Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

A phrase often associated with the Golden Age of Hollywood is, “They don’t make them like they used to." In this age of remakes, reboots, and sequels, it is common to be overly nostalgic about the good ol' days of cinema; when Hollywood seemingly could no wrong and was consistently pumping out quality, and original, movies. Of course, this is one big lie - reboots, remakes, and sequels are nothing new to cinema; they go back to the very beginning of film itself. The 1940s, in particular, may have been of the most sequel heavy decades in movie history – and the studio that was pumping them out on a regular basis was Universal. Modern audiences groan on the endless string of Saw and Paranormal Activity movies but Universal was basically doing the same thing with their classic Monsters line up - in 1940, they released The Mummy's Hand and The Invisible Man Returns (with Vincent Price); the former being a reboot of  the Boris Karloff classic, and the latter being a belated sequel to the 1933 film starring Claude Rains. In 1941, Universal added The Wolf Man to their monster line up and it proved to be a tremendous success; the character would pop up in four more movies throughout the course of the decade.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man was the first movie to pair up Universal’s classic monsters, as well as being a sequel to both The Wolf Man and The Ghost of Frankenstein.  It is also marked the only time that Bela Lugosi would play the Frankenstein Monster. It is by no means a classic, and is heavily flawed, but it is a lot of fun. It may not up to par with Bride of Frankenstein, or The Wolf Man (which is arguable), but it is certainly not the worst monster movie to come out that decade. It benefits greatly from a first rate cast, beautiful cinematography (by George Robinson), and fast paced direction by Roy William Neill; its short run time, 74 minutes, doesn't hurt either.

Bela Lugosi's performance as the Monster has often been the source of criticism - it consists of stumbling through the scenery with his arms outstretched and letting out an occasional grunt. Though, in all fairness to Lugosi, it's not entirely his fault; the Monster stumbles about as a result of being blinded in the previous film, Ghost of Frankenstein, and, originally, Lugosi was given dialogue to perform. However, when the movie was finally released to the cinemas in 1943, all references to the Monster's blindness was deleted, as was all of Lugosi dialogue - though there are a few times in the movie where you can actually see the Monster moving his lips. There is also a moment in the finale, during an elaborate operation, where the audience is given an extreme close up of the Monster opening his eyes, indicating that his sight has been restored. It has often been reported that the reason for deleting Lugosi's dialogue was that a test audience found the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent funny. I'm not sure if I believe this story, considering that the previous movie, Ghost of Frankenstein, ends with the Monster talking in the same Hungarian accent (Bela Lugosi dubbed Lon Chaney, Jr. in these scenes), so the studio must have known in advance whether or not audiences would balk at this plot point. I personally believe the Monster's dialogue was removed to tighten up the movie and, more importantly, because it was superfluous to the actual story line. 

To add further insult to injury, the Monster is often played by a stuntman; this  is especially obvious in the Monster's first scene. As a result, the characterization and the look of the Monster is pretty inconsistent throughout. The Monster is essentially reduced to a walking prop and, unfortunately, this would be the standard that the later movies in the series would adopt. Lugosi, despite his prominent billing, has less than ten minutes of actual screen time.

The story line itself is pretty dour; Larry Talbot is accidentally released from his crypt by a pair of bumbling grave robbers and, rather than having to endure an existence of living as the Wolf Man, seeks out Dr. Frankenstein (on the advice of the gypsy Melava), hoping that he can put him out of his misery.  That's right, Larry Talbot, merely wants to die. On his journey, he stumbles upon the Frankenstein Monster, preserved in a block of ice, underneath the catacombs of the Frankenstein castle. Odd, considering that in The Ghost of Frankenstein, the Monster met a fiery demise.  Talbot learns that Dr. Frankenstein is dead, so he contacts Elsa, the doctor's daughter, hoping that she can lead him to her father's notes about life and death. Also thrown into the mix is Dr. Mannering, who has been searching all of Europe for Talbot; he thinks Talbot is in desperate need of medical help. Dr. Mannering agrees to help Talbot and learns from Frankenstein's notes that he can drain the life out of Talbot and transfer into the Monster.  Then all hell breaks loose!

The character of Elsa Frankenstein is also a carry-over from The Ghost of Frankenstein, except in that movie the role was played by Evelyn Ankers. Why Universal recast Ilona Massey in the role is a mystery. Perhaps, given that Ankers also played Lon Chaney, Jr.'s love interest in The Wolf Man, the studio was afraid that audiences might confuse the two characters. Massey, at best, has a superficial resemblance to Ankers, but otherwise they might as well be two different characters. What happened to Erik, Elsa's suitor in The Ghost of Frankenstein? 

Ankers

Massey

The leading ladies in the Universal Monster movies usually had the thankless task of screaming and looking pretty- which Miss Massey does rather admirably. Elsa doesn't appear until the movie's halfway point  and most of her screen time is reaction shots; Larry Talbot freaks out, cut to a close up of Elsa looking confused. Dr. Mannering becomes fascinated by the Monster, cut to a close up of Elsa looking worried. She solely exists to show Dr. Mannering and Larry Talbot where her father hid his journal, then she is promptly shoved into the background.

Dr. Mannering is a bland character as well - I never bought his transition from concerned physician to mad scientist. He is initially going to drain the monster of all its power, but then decides, seemingly just for the hell of it, that he must see it at full strength. Patric Knowles is a serviceable actor, but he lacks the panache that Colin Clive, Basil Rathbone, and Cedric Hardwicke brought to the previous films. The best thing you can say about Knowles is that he doesn't get in the way of the proceedings. Thankfully, the movie only hints at a potential romance between Dr. Mannering and Elsa as opposed to turning it into a major subplot. It also should be noted that Knowles also appeared in The Wolf Man as Frank Andrews, Gwen's fiance and Larry's romantic rival. That might explain why Larry is so apprehensive towards Dr. Mannering - he reminds him of that dullard Frank.

