Monday, October 7, 2019

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2019: The Mummy (1959), directed by Terence Fisher

and

       The mummy, or mummies as the case may be, have long existed in the realm of B-tier monsters. Oh you’ll see them around, on cereal boxes or in comic books or in popular Scooby Doo TV movies and in dozens of movies spread out across cinematic history, including Universal’s recent attempt at using Tom Cruise to recycle the Marvel formula, but they’ve never had the same level of success critically or commercially as vampires or werewolves. Of course there was the 1999’s The Mummy starring Brendan Fraser, which was popular enough to spawn two sequels, a spin off film in The Scorpion King, a cartoon series and probably a video game or two, but it very quickly petered out. Plus we all know that like 80 percent of that franchise’s success was thanks to Brendan Fraser. Dude’s a treasure.

       If I had to explain it, I think the main reason for mummies lack of relevancy is due to its lack of versatility. Unlike zombies, which have molded to a variety of origins, places and times without much hassle, mummies (with few exceptions) have to be connected to Egypt and its royalty, because the guy building the pyramids ain’t getting a gold coffin. Similarly, stories involving mummies tend to be stuck in a period of time between the late 19th and early 20th century, when interest in Egyptology was at its peak and men like Howard Carter were household names, and that whole ‘plundering another country of its cultural and historical artifacts’ thing was treated as harmless fun. Nowadays those pyramids and tombs are no longer a mystery however, and once you move beyond that there’s not much you can actually do with mummies. Frankenstein was written at a time when sticking some frog legs on a battery was a marvelous scientific discovery, and yet it raises questions about scientific ethics and such that are still relevant to the modern age. What ideas is a mummy story trying to evoke? Don’t go into strange tombs to ancient dynasties? Never trust a priest? Always watch your asp? Somehow I doubt it’s going to come up.

       Anyway, today’s film returns us to the halls of Hammer Films, that beloved British production company that gave us previous Marathon entries Horror of Dracula and Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde. The late great Peter Cushing plays John Banning, an archeologist/Egyptologist who, along with his father and uncle, head the excavation of the hidden tomb of Ananka, priestess of the god Karnak, much to the chagrin of some of the locals. However the elation of discovery soon turns to tragedy, as John’s father is mysteriously turned into a gibbering wreck while investigating some artifacts. Experts claim it was due to a stroke, but old Professor Banning has another explanation: He was attacked by a mummy, the guardian of Ananka’s tomb, risen from the dead by the reading of an ancient scroll. Now three years later, the mummy is back, this time in jolly old England, in order to finish what it, or perhaps more appropriately, what ol’ Professor Banning started. Hide your throats ladies and gents, because Christopher Lee is in a chokey kind of mood today.

       Unlike Horror of Dracula and Sister Hyde, The Mummy is not an adaptation from any previous literary work. Rather, Hammer’s version of The Mummy takes influence from Universal’s Mummy film, as well as its lesser known sequels. Both films feature a mummy killing folks, obviously, with the mummies being former high priest that were punished for an act of forbidden love with a princess/high priestess, who just so happens to bear a striking resemblance to the lead actress despite them being two different races and about 4000 years apart. It’s interesting to note though that while Karloff in the dusty wrappings is now an iconic image, a close second to his Frankenstein’s Monster, there’s actually very little of the ‘classic’ mummy look in the OG film, and in fact much of the horror in the film is indirect, with Karloff casting magic spells and curses. Hammer’s film is much more direct, and in that way it might be more digestible for a modern audience, who tend to shy away from older, slower paced horror films. The movie is called The Mummy, and you’re damn sure gonna get something that looks like a mummy killing people. 

       That’s about all it has going for it though, in my opinion. It’s a straight line kind of plot, where you can see every development coming from about ten minutes. Which isn’t necessarily a damning thing, horror works within formula so much that even films that satirize horror tropes are a bit cliche, but if you’re going to have a simple framework you’ve got to bring something fresh to the table. Horror of Dracula managed to distinguish itself from its Universal forebear thanks to the advantage of time, color film and less conversative morals allowing Hammer to take things in a bloodier, more risque direction. Sister Hyde played around with the original concept itself, approaching things from a new angle and encouraging others to do the same. The Mummy doesn’t do any of that, and while you could argue that it doesn’t need to, I would say that Hammer, by choosing to do their own Mummy film, which unlike Dracula or Frankenstein has no real prior material that one could source from aside from Karloff’s film, they needed to do something big enough or different enough to be able to say ‘hey, forget Universal. This is The Mummy now’. Which they did not do, in my opinion.

       I would be remiss to finish off this article without mentioning the shining stars of Hammer, the late Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Following the theme of this review though, there’s not much to be said about their performance. Lee is mostly unrecognizable as the long dead Karis and talks maybe once in the entire film, which seems implausible for a man with such a recognizable voice, so that it might as well be anyone in the role. Cushing is fine, although to be honest he seems like a 40 year old in a role meant for a 20 year old. It’s nice to see them together on screen of course, the British Karloff and Lugosi, but it doesn’t have quite the presence it should. Like eating a nice steak at a McDonald’s.

       As I said, what you see on the poster is what you get with Hammer’s The Mummy, and while I can appreciate the honesty in advertising, there just doesn’t seem to be much of a reason to recommend this film. Old school horror fans will likely have already seen it, and new generation fans will balk at the limitations of 50s filmmaking. I suppose you’re in that sweet spot of wanting a ‘something old to watch but not so old that it’s in black and white that you can either turn your brain off with some popcorn and watch or have it on in the background and not have to worry about missing much’ kind of movie this Halloween, then you’ll get some mileage out of this one. Otherwise, just stick with the Brendan Fraser movie like the rest of us cool kids. Or, if you happen to be James Rolfe, stick with the Universal one. They’re just mummies, you ain’t gonna be missing much.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Movie Movie (1978), directed by Stanley Donen

  The Trailer and The Appropriate Tune - "Movies" by Alien Ant Farm      Work has begun on Marathon ‘23 and I’m actually in a dece...