Showing posts with label Hammer Films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hammer Films. Show all posts

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.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2018: Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971), directed by Roy Ward Baker



     It’s been a while since we’ve seen a film by the infamous British film company Hammer Productions. Years in fact, with Horror of Dracula back in Marathon ‘15. It’s an unfortunate case of only having so many spots available on the list, yet so many interesting movies to see, and don’t bring up something crazy like ‘reviewing movies outside of October’. This year I’ve tried to strike a balance between old and new faces, so it felt right to return to Hammer as well. However, since this was a relatively...weirder list of movies than we’ve had in previous years, I decided to dig a little deeper into Hammer’s filmography as well, beyond the Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing fare that the company built its legacy. Which ultimately leads us to this little number from the early 70’s, Roy Ward Baker’s Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde, which would eventually prove to be the decade of Hammer’s demise. It probably wasn’t this movie’s fault though.

     I assume that most of you readers out there are probably at least slightly familiar with the concept of Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde, born from the 1886 novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. Doctor Jekyll, engaged in strange medical research, devises a formula that when consumed transforms him physically and/or psychologically into Mister Hyde, and the subsequent battle for control. The story has been reiterated and reinterpreted hundreds of times since the original publication, from Pagemaster to the Nutty Professor to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but this is the core idea that remains. Potions, personality changes, and so on.

     Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde, like those numerous others takes liberties with the source material, the most obvious being that the transformation is not only from Jekyll to Hyde but from man to woman. Which is apparently a side-effect of the elixir of eternal youth that Jekyll came up with, which is made primarily of female hormones. And since these are the days before estrogen tablets, you have to cut out the hormone-making parts yourself, from the abundant amount of corpses or, if they’re not available, from some more energetic ladies. Of course this is Whitechapel, the place where nothing bad ever happens to women, but you never know what could happen when you decide to throw an extra person into your brain like that. Also there’s a love interest or something but who cares?

     So there’s a lot of implications in the line ‘man uses science and hormone treatments in order to become a woman’, but if you’re expecting this movie to be breaking down barriers then I think you’ll be disappointed. In fact, that Hyde is a woman seems rather superfluous outside of a couple scenes, and puts a bit of a krimp in motivation. I mean in the original story, point of the formula was to create Hyde so that Jekyll could act out hidden vices without inhibition, but considering the fact that Jekyll is Jack the fucking Ripper (another returning idea from Marathon ‘16s Time After Time) it undercuts the evil of Hyde. Also if you count making out with two different men as uninhibited, which it may have been in 1886, but seems rather tame given what movie audience had in the 1970s. I dunno, given the changes from the original plot there just isn’t that much of a point for Hyde to even exist much less be the ‘evil’ one in this sense, or for Jekyll to even bother taking the serum at all, considering that whole ‘eternal youth’ thing seems to be unceremoniously dropped before we’re halfway in. There’s so much potential with the original concept and specifically this version of it, but it just seems to be vastly underutilized.

     Speaking of underutilized, we’ve got Susan Spencer, the girl who feels like she was shoehorned into the story to fulfill some sort of quota. Not much to say about her, because she doesn’t really do anything. She’s not really a romantic interest, because she only has one conversation with Jekyll that isn’t her being quickly rebuffed, and she spends most of her screen time defending Jekyll despite having literally no reason to do so. At least her brother Harold serves the concept as the romantic interest of Hyde, Susan fails to do the same with the almost asexual Jekyll. They even try to push her into the realm of importance near the finale, having Hyde want to kill her to punish Jekyll, but it just falls flat considering he’s barely interacted with her the entire film and has shown no romantic interest in her whatsoever.

     That all being said, it’s a nice looking film (rocking the technicolor period piece look) and the acting is fine, so if you can put aside your lofty expectations you’ll find a serviceable Gothic horror film. I’d hesitate to call it a hidden gem but if you’re a fan of that era or look of scary movie than you’ll be fine with Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde. Those who are interested in seeing the best of what Hammer had to offer this Halloween however, would be better served looking into their Dracula, Frankenstein or Mummy series.

Monday, October 12, 2015

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2015: Horror of Dracula (1958), directed by Terence Fisher

and



R.I.P. Christopher Lee

     In the last Marathon of the Soul, I discussed the influence of vampires in pop culture, most specifically Dracula. Werner Herzog’s adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel had been number 1 after all, and even though the numbered rankings don’t mean much in this context, there really wasn’t any doubt where it should lie. Aside from Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, there is no other story that has had as much influence on pop culture and the horror genre as Dracula. For better or worse, depending on your opinions of Anne Rice and Twilight, the notion of vampires in fiction would not be as prevalent nor would their ‘rules’ be as ingrained into the public consciousness if it hadn’t been for Bram Stoker’s novel. Sure, there had been vampires as the subject of stories around that time, Polidori’s “The Vampyre”, Sheridan Le Fanu’s “Carmilla”, but none have had the staying power as the former Vlad Tepes.

     Of course a lot of the reason why Dracula has been so durable over the years is because of its adaptation to film, and as is is the horror genre, it has been firmly run into the ground. Most of how we view Dracula (as well as werewolves, mummies and Frankenstein’s Monster) comes from the Universal horror films of the 30’s and 40s, which of course were so influential because they were the first of their kind, but few outside the horror fandom ever recognize the impact of Hammer Films on the classic monster films. Beginning in 1955 with their adaptation of The Quatermass Xperiment, Hammer produced a series of films in the thriller, horror and science-fiction genres, filling them with all the sex, violence and special effects that 50s B-movies could muster. The Mummy, The Curse of Frankenstein, Doctor Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde, maybe not all of them were film classics, but Hammer was able to forge a look and feel to their films that firmly established who they were and what that they were about.

     But again, none of them were quite as important as Dracula.

     In retrospect, there’s really spectacular storywise about Horror of Dracula, the first of Hammer’s multi-film series about the titular vampire. After all, it’s just retelling an abridged version of the Stoker novel, without much of the creative differences that marked Herzog’s Nosferatu or Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula. However, where this movie shines is the inclusion of Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing and the legendary Christopher Lee as Count Dracula. It is Cushing’s portrayal of the doctor, who was otherwise a relatively minor character in the novel, which I firmly believe established the idea of Van Helsing as a vampire hunter and Dracula’s archnemesis. Lee’s performance of Count Dracula is equally interesting, as much ‘in character’ as Bela Lugosi’s in 1931. Unlike Lugosi’s charming European aristocrat, Lee’s Dracula is a demon in man’s clothing, a demonic figure whose overwhelming force of will is apparent even though Christopher Lee says less than five lines of dialogue throughout the entire film (I believe the story is that he hated all of Dracula’s dialogue so he opted not to say it, because who are you to question Christopher Lee?). Both embody the dark, seductive nature that characterize what Dracula represents, but there’s something dangerous, even bestial about Lee’s Dracula that feels so effective even 40+ years later. He really feels like the stuff of nightmares, more so than Lugosi or Gary Oldman or really anybody else I’ve seen that has played the character. That he manages this completely nonverbally is a testament to how truly great an actor he was.

     There will probably always be some iteration of Dracula or some other vampire story being made at any given point in time, but horror is a genre which respects the classics, and as horror fans we should as well. If you’ve already seen the Universal Dracula, how about taking a trip across the pond and trying out Horror of Dracula? It’s got boobs, blood and elderly British men galore. What more could you want on Halloween?

A Brief Return

       If anyone regularly reads this blog, I'm sorry that I dropped off the face of the Earth there with no warning. Hadn't planned...