Seriously.

I will admit that there is one thing about this movie that is almost enjoyable. The actor who plays Doctor Meirschultz is so over the top, so extravagantly weird, so bizarrely eccentric, that it is entertaining. He is the only person I’ve ever heard in a movie who actually makes that laughing sound that you usually only hear the bad guys do in cartoons. You know the one I mean: “BWAAA-HAA-HAA-HAA-HAA-HAAAA!!!!”

I could go on and on with this movie; it is of an almost unbelievable badness. I haven't even mentioned the inexplicable shot of the leaping bullfrog or the inane philosophical soliloquies. The first time I watched it was out of curiosity. Then I watched it a second time because I couldn’t believe what I saw the first time. Finally I had to force myself to watch it a third time to remind myself of some of its horrors so I could write this. I feel like I should get a Purple Heart; something for going above and beyond the call of duty for a movie reviewer.

About the title - “Maniac” was also used as the title for an 1980 movie about a serial killer. I haven’t seen that movie, but I’m going to take a wild guess that it is a little better than this one. It is also the title to the song most closely associated with the movie “Flashdance”.

The song – “Maniac” by Michael Sambello. Released in 1983,

this was featured in the movie “Flashdance”, which starred

Jennifer Beals as a welder by day, dancer by night.

Sembello wrote this with his songwriting partner Dennis Matkosky,

who got the idea when he saw the William Lustig 1980 movie

“ Maniac”, which is about a serial killer who stalks his victims

in New York City.

Sembello: "He came up with the original kernel of inspiration and

came to me with the basic idea and groove and I believe the temporary

lyrics for the chorus he had were:
'He's a maniac, maniac that's for sure
He will kill your cat and nail him to the door'

That direction obviously wasn't going to work at which point the genius

of Phil Ramone, producer of the soundtrack who had the vision to

see the potential of the song, asked us to change it to the present concept

of a girl possessed with the passion of a gift for dance. Without Phil it

would not have happened. It was nominated for an academy award

and was disqualified according to 'academy rules' because the song

was changed from the original and was not originally written solely for

the film, which pisses me off to this day."

(The song) was accidentally included on a tape of Sembello's song

s his wife sent to Paramount for consideration in Flashdance. The

studio loved it and used it in the movie.

(Also, it) was commonly used in aerobics classes, which was a big

trend at the time.

From the Website “Songfacts”

It’s too bad the song wasn’t around in time for our movie. The original lyrics sound as if they could have been written for it.

'He's a maniac, maniac that's for sure
He will kill your cat and nail him to the door'

Such a shame. Seriously.

Dracula - 1931

2011-11-21T22:00:00.042-06:00

for the English language version

for the Spanish language version

What can there possibly be to say about “Dracula” that hasn’t been said in the past 81 years?

Universal Studios produced two versions of “Dracula” simultaneously in late 1930; the English version we know, and a version in Spanish to reach foreign audiences. The same script and sets were used in both films. The English speaking cast and crew filmed during the day, with the Spanish speaking cast and crew arriving later and filming all night.

Bela Lugosi, David Manners, Helen Chandler, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan

Recently I watched both the English and the Spanish films, and even though it is not easy for me to be objective since it is one of my favorite movies, I will try. This isn’t going to be a review exactly; it will be a response to criticism I have heard and read of the English movie, and praise I have heard about the superiority of the Spanish language version. Also, I would like to relate some interesting tidbits about the movie and Bela Lugosi, as well as his interpretation of Dracula and a few reasons why it shines.

The English version starred Bela Lugosi, was photographed by Karl Freund and was directed by Tod Browning. Remembered now mostly for “Dracula” and “Freaks”, Browning is also notable for his partnership with Lon Chaney, Sr., directing him in many of the actor’s best films, such as; “The Unknown”, “The Unholy Three” and “West of Zanzibar”.

Tod Browning (left) and Lon Chaney Sr. on set

George Melford was the director of the Spanish version. He was a former actor turned director of many silents, including “The Sheik” with Rudolph Valentino. At Universal he directed the Spanish language versions of “Dracula” and “The Cat and the Canary”. Unable to speak Spanish, he communicated with his cast and crew via an interpreter. Cinematography was by George Robinson. This Dracula was played by Spanish stage actor Carlos Villarias (billed in the film credits for some reason as Carlos Villar).

The creative and technical differences between the two movies are striking. At best, the Spanish “Dracula” is a fairly interesting curiosity. I wonder if the exaggerated hoopla about the film is in part because it was a “lost film” for many years. A print finally turned up in

Cuba

around 1990 and the restored film was released several years ago. The anticipation and excitement about viewing a new interpretation of the beloved classic may have overcome common sense a bit.

Some have the opinion that the Melford film is technically superior to the Browning film, using more creative and imaginative photography and direction. In my view Browning set just the right pace for the story with efficient and assured work. Using a moody and atmospheric approach, he focuses our attention where it should be in each scene, and avoids action or dialogue not necessary to move the story forward. Freund uses his camera to maintain a dark Gothic look and texture, especially in the Transylvania scenes.

Bela Lugosi

The Melford work looks brighter and has less depth. The direction is distracting and the effect literal or obvious, losing a lot of the mystery of the story. The continuity is sloppy and the camera seems to move just to be moving. Lupita Tovar, the lovely Mexican ingénue who played the female lead Eva Seward, stated in an interview that at the start of their shift the Spanish crew looked at what the Americans had filmed each day. Different approaches and camera angles were used to make their film better. Well, “different” doesn’t always equal “better”.

Carlos Villarias

Lupita Tovar

As for the performers, no one can seriously compare the two Draculas. Where Lugosi is magnetic, Villarias is flat. Where Lugosi is terrifying, Villarias is merely annoying. Lugosi projects mastery and a dark sexual allure, Villarias mugs for the camera. I find it interesting that most of the glowing reviews for the Spanish Dracula delicately fail to mention Villarias’ performance. His realization of the ageless Count is absurdly overripe and amateurish.

Carlos Villarias

Lugosi, with Frances Dade as Lucy

Let me start by saying it took me several attempts to get through the Spanish language version because I kept falling asleep. I think that says a lot about the film all by itself. The three problems I want to address specifically are – unnecessary business and dialogue which slow the plot down, poor blocking, and atrocious continuity.

