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 2015: Horror of Dracula (1958), directed by Terence Fisher

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: "My Way", by Christopher Lee

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?