Showing posts with label classic film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic film. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

The Grant Mystique: Sylvia Scarlett (1936)

"There's something that gives me a queer feeling every time I look at you."--Jimmy Monkley (Cary Grant) in Sylvia Scarlett.


Cary Grant's sexuality has been an open question for decades. Grant vowed that he was straight to the end of his days, but rumors circulated his entire life and afterward that not only was he gay, he and his friend, Randolph Scott, set up house together between lavender marriages to minor actresses. If true, it was an on again off again cohabitation of some twelve years. Grant was militant in defending his heterosexuality, though. He was litigious on the subject during his lifetime. And yet...several of his earliest directors were gay. He had a bit part in Dorothy Arzner's Merrily We Go to Hell and a more substantial one in Mitchell Leisen's The Eagle and the Hawk.  He was perfectly happy to allow filmmakers to poke fun at his masculinity, particularly in two films for Howard Hawks. In Bringing Up Baby, Hawks dressed the actor in a marabou negligee and when pressed on his appearance by the film's straights, gave him the line, "I just went gay all of a sudden!" A decade later, Hawks dressed him up as a woman full stop in I Was a Male War Bride, assuming that the sight of Grant so attired would be hilarious. That gag hasn't aged at all well. Grant's daughter, Jennifer, continued to defend her father's heterosexuality after his death, but several of his ex-wives described him as bisexual at the very least. As a personal note: Grant set off my mother's gaydar, which was accurate enough to identify Rock Hudson as a gay man long before he was outed during the AIDS epidemic. So there you go. You have my mother's word for it.

In spite of Grant's defenses and denials, queerness circled his career and screen image, if only as background radiation. Three of the actor's collaborations with Katharine Hepburn were directed by George Cukor, whose homosexuality wasn't just a matter of rumor. Cukor knew all of gay Hollywood, and held parties for them in his home throughout his life. In 1936, Cukor was picked up on vice charges at the Navy pier with William Haines and Haines's boyfriend/husband for soliciting sex from men, something that MGM was at pains to cover up. Cukor was often relegated as a director of "women's pictures" ever after, including, appropriately enough, The Women in 1939 as a consolation prize for being removed from Gone With the Wind because Clark Gable wouldn't be directed by a "fairy" (his word). Cukor himself bristled at the idea that he could only work with women and, indeed, more men won Oscars in his films than did for any other director. He also directed more movies starring Katharine Hepburn--ten of them--than any other director.

Katharine Hepburn herself was no model of depression-era heterosexuality, either. She affected mannish fashions in a time when that was taboo. She frequently wore pants (gasp!). She consorted with known lesbians. Her second film, the very queer-coded Christopher Strong, was directed by Dorothy Arzner after all (her first was directed by Cukor). She was rumored to have had romantic relationships with multiple women and a long-term one with her "companion", Laura Harding, throughout the 1930s. Some of Hepburn's comments on her own persona suggest at least some level of gender ambiguity. She affected an alter ego named "Jimmy" in her youth, for example, and sometimes complained that she should have been born a man. History notes Hepburn's affairs with men, most notably John Ford (himself of a dubious sexuality if you believe Maureen O'Hara, among others), Howard Hughes, and Spencer Tracy. Tracy was accounted Hepburn's great love, but is it possible that he was a beard? Likely not, but some of her contemporaries, known lesbians all, believed that the actual love of her life was Harding, with whom she remained close throughout her life.

Does any of this matter given the enforced heterosexuality of movies during the Production Code era? Is it even useful to speculate about dead movie stars who never publicly acknowledged that they were some variety of queer? Maybe not as a rule. The Breen office and paranoid studios made damned sure that this is all reading tea leaves in the absence of documentary evidence. Even granting that, you cannot avoid the queerness of the imagery in Grant, Hepburn, and Cukor's first collaboration, Sylvia Scarlett (1936), in which Hepburn cuts off her hair and poses as a man for most of the film and kisses a girl. And if the film weren't queer enough already, Edmund Gwenn--Kris Kringle himself--plays Sylvia Scarlett's reprobate father in the film. Gwenn never remarried after he separated from his wife around 1916. He spent his later years living with the much younger Olympic bobsledder, Rodney Soher, and allegedly had multiple male side-pieces. One almost feels sorry for poor Brian Ahern, possibly the only prominent straight cast member in the film.

