Skip to main content

Do you have to open graves to find girls to fall in love with?

The Mummy
(1932)

(SPOILERS) Even though retellings of Dracula and Frankenstein have been more ubiquitous over the years, it feels as if The Mummy has been granted the most prolific attention of late, probably because the Brendan Fraser Indiana Jones version, while mostly not very good, was very successful, and the recent Tom Cruise edition, while also not very good, wasn’t nearly successful enough, bringing Universal’s "Dark Universe" crashing down around its ears. This original iteration is very modest in both ambition and intent, but boasts craftsmanship in key areas that ensures it stands the test of time rather better than some of its Universal Horror stablemates.

Director Karl Freund, cinematographer on Dracula (and uncredited director by some accounts) opts for restraint when it comes to the chill factor – we don’t even see the mummified Imhotep (Boris Karloff) again after the first ten minutes, a decision that couldn’t possibly be countenanced today – but he offers a pervasive, compelling atmosphere. This is very much a warped love story, Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake informing the doomed romanticism of the proceedings. A further difference to later iterations is that while Ardath Bey (Imohtep minus the swaddling bands) is single-minded in his quest for his lost love as embodied by Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann, all wild eyes and passionate looks), the reincarnation – he believes, and it’s fairly convincing on both sides – of Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon, as antagonist he’s also given the voice and person of a bona fide protagonist; Arnold Vosloo in the 1999 version is quite ineffectual by comparison. Indeed, the biggest mark against him is that his proposed means of blissful reunion is on the batty side (rather Bride of Frankenstein-like, his mate must be rendered like him, so killed, mummified and resurrected, which Helen, understandably, blanches at when it comes down to brass tacks).

While bandaged Imhotep can’t hope to carry the kind of iconic legacy of his Frankenstein – even though the mummy makeup job by Jack Pierce is nothing short of astounding – for my money, Karloff is a much more engaging presence here, and thus ensures the film is more effective than Frankenstein overall. Freund avoids the cop out of having to turn the villain (the baron) into the hero, and it isn’t really a problem that Helen’s suitor Frank Whemple (David Manners) is utterly ineffectual (“You know, I’d have liked Egypt better if I’d met you there”); it merely underlines that, for all his foibles, Imhotep is the guy (“I have never felt so alive” she tells him). Karloff’s performance is fascinating; he towers over his co-stars (courtesy of lifts) and is all overcast reserve (“Your pardon, I don’t like to be touched. An eastern prejudice" he advises, refusing a handshake from Arthur Byron’s Sir Joseph).

Lead actress Johann’s short-lived screen career was apparently down to being difficult to work with (she ended up concentrating on theatre instead). For this, her third role, she apparently went a bit method, steeping herself in the occult to get into the part (she was a dabbler anyway). If Helen’s required to yo-yo a bit too obviously between overcome and normal repose at times, Johann’s every bit as necessary to the film’s success as Karloff. Everyone else, though, even more than Dracula or Frankenstein, is disposable.

Pauline Kael was positively delirious in her praise of The Mummy, referring to its “long, quiet, ominous scenes” and how “the lighting is so masterly and the moods are so effectively sustained that the picture gives one prickly sensations”; “it’s silly but it’s also disturbingly beautiful”. I wouldn’t be quite so effusive, since it’s clear that Freund isn’t much interested in anything that isn’t Imhotep and Helen, and the ancient Egypt flashbacks, while engrossing aren’t remotely transportive (one such does feature a gruesome bit of gore with a soldier skewered by a spear, though). But the film has something; indeed, one might wonder if the premise wasn’t lifted for Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (“Love Never Dies”), in which Vlad’s beloved Elisabeta is posited as reincarnated in the form of Mina Harker, were it not itself taking its cues from Dan Curtis’ Richard Matheson-scripted 1973 TV movie with Jack Palance (so I guess the finger points at Matheson).

The Mummy was, of course, Universal’s first self-originated monster, albeit it bears certain similarities to Conan Doyle’s The Ring of Thoth (crucially, though, there’s no mummy on the rampage there, or even one definitively revivified). Other than a ten-years-earlier lead-in section – thus couching itself in escalating untowardness; Robert Holmes’ Doctor Who story Pyramids of Mars did something not altogether dissimilar, albeit over a span of months rather than years – the picture was set in the present, and it’s easy to see how it has been hugely influential genre-wise. The discovery of Tutankhamen’s tomb was a direct inspiration to producer Carl Laemmle, Jr, but the lure of “noble” archaeology (rather than of the plundering and desecration kind) has since fed into Indiana Jones and its ilk and fermented the ideal period for supernatural sensations on the big screen.

There have been criticisms of The Mummy’s cultural cynicism and caricaturing, but the weak-minded, easily influenced Nubian servant (Noble Johnson) dates the movie more obviously than the kinds of Egyptian tropes that have been common even to more recent iterations. As for its legacy, the moderation on display may explain the lack of immediate sequels until more traditionally scary rampager Kharis arrived in 1940. Tellingly, though, no one’s really waxing lyrical about those pictures now.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …