The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2020: The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), directed by Terence Fisher

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: "Frankenstein", by New York Dolls

      Universal Studios. Not only are they responsible for producing and distributing films which laid down the foundation for horror in cinema, but they also made sure it would always be seen as cheaply made pablum thrown out for a quick buck. Yes, decades before films like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street would be mocked and parodied for the seemingly endless additions to its canon, it was actually Universal that wrote the book on horror ‘franchises’. Dracula suddenly had a daughter crawl out of the woodwork, and later a son. The Invisible Man gave way to The Invisible Woman, and later another man (although this one was an agent) before he got his revenge. The Mummy got into a whole mess of trouble, and even The Creature from the Black Lagoon had a few adventures before the curtains closed. No, not all of them followed established continuity or feature the same actors, but that wasn’t the point. You remembered Universal’s Dracula, so maybe if we put his name on this film it’d sell a couple more tickets, and so on and on. Didn’t matter if the movie was good, as long as it could make money. Which is why movie studios nowadays get straight to the point and just remake films and give them the exact same name, Halloween (1979), Halloween (2007) and Halloween (2018) for example, no matter how confusing that might be for the movie-going audience. Thanks Universal!

Of the Universal Monster line, Frankenstein had it a bit better than most. Four years after the whirlwind success of the original Frankenstein in 1931 we’d see a sequel in Bride of Frankenstein; James Whale would return to the director’s chair, Boris Karloff would return as The Monster, and aside from being a good film it’s introduction of The Bride into pop culture would go on to ensure its status as a classic and fixture of shitty film blogs on the internet. Four years after that Universal would close out the decade with Son of Frankenstein; James Whale was out in favor of Rowland Lee and Karloff would make his final appearance in his famous role, but the inclusion of Basil Rathbone and Bela Lugosi as a hunchback by the name of Ygor (bet that’ll never come up again) ends up pushing it into recommended viewing territory, at least it did when I reviewed it. After that...eh. There was The Ghost of Frankenstein, which saw Lugosi return but didn’t really drive me to do the same. After that would be Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, also known as one of the biggest cockblocks in horror cinema history, and then House of Frankenstein, which was actually a sequel to one of the biggest cockblocks in horror cinema history (also Son of Dracula). Finally in ‘48, and I do mean final because there were only 5 movies after this, we got Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, which was actually pretty good and a movie that I might return to in a review someday, but it does seem a rather ignominious end. Once a menace to movie-goers, now reduced to a walking parody used to spook comedians. Jeez, you’d think everyone had just come off of a worldwide war or something.

Anyway, forget about Universal. It’s Hammer time.

Released in 1957, The Curse of Frankenstein was the first of three movies directed by Terence Fisher upon which the name of Hammer Horror would be built, followed subsequently by The Horror of Dracula and The Mummy. Peter Cushing stars as the titular Baron Victor Frankenstein, a man possessed with an intelligence as great as his arrogance. Ever since he was a baby baron Victor had explored the mysteries of the life, spending his adolescence in research and study with his friend and tutor Paul Kemper (Robert Urquhart). Then one day, a breakthrough: they manage to take a dog that was dead and bring it back to life, in complete defiance of JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure. The greatest medical discovery the world has ever known, if you let the world know that is, and yet Victor hesitates. Bringing life back to something that was previously dead is certainly an amazing feat, but wouldn’t it be even more amazing to bring life to something that had never lived at all? To create life, in a way humanity has never seen before? Then you’d not just be the most important scientist of your generation, you’d be the most important human being that’s ever lived. For a prize like that Victor’d be willing to do just about anything. Maybe even...murder?

Even though Universal’s Frankenstein and Hammer’s Frankenstein films were released 26 years apart, you get the sense that Fisher and Hammer wanted to be as different as possible from that earlier. The Monster (played by Christopher Lee) is not the sympathetic creature that Karloff’s Monster was nor is he given that much focus, he’s just a monster who doubles as a plot device. Similarly Victor Frankenstein is not the repentant figure driven to undo his own grisly work, as it was in the ‘31 film and the original novel, he is out and out the villain of the film. Curse of Frankenstein doesn’t even have a mob of angry villagers wielding pitchforks and torches, although it is teased at one point. ‘This wasn’t your daddy’s Frankenstein’, it all seems to say, and it was the same philosophy that seemed to carry over as Hammer went on. Dracula would turn up the sleaze as much as late 50’s British society could stand, The Mummy...well, he’s basically The Monster with a tragic backstory. Even Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde got its own little Hammer twist, although in that case I doubt the Paramount movie was much of a factor in the decision.