 Lon Chaney, Jr. gives an effective performance as the gloomy Larry Talbot. The audience actually sympathizes with Talbot, because he doesn't want to harm anyone and is willing to take his own life rather than live a cursed existence. Chaney is actually at his best when silent - his sad eyes effectively convey the eternal guilt that haunts Larry Talbot. The Wolf Man was Chaney's best role, because he was playing himself - a seemingly decent man who was haunted by his own inner demons; in Chaney's case it was alcohol. By all accounts when Chaney was sober he was one of the nicest men you could meet, but when drunk, he was extremely unpleasant and volatile to be around.

The movies gets a lot of mileage out of its great supporting cast:  Dennis Hoey is great fun as the dimwitted Inspector Owen. Comedy relief in old horror movies is usually painful, but in this case it is welcomed. Maria Ouspenskaya reprises her role from The Wolf Man, as Meleva, the sympathetic gypsy woman. She takes on a maternal role to Larry Talbot and hopes to end his torment. Lionel Atwill is amusing as the jovial mayor of Vasaria. It is interesting to see Atwill in such an inconsequential role as he was usually cast as either a stern lawmen or a shifty eyed villain. In the previous movie, Ghost of Frankenstein, he played the treacherous Dr. Bohmer - the man responsible for putting Ygor's brain in the Monster's body. Here, his main concern is keeping the anxious villagers under control. Rex Evans is easy to hate as Vazec, the belligerent innkeeper. Oddly, enough it is this character that resolves the plot and not Dr. Mannering. Finally, it's great to see Dwight Frye, co-star of Dracula and Frankenstein, in a small role as a paranoid citizen. Often, the difference between a bad movie and a watchable one is the cast, and, fortunately, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man has a lot of aces up its sleeve.

The direction by, the underrated, Roy William Neill is first rate. Neill's greatest feat is keeping the movie going at a swift pace. He accomplishes this by constantly having characters on the move; the movie begins in the Talbot family crypt, in Wales, and ends in an a dilapidated castle in Eastern Europe. Larry Talbot searches the countryside to find Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Mannering follows him. Neill also does a great job in handling exposition - while at a village festival, Talbot tells Dr. Mannering about Frankenstein's journal. Instead of doing this in a typical two shot, Neill places the two characters at the back of the frame, while in the foreground Vazec can be seen listening in on their conversation. This helps add tension to the scene and fuels Vazec's growing suspicions about Dr. Mannering,

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is definitely a step down from the previous movies in the franchise, and it is certainly no classic, but there are far worse ways to spend 74 minutes. It is definitely worth a look for its interesting cast and atmospheric direction by Roy William Neill. Hell, it even has a catchy musical number at the midway point. "For life is short, but death is long. Faro - La Faro - Li."

Cast:  Lon Chaney, Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolfman), Patric Knowles (Dr. Mannering),  Ilona Massey (Baroness Elsa Frankenstein), Bela Lugosi (The Monster), Lionel Atwill (Mayor), Maria Ouspenskaya (Melava), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Owen), Don Barclay (Franzec), Rex Evans (Vazec),  Dwight Frye (Rudi), Harry Stubbs (Guno).

Director:  Roy William Neill
Screenplay: Curt Siodmak
Running Time: 74 min.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942)

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was my first introduction to the world famous sleuth; I was in 8th grade at the time and out of sheer boredom (it was 2 AM on a Friday night) I popped in my dad’s video copy (COLORIZED) in the VCR, and I have been hooked ever since. Whenever there was a Sherlock Holmes movie on television, I had to watch it.  However, the Rathbone-Bruce films weren't enough to quench my thirst, so I eventually turned to the Arthur Conan Doyle short stories; I bought "The Classic Illustrated Sherlock Holmes" and absolutely ate it up. What’s amazing about Doyle’s character is how he has transcended time; Sherlock Holmes is just as relevant now as he was in Victorian London. The TV show Sherlock was not the first adaptation to transpose Doyle’s creation to a modern day setting; the Universal series did the same thing in the 1940s by setting it against the backdrop of World War II. In the early films, Holmes was often pitted against Nazi agents. In The Secret Weapon,  a Swiss scientist, Dr. Tobel, has invented a bombsight that the Nazi’s desperately want and it is up to Holmes to see that it does not fall into their hands.

The plot is secondary in a movie like this; the real joy of the Universal Sherlock Holmes series was seeing Basil Rathbone’s definitive take on the Doyle character (sorry, Jeremy Brett fans). Indeed, part of the fun is watching Holmes don various disguises to either evade or locate his enemy. In the Secret Weapon he disguises himself as:  an elderly, German book dealer, a Lascar sailor named  Rum Sangh, and Frederic Hoffner, a scientist. It's amazing how Rathbone completely loses himself in these characterizations; often to the point that you forget it's Sherlock Holmes in disguise. There was never any sense that Rathbone was phoning in his performance, despite starring in 14 Sherlock Holmes movies from 1939 to 1946. Rathbone is extremely energetic in the role of Sherlock Holmes and is always fun to watch; check out his musical number in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. It's a fairly gratuitous moment, but an absolute delight as well. Holmes dons the disguise of a music hall performer and sings "I Do Like to be Beside the Seaside" at a garden party.