The Spanish cut is 28 minutes longer than the English, mostly due to additional dialogue; dialogue which does not add anything important to the scenes, and sometimes undercuts the tension. This happens throughout the movie and only drags down the action until it creaks to a halt. Browning’s film moves along briskly in comparison. For example, in Browning’s film the character Renfield has three scenes with Van Helsing which provide much exposition. Dwight Frye as directed by Browning, conveys all of this in a short time. (He does a great job with this character. Frye was a versatile stage actor with a much greater range than he was allowed to show in movies.) Melford directs his Renfield in five talky scenes which go on much too long. While the actor playing the Spanish Renfield is not bad, his character definitely wears out his welcome.

Dwight Frye as Renfield

Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield

When Dracula and Renfield are upstairs in the castle discussing the lease and transportation arrangements, we see another example of the scene being drawn out by Melford to little effect while Browning films it efficiently yet creatively.

In the Spanish the director takes twice as long to get the business conversation completed. We get to see Renfield tearing into a chicken, and then cutting his finger while slicing bread. This brings on the blood lust in Dracula which is squelched by seeing the crucifix. The Count’s reaction looks as if he is smelling something slightly unpleasant. Up to now this bit is similar to the scene in Murnau’s “Nosferatu”. Unfortunately, we do not have the fascinating Max Schreck to concentrate on. Villarias has to offer Renfield two glasses of wine so we can finally get to the line about “I never drink….wine” Villarias recites this line with a long pause before ‘wine’. He leans into Renfield and raises his eyebrows just to make sure that he has made his point. At least he didn’t nudge Renfield with his elbow. There is an unnecessary camera set-up across the room for the rest of the statically filmed accommodation scene.

Browning takes care of all this business in about half the time at the table, with Renfield cutting his finger on a paper clip while unfolding the lease. When Dracula sees the blood the camera zooms in on his face. We watch him slowly stalk Renfield and react violently to the sight of the cross. At the line about not drinking wine, well…no one can do it better than Lugosi. The meaning is all there with an almost imperceptible pause and emphasis on the word. The rest of the business is conducted with the same camera set-up, still at the table, intercut with close-ups. When Dracula takes his leave the camera moves gracefully around the table in a wide arc, staying focused on Renfield and emphasizing that he is surrounded by evil; alone, with no escape.

But even worse than the slow pacing, the Spanish version has very poor blocking for the title character. ‘Blocking’ is the term for how a director tells his actors where and how to move. The first example of this is the scene of Dracula and Renfield meeting on the great staircase in the castle. Where Lugosi looks like he is leading Renfield to his doom, Villarias looks like a maitre d' showing Renfield to a table.

In Melford’s version of this scene Dracula’s power is diluted by the blocking. Dracula introduces himself after he and Renfield have approached each other. They stand together on the landing like neighbors getting to know each other and then walk up the stairs together. This pedestrian decision places both characters literally on the same physical eye-to-eye level and makes us unconsciously think of them on the same level psychologically, undermining Dracula’s position as master.

Pablo Alvarez Rubio and Carlos Villarias as directed by Melford

Browning has Dracula slowly descend the stairs on the left before Renfield sees him. Renfield backs up, turns and freezes at the bottom of the staircase as he sees Dracula coming toward him. The director always has the Count standing or walking several steps above and looking down on Renfield. This position keeps Dracula physically where he should be to keep the psychological levels unbalanced . He looks down on Renfield, literally and figuratively, because he is the lord of the manor, he is the one who knows what is really going on. His victim, Renfield, has no idea what is really going on and Browning keeps him on a lower, weaker level so he must continually look up.

Lugosi and Frye directed by Browning

In the Spanish film, Renfield enters the great hall, swats at a bat, turns around and sees Dracula standing on the staircase. The reveal is accomplished by a swooping crane shot up to the vampire. Robinson’s camera move is used by some to demonstrate Melford’s superior craftsmanship as opposed to Browning’s supposedly stodgy direction. Unfortunately, the camera movement is rather bumpy which spoils the effect. (Compare this crane shot to Karl Freund’s smooth camerawork into Seward’s Sanitarium, different takes of which are used in both movies.)

Browning keeps the attention focused on Lugosi’s powerful performance and isolates the helpless Renfield. The camera stays tight on Lugosi when he delivers the iconic lines, “I am Dracula”, and the one about “the children of the night”. For that line Melford moves the camera behind Villarias looking toward Renfield. This is one of Dracula’s big moments and best lines– he deserves to have the camera looking at him alone– as he does with Browning.

The London concert hall scene is another example of Tod Browning's assured direction. The lights come up as the orchestra takes a short intermission, allowing the characters to have their conversation. And once again Browning has Dracula positioned correctly in relation to the others.

When the Count is standing in the hallway introducing himself to Dr. Seward he is looking up at Seward who is standing on the step into the box. This blocking has been criticized as showing Dracula at a ridiculous disadvantage. I disagree. When Dracula is introducing himself, he is playing the supplicant; he is the outsider who must insinuate himself into this group. Then Seward invites the Devil into his house so to speak by bringing him into the box for the rest of the introductions. Dracula is now standing on the same level as Seward and the power starts to shift subtly. Dr. Seward leaves, the two women remain seated throughout, and hapless Jonathan standing off to the side. Browning keeps Lugosi standing and centered with the others looking up at him. Dracula is aware of the power shift (he should, he is controlling it), but the others are not. The Count is now master of the situation and will destroy or attempt to destroy all of them.

The music begins again, on a low gloomy chord, when Dracula is delivering his final line, “there are far worse things awaiting man than death”. The lights dim at the same time, obscuring and changing the faces of the innocents. It is a very well done scene.

In the Spanish language version of this scene, Dracula introduces himself to Seward while they are both standing as equals in the hallway. When Dracula enters the box he sits down after the introductions so he is on the same level with the others. This makes him seem more ordinary and diminishes the power shift. Additionally, the concert music continues non-stop throughout the scene. This is ridiculously inconceivable. At every theater I’ve ever been in, anyone having a conversation during the performance would be shushed by everyone around them, and if they didn’t shut up would be thrown out by the management. The people in the other boxes must have been having a fit. I’m surprised Dracula didn’t start unwrapping candy.

Carmen Guerrero, Carlos Villarias, Lupita Tovar, Barry Norton

A tidbit I’ve always enjoyed about this movie is the poem that Lucy quotes.

“The abbey always reminds me of that old toast – the one about…

Lofty timbers, the walls around are bare,

Echoing to our laughter,

As though the dead were there.

Quaff a cup to the dead already!

Hurrah for the next to die!”

I’ve always assumed that was something made up by the screenwriters. It is actually a version of an old poem or song dating back at least to the early 1800’s. Its exact origin and authorship are unknown and there are several variations. Here is the first stanza of the version known as, ‘The Revel’, credited to Bartholomew Dowling, from “A Victorian Anthology 1837 – 1895” (ed.1895)

WE meet ’neath the sounding rafter,

And the walls around are bare;

As they shout back our peals of laughter

It seems that the dead are there.