It is the overt queerness of Sylvia Scarlett that is most often cited as the reason it flopped. It is that same overt queerness that has granted it an afterlife in spite of its initial failure. It's a cult item these days, a film that figures prominently in the history of gay Hollywood. It's also an important film in the careers of both Grant and Hepburn, though it sent them in opposite directions.

Monday, June 01, 2026

Norma Jean at 100

I had a weird dream last night where I was working as a camera operator on Some Like It Hot and I was covertly filming a short film in which Marilyn Monroe was delivering Molly Bloom's monologue from Ulysses and that's why she was always late to set for Wilder's film. In my dream we did multiple set-ups to make it cinematic rather than just pointing the camera at her, which in retrospect, I probably should have done in the first place. She flubbed her lines once or twice, but she knew the material.

I have no idea of if the real Norma Jean could do a Dublin accent, but in my dream she could.

The picture at the head of this post is from Clash by Night, by the way, a film notable because she doesn't use the baby doll voice for which she's famous. I picture Molly Bloom looking a bit like this. Jesus, can you imagine this woman saying:

"I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

That would have melted movie screens.

I know the real Marilyn read Ulysses and lobbied for the part of Molly Bloom in a film she wanted to get off the ground. I know she got angry when producers told her that she wasn't right for a film version when she knew those producers hadn't even read it.

Anyway, she would have been 100 years old today. Hollywood squandered her talent, but she made a bunch of great films in spite of that.





Christianne Benedict on Patreon
This blog is supported on Patreon by wonderful subscribers. If you like what I do, please consider pledging your own support. It means the world to me.

Friday, January 09, 2026

Revisiting Eyes Without a Face at Horror 101

I was invited on to my friend Aaron's Horror 101 pocast again to talk about one of my very favorite films. How favorite? I named myself after a character in it. I've written about it on multiple occasions, and I've reproduced the essay I wrote about it for the old Muriel awards a few years ago below the jump.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

The Pendulum Swings


“And then there stole into my fancy, like a rich musical note, the thought of what sweet rest there must be in the grave.”

― Edgar Allan Poe, The Pit and the Pendulum

The last time I saw Roger Corman's version of The Pit and the Pendulum (1961) was over 16 years ago. I know this because I wrote a capsule review about it here back when I was using this blog as a notepad. It is not my favorite of the Poe films, but on re-watching it this morning I think it's the film that really nailed the Poe films in place as a cultural force. It's also a film that follows a rule of sequels insofar as its first half is exactly the plot of Corman's House of Usher, and some of the specific story beats are also identical. Corman isn't traditionally thought of as an auteur, but at least while he was making his Poe films, he totally was one. Once the film sheds House of Usher, it winds up gathering a number of other trends loose in the genre and creating a unified theory of Gothic filmmaking circa 1960. It's a hugely influential film, not least because it looks to the Italians and one-ups them at their own game. Corman even borrowed Barbara Steele to drive home the point.

Thursday, October 02, 2025

Not Fade Away

I'm sure I saw The Invisible Man Returns (1940, directed by Joe May) when I was a kid, but I didn't remember much except some of the special effects gags, particularly the scene at the end when the Invisible Man is slowly returning to visibility and all you can see is a net of veins and arteries. I am not fond of the Universal horror movies of the 1940s so I am mildly surprised to be wrong about this film. While it may not be a masterpiece like its predecessor, it's a worthy successor. Its main innovation is a change of genre. This is not exactly a horror movie. Rather, it is a horror-adjacent crime story/whodunnit. It also has director Joe May, one of the titans of German cinema during the silent era who was reduced to helming B-movies for Universal after fleeing to Hollywood in 1933. His career was winding down at the time but he had a couple of fireworks displays left in him for 1940, including The Invisible Man Returns and The House of Seven Gables. Both star Vincent Price.