Not only did this film kickstart Hammer as the gold standard in horror cinema for a while, it also established Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as staples of genre cinema for the rest of the careers. Not quite as much for Lee, who as I said is far less of a character than Karloff’s Monster was, but Cushing is far and away the highlight of the film. His portrayal of Frankenstein is fantastic, the very model of a gentleman on the surface but willing and able to throw away ethics and human decency when it benefits him or his work. The living embodiment of that ‘you thought so much about whether or not you could you didn’t think about whether or not you should’ line from Jurassic Park (a version of which even makes it way here). He reminds me a bit of ol’ Herbert West from one of my favorite horror movies actually, Re-Animator, except even worse if you can believe it. Herbert was a contemptible person, true, but he really presents himself as anything else. Victor on the other hand, while it seems like he’s capable of empathy at certain points, you’re never sure whether he’s being sincere or whether he’s being plainly manipulative. Occasionally it feels like they are trying a bit too hard to make him the bad, like stealing human body parts so he can stitch them together into some hideous flesh ogre wasn’t bad enough, but Cushing is so damn good at being a sociopath it’s not hard to see why Hammer revisited the character several more times over the years.

I also really like the art direction in Curse of Frankenstein. While the Universal monster films had that mix of Expressionism, the then-modern era and the era of the source material (at least the early ones), CoF is much more grounded and period-appropriate. Which might seem contradictory, given how often I’ve praised weird aesthetics in film, but there’s something about this slightly grimy, yet almost color saturated Georgian design that I find appealing. Especially when it comes to Frankenstein’s laboratory, as I’ve loved the concept of steampunk and otherwise ‘old’ technology ever since I first read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and The Time Machine. Again it doesn’t match the iconic look of Universal’s spark-spitting dynamos and what have you, but I think Curse of Frankenstein’s collection of bubbling beakers and tubs of strange liquids lends itself more to the idea of Frankenstein being this medical genius who has bridged the worlds of science and alchemy rather than just some guy who stuck some body parts together and shocked it a couple times. Curse of Frankenstein feels ‘real’, I guess, and the easier it is to suspend your disbelief when you’re watching genre films, the better off you are.

Unfortunately Curse of Frankenstein does suffer from a bit of ‘Escape from the Planet of the Apes’ syndrome, by which I mean it was a small production (270,000 dollar budget) and it feels like it. As nice as Castle Frankenstein looks on the inside, the fact that we spend so much time there makes things feel claustrophobic, especially when it’s the same four people talking to each other as well. You do get the occasional scene outside, but the way they’re shot is usually locked in on the characters so you don’t get much of a sense of space. It would make sense in context, since this is Frankenstein telling his story, but since there are moments that happen that he couldn’t possibly have known about, there’s not an excuse beyond ‘we’ve got no money’.

We’ve also got a small cast, and like I said, Peter Cushing is the reason you watch this movie. Robert Urquhart is okay as Paul Kremper, but like 80 percent of this movie is entering a room and complaining about something, and it feels like they subtly try to push a romance between him and Elizabeth despite him looking like he was in his early 30s when she was like 6, which is just fucking creepy. Hazel Court as Elizabeth Frankenstein, is...there. That’s not meant as a slight against the actress, she’s literally a Chekov’s Gun to build tension for the climax, otherwise it makes no sense that if Paul was so disturbed by Victor’s experiments that he was worried for her life that he wouldn’t have told her in the scene when he tried to get her to leave. Or later on, when they basically redo the scene and Paul has even more reason to want her to leave. Maybe if they actually pushed that romance angle, despite my reservations about it, there could have been some drama there, but they don’t, so she’s just...there. Waiting.

While she’s waiting, I’m going to go ahead and give The Curse of Frankenstein the recommendation. Putting aside all the smoke I’ve blown up Hammer’s ass, it really is an intriguing adaptation of Mary Shelley’s work, not all that accurate to the novel but it approaches the concept from a perspective that I haven’t seen a Frankenstein adaptation really do since then, which is a shame. If I were looking to be controversial I’d say Horror of Dracula and The Mummy suck so just watch this, but I do think if you’re a rookie looking into Hammer Horror or older horror movies, this is a good place to start. A bit like a mild cheddar cheese: It’s got a little bit of a bite, but it goes down smooth.

Don’t ask me what Frankenstein has to do with cheese. It should be obvious.