Then stand to your glasses, steady!

We drink in our comrades’ eyes:

One cup to the dead already -

Hurrah for the next that dies!

Various forms have appeared in song as “Stand by Your Glasses”. A version was sung by a group of WWI pilots in the 1930 Howard Hawks film, “The Dawn Patrol”, as well as in the 1938 remake. Here it is in a clip from the 1930 film:

The next scene is another example of clumsy blocking by Melford, but also an example of an alternate interpretation of the story draining the drama and suspense out of it. It takes place in the Sewards’ drawing room when Dracula comes to call, and after Van Helsing has just examined the bite marks on Mina’s neck. Browning has Harker ask “what could have made those marks?” With no beat in between, the maid instantly announces “Count Dracula”, making it an obvious answer to Harker’s question. Melford simply has the maid announce Dracula with no question/answer tension. The drama of the Count’s entrance has disappeared.

Browning keeps Dracula at a dignified distance from each of the characters, except Mina – his next intended bride. He particularly keeps Dracula and Van Helsing apart. They look at each other, in alternate close-ups, as careful adversaries. Melford films a long shot of the entire room with Dracula approaching Van Helsing and shaking his hand (!). Again, it places the Count within the group in a prosaic and non-threatening attitude. So much for wary antagonists.

Introduction of the two adversaries as staged by George Melford

Continuity is another difference between the two movies. Throughout his film Melford used outtakes or extra footage which had been shot by Browning. Even though Villarias had a slight physical resemblance to Lugosi and was made up to look as much as possible like him, you can still recognize Lugosi in some long shots, e.g. in front of Lucy’s home, and in front of the theater.

He used Browning’s footage in the crypt when we first see Dracula. This scene is beautifully handled by Browning and Freund. It is bungled by Melford. In Browning’s, the camera moves into the crypt to the coffin. We see the lid opening and Lugosi’s hand reaching out. There are various brief shots of the brides waking up and the small vermin crawling out of their holes. The next cut is the camera coming in close to the standing Dracula and staying on him, his glowing eyes staring at us. It’s a great scene, beautifully lit and photographed.

Lugosi reaching for the snooze button

Melford inserts similar footage from Browning for the beginning of this scene. We see Lugosi’s hand again, the same brides, etc. Suddenly the set is completely different. The coffin is now one of three wooden crates that are in front of a different wall. Dracula appears out of his box in a brightly lit swirl of mist. I’m not saying that it is a bad idea to use the mist as a different entrance for Dracula. I’m saying that the use of a jarringly different set and props is bad. It’s bad direction, bad editing and bad continuity. It’s just plain bad. By the way, this is one of the effects that gets the most praise from those who champion Melford’s imaginative direction and criticize Browning.

Dracula (Villarias) has emerged from his, er...box, in a swirl of mist. But where the heck are we??

After Renfield has been drugged and falls to the floor, Browning moves the three brides toward him. Dracula appears at the French doors, waves the women back with a slow sweep of his arm, and bends down to help himself to Renfield’s neck. Melford shoots this scene from the outside of the doors looking in. The three brides, not Dracula, attack Renfield. Another distracting break in continuity is provided by Melford using different actresses to play the wives. The Browning excerpts show the same three silent, pale,gliding phantasms we saw earlier in the crypt. Melford’s actresses look like wild harpies with bared teeth and claws. This is a different interpretation of the scene, but the glaring lack of continuity is appalling.

Dracula's three brides - by Tod Browning

Dracula's three brides, per Mr. Melford. At least I think that's who they are supposed to be.

Another of Browning’s outtakes used by Melford is in the scene with Renfield in Dracula’s coach on his way to the castle. Instead of being spooky, it is laughable. Renfield looks out the window and sees a large bat leading the horses. But whoever was controlling the string must not have been paying attention. The bat is flying forward, sideways, backwards. I think it’s safe to say there was a reason Browning didn’t use that bit of film. It was bad. Just plain bad.

I admit there is one small scene that Browning used and probably should have re-shot; the opening scene in the carriage with Renfield and the rest of the passengers. If you look closely at Dwight Frye he is obviously about to crack up and is trying to keep a straight face. It only lasts a few seconds because he controls it and gets back into character. But it always makes me laugh.

I have to say again, the difference between the performances of the two Draculas is mind-boggling. After all, the title of the movie is, well…”Dracula”. He is a pretty important character, and if the actor cannot fill the cape, then your movie collapses in on itself like a house of cards. If your lead actor is, shall we say weak or miscast, then I don’t really care what camera angles you use. Your movie, shall we say, sucks.

Lugosi is unfailingly compelling, powerful, romantic, fierce, commanding. The actor had played the role on stage a thousand times over the years. He said in interviews that he had the habit of playing to the back of the theater, he “took it big” and he had to be re-trained to take it “small”. He has been quoted as being grateful for Browning’s help in crafting his performance, directing him to play to the more intimate space of the camera.**
**from the commentary by Steve Haberman to the dvd release Dracula - 75th Anniversary Edition

Lugosi applying his own makeup

Villarias seems to be playing a stage character with his broad gestures, grimaces and wide staring eyes. If George Melford gave him any good advice about to how to act for the camera it must have gone unheeded. His Dracula is more like the deadly dull uncle with the bad jokes you try to stay away from at family reunions, or the grumpy waiter who doesn’t leave you alone and drives you nuts because he keeps trying to take your plate away before you are finished and knows he will get a lousy tip.

Carlos Villarias. Sadly, no longer available for children's parties

As I said earlier, I tried to be objective about both films. The Lugosi version is much beloved by me. However, I previously had the opinion that it was a little slow and stage-bound at times. But now, after watching it with an open mind I appreciate it much more. Tod Browning created a complete Gothic horror tale which still stands up today. I approached the Spanish version as an interesting unknown quantity, and was expecting to be impressed after the praise I had heard. I was severely disappointed. If you are a completist movie fan the Spanish “Dracula” might be a fun addition to your library. Or, you could (like me), just turn down the lights, pop in the old familiar DVD, and then settle back on the couch to be thrilled and chilled once more by the brilliance of Tod Browning and, especially, Bela Lugosi.

Lugosi. Dracula. Any questions?

A FEW WORDS ABOUT BELA LUGOSI…

….and a few more tidbits about “Dracula”

I love Bela Lugosi. He was an underused and under-appreciated actor in his time. For sure, he had his own personal demons to contend with, probably not to mention some bad business judgment. But how I would love to be able to re-write history and see him given the chance to take more roles with more variety. Remember him in the comedy “Ninotchka”? He was very good in the 1931 Charlie Chan film, "The Black Camel". In it he played a red herring as well as a companionable Dr. Watson-type for the detective.

He bravely overcame his addiction to morphine when he checked himself into a rehabilitation hospital in the mid-1950’s. Unfortunately, by this time the opportunity for good roles was long past. He worked in the 1950’s with notoriously inept writer/director Ed Wood, Jr. But if you look at the films they made together, “Bride of the Monster” or even “Plan Nine from Outer Space”, you see an actor who is giving his all. Even to a bad movie. But he is best remembered for “Dracula”, the role that was his triumph but also his albatross.

He has been criticized for his strange line readings in “Dracula” which make some of his dialogue off kilter. Let’s be real here. Lugosi played this role so many times he could probably have recited it backwards. Doesn’t it seem logical that in all that time, rehearsals and performances, he honed his line readings for exactly the effect he wanted? Certainly you can say that his Hungarian accented English makes very odd stresses on odd syllables, but it works brilliantly. The whole situation is off kilter to say the least. Renfield (and by extension the audience) is kept off balance by everything he sees and hears.

In Transylvania, when he is leaving Renfield in his room for the night, Dracula says the very prosaic farewell, “Good-night, Mister Renfield”. However, Lugosi speaks this line in anything but a prosaic manner. Lugosi smiles sardonically and with a very slight raising of an eyebrow he delivers it as “Good-night, Mis-ter Renfield”. It is my favorite line in the movie. The emphasis on the word ‘mister’ and the rolling Rs, make it drip with arrogant, malignant and yet delicious irony. He is saying, “Yes, I will play the game for a bit longer. We will pretend that you have some slight significance. This cat and mouse game is already over; you just haven't caught on yet.” The meaning is crystal clear without being overdone.

Throughout the scene in Seward’s living room when Dracula pays a call on Mina, Lugosi is dignified and aristocratic. He underplays the evil and maintains a superficial benevolent civility. His arrogance and assuredness of his superior position are barely concealed under his mask of social grace. Mina is obviously affected by his presence. The undercurrent of sexual attraction and lust are there in her rapt gaze at Dracula and in her rapid breathing.

Lugosi, with Helen Chandler as Mina

Helen Chandler as Mina feeling the effects of Dracula's

kiss, eyeing David Manners as Jonathan

The moment when Van Helsing traps Dracula with the cigarette case mirror is an outstanding lesson in how an actor can convey a myriad of emotions in a few seconds while maintaining the character. When the professor is speaking Dracula is standing in front of him relaxed and confident in his power. There is nothing that can harm him and he looks down at the case in the professor’s hands calmly. When it opens Dracula, with a sudden, instinctive, bestial violence smashes it to the floor with his hand. He pauses – he glares at Van Helsing while his face changes from murderous rage to sharp spiked hatred.

Slowly he gains control. When he realizes that he has been tricked and exposed, a very small, very brief cloud of sadness seems to pass over his face. It’s as if in that micro-split second we see volumes. He is aware of Van Helsing as an astute scientist, and so if Van Helsing is on to him, not only is his goose cooked but is about to be carved and served. He regains a measure of civility and outward calm while he apologizes to Dr. Seward. With one more if-looks-could-kill glance at Van Helsing, he turns to walk out of the room. He stops and speaks his line to the professor, “For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you are a wise man, Van Helsing”. Now he has returned completely to the elegant character he was when the scene started, except for the barely audible edge of hatred and yet respect for his enemy. It is an exceptional performance.

Compare, if you want to, the scene done by Lugosi to the very inferior take in the Spanish version. Carlos Villarias as the Count is a carnival attraction compared to the polished Hungarian actor. It takes him several seconds to look into the mirror and react to it. Great Godfreys, how long should it take?! It makes Dracula look stupidly incompetent.

One more tidbit about Lugosi: .

His face was used as the model for the face of the devil in the ‘Night on Bald Mountain’ segment of the Disney movie “Fantasia”. The expression on his face as he hovers over Mina’s bed is the same used for the demon.

And finally,…

The original English film had a final curtain speech by Edward Van Sloan. It is similar to the pre-curtain speech the same actor delivers before the start of “Frankenstein”. It was removed from the film after 1938 when the Hollywood Production Code was in full force. The Code protected the public from all sorts of nasty things in movies, like any hint of sex, violence, adult themes, or religious controversy. Or, the idea that vampires could really exist.

“Just a moment, Ladies and Gentlemen, just a word before you go.

We hope the memories of Dracula won’t give you bad dreams. So just

a word of reassurance. When you get home tonight, and the lights are

turned out, and you’re afraid to look behind the curtains, and you dread

to see a face appear at the window, well…just pull yourself together.

And remember, after all...there ARE such things.”

Prints of old films, considered lost, are still being found. I have hope that this delightful bit of film will be discovered someday in someone’s vault and restored.

Last and certainly not least...even though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, I couldn't leave out this recording of the historic meeting of two remarkable characters:

Vincentennial ! - October 30, 2011

2011-10-29T20:21:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of Hallowe'en and Samhain

2011-10-29T20:17:00.000-05:00

Haunting History with David Parr

2011-10-22T17:59:00.001-05:00

Five mysterious kisses for magician David Parr and his current show, Haunting Halloween. I had the pleasure of attending a performance at the Everleigh Club this week. It's been a very long time since I was at a magic show, and I can't remember one that I have enjoyed more then this. Mr. Parr entertainingly mixes his bag of tricks with legends and genuine history. All of it is spooky and a lot of fun. I even got to go onstage for one of the illusions - I selected a poisoned drink as it might have been prepared by Lucretia Borgia. Oh well, you can't win them all! I know it is all illusion, but I can't for the life of me figure out how he does it. But, that is the fun! The Everleigh Club is an intimate venue so you can be as close as you want to be to the stage. Performances run through October 29. If you are a fan of Halloween, do not miss this show! Here is the link for tickets:

http://everleighsocialclub.com/haunting-history-with-david-parr/

Haunting History Returns for October 2011

The Everleigh Social Club & magician David Parr invite you to haunt the shadowy corners of the past, and discover a mysterious world of ghosts and grave robbers, poisoners, poltergeists, and the spirits of Halloween!
Step into Chicago’s Everleigh Social Club and experience Haunting History, a unique Halloween show, equal parts history and magic. With David Parr as your host, you’re sure to encounter the uncanny side of the past:

Learn the grisly skills of an old “resurrection man” — a professional body snatcher.
Drop in for dinner with the Borgias, circa 1500, for a lesson in the subtle arts of poisoning and politics.
Sit in on a 19th-century séance, where restless spirits make their presence known in mystifying ways.