Friday, September 05, 2025

The Grant Mystique: Dream Wife (1953)

Some years ago I complained that once World War II ended, Cary Grant was content to settle into inane sitcoms rather than the kind of sparkling entertainments he made during his first golden era (roughly 1937 to 1942). Whatever their virtues, films like The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer or Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House domesticated the Grant persona for a post war audience of war veterans moving to the new suburbs on the GI bill. I use the word "sitcom" with malice aforethought. Grant had become conservative with his choices. He would stretch his persona only very occasionally. One of his co-stars during this period described Grant as "the most nervous actor I ever worked with." It seems that the shadow of Archie Leach, the nobody, dogged Grant to the end of his days. The nadir of Grant's post-war artistic conservatism is Dream Wife (1953, directed by Sidney Sheldon). Sidney Sheldon is a name that should be familiar to audiences of a certain age. He is best known as the creator of the television sitcoms, The Patty Duke Show and I Dream of Jeannie. Certain elements of Dream Wife show up in I Dream of Jeannie, as it happens. Its conception of the Princess Tarji (Betta St. John) in particular is the template for Barbara Eden's Jeannie. Sheldon was very successful as screenwriter, as a television writer, and as a producer. He was even more successful later in his career as the writer of trashy romantic suspense novels with titles like Rage of Angels and The Other Side of Midnight. Sheldon had been successful working with Cary Grant before, having written the screenplay for The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer. That script won him an Oscar. Dream Wife, alas, was NOT a success for Sheldon and it nearly ended the career of its star. After the film failed to recoup its costs--a rarity for any film starring Grant during his major stardom--the actor considered retirement. He went so far as announcing his retirement in the press. He wouldn't make another film for two years. Dream Wife was a disaster for everyone involved. It's also a dreadful film.

Friday, June 20, 2025

Revisiting Dead Of Night at Horror 101

I was invited back to Dr. AC's Horror 101 podcast to talk about Dead of Night (1945). It's a film I wrote about for his book, Horror 101, many years ago. I've added that review, slightly revised, below.

Friday, March 28, 2025

Stars in B-Movies Blogathon 2025: Mary Woronov and Paul Bartel and Eating Raoul

"I knew what was art and what was shit. But sometimes the shit was more interesting." -- Mary Woronov


The first film I ever saw in which Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov both appear was Rock 'n' Roll High School, but I didn't start to associate them as collaborators until I saw Bartel's Eating Raoul on HBO in 1984. I had seen Death Race 2000 by then, too, but it didn't register for me that it was their first film together because Bartel, who directed the film, does not appear in it. They ultimately made 17 films together, sometimes playing husband and wife, sometimes with Bartel nowhere to be seen in front of the camera. Their best known collaborations were in films written and/or directed by Bartel himself (most famously in Eating Raoul in 1983), but they were a ubiquitous part of the company of actors who worked at Roger Corman's New World Pictures in the 1970s. I always loved it whenever they showed up in films together, and even when they showed up in films without the other.

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Horror 101: The Psycho Legacy and the Politics of Images

I was on Dr. AC's podcast again this week, talking about Psycho (1960) and its progeny. I had a particular ax to grind with the politics of the film's images, but the conversation ranged all over. I am particularly fond of Psycho III among the sequels, and do not hate the remake, even if it is pointless.

Enjoy.





Christianne Benedict on Patreon
This blog is supported on Patreon by wonderful subscribers. If you like what I do, please consider pledging your own support. It means the world to me.

Saturday, February 01, 2025

The Grant Mystique: She Done Him Wrong (1933)

Mae West claimed all her life that she had discovered Cary Grant. "He had only done a few screen tests" before she plucked him from obscurity, according to her. This is untrue, of course. She Done Him Wrong (1933, directed by Lowell Sherman) was Grant's eighth feature film. Grant was second billed in She Done Him Wrong after West herself, though even that wasn't his highest billing to that date (Grant had been top billed in Hot Saturday, the film that immediately precedes She Done Him Wrong in Grant's filmography). She may not have discovered him, but West sure knew a star in the making when she saw one. A diamond in the rough, as it were, and if Mae West knew one thing, it was diamonds. She Done Him Wrong was West's own first film, but she was already notorious for her plays in New York, some of which had been shut down by the blue noses for obscenity and race mixing. She Done Him Wrong was based on West's Diamond Lil, a play so infamous that the minders of the production code insisted that the title couldn't be used or even referred to by incorporating the word "diamond." Although She Done Him Wrong is a pre-Code film, it highlights the inaccuracy of that category. There already WAS a production code, signed onto by all of the major studios, enacted in 1930, on top of a list of "dos and don'ts and be carefuls" formulated in 1927. Although the code was widely ignored by the studios from 1930 to 1934, the arbiters of the code could and did occasionally flex enough muscle to get their way. She Done Him Wrong wasn't the only film to change its title and other elements due to the strictures of the Code pre-1934. William Faulkner's novel, Sanctuary, was so notorious that film productions were barred from using that title, too, and discouraged from adapting the book at all. Hence, the 1933 film version became The Story of Temple Drake and many of the details of the story were judiciously changed as a means of filing off the serial numbers. She Done Him Wrong follows a similar strategy. "Diamond Lil" becomes "Lady Lou," but they weren't fooling anyone.