Rathbone is well matched by Lionel Atwill's ratlike portrayal of Professor Moriarty. In the Rathbone series, Moriarty was played by three distinct actors: George Zucco, Lionel Atwill, and Henry Daniell. Each of them gave a fairly distinct performance, but Atwill was my favorite. His Moriarty was a complete slime bag and gave off a foul odor.  Zucco and Daniell were fairly dignified in their roles, but Atwill's Moriarty is absolutely shameless, as Holmes often points out. Zucco and Daniell's Moriarty lived in lavish settings, Atwill's lives in a complete dive. Yet, there is a mutual respect between him and Holmes; Moriarty even regrets having to kill Holmes, because he is the only worthy adversary out there. The battle of wits between Holmes and the "Napoleon of Crime" are among the best scenes in the movie, as well as in the entire series. Rathbone and Atwill had a wonderful dynamic that it's no wonder they were often cast opposite one another; their most famous pairing was in Son of Frankenstein, in which Atwill gave a commanding performance as the wooden armed Inspector Krogh, while Rathbone hammed it up in the role of the title character.

Nigel Bruce has often been a source of controversy among die hard Sherlock Holmes fans, there are many who resent his bumbling portrayal of Dr. Watson. I, personally, rather enjoy Bruce's comedic take on the character.  Of course, this is largely due to the fact that the Rathbone/Bruce films were my first exposure to Sherlock Holmes. In the Arthur Conan Doyle stories, Watson isn't really much of a character, his main function is that of a narrator, hence he often gets lost in the shuffle (the two exceptions being Hound of the Baskervilles and The Sign of Four). The literary stories are told from the first person point of view, but when adapted into film, Watson's narration is unnecessary, not to mention redundant. Watson is essentially Holmes sidekick, therefore the logical solution would make him the comedy relief. This change boils the blood of many purists, but Bruce is a good enough actor that Watson's bumbling antics never become a stumbling block. It also helps that Rathbone and him have excellent chemistry; the two of them effortlessly work off one another. Watson maybe a bit clueless at times, but he's extremely loyal to his temperamental friend, and is often brave when the moment calls for it.

It's interesting to note that in The Secret Weapon, Watson and the equally inept Inspector Lestrade (Dennis Hoey) save Holmes not once, but twice from certain death. The first time, Holmes is tied up and placed in the false bottom of a trunk; Moriarty instructs his two lackeys to take the truck and dump it into the ocean. The two men are on their way, when they run into Lestrade and Watson. Lestrade demands to see the contents of the trunk, the men open it up, revealing tools on top. At first, Lestrade is taken in by the ruse and send the men on their way, but Watson notices that the trunk is unusually heavy for something containing a few tools. A light bulb goes off in Lestrade's head and he calls out after the two men; they panic and drop the trunk, thus saving our hero from certain peril.  Later on, just when it seems Moriarty is going to put a bullet in Holmes head, the dimwitted duo arrive just in the nick of time, once again prolonging the life of the famous sleuth.

The was the first entry directed by Roy William Neill, who would go on the direct the remaining films in the series. Neill's greatest accomplishment is how he managed to keep things moving at a brisk pace; there is  almost no let up in Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon. Holmes is almost always on the move, be it walking through the desolated streets of London (this film takes place during the German air raids), or frequenting the many swill holes in London in an effort to locate Professor Moriarty. Neill's efficient direction becomes even apparent when you compare the Rathbone films to the Arthur Wortner adaptations of the 30s. Wortner made for an excellent Holmes; he was much more subdued in his portrayal than Rathbone. However, his Sherlock Holmes films are quite a chore to sit through due to the pedestrian direction; they are sluggish in spots, to the point where they make Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey seem like a Michael Bay film. Also, the editing is extremely choppy that it's often hard to tell where one character is in relation to another. Wortner gives it his all, but sadly, even his performance can't redeem these stale films. The Rathbone/Bruce films may not be most faithful of adaptations, but they are a lot of fun. Even the worst film in the series, Pursuit to Algiers, is still worth a look.

Credits.
Cast: Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Lionel Atwill (Moriarty), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Kaaren Verne (Charlotte Eberli), William Post, Jr. (Dr. Franz Tobel), Holmes Herbert (Sir Reginald Dailey), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson).
Director: Roy William Neill
Screenplay: Edward T. Lowe Jr., Scott Darling, Edmund L. Hartmann. Based on “The Dancing Men” by Arthur Conan Doyle.
Running Time: 68 min.

House of Wax (1953)/ Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)

Vincent Price is one of the few screen actors that was able to make a completely loathsome character likable.  Take House of Wax, for instance. Price stars as Henry Jarrod, a mad sculptor who murders people (who resemble historical figures), covers their bodies with wax, and then puts them on display at his wax museum.  He is the kind of character that audiences love to hate! Yet, we don’t hate Henry Jarrod, rather we find him sympathetic; he maybe the kindest villain ever to grace the silver screen.  When the meddlesome Sue Allen is taken aback by how much his Joan of Arc sculpture resembles her recently deceased friend, Cathy, Jarrod tries to put her mind ease by telling her he modeled his Joan of Arc after a picture of Cathy  he saw in the newspaper. Does she buy the explanation? NO! Her nonstop snooping (((SPOILERS))) eventually leads to poor Jarrod’s untimely demise. I remember watching House of Wax for the first time with my friend Joe and we kept getting annoyed at how Sue Allen kept sticking her nose where it wasn't wanted. Whenever she would touch the Joan of Arc wax figure, we would scream at the television, “He just told you not to touch the damn sculpture!”  The audience wants Jarrod to succeed, despite his homicidal tendencies.  This is entirely due to Vincent Price’s charismatic performance; Henry Jarrod is the most likable character in the entire film. It certainly doesn't help that Phyllis Kirk gives a rather stiff performance as Sue Allen.  If it was different actor portraying Jarrod, then chances are the audiences would cheer when he plunges head first into a vat of ((((AGAIN SPOILERS))) boiling wax.