As the performance unfolds, you may begin to doubt your senses: objects move of their own accord, cryptic messages are written by invisible hands, hidden thoughts are revealed. Is some mysterious force at work in the Everleigh Social Club?
The answer is yes — his name is David Parr.
“History is much weirder than the version we learn in school,” explains Parr, the creator of Haunting History. “People in the past were surrounded by the strange and supernatural — especially during the Halloween season. Haunting History gives a sense of what it might have been like to live in that world.”
Haunting History: October 20–29 at the Everleigh Social Club, 939 W. Randolph St.
Tickets $20 at the door, $15 in advance. No one under 18 admitted.
Only Seven Shows — Seating is Limited — Reserve your Tickets Today!
Thursday, October 20, 8:30pm
Friday, October 21, 8:30pm
Saturday, October 22, 8:30pm
Sunday, October 23, 7:30pm
Friday, October 28, Special Midnight Show
Saturday, October 29, 8:30pm & 10:30pm
Get tickets online at the Everleigh Social Club website: http://everleighsocialclub.com/haunting-history-with-david-parr/

Legion of the Liar - 2006

2011-10-18T19:58:00.000-05:00

Director: Daniel McLemore Stanton

Written by: Daniel McLemore Stanton

Cast

The Tormentor David Johnson

Eve Stephanie Snook

Voice of Eve Alicia Winowiecki

Voices of the Dead T.J. Humlinski

The definition of “motion picture” according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989) is: “a sequence of consecutive pictures of objects photographed in motion … thrown on a screen by a projector in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement”. This one is not going to be used as an example of that anytime soon.

“Legion of the Liar” is an abstract, surreal series of images and feels like an experimental film. It is made up almost entirely of different, seemingly random shots – of various objects or of characters either looking evil or being bedeviled by the Evil Ones. It took me awhile to realize that there is actually a linear plot, sort of. Just don’t be expecting any regular storytelling. [SPOILER ALERT!!! If you feel like doing something else at any time during the movie… like taking a shower or making a sandwich or folding your laundry, trust me you won’t have missed much when you return.]

It was filmed in Michigan at an old, suitably creepy abandoned hospital and there are so many, many repetitive views of the dilapidated buildings, it started to feel like one of those 360 degree virtual realtor tours: If your realtor happens to be Rob Zombie. The most effective shots were of things you couldn’t quite make out exactly. One character is seen as a shadowy figure with pointed ears. Another favorite is someone sitting in a chair wearing a pillowcase over his head with eye and mouth cutouts – very Elephant Man. (He is also doing tongue exercises, or maybe it’s a Gene Simmons impression.)

There is a good bit of blood and gore for those who are into that sort of thing. Of course why would you be watching this movie if you were not into that sort of thing? There are many shots of maggots, bloody faces, vampire girls licking lollipops, goths drinking blood from broken goblets, endless empty corridors, candles, snakes, cemeteries, and the like. One of the characters is seen several times pawing through a bucket of bloody organs – sorting out his entrails collection, I guess. (Oh right, like you don’t have one!)

The only voices we hear are on a tape recording of a fictional interview and exorcism conducted a long time ago at the hospital by Rev. McAddams with a young woman named Eve. We see various shots of what I suppose is Eve’s backstory - drinking, having an abortion (I think), and either having an affair with some middle management type or possibly working as a hooker.

The actresses portraying Eve - the Eve we see, and the voice of Eve - are very good. They express the shifting horror, fear, hopelessness, and demonic possession of the character. They both appear and sound earnest, and put life into the role. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the actor playing the Reverend McAddams. He speaks his lines in a monotone that sounds like he is not reading the Rite of Exorcism so much as the left side of the menu at Denny’s. I was stunned to find that the ritual worked, and the demons departed from Eve. They must have been wimps to have been cast out so easily by this guy. Max Von Sydow he ain’t.

Suddenly, in the final 10 minutes it becomes Your Daily Devotion, or possibly a yoga video. There is shining sunlight, flowers, and a man holding a very “open your heart to the spirit” pose. We also see Eve, now looking much less goth, her hair brown and not dyed blonde (so you know she’s ok). Eve is journaling while sitting in a flower filled meadow by the sea, and she writes – “I have been forgiven!” I swear the mellow piano track has been in the background when I got a massage.

All of a sudden it hit me. This is like a walk through one of those Christian haunted houses. You know the ones, you walk through various rooms that demonstrate the torture that you will endure in the afterworld if you are a sinner. “On our left, we see the punishment for fornication, and here on our right, we see the eternal damnation of a woman who had an abortion, over there are the damned souls of teenagers who smoked marijuana”, etc. And the last room is where you see the light of redemption and forgiveness. Please. Call me old fashioned but darn it, if I’m going to watch an exorcism movie, I want more demons! more priests! crosses bursting into flames! desecrations! vomit! And at least one person jumping out a window and falling down a long flight of stairs!!

However, I have to give props to the film makers for trying something a little different. It has more visual style and imagination than is seen in many big budget pictures. There is nice use of color, sometimes a little over or under saturated for effect. Some shots are in grainy black and white. The camera is used statically or at different angles or speeds, sometimes with a hand held effect. It really is beautifully filmed and the director definitely has an eye for how to light a scene. The score is mostly effective – it combines Metal with demon voices and screams, and an evocative solo cello. I was not surprised to find out that many of the bands used on the soundtrack and/or thanked in the credits are Christian Metal bands.

So, I’m giving it one and a half kisses. It might be fun to have on a big screen in the background at your next party. But, I would want to say to the film makers…Ok guys, you’ve nailed mood and atmosphere, next time move on to plot. Even though it clocks in at just under 60 minutes, this would have played better if it were much shorter; it feels like an extended music video. But I have to say that if it were a 60 second commercial for a Halloween haunted house, it would sell it for me

The whole thing is kind of interesting for awhile, but the ending ultimately left a bad taste in my mouth. And unlike some, I am not always all that forgiving.