What this film meant for Grant was a high profile role in a film that would be talked about by everyone. Indeed, the film was a gigantic hit and was nominated for the "Best Production" Oscar (aka: Best Picture), which it lost to Cavalcade, a film you've probably never seen if you've heard of it at all. It was Grant's first brush with the kind of success that would become customary for productions in which he starred. Although he would labor in thankless roles for Paramount for another three years, this film undoubtedly gave him a leg up for when he decided to forge his own path to stardom. It was a hint that he might be bankable, though no one should mistake this movie as a "Cary Grant" movie. West brooked no rivals for the spotlight.

Saturday, December 21, 2024

The Grant Mystique: Suzy (1936)

During the years-long production of Howard Hughes's World War I epic, Hell's Angels, Hughes shot 250 feet of aviation footage for every foot of that footage used in the finished film. His aerial unit shot a LOT of aviation footage. Hughes's particular genius was finding ways to make money--a skill that eventually made him the richest man in the world. It should come as no surprise, then, that the extra footage he shot became a lucrative side-hustle. The World War I dogfights filmed for Hell's Angels show up in dozens of films throughout the 1930s without ever duplicating the footage Hughes actually used. Suzy (1936, directed by George Fitzmaurice), a spy drama set in the early part of the war, is one of the films that makes use of this largess. It also makes use of one of Hell's Angels's major stars in leading lady Jean Harlow, whose time on the stage would run out of road only a short time afterward. If given the choice between Harlow in this film and Harlow in Hell's Angels, an interested viewer should definitely choose the latter. That's none of my concern here, though. She's fine in Suzy, a film built specifically for her, but it's not a film with the same ambition. Her performance was influenced by her declining health--partially the result of multiple studio-enforced abortions--that limited her endurance on set and resulted in a longer than usual production schedule.

This was a consequential film for co-star Cary Grant, who was loaned to MGM for this film against his will to replace Clark Gable. This is absolutely a Gable part, but not a Cary Grant part. Grant came away from the experience hating his part even after it had been extensively rewritten for him at his own request and with his own participation. He hated the lack of control he had over his own career, a lack that had landed him in this particular film in the first place. He hated the finished product. He hated that he was still third-billed after making twenty-five previous films and climbing the cast list to the brink of superstardom. His contract with Paramount, who had loaned him out as a punishment, would run out at the end of 1936. Paramount would loan him out again for his next film after Suzy and then he made one further film for Paramount after that. Then Grant vowed never to sign another exclusive contract again. He would choose his own roles. He would choose his own collaborators. He would have the power to say "no" to projects he didn't like. He also resolved to develop his own brand as a movie star, partly as a defense against more roles like the one he plays in Suzy. He would develop a "persona," if you will, and with that persona, he became the very model of a Hollywood movie star. This is one of the last films in the actor's portfolio in which the persona of "Cary Grant" is mostly still in its infancy. Grant's role here is the most unlikable character he ever played and Grant was absolutely correct when he complained that he had been miscast. But then, he's not the lead, which is a gross waste of available resources. I wonder how this film would have played if Grant and Franchot Tone--who was billed over Grant as the romantic lead--had switched roles. A big "if."

Sunday, May 19, 2024

The Grant Mystique: In Name Only (1939)