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

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: "Walk Like An Egyptian", by The Bangles

       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.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Tales From the Crypt (1972), directed by Freddie Francis

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: "On A Rope", by Rocket from the Crypt

     In the vast field that is horror-based anthology television shows, that are a lucky few that can be considered a step above the rest. There’s Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone, the gold standard, a sublime combination of talent and storytelling that has kept it in the public consciousness in the decades after it came out. For those with tastes more geared towards the speculative, The Outer Limits (both the original and the 90s reboot) provides plenty of chills, and arguably more consistent writing, in a delightful science fiction coating. It was also the first show to feature an adaptation of Harlan Ellison’s story “Soldier”, which James Cameron later ripped off in order to create his own science fiction classic The Terminator. Well, ‘ripped off’ is a little harsh, I don’t know the man after all, more like ‘featured almost entirely the same plot as Ellison’s story and got his ass sued because of it’. He did add Arnold though, so that’s a point for Cameron.

     There are a couple of others that have their moments, The Night Gallery, One Step Beyond, Tales from the Darkside, Ray Bradbury Theater, Channel Zero (I maintain that that first was more Silent Hill than the actual live action Silent Hill), but the only other ‘major’ horror anthology was Tales From the Crypt. First terrorizing HBO subscribers in the year of 1989, Tales From the Crypt was hosted by the ghoulish Crypt-Keeper, a dessicated corpse with a grating, high-pitched laugh, macabre tendencies, and an obsession with puns that bordered on the perverse. Over 7 seasons and several spin offs, the Crypt-Keeper shared many tales from his crypt, packed with popular celebrities in both acting and directing roles (HBO’s gotta spend your money somehow). Although these stories tended not to be particularly complex, many trended towards the classic morality story framework, but their love of gruesome visuals and morbid sense of humor was enough to grab a sizeable chunk of audience and a piece of the pop culture pie. In fact it’s still entertaining, check it out if you have the opportunity.

     Over a decade before we got the Tales from the Crypt tv show we got Tales from the Crypt (also based on the infamous EC Comics title of the same name) by Amicus, who were sort of the B-grade Hammer Films back in the day. In this version, rather than the Crypt-Keeper telling these stories, he has instead gathered a group of people who happened to be taking a tour of some catacombs, of various ages and occupations. Although seemingly unrelated, there is a thread of deceit, greed and yes, even murder, that runs through each of their souls. However, are these cautionary tales, of things that may yet come to pass, or are they something more sinister?

     There are 5 little segments in total; Some of which involve the supernatural, all of which involve murder, and are all based on a story from the Tales From the Crypt comic . There’s a nice little smattering of gore here and there, occasionally some special effects, but it doesn’t get much more visually gruesome than red paint blood and white sausage casing intestines. This was Amicus after all, the Mr. Pibb to Hammer’s Dr. Pepper, they had the spirit but no the budget. “And All Through the Night”, is a fun little Christmas themed murder romp, and proved popular enough to be adapted for the television show. “Reflections of Death” has a fun little twist, although it and “Wish You Were Here”, a literal rehashing of the classic short story “The Monkey’s Paw” seem a little too anemic on content to properly make the transition to the silver screen. Of the five, I’d say that I prefer “Poetic Justice”, in which a kind old man (played by horror legend Peter Cushing) is tormented by his rich neighbors, and “Blind Alley”, where a self-righteous head of a nursing home for the blind ends up on the receiving end of some Jigsaw-esque payback by his charges. Those two in particular I believe feature the biggest assholes and the most satisfying retribution, which hopefully doesn't sound as pornographic to you as it did in my head.

     When you get down to it, that’s what these stories are about: watching assholes be assholes and watching them get killed in violent ways. There’s nothing especially complex about these stories, no deep metaphors to ponder, just the base satisfaction that comes from seeing someone who we feel deserves punishment get punished. Specifically in very gruesome ways, which is exactly what made the original comics so popular and controversial back in the day. Does that mean that Tales From the Crypt is the most faithful comic book movie of all time, even more so than the George Lucas classic Howard the Duck? I think the argument could be made that it is, and it’s even working with five different stories with five different protagonists. What’s your excuse Batman V Superman?

     Those well-versed in the world of horror, and aware of its tendency towards style over substance, will likely find Tales From the Crypt an entertaining if not necessarily astounding film. Newcomers, on the other hand will likely find these little vignettes enjoyable and easily digestible, especially those familiar with The Twilight Zone, but those who are used to the special effects of modern movies will probably find the attempts at gore here primitive to the point of comedy. For the former, check this out if you’re done with Creepshow and Spirits of the Dead and wanted a way to ease into the Amicus filmography. For the latter, keep an open mind and check this out if you were interested in checking out one of the predecessors to VHS. Either way, just remember to treat people nicely and behave yourself. Or else.