Dracula 2000 - 2000

2011-10-15T01:55:00.000-05:00

Director:    Patrick Lussier
Story:                        Joel Soisson &
                             Patrick Lussier
Screenplay:          Joel Soisson
Cinematography:         Peter Pau
Editing:                      Peter Devaney Flanagan &
                                  Patrick Lussier
Production
    Design:                  Carol Spier
Original Music:          Marco Berltrami

Cast
Dracula                     Gerard Butler
Abraham Van Helsing           Christopher Plummer
Simon Sheppard                  Jonny Lee Miller
Mary Heller                           Justine Waddell
Lucy Westerman                  Colleen Fitzpatrick
Solina                                  Jennifer Esposito
Marcus                                 Omar Epps
Trick                                   Sean Patrick Thomas
Nightshade                           Danny Masterson
Valerie Sharpe                     Jeri Ryan

I admit that this one is a guilty pleasure. I also admit that the main pleasure for me is the star, Gerard Butler. And I blush to admit that my admiration for his performance is not due to his abilities as a thespian. Damn, is he fine! The scrumptious Scotsman plays the Big D, brought back to life (or at least motion), in modern day New Orleans.

I won’t spoil the big reveal for the one or two of you out there who may be considering watching this one. They come up with a nutty explanation for the whole vampire thing, including the aversion to silver and religious objects, which doesn’t bear very close examination. When I heard it, I groaned and then laughed, and then waited for the next blood-letting. The less said about it the better. Let’s just move on, shall we?

The plot is a little convoluted. It starts in London and goes down a long road to get to how and why Dracula is back on the loose. It turns out that the Stoker novel, was actually a true story. Van Helsing captured his nemesis and has kept him prisoner all these years.

The first part of the movie is a sort of crime caper. A gang of thieves gets wind of some kind of “treasure” being kept under severe lock and key, and goes to elaborate lengths to steal it. They don’t really know what they are doing of course, which leads inevitably to confusion and disaster. It’s always entertaining to watch a bunch of nitwits get in WAY over their heads. The anticipation in watching this unwind is at least half the fun.

Due to their hapless intervention Dracula regains his youth and vigor after a little breakfast blood, and turns into Gerard Butler and is lookin’ really, really good. Oh my…excuse me a minute. I have to go get a cold compress for the nape of my neck. Ok, I’m back.

It also stars the equally toothsome and athletic Jonny Lee Miller (once married to Angelina Jolie, but then who hasn’t been?). He is in the employ of Christopher Plummer, an actor who can bring more dignity and depth to any role than it deserves. Mr. Plummer plays an antiquities dealer who is actually the original, long lived AbrahamVan Helsing. Don’t ask. Omar Epps is wonderful as the criminal ringleader, and later seems to be having a great time as an energetic and very funny vampire. He has a great fight scene with Jonny Lee, and learns a valuable lesson from which we can all benefit: “Never, ever fuck with an antiques dealer!”

By the way gentlemen, don’t worry that you have been forgotten - there are several attractive ladies who spend a great deal of time in various states of undress, or may-as-well-be. Dracula picks up three “brides” along the way – Jennifer Esposito, Jeri Ryan and Colleen Ann Fitzpatrick. After some initial reluctance to become a vampire girl group, they get down and enjoy the undead lifestyle. They sport lovely fangs, they cavort, caper, seduce and murder, all the usual stuff. And one of them gets to have a roll in the hay on the ceiling with Dracula. Gee, I’ll be right back, I need to refresh my compress.

I have heard some belly-aching about Mr. Butler’s Scottish accent, along the lines of “Hey! why in hell would Dracula have a Scottish accent, huh???” Frankly, I don’t hear any particular, identifiable accent, so I couldn’t place Mr. D’s place of origin which fits for someone who is as long in the tooth as he.

Due to the fact that I am a New Orleans aficionado, I have to make a couple of comments about the setting since the movie was filmed partly in and around the City that Care (and George Bush) Forgot. It is fun to see some of the usual places – Jackson Square, Decatur St., St. Louis Cathedral, the old Virgin Megastore (no longer there), Lafayette Cemetery and what looks more or less like the French Quarter. The blending of real location shots and Toronto soundstage shots is pretty seamless.

So, three soulful kisses from me. It looks good, the action scenes are a kick. It sounds good, though the music does get a bit turgid. The ending manages to be lame and heavy handed at the same time. But, the whole thing is fun, as long as you turn off your brain and don’t ask a lot of questions. And the sexy quotient is right up there at summer-in-Chicago-heat levels. But, if you don’t like it, you can bite me. I have to go now, it’s time to re-watch “300”. I do so love the study of the Greco-Persian wars. As long as I have a cool compress available.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 2011

2011-09-11T23:30:00.004-05:00

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Writers: Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver

Suggested by the novel, "La Planete des Singes" by Pierre Boulle

Music: Patrick Doyle

Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie

Production Design: Claude Pare

Editing: Conrad Buff IV

& Mark Goldblatt

Art Direction: Dan Hermansen, Helen Jarvis

&Grant Van der Slagt

Set Decoration: Elizabeth Wilcox

Visual Effects: Weta Digital

and many, many more technical credits - too many to list here

Cast

Will Rodman James Franco

Caesar Andy Serkis

Caroline Aranha Freida Pinto

Charles Rodman John Lithgow

John Landon Brian Cox

Dodge Landon Tom Felton

Steven Jacobs David Oyelowo

Robert Franklin Tyler Labine

Rodney Jamie Harris

Hunsiker David Hewlett

Maurice Karin Konoval

Rocket/Bright Eyes Terry Notary

It is the dawn of a new day, the dawn of a new shift in the evolutionary status quo, which means it must be the dawn of a new franchise for 20th Century Fox. “Planet of the Apes” in 1968 (based on the novel by Pierre Boulle) was one of the most profitable and popular movies of that year. It has gone on to midwife a wealth of sequels, popular references, parodies, and cultural touchstones. It has also been named by the National Film Registry as being “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant”.

I don’t think I’ll give away too much about the new movie. Let’s face it, if you know anything at all about the series, or have seen the preview, or have paid attention to the title, you know what it’s about and how it ends. And by the way, I have to emphasize that the movie was very enjoyable in a popcorn sort of way.

James Franco plays Will Rodman, a scientist working for a large pharmaceutical company, who develops a new drug to cure Alzheimers. His father, played by John Lithgow, once a brilliant pianist and teacher, is disappearing into the blackness of that disease. After some success with the tests on chimps, he tries it on his father with amazing results. However, the drug has the unexpected result of increasing the intellect of the chimps to human levels. Will adopts a baby chimp from the lab and raises it at home, naming him Caesar.

By the age of five, Caesar has attained adult human intelligence but is chafing under the restrictions of not being able to go outside. One thing leads to another, as these things do, and after a disastrous encounter with the neighbors Will reluctantly takes Caesar to a primate facility where he can live among his own kind. However, the real question becomes how to determine just exactly who or what is his own kind.

When the keepers at the facility are introduced, we may as well be hearing, “dum– dum- DUMMMMM!!!” on the soundtrack. They are uncaring at best and evil and brutal at worst. Caesar has a rough time of it, but eventually communicates with some of the other apes in a rudimentary fashion. He finds a way to increase the intelligence levels of the other apes there and they….. well, you’ve seen the previews, right?

If you haven’t seen the 1968 original, you really should. At the very least you need to be familiar with the best lines in that movie –

1. “Get your stinkin’ paws off me you DAMN DIRTY APE!!” This one is my particular favorite. It is useful on the bus, elevated train, and most fun of all – when you are in the security line at the airport and a TSA rep comes toward you. Be sure to say it with the patented Charleton Heston squint and bared teeth. Practice in front of a mirror. You could also wait until you are actually on the airplane to use it. Of course, you will probably end up being escorted off the plane by burly federal marshals at the nearest airport (probably Des Moines) and taking the train. Once you are released.

2. “It’s a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!” That one is useful for just about any situation you find yourself in, particularly at work when your boss is talking to you or you are stuck in a boring meeting and are asked for an opinion.

3. “You did it! You FINALLY DID IT!! Damn you…DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!” That one is an all purpose crowd pleaser, but is especially effective if you scream it at the top of your lungs in a crowded elevator.

I’m not sure if any of these would be useful on a date. Try it and let me know.

“Rise of Planet of the Apes” is not a sequel, and not precisely a prequel to the Heston flick. The movie it reminded me of most was not the original, but the 1960 film “Spartacus”. The apes are the gladiators held in slavery, brutalized and forced to perform for their masters. Caesar is playing the Kirk Douglas role. The apes organize around this charismatic leader, and start a revolt which has worldwide effects. Ok, there is no scene where all the apes standup one by one and say, “I’M Caesar! No!... I’M Caesar!!” That would have been cool. However, I’m grateful that there was no scene with one character trying to seduce another by discussing the morality of eating asparagus as opposed to oysters.

The 1968 movie was a big downer. It was shocking for its time; terrifying, with a final gut-wrenching scene which has become iconic in its own right. Surprisingly, the new film can be called “feel-good”. I was rooting for the apes every step of the way. The humans we see are mostly petty, selfish, nasty and cruel. The final scene is not in any way a downer, even though it is obviously meant to presage the downfall of mankind. Everything from the heroic music to the triumphant pose of the apes standing tall in the trees lets you know that the good guys have won the day. Heck, even James Franco’s scientist looks happy about the way things have turned out.

Maybe it boils down to the idea that the extinction of the human race has become more palatable since 1968. We’ve lived through the movies showing us all sorts of apocalyptic ballyhoo: worldwide plagues, zombies, aliens taking over, meteors crashing into the earth, Mayan-predicted tidal waves over the Himalayas, and Jim Carrey. I think we have become a bit blasé about our world turning out the lights.

The human actors are adequate to very good. John Lithgow’s performance is very touching and the scenes when he is suffering the affects of Alzheimers are heart-rending. His character develops a sort of parental/filial relationship with Caesar and the look on his face after Caesar has been left at the primate house will bring tears.

The most sympathetic and admirable character in the movie is the defacto hero, Caesar. The CGI effect utilized to create expressions on his face, merging the facial movements of actor Andy Serkis with the ape face is far in advance of any other similar effect I’ve seen. It appears completely seamless. Andy Serkis/Caesar is also the most expressive actor in the film. One of these days we really won’t be able to tell the graphics from the human actors. To tell you the truth, I’m not looking forward to that day.

After the final credits start to roll, we get a short scene which fortells the way mankind might be destroyed. Maybe the movie is actually a prequel to the new movie “Contagion”. On second thought, probably not. Gwenyth Paltrow couldn’t have had anything to do with apes.

At this point I have to say something about these big special effects movies. It is starting to be a bit disheartening to praise a movie mostly, or totally, on the fabulousness of EFX. The plot, characters and the acting seem to take a back seat much of the time. I was thinking about “Inception” the other day. Look, I was as blown away by the sight of the Parisian street rolling up like a carpet as anyone. But take away all the special effects and what do you have? A guy who wants his wife back, is hired by some rich guy to get something from another rich guy, he hires an elite team to help him do it. You watch them plan and execute every detail of the very complex caper and then congratulate themselves on their success. The only thing left is for the actors to wait for the contract negotiations for the sequel. That pretty much describes “Mission Impossible”, “Ocean’s Eleven” and others too many to name. Maybe it’s just me, but I find it a little depressing. If you have other opinions, I would be happy to hear them.

Maybe I just need to take a break. I think I’ll go back to the indies for awhile. Or maybe the silents. Watch this space for further developments.

By the way, who has suggestions for the title of the sequel? So far I’ve come up with…

1. Prelude to the Afternoon of the Planet of the Apes

2. The Taking of Pelham One-Two-Three to the Planet of the Apes

3. If It’s Tuesday, This Must be The Planet of the Apes

4. On a Clear Day You Can See The Planet of the Apes (that one’s a musical)

5. Alien vs. Predator vs. The Planet of the Apes

6. Lassie Come Home to The Planet of the Apes

7. Beach Blanket Planet of the Apes

Kill me.

The Wolfman - 2010

2011-08-13T01:04:00.002-05:00

Director: Joe Johnston

Screenplay: Andrew Kevin Walker and

David Self

from the 1941 screenplay by

                                   Curt Siodmak
Dir. Photography      Shelley Johnson
Editors                       Dennis Virkler and
                                      Walter Murch
Music                        Danny Elfman

Cast

Lawrence Talbot Benicio Del Toro

Sir John Talbot Anthony Hopkins

Gwen Conliffe Emily Blunt

Aberline Hugo Weaving

Singh Art Malik

Maleva Geraldine Chaplin

Ben Talbot Simon Merrells

Dr Hoenneger Antony Sher

I really, really wanted to like this movie a lot. As it turns out, I only like it. I admit I have always had a soft spot in my heart for werewolves. Among the Creatures of the movies, the Wolfman is the most tragic. You’ve just gotta feel for poor old Larry Talbot. He would always die at the end of the old movies, and then just get dug up in the next one, and the whole mess would start over again. He couldn’t catch a break. He still can’t.

This story and screenplay are based on the original 1941 Universal film. The screenwriter for that one, Curt Siodmak came up with most of the werewolf lore we take for granted today – silver bullets, full moon, pentagrams. He even wrote the poem that is as familiar as Mother Goose to any self-respecting horror fan:

Even a man who is pure at heart

And says his prayers by night

May become a wolf

When the wolfsbane blooms

And the moon is full and bright.