If Cary Grant was the king of the screwball comedy, then the queen was Carole Lombard. Grant and Lombard appeared in the same film three times before Lombard's untimely death in 1942, but none of those films was a comedy. In Sinners in the Sun, Grant had no more than five or six minutes of screen time in total opposite Lombard. In The Eagle and the Hawk, they never shared the screen at all. The only true co-starring vehicle they made together was In Name Only (1939, directed by John Cromwell), a romantic drama. It is ironic that Grant's most famous comedy co-stars--Irene Dunne and Katherine Hepburn--were primarily known as dramatic actresses, while the greatest female comedienne of the age made only dramas with him. This teaming of Lombard and Grant might not have happened at all if Katherine Hepburn hadn't been tagged as "box office poison" in the press after the failures of Bringing Up Baby and Holiday (among other films). Hepburn had subsequently been released from her contract with RKO. It is conceivable that his trio of early films with Hepburn delayed or inhibited Grant's ascent to superstardom. None of them was a financial success in spite of the classic status accorded them years after the fact. In any event, Hepburn was out and Lombard was in. Lombard herself was taking a break from comedies. Her other film from 1939 was Made for Each Other opposite James Stewart, another weepie directed by John Cromwell. It had been a financial disaster. Lombard's life at the time paralleled the plot of In Name Only. She was biding her time until Clark Gable could divorce his wife and she could marry him. Gable, for his part, was off making Gone With the Wind. Her career at the time was also eerily similar to Grant's. Like Grant, she had been contracted to Paramount during her early career, a contract that she finished in 1938. Like Grant, she had chosen to become a free agent when that contract expired. Like Grant, she wasn't starring in comedies in 1939 (Grant's other two films that year, Only Angels Have Wings and Gunga Din, were nominally adventure stories). For both actors, In Name Only was something of a crossroads. Grant had already had a couple of big hits after he left Paramount, though he had had some disappointments, too. He hadn't had a major hit in a serious drama, though. Lombard hadn't yet had her own hit after leaving Paramount and it remained to be seen if she could carry a serious drama. In Name Only turned out to be a film both of them needed. It was moderately successful.

Saturday, April 13, 2024

Favorite Stars in B-Movies Blogathon 2024: Graylisted

It is easy in film critic land to ascribe the shape and form of most films to an overriding artistic impulse on the part of the filmmakers, but this is only true in a small number of films. Most films are at the mercy of social and commercial forces that are well outside the control of directors, producers, and even studios. Back in the day, B-films were particularly susceptible to these forces. The function of these movies was to make money, after all, not plumb the depths of the human condition. If they sometimes managed to exist as actual art, it was often entirely accidental. Whatever their artistic aspirations may be, most of the people who do the nuts and bolts work of making a film are there because it's a job. This includes actors, who may appear in films for entirely mercenary reasons. There are plenty of B-movies starring A-list actors or directed by A-list directors who for one reason or another needed a paycheck at the time. It's a cruel twist of fate that Michael Caine couldn't accept his first Oscar in person because he was busy making Jaws 4: The Revenge. Caine got a lovely house out of the deal, or so he says. The commercial and social pressures on the art of movies were especially strong in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when making a living in movies often depended on one's politics.

For example:

In the 1930s and early 1940s, Edward G. Robinson was one of the cinema's biggest stars. He was principally known for playing gangsters, co-equal with James Cagney as an attraction in such roles. He was also able to expand into more varied roles where he played against the tough guy image. There is a wide gulf of difference between Caesar Rico Bandello in Little Caesar and the morally righteous insurance investigator, Keyes, in Double Indemnity or the henpecked and pussy-whipped artist, Chris Cross, in Scarlet Street. He had a broad range, which was often ignored by the studios who cast him. His range was certainly ignored by Warner Brothers where he made his breakthrough films. They cast him in a long succession of gangsters and tough guy parts. When Robinson was entertaining the troops on a USO tour during World War II, he found he got no response from the GIs unless he started his bits with an in-character speech by Rico, Little Caesar himself, before speaking as himself as a strident anti-fascist. The real Robinson was an intellectual, a famed art collector, a lion of the Hollywood Left, and an immigrant Jew. He put his money where his convictions were, too, donating to over 800 left wing and anti-Nazi and anti-fascist organizations in the 1930s. He was among the first big stars to make openly anti-Nazi films, starring in Confessions of a Nazi Spy well before the United States entered the war. After the war, he agitated for racial equality in the workplace and campaigned for civil rights. But no good deed goes unpunished.

Friday, February 09, 2024

The Grant Mystique: Thirty-Day Princess (1934)

Thirty-Day Princess (1934, directed by Marion Gering) finds Cary Grant fading into the scenery a bit. This isn't the only case of this in his early films, but it's one of the most conspicuous. Grant was wholly unsatisfied with his part in this film and complained about it, prompting Paramount to loan him out to United Artists as punishment. Grant never forgot this. When his contract with Paramount was finished