Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Monster (1925)



Even if you have never seen any of his films, you probably have heard of the name Lon Chaney. He left his stamp on the cinema starring in the definitive version of The Phantom of the Opera (sorry Gerald Butler fans). With the exception of The Hunchback of Notre Dame most of his films are fairly unknown to the average movie goer. This is due in large part to the fact that they are extremely hard to find; both The Phantom of the Opera and The Hunchback of Notre Dame managed to fall into the public domain, hence they have been readily available in stores across the country. I first saw The Phantom of the Opera on PBS when I was a kid. Despite the poor quality of the print, it was still a rather powerful experience. Not even a bad print could ruin the unmasking scene. I like it so much that I bought it on VHS, which was of even worse quality than the PBS print.  More importantly, it turned me into a life long Lon Chaney fan. When my family got a satellite dish in the 90s, one of the perks was Turner Classic Movies. Imagine my excitement when they began to air other Lon Chaney movies like The Unknown, The Unholy Three, West of Zanzibar, and the subject of this review, The Monster. 



The Monster belongs to Old Dark House horror film, a sub genre that was fairly prevalent in the silent era and the early sound era of cinema that include such films like: One Exciting Night (D.W. Griffith), The Bat (Roland West), The Cat and the Canary (Paul Leni), the aptly title The Old Dark House (James Whale), and many others.  The Cat and the Canary was so popular that it was remade three times. While The Bat got remade twice in 1930 (as The Bat Whispers) and 1959 (starring Vincent Price). With the exception of The Old Dark House, these films were adapted from Broadway plays. Another thing these films have in common is that they are more comedy-mysteries than they are actual horror films. The Cat and the Canary and The Monster sport a very similar protagonist (Johnny Goodlittle in The Monster, Paul Jones in The Cat and the Canary). Both characters are effeminate in the early going, but eventually emerge as the hero. They both serve as the comic relief as well, though neither of them are particularly funny. Paul Jones (Creighton Hale) comes across as a second rate Harold Lloyd, while Johnny Goodlittle (Johnny Arthur) is a poor man's Buster Keaton. One could easily imagine The Monster being a vehicle for Keaton given the stunt work at the movie's end.


The Monster’s first twenty minutes are extremely reminiscent of the Buster Keaton movie Sherlock, Jr. In both films the protagonist is a rather mousy fellow who aspires to be a detective (they both read a book on How To Be Detective) and is in love with the town beauty, a high society type who is out of his league. They both have a similar rival for the girl’s affections, a burly and extremely arrogant man who is twice their size (both films describe him as being the “local sheik”).  For the first twenty minutes the two films follow the same plot beats, but then they go off in extremely different directions; in Sherlock, Jr., Keaton’s character, a projectionist, falls asleep and dreams he is the world famous detective, while The Monster veers into the realm of horror.  Keaton’s character isn't really given much of a character arc; in fact, it is his girlfriend that essentially saves the day (in the film’s “real” world that is.)  Johnny, on the other hand, goes from bumbling, awkward dork to brave and resourceful hero. It’s unfortunate that Johnny Arthur completely lacks Buster Keaton’s comic timing and screen presence, otherwise The Monster might have been classic, instead of being an amusing relic from the silent era. The Monster was adapted from the 1922 Broadway play, written by Crane Wilbur (who would go on to direct the 1959 version of The Bat starring Vincent Price). Unfortunately, there's little information about it on the Internet, therefore I don't know if the film version is a faithful recreation of the stage play, or if it takes liberties with the source material. Is Johnny an aspiring detective in the play? If so, then at least I would know for certain that the film adaptation didn't plagiarize Sherlock, Jr. The gags are striking similar in many instances. 


Despite receiving top billing, Lon Chaney probably has about twenty minutes of screen time total. He makes his first appearance roughly at the half hour mark and then disappears for a considerable amount of screen time.  Dr. Ziska is probably one of Chaney’s more flamboyant portrayals; when he gets angry he grits his teeth and twitches uncontrollably, nearly foaming at the mouth. Dr. Ziska would be more at home in James Bond movie than in a horror comedy. He has colorful servants to do his dirty work (stage car accidents to get bodies for his experiments), while he remains behind closed doors; plotting his next move from the confines of an abandoned sanitarium. He constantly his clutching a cigarette holder in his hand, while he greets his “guests” with a painted on smile, taking on the role of thoughtful host.  Chaney is marvelous, which makes it even more the pity that he is given such little screen time. When he’s onscreen, the movie comes alive. Dr. Ziska's motives are fairly spotty, he wants to transfer the soul of Amos, the town stud, into the body of Betty. However, this is only briefly touched upon at the movie's climax, otherwise he remains a complete mystery throughout the film.