 

House of Wax was a remake of the 1933 film, Mystery of the Wax Museum, and is one of the few remakes that is superior to its predecessor.  Mystery of the Wax Museum is fun horror film, highlighted by a wonderfully sinister performance by Lionel Atwill as the mad sculptor, Ivan Igor. However, it’s littered with too much comedy relief, provided by Glenda Farrell (as wisecracking reporter, Florence Dempsey), to be considered a true classic of the horror genre. I actually like Farrell’s performance, she is a lot of fun and energetic, and is certainly more interesting than Charlotte, the damsel in distress portrayed to perfection by Fay Wray. It is also interesting to note that it is Florence who drives the narrative of the story; she is investigating the disappearance of a body from the city morgue, and her fact finding leads her directly to Igor’s wax museum.  She’s a tough as nails reporter and is able to hold her own in a man’s world.  

The problem is that Farrell’s character seems more at home in a film like His Girl Friday than in a gruesome horror film.  The comedy is so prevalent that the horror is almost secondary; Farrell probably has more screen time than Atwill and Wray combined, and I am not exaggerating.  The comedy has the effect of defusing any tension that the filmmakers were hoping to build up, because Farrell is too busy trading barbs with her editor (Frank McHugh), or flirting with a murder suspect (Gavin Gordon), that there’s never a sense of urgency. It’s not until the movie’s last fifteen minutes (Charlotte finds herself in the clutches of the mad Igor) that the audience is given a time element. Will Florence and company save Charlotte? Or will she be turned into a permanent resident of Igor’s wax museum?

Fay Wray is given second billing in the credits, but probably has less than twenty minutes of actual screen time. The character of Charlotte doesn't first appear until the half hour mark, roughly the middle of the film. She isn't given much to do except scream at the top of her lungs. This, unfortunately, is what Miss Wray is best remembered for. Yet, Charlotte is an infinitely more appealing heroine than Sue Allen in the remake.  While Fay Wray’s acting was limited, she did have a genuine screen presence that usually made up for her short comings. She radiated warmth and sincerity when she was onscreen, which explains why she has become a film legend.  That and the fact that she starred opposite a giant ape the same year Wax Museum was released. She is the kind of woman that most men in the audience (excuse the sexism, ladies) would want to protect from all harm. We genuinely fear for her life, because she comes off as being so vulnerable. Sue Allen is a fairly distant character that we find ourselves less engaged in her peril.  Also, Charlotte unwittingly stumbles into Igor's web by happening to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, she is dating one of his assistants. Sue Allen, on the other hand, practically is asking for trouble by constantly sticking her nose where it isn't wanted. Sue Allen is a stronger heroine than Charlotte, but even she is relegated to being the damsel in distress at the film's climax.

Mystery of the Wax Museum takes many of it's cues from the previous year's Doctor X, made by the same cast and crew. Like Wax Museum, Doctor X's central character is reporter investigating a string of murders that happen on the night of a full moon.  Unlike Wax Museum, the reporter is a bumbling male, who not only serves as the film's comic relief, but as a love interest for Fay Wray as well. Poor Miss Wray! The comedy in  Doctor X is completely jarring given how gruesome the subject matter truly is: a murderer who dabbles in cannibalism. Doctor X has essentially the same strengths and flaws as Mystery of the Wax Museum; they both are wonderfully atmospheric and have exciting endings, but can be fairly tedious at times. Florence, however, is infinitely more likable than Lee Taylor, the male reporter who stumbles into the role of hero.

House of Wax improves on the original by writing out the reporter character and focusing more on the Henry Jarrod/ Sue Allen storyline.  There is a greater sense of danger in the remake then there was in the original film. The first victim in Mystery of the Wax Museum is Joan Gale, a young woman who apparently committed suicide, but it is later revealed to have been murdered. The problem is that Gale’s murder happens off screen and the only connection we have with her is a photograph printed in the newspapers obituary column. In House of Wax, the murder of Cathy Gray, close friend of Sue Allen, is genuinely shocking, because the audience empathizes with her.  Cathy, despite her brief screen time, is a fully developed character, wonderfully played by Carolyn Jones.  When we first meet Cathy, we assume that she is a dumb blonde, given her tendency to giggle at just about anything. However, her ditzy demeanor is just an act; a ruse into attracting potentially wealthy suitors.  House of Wax’s setting is in the 1890s, which was not a particularly kind time for single women.  Cathy does whatever she can to survive, even if means playing dumb and using her body to win the favor of Mathew Burke, Jarrod’s former partner, who hopes to be collecting insurance money really soon.   However, in span of five minutes, Cathy is dealt two blows:

1) Matthew Burke is murdered. He is hung by a horribly disfigured man dressed in black. Cathy dreams of being in a stable relationship are shattered.
2) Cathy suffers the same fate as Burke. She is murdered in her bedroom.

The murder of Cathy is genuinely surprising, because there is absolutely no build up to the moment. Sue Ellen returns to her apartment building from a job interview, only to find her landlord demanding her rent. Sue Allen is penniless at the moment, but Cathy has offered to lend her some money. Sue Ellen enters Cathy’s apartment and finds her asleep in the bedroom. She calls out Cathy’s name a few time, but gets no answer. She walks closer to the bed, only to find, much to her horror, that Cathy has been strangled.  Just when things couldn’t get any worse, a black figure emerges from behind the bed and chases after Sue Ellen.  It is a surprising turn of events, given that a few minutes earlier the two of them were enjoying each other’s company and having a few laughs.  It is very much the anti-thesis of the slasher films, which slowly builds to a victim’s inevitable death; the unseen killer has his target in sights and does them in any extremely protracted manner.  In the House of Wax, there is nothing to tip us off that Cathy is going to come to such a gruesome end; no POV shot of the killer looking outside apartment, etc.

House of Wax is remembered for two reasons, it jump started Vincent Price’s horror film career and it was made in 3D. I had the privilege of seeing House of Wax in 3D a few years ago at the Times Cinema in Milwaukee and it was a lot of fun. I think part of the fun is that director Andre de Toth is absolutely shameless with his use of the gimmick; there’s a scene in which Sue Ellen and Scott Andrews (her boyfriend) are at a Can Can and all the dancers stick their butts right out at the screen. Probably, the most famous scene is the paddle ball man; Jarrod hires a barker to drum up business for his wax museum, the guy’s specialty is doing tricks with a paddle ball. It’s a gratuitous scene, but extremely effective, at least in the 3D version, especially when the ball keeps bouncing at your eyes. 

Vincent Price would continue to make horror films throughout his career with varying success, but in House of Wax he is frightening, yet simultaneously sympathetic.  Henry Jarrod is slightly crazy at the film’s beginning; he talks to his sculptures and thinks of them as his children. When Burke sets fire to Jarrod’s wax museum (to collect insurance money), it not only scars Jarrod physically, but mentally as well. He completely losses any sense of reality; in his mind he is doing his victims are great service by immortalizing them in wax.  There is a lot pathos in Price’s performance that was lacking in Lionel Atwill’s no nonsense portrayal in the original film. Lionel Atwill was a terrific actor and his Igor is truly menacing, but his straightforward performance is at odds with the nonstop humor in the film. It is shame that Atwill constantly has to play second fiddle to wisecracking Glenda Farrell, when he should have been given his own starring vehicle to shine in. On the other hand, the comedy relief in the remake is not nearly as jarring, because Price allows for humor to creep into his performance; at point a woman becomes overwhelmed by the horrific waxworks and faints, Jarrod interrupts his tour of the wax museum and offers her friends some smelling salts.

 

Credits:

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)
Cast: Glenda Farrell (Florence Dempsey), Lionel Atwill (Ivan Igor), Fay Wray (Charlotte Duncan), Frank McHugh (Jim), Allen Vincent (Ralph Burton), Gavin Gordon (George Winton), Edwin Maxwell (Joe Worth), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Sparrow – Professor Darcy), Holmes Herbert (Dr. Rasmussen), Claude King (Mr. Galatalin), Thomas E. Jackson (Detective), DeWitt Jennings (Police Captain), Matthew Betz (Hugo), Monica Bannister (Joan Gale).

Director: Michael Curtiz
Screenplay: Don Mullaly, Carl Erickson.  Charles Belden (story).

Running Time: 77 min.

House of Wax (1953)
Cast: Vincent Price (Prof. Henry Jarrod), Frank Lovejoy (Lt. Tom Brennan), Phyllis Kirk (Sue Allen), Carolyn Jones (Cathy Gray), Paul Picerni (Scott Andrews), Roy Roberts (Matthew Burke), Dabbs Greer (Sgt. Jim Shane), Paul Cavanagh (Sidney Wallace), Angela Clarke (Mrs. Andrews), Charles Bronson (Igor), Nedrick Young (Leon Averill), Reggie Rymal (The Barker), Philip Tonge (Bruce Allison), Frank Ferguson (Medical Examiner). 

Director: Andre de Toth
Screenplay: Crane Wilbur.  Charles Belden (story)

Running Time: 88 min.

Scooby Doo, Where Are You/ Mark of the Vampire (1935)

AND I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT TOO:

My reviews of
Scooby Doo, Where Are You

and Mark of the Vampire (1935) 


Scooby Doo, Where Are You: Which Witch is Which? (Scoobypedia summary): After coming home from a fishing trip, the gang runs into a witch and zombie who have been haunting the swamp and scaring everyone off. 

Mark of the Vampire (wikipedia summary): Sir Karell is found murdered in his own house with two tiny pinpoint wounds on his neck. Dr. Doskil, and Sir Karen's friend, Baron Otto, are convinced that the vampire, Count Mora, and his daughter, Luna, are responsible for the murder, but the Prague police inspector refuses to believe them. Now Sir Karell's daughter, Irena, is the count's next target. Enter Professor Zelen, an expert on vampires and the occult, who's sent into prevent her death. At the same time, secrets are revealed surrounding the circumstances of Sir Karell's death. 

Scooby Doo, Where Are You was my favorite cartoon growing up as a kid, mainly because I was a huge fan of monster movies, so it was always fun to see the Mystery Inc. gang encounter a different monster (albeit fake one) every week. The show would follow a simple formula: The gang randomly bumps into a supernatural being (ghost, mummy, werewolf, etc), gather clues and, through a set of contrivances, catch the monster and unmask it as some poor schmoe out to make a quick buck. Then Scooby Doo would do something comical and everyone (sometimes even the villain) would get a good laugh out of it. 

My favorite episode of Scooby Doo, Where Are You is Which Witch is Which, because it has everything that is essential to Scooby Doo:

1)  Reused animation, or limited animation as it known.

      Scooby Doo, Where Are You often used the same animation over and over again (ex: Close up of Freddy, The Mystery Machine Driving through a swamp) as a way to save money.  Which Witch Is Witch reuses the same shot of the Zombie holding a lantern twice in the episode.

The first instance occurs when the gang is driving down a dirt road and they see a man standing on the side of the road, holding a lantern. Freddy decides to ask the stranger for directions, only to come face to face with this: 

The zombie moans and groans a few times and the gang drives away. A few minutes later they stop off at a General Store and tell the owner Zeke about their encounter with the zombie.  Zeke tells the gang he's seen the zombie with his frog hunting partner, Zeb. In a bracketed flashback we are shown Zeke and Zeb wandering through the swamp with rifles, when they a stumble upon an old, green faced witch shouting incantations over a bonfire, just then (in a long shot) the zombie materializes out of nowhere, then it abrupt cuts to a close up of the zombie...holding the lantern. The frame is slightly cropped so the lantern is not as visible, but it sill occupies a good portion of the frame. What's even more shameful is that flashback happens less than a minute after the gang's first encounter with the zombie, so the image of him holding the lantern is still very much ingrained in the viewer's mind. 

2)   The first person the gang encounters is the villain.  
About 75% of the time the first person the gang encounter turns out to be the villain (or at least in on the hoax).  After the gang encounters the zombie on the road, the first person they encounter is Zeke, owner of the General Store, and a regular expert on the whole zombie/witch phenomenon. When Zeke tell them whole the backstory on the zombie and witch, there are only two conclusions that loyal Scooby Doo followers can draw: 

Either, Zeke is being hoaxed by some pranksters out for personal gang.

Or,
Zeke is in on the hoax, along with his friend Zeb.

Since, there are no other characters in the episode (other than the sheriff) it is definitely the latter.

3)      

      An over elaborate, nonsensical scheme by the villain.  

      It is revealed that Zeke and Zeb hijacked an armored car and sunk it in the swamp, so they could come back for the money later. However, as time passed they forgot where they sunk the armored car, so they donned the disguise of the witch and the zombie to frighten away intruders, while they searched the swamps for the lost loot. Of course, given how sparsely populated the area is, they could have easily carried out their search at normal hours without having aroused any suspicious whatsoever. Sure, they might have succeeded in scaring a few of the locals, but there are always going to be the curious few who want to catch a glimpse of the witch and zombie. I could easily see this turning into an episode of Fact of Faked, in which Ben and the gang decide to test whether or not a video of the zombie/witch is indeed fact.  Or imagine, while donning the disguises of the zombie and witch, Zeke and Zeb encounter an armed local, who is a “shoot first, ask questions later" type, then they would be screwed. 

4)  The villain remains in character, even though no one is around.
This is a common occurrence in Scooby Doo (and most Hanna Barbara mystery cartoons as well) where the villain will still carry on the act of being a monster, even though no one is around to witness it. Often there will be close ups of the villain hiding behind bushes, or just randomly cackling while the Mystery Machine drives away.  In Which Witch Is Which, there is a scene in which the witch (Zeke) and the zombie (Zeb) come across a bag of money and the witch overwhelmed with joy crones, “LOOK AT THE MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!” Of course, Scooby is in the bag and hops away. However, prior to Scooby’s hilarious entrance, Zeke and Zeb had no idea anyone was around. In fact, they are convinced that they have successfully scared away those meddling kids and that dog, so why carry on with the act? Are they method actors devoted to their craft or are they just paranoid?

5)   The reveal at the end is more absurd than a paranormal explanation.

The highlight of every episode of Scooby Doo was the reveal at the end, in which the gang would take turns explaining the villains’ motives and how the trickery was done. However, usually their debunking was far more ridiculous than a paranormal explanation . For instance, if there was a ghost involve, usually it was done through the use of film projectors; problem is the projectors the villains used were usually of the 16 mm variety and certainly did not possess the ability to project images onto thin air.  In Which Witch Is Which, it is revealed that the witch’s floating ability was accomplished by a giant balloon shaped like a witch, though it hardly explains why the balloon was cackling while in mid flight or that the balloons look absolutely nothing like the witch the gang witnessed floating on the ship.  The witch appears and disappears through the use of smoke bombs, but usually it’s a split second after the bomb goes off and there’s nowhere the witch could be hiding to throw the bomb from out of view.  Sometimes, the writers of Scooby Doo would often forget to explain away events that seemingly contradict a rational explanation (floating knives for one).  What makes this show so compelling is that you’re often left with more questions than with answers, because of the lazy writing and bad animation.

Scooby Doo, Where Are You essentially revived a common plot device that was prevalent throughout horror films in the silent and early sound era of film, the whole, “it was all a plot” ending. Like Scooby Doo, these films would revolve around a small group of people being harassed by a monster, only for it to be unmasked as a relative/benefactor hoping to keep the inheritance/treasure for himself; probably the famous of this subgenre is Mark of the Vampire. However, there are two notable exceptions:

1) The hoaxers are the heroes. In Mark of the Vampire it is revealed that the vampire storyline is a huge scam concocted by the protagonists into capturing a murderer, Baron Von Zinden, though it’s never really explained why they think such an elaborate scheme would work.  Apparently the sight of the walking corpse of his victim (Sir Karell Borotyn) will frighten Von Zinden into confessing his crime.

2) Scooby Doo, Where Are You plays like a typical mystery thriller (for kids), planting clues throughout the course of the episode, thus tipping off the audience that the monster seen lurking about is a hoax. Mark of the Vampire, on the other hand, plays like a straight horror film for 45 minutes, never so much as hinting that this is an elaborate ruse to catch a murderer. The film goes to great lengths to convince the audience that the vampires are genuine, only to pull the rug out from under them. Even more frustrating is that as soon as it is revealed the vampires are a ruse, they are not seen again until the very ending of the film, in which they are shown taking off their makeup, while  Bela Lugosi rants on about how great he was.  There is no scene in which the characters stand around and explain how the actors portraying the vampires pulled off such clever trickery, thus leaving the audience with more questions than answers.

Like Scooby Doo, the unmasking at the end is far more implausible than a paranormal explanation, mainly because it seems impossible that a troupe of stage actors could pull off such high level trickery. Throughout the course of the film, we are treated to the following scenes:

1)When Count Mora and his daughter Luna are first introduced, they seemingly walk through a giant spider web, leaving it completely intact, thus implying that they possess supernatural powers.  This scene is a direct lift from 1931’s Dracula (also starring Bela Lugosi and directed by Tod Browning), in that film when Dracula is first introduced, he walks through a giant spider web, much to the amazement of the befuddled Renfield. The major difference is that Dracula is indeed a real vampire; whereas Count Mora and his daughter are later revealed to be actors posing as vampires. This fakery makes even less sense, because no one is around to witness this act. They apparently did it just for the hell of it.

