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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look yourself in the mirror any more.

Hollow Man (2000)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven very acutely critiqued his own choices when he observed of Hollow Manit really is not me anymore. I think many other people could have done that… there might have been twenty directors in Hollywood who could have done that”. It isn’t such a wonder he returned to Europe, and to quality, for his subsequent films. If Memoirs of an Invisible Man failed to follow up on the mental side effects of being seen right through found in HG Wells’ novel and (especially) in James Whale’s film, all Hollow Man does is take that tack, with the consequence that the proceedings degenerate into a banal action slasher, but with a naked Bacon instead of a guy in a hockey mask.

It’s not every day you see a guy get his ass kicked on two continents – by himself.

Gemini Man (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ang Lee seems hellbent on sloughing down a technological cul-de-sac to the point of creative obscurity, in much the same way Robert Zemeckis enmired himself in the mirage of motion capture for a decade. Lee previously experimented with higher frame rates on Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, to the general aversion of those who saw it in its intended form – 48, 60 or 120 fps have generally gone down like a bag of cold sick, just ask Peter Jackson – and the complete indifference of most of the remaining audience, for whom the material held little lustre. Now he pretty much repeats that trick with Gemini Man. At best, it’s merely an “okay” film – not quite the bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score suggests – which, (as I saw it) stripped of its distracting frame rate and 3D, reveals itself as just about serviceable but afflicted by several insurmountable drawbacks.

I have a cow, but I hate bananas.

The Laundromat (2019)
(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s flair for cinematic mediocrity continues with this attempt at The Big Short-style topicality, taking aim at the Panama Papers but ending up with a mostly blunt satire, one eager to show how the offshore system negatively impacts the average – and also the not-so-average – person but at the expense of really digging in to how it facilitates the turning of the broader capitalist world (it is, after all based on Jake Bernstein’s Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.