Director Roland West is definitely more at home directing than film’s scary scenes than he is at comedy. The first twenty minutes (the poor man’s Sherlock, Jr.) drag on endlessly as we are forced to watch Johnny Arthur mug it up for the camera.  The film goes above and beyond the call of duty to make us empathize with poor Johnny, but to no avail, he’s just not that compelling of a character.  Like I said, if it would have been Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd in the role, then the film probably would be hailed as a masterpiece, but alas Johnny Arthur just isn't up to the task.  

It certainly doesn't help that Betty, the heroine, is fairly dull as well. She has two functions in the movie, to look pretty and be a damsel in distress. Neither of which would be a problem if she had anything vaguely resembling a personality, but unfortunately she’s a lifeless as a mannequin. It makes you wonder why the two male protagonists would be endlessly pining for her….SHE’S NOT THAT GORGEOUS!  Granted, Johnny isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the lot, but surely he could find a much more interesting woman to fall in with.  There’s a rather painful scene at the film’s beginning where Johnny attempts to have a conversation with Betty, but just ends up staring at her like a drooling idiot. He can’t have a single, meaningful conversation with her, yet we are supposed to believe that she is interested in him. Sure, Amos has the upper hand in the early going, but she does invite Johnny to her birthday party.  If you want to see romance done right, check out any of the six silent comedies Harold Lloyd made with Jobyna Ralston. In each of their films, you sense that these two characters are destined to be together just by the way they look at one another. In each film, Jobyna likes the Harold character for who he truly is and constantly dodges the advances of other men. It's a great screen romance, far more convincing than the Johnny Arthur/Gertrude Olmstead pairing we get in The Monster. 


Sure, The Monster is highly flawed movie, but there a couple of things (other than Chaney's performance) that enjoy about it. I like the revelation that Amos, Johnny's rival for the hand of Betty, turns out to be a decent guy. When he his first introduced, we automatically label him as being a complete and utter douche bag. He comes off as extremely arrogant and is very condescending towards Johnny (which is understandable). Yet, as the movie progresses and the situation takes a turn for the worst, he behaves rather nobly, often putting Betty's safety before his. In a lesser film Amos would have transformed into a quivering stack of Jell-O and bolted on Betty, leaving her at the mercy of Dr. Ziska. This doesn't happen, Amos is scared at first, but eventually regains his cool and devises a plan with Johnny to escape from the sanitarium. By the movie's end, Johnny and Amos have developed a mutual respect for one another.

While The Monster is played mainly for laughs, there are some genuinely frightening scenes, the stuff straight of a nightmares. The film begins on really spooky note with Rigo, Ziska's zombie like assistant, sitting on the branch of a tree waiting for his next victim. Rigo causes car accidents by lowering a mirror into the road, tricking the driver that a car is headed straight for him, thus forcing him to swerve off the road and into a swamp like area. Rigo then takes the body and throws it down a chute that leads directly to the sanitarium. It's a nice, unsettling way to begin movie. 

The most memorable moment in the film is when Betty is sleeping in a bed and pair of arms slowly rise out from underneath the mattress and grab her. She is then slowly lowered into the basement by a trap door connected to the bottom of the bed. Again, it's nice frightening moment and  certainly takes you off guard, considering all the silliness that has preceded it.


It's these touches and  Chaney's performance that make The Monster a worthwhile effort. It may not be the great movie, but it is a lot of fun.

On a final note, the film's director Roland West is mainly remembered, if he's remembered at all, with his involvement with the Thelma Todd murder case. On December 16. 1935 comedienne Thelma Todd was found dead in her car, apparently as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. The death was ruled accidental, but many people suspected foul play, despite evidence to the contrary, and Roland West was high on the suspect list. He was Todd's business partner and lover, plus he was one of the last people to see her alive. His connection with the case essentially ruined his Hollywood career. It's shame, as West was probably one of the most gifted directors from the silent era. His films, however flawed, are visually striking and extremely entertaining. Allegedly his gave a deathbed confession to actor Chester Morris, but no one has ever corroborated this.

Credits

Cast: Lon Chaney (Dr. Ziska), Gertrude Olmstead (Betty Watson), Johnny Arthur (Johnny Goodlittle), Hallam Cooley (Amos Rugg), Charles Sellon (Russ Mason), Walter James (Caliban), Knute Erickson (Daffy Dan), George Austin (Rigo), Matthew Betz (Detective Jennings).

Director: Roland West
Screenplay: Willard Mack, Albert Kenyon, Roland West (adapted by), C. Gardner Sullivan (titles). Based off the stage play by Crane Wilbur.
Running Time: 86 min.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Reply 1997 (2012)

After I had finished watching the epic series Reply 1988, I decided to check out the other two entries in the Reply series, Reply 1997 and...