2)Luna, through the apparent use of telepathic powers, lures the heroine (Irena) outside and proceeds to bite her neck. Irena is later to be in on the hoax, but as with the “walking through spider web” gag, this is completely unnecessary, as the man that is being tricked is not around to witness it. It would have been far simpler for Irena to let out a scream, pretend to faint, and paint two bite marks on her neck.  Or maybe Count Mora and Luna are method actors, who really get into their parts.

3)The servants describe to Professor Zelen that they saw a bat transform into Count Mora out on the balcony. The butler is revealed to be in on the hoax, but he’s also accompanied by the maid, who seemingly has no idea what is going on. Once again, the real villain of the film (Baron Otto Von Zinden) is not around to hear this account. Who exactly are they hoaxing again?

4)Luna (sporting giant bag wings) is seen gliding from the second floor of the castle down to the first floor, and for once Von Zinden is actually around to witness it. This is a set up that doesn't really seem to effect Von Zinden one way or another, he kind of just nods it off with complete indifference. 

The thing that really gets lost in the narrative of Mark of the Vampire is the fact that the vampire hoax DOESN’T WORK! The sight of vampires lurking about doesn’t frighten Von Zinden into confessing his crime, in fact he never confesses his guilt at all, but rather is hypnotized by Professor Zelen into re-enacting the murder of Sir Karell Borotyn. Essentially, the protagonists could have saved themselves a lot of time and money had they just hypnotized Baron Von Zinden in the first place, rather than hiring stage actors to sell the vampire ruse. But then again, the film would only be a half hour long.

As noted above, the stage actors portraying the vampires often remain in character, even when no one is around to witness them. Throughout the course of the film, Count Mora (Bela Lugosi) and his daughter will be seen lurking about, despite the fact that no one is around to see them. The majority of Lugosi’s role consists of reactions shots of him looking on, while the main characters walk about without so much as batting an eye his way. Even more perplexing is that before the vampires are revealed to be a ploy into tricking the lecherous Von Zinden, there is a scene in which Luna is about to bite Irena’s neck, only to be interrupted by the incompetent love interested Fedor. Luna lets out a creepy hiss, grabs Irena by the hand and runs away, while Fedor is stopped in his tracks by Count Mora. This scene is fairly pointless to the overall narrative of the film and its only function is to give the audience one last shock before we get into the final act, in which the heroes capture Von Zinden. 

There are two facts one needs to know about Mark of the Vampire in order to understand it better:

1)   It is a remake of the 1927 silent film London After Midnight also directed by Tod Browning and starring the great Lon Chaney. London After Midnight’s claim to fame is that is a lost film, the only thing that survives from the production are a series of stills that show Chaney donning genuinely frightening make up. 

2)   Over twenty minutes of footage was cut, which might explain why the film feels so disjointed at times.  Top billed Lionel Barrymore is introduced twenty minutes into the film without any real preamble; he just appears at the heroine’s bed side. It often seems Lugosi’s character has a line, only for the film to cut away to someone else. It is rumored that the cut footage hinted at an incestuous relationship between Count Mora and his daughter, but the film’s wonderful commentary (by Steve Jones and Kim Newman) seems to indicate that it was mostly comedic in nature.

My personal theory is that Browning was remaking not one, but two movies of his: London After Midnight and Dracula. The reveal at the end is taken from London After Midnight, but a lot of the imagery and characters are taken directly from the 1931 version of Dracula:

1)   Bela Lugosi. 

     Even though he’s credited as Count Mora, Lugosi for the most part reprises his role of Dracula for this film, to the point that he even dons the same costume. The major difference being that Count Mora remains an unseen presence for most of the film; Lugosi’s role can be described as being more of an extended cameo than a major role. He appears every now and then to do something spooky, but then disappears while all the principals walk through the scenery. Mark of the Vampire plays greatly to Lugosi’s strengths as an actor; Lugosi never learned to speak English well and often stumbled through his lines, but he had a great screen presence. His lack of dialogue and limited screen time actually add an aura of mystery surrounding his character that was completely lacking in Dracula. The first twenty minutes of Dracula are memorable, mainly because it exploits Lugosi physicality to great effect, but it goes downhill once he is called upon to recite dialogue while enclosed on a small set.

2)  The Wise Professor. 

    Dracula had Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing, while Mark of the Vampire has Lionel Barrymore as Professor Zelen. They both serve basically the same function: convince the authorities that vampires are real and warn the heroine about the great danger she is in.  Edward Van Sloan is extremely stiff as Van Helsing, though it actually works given that Van Helsing is very humorless and obsessive in his quest to stop Dracula, but Lionel Barrymore is an absolute delight as Professor Zelen, practically stealing every scene he is with his very energetic and often humorous performance. What’s amazing is that in 1935 Lionel Barrymore was an A-list actor, considered to be one of the best amongst his peers, yet here he is in a B horror movie giving it his all.  Most actors often looked down on horror films and went through the motions, but Barrymore genuinely seems to be enjoying himself. Barrymore gives Mark of the Vampire the spark that was desperately lacking in Dracula.

3)  The Bland Leading Man: 

     This was a common trope in most early 30s horror films, the boring love interest to the more interesting heroine. At Universal Studios, this thankless role often went to David Manners, who often did his best not to get in the way of the proceedings.  In Mark of the Vampire the thankless role of Fedor is given to Henry Wadsworth, who maybe the most worthless character in horror history. How worthless is Fedor? He’s the only character (other than the maid and Von Zinden) that isn’t in on the vampire hoax. Apparently, Professor Zelen and company were afraid that Fedor might mess up their scheme, so they decided it would be best not to tell him. He is completely irrelevant to the plot.  As dull as Jonathan Harker was in Dracula, at least he served some function to the overall story; Fedor just plods through the scenery with a baffled look on his face. Dracula has the “love conquers all” ending, in which it is implied that Jonathan’s love for Mina helps bring her back from Dracula’s spell, whereas Mark of the Vampire has Irena apologize to Fedor for not letting him in on the ruse. 