Our modern version starts with a shot of this poem engraved on stone, and recited by (we find out later) the gypsy woman, Maleva. The setting is 1891 rural England. Lawrence Talbot is returning to the family estate, brought home by a letter telling him that his brother is missing. He has lived abroad for many years, sent away by his father after Lawrence’s mother was killed.

Sir John Talbot coolly tells Lawrence that his brother’s body has been found in a ditch, torn to pieces. Partly out of grief and guilt that he had not seen his brother since childhood, Lawrence vows to find out what happened. He also gets a look at Gwen Conliffe who was the brother’s fiancée and is the one who sent for Lawrence. She has been staying at the manse and is something of a Victorian knock-out. You just know that these two are really meant for each other. But, you also know you will not be hearing wedding bells at the end of this movie.

When Lawrence goes to the gypsy camp to try to learn more about his brother from Maleva, he is attacked and bitten by a werewolf. The later scenes of his transformation are impressive. The make-up is based on the original created by master monster-maker Jack Pierce. This Wolfman, like the one in 1941, is really part man, part wolf. Not a dog, as in “An American Werewolf in London” or a deformed demon as in “The Howling”. And I really appreciate that you see his clothes in tatters after his transformation. I could never understand how Lon Chaney Jr. would always wake up with his clothes spotless and looking as sharp as ever.

There is a funny nod to history in the character of police detective Aberline who is investigating the rash of killings. Lawrence asks him if he is the same Aberline who investigated the Ripper murders. The real detective on that case was named Frederick Abberline. (Another version of this character is played by Johnny Depp in the 2001 film “From Hell’).

There is much blood and gore, as anyone would expect these days. The set decoration is marvelous. Every room is full of fussy Victorian everything. The colors are gray and muted everywhere. Whoever was in charge of keeping the sets misty and foggy had his hands full. Even the scenes outdoors where we might expect some green and sunshine are still gloomy.

For me, the most horrific scene is in the asylum where Lawrence is sent after his first transformation. The “therapeutic” methods used by the doctors to cure Lawrence of his supposed delusion are even more disturbing when you know that they are based on what was really used at the time. (“Dr. Mengele, you have a call on line one”) In the asylum Lawrence transforms in front of a roomful of doctors who are there to witness his cure. In a nice little bit of comedy, he throws his doctor out of a window, shortly after the doctor announced to his audience that it was just as likely that he would fly out of the window as it would be for the patient to turn into a werewolf. Oops. Lawrence has a nice run through London, terrorizing and tearing up a few citizens. He eventually returns home, and the ending will be a surprise to you only if you have never seen a movie before in your life.

Anthony Hopkins plays his role with the usual twinkle in his eye – perhaps just a bit too much of a twinkle this time. He chews the scenery with as much relish as a werewolf tearing into a juicy villager. Emily Blunt’s Gwen is warm and has much more depth than the 1941 version. Benicio del Toro is very fine as our hero. The part really only calls for suffering, and he plays tragic very well. As Lawrence he is darkly gorgeous and as the Wolfman he is pretty hunky (I know that’s weird, but like I said I have a thing for werewolves). Mr. del Toro is a collector of Wolfman memorabilia and had a lot to do with getting this film made. I hope it turned out as he wanted.

I will let sentiment rule me on this one, although I am preparing myself for the inevitable sequel. Like I said, poor Larry never could catch a break.

Tucker and Dale vs Evil - 2010

2011-08-07T04:31:00.000-05:00

Director: Eli Craig

Writers: Eli Craig & Morgon Jurgenson

Cast

Dale Taylor Labine

Tucker Alan Tudyk

Allison Katrina Bowden

Chad Jesse Moss

Sheriff Phillip Granger

Jason Brandon Jay McLaren

Naomi Christie Laing

Chloe Chelan Simmons

Chuck Travis Nelson

Todd Alex Arsenault

Mitch Adam Beauchesne

Mike Joseph Allan Sutherland

Cheryl Karen Reigh

Chad's Dad Tye Evans

BJ Hillbilly Bill Baksa

This movie's subtitle could be: "One Doozy of a Day!" or maybe "This Vacation Sucks!" Either way, with a subtitle or without, this is one doozy of a funny movie. I haven't laughed out loud at a film in a long time.

It started out less than promising. A typical carload of typically vapid and annoying college kids out for a weekend in the woods; you just know they are going to end up typically slaughtered one by one - and this typical and inevitable thinning of the cast couldn't come too soon for me. I was settling in for a long and boring ride.

The kids run into two natives of the area, 'Hillbillies' according to the story. They appear to be a pair of wide awake inbred nightmares, vaguely menacing in a Deliverance sort of way. I would have bet that within about thirty minutes or so we would have heard someone tell someone else that they had a real purty mouth and to squeal like a pig.

But glory hallelujah the director suddenly switches gears completely. The two men, Dale and Tucker are best friends who are out for a relaxing vacation of their own in their newly-purchased run-down cabin. You won't find two more mild-mannered, lovable characters anywhere short of a Disney film.

To say that the rest of the film is one huge misunderstanding between these two disparate groups is a whopper of an understatement. The kids think that Dale and Tucker are mad serial killers, and our two heroes think that these college students are crazy. The kids start dying in bizarre ways, entirely due to their clumsy panic and misguided attempts to rescue one of their own who they think has been kidnapped by the two friends. Tucker and Dale are trying their best to help the injured girl, and are terrified and befuddled that these college lunatics seem to be committing suicide all over their property.

There is lots of gore and violence, the deaths are messy and bloody. They are also pretty damn funny. I haven't seen a wood chipper death since "Fargo", and unlike in that Coen brothers movie, this one is hysterical. I would never have guessed that seeing someone dive head first into a chipper and get ground up would make me laugh. (Should I worry?)

The third act goes on a bit long, but it supplies a well earned happy ending for the characters who most deserve it. All the performers are note perfect; the direction and photography are outstanding. I would love to watch this movie again, it is a gem. So many films take the easy way, following a predictable and lazy storyline and minimal character development. When a movie can surprise me this much, it is delightful.

"Tucker and Dale vs Evil" received its Midwest premier as part of Terror in the Aisles 8 at the Portage Theater in Chicago. The evening raised money for Vital Bridges, a volunteer organization assisting persons impacted by HIV/AIDS. The Portage continues to be a quality venue for horror, independent, classic and silent films. And, you can get a White Russian at the concession stand. The drink I mean.