It often feels like Browning and company are sending up the worthless male lead by assigning him the traits that you would typically find in the heroine: There’s one scene in which he recounts to Irena and company how he fainted while walking past Count Mora’s castle and the awoke to find two bite marks on his neck.

4)  The Heroine:  

     Irena is set up as being similar to Mina in Dracula: They both lose someone very close to them (Irena: her father, Mina: Her friend Lucy) and look to be the next victim of the vampire. There are even similar scenes in which both women try to convince their fiancés everything is OK by putting on a happy face, while being summoned by a vampire. There’s also an interaction with a house maid: Mina begs the housemaid to take down the wolfsbane, while Irena laughs when the housemaid starts to panic that she has taken down the bat thorne (both used to prevent the vampire from entering the heroine’s bedroom).  Oddly enough, Count Mora and Irena only have one scene together, and even then, they just exchange glances, while Sir Karyall (his double) tells her to go with Luna. However, our world is entirely turned upside down when it is revealed that not only is Irena NOT a victim, but she’s actually in on the plot to catch Von Zinden. In span of a few seconds, she goes from damsel in distress to hero. Granted, it’s Professor Zelen and the Inspector that capture Von Zinden in the act, but Irena is a pivotal part of their plan and had she faltered, it would have never worked.  Mina, on the other hand, is truly helpless in her predicament and is saved through the intervention of Van Helsing and Jonathan.

It is my opinion that Mark of the Vampire is a vastly superior film to Dracula, especially on a technical level. Dracula, especially the LONG middle section, often feels like a photographed stage play; the camera remains stationary while the actors enter the set, say their lines, and exit. Out of all the Universal Monster films from the 30s, Dracula is the hardest to sit through, largely due to its sluggish pace.  Despite the fact that there’s a vampire on the loose, it never feels like anything is truly at stake.  The characters stand around and talk, talk, talk, but they don’t take any course of action.  It isn’t until the last ten minutes that the filmmakers decide to notch up the urgency level by having Dracula kidnap Mina, forcing Jonathan and Van Helsing to leave the confines of the sitting room to rescue her.  

Mark of the Vampire has a far more cinematic feel to it: in the opening scene we are treated to a tracking shot of an old wash lady walking through a cemetery with a basket, getting startled by a bat, dropping her basket, and running away. Dracula consists largely of long shots with practically every cast member in frame, occasionally cutting to a close up; Mark of the Vampire is more heavily reliant upon editing, often cross cutting between two (sometimes three) events happening at the same time. As the film progresses, the pacing of the films picks up and then slows down again once Von Zinden is hypnotized into re-enacting his murder of Sir Karyall.  

The biggest flaw of Dracula, is the count loses most of his menace once he leaves the confines of his Transylvania castle. The first twenty minutes of the film are wonderful; the filmmakers successfully build up a sense of dread and danger just by the reaction of the villagers faces when Renfield announce he’s going to Dracula’s castle.  The villagers urge Renfield not to go, but when he is adamant that he must. A kindly old lady gives him her cross for protection. This is a wonderful build up to the character of Dracula and the audience is treated to an eerie scene in which Dracula and his brides are seen rising from their graves. Again, Lugosi’s performance is best served in a stylized setting, once you take him out of the context of an old dark castle and put him in the middle of a nicely furnished sitting room, it drains away the menace. It certainly doesn't help that a few shots are framed to make it seem that Dracula is shorter than the protagonists. 

Mark of the Vampire works largely because Count Mora remains an unseen presence throughout most of the film and usually has his daughter Luna do all of his dirty work. We sense he possesses great powers, but never actually see him do anything, which helps retain his mysterious aura. There’s a sense that Count Mora is always one step ahead of the protagonists, hence it is a letdown when it is revealed that he and Luna are fictional ploys used to capture a murderer. 

Mark of the Vampire also improves upon Dracula in building up suspense; the urgency increases with each successive act. The characters do stand around and talk, but at least there are actual scenes of them investigating the area, trying to locate Count Mora and his cronies.

As much as I have nitpicked on both Scooby Doo, Where Are You and Mark of the Vampire for their cop out endings, part of their charm is the fact that both programs provide such simple solutions to seemingly complex scenarios. There's a scene in Mark of the Vampire in the Inspector (Lionel Atwill) intones, "We all thought our vampire scheme was so simple, so certain of success." 

It has been theorized that Mark of the Vampire is actual a parody of horror conventions of the time, this isn't evident the first time around, but on multiple viewings (once you know the twist ending) the humor starts to emerge. There's a sense that the characters are having fun at the expense of the poor Von Zinden; they play pranks on him and tell him all sorts of crazy stories in hopes that it will make him sweat. Plus, the film ends on a joke; Lugosi (doing a nice send up of himself) looks in the mirror and says, "I was greater than any vampire." Then a stagehand tells him to shut up and help him pack. Whether you want to believe this theory or not, Mark of the Vampire, despite its plot holes or because of them, is a rather remarkably entertaining film from the golden age of horror films. 

Mark of the Vampire Credits
Cast: Lionel Barrymore (Professer Zelen), Elizabeth Allen (Irena Borotyn), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Neumann), Bela Lugosi (Count Mora), Carroll Borland (Luna), Jean Hersholt (Baron Otto Von Zinden), Henry Wadsworth (Fedor Vincente), Donald Meek (Dr. J Doskil), Holmes Herbert (Sir Karell Borotyn), Leila Bennett (Maria), Jessie Ralph (Midwife), Ivan F. Simpson (Jan), Michael Visaroff (Innkeeper).
Director: Tod Browning 
Writers: Guy Endore, Bernard Schubert, John L. Balderston
Running Time: 61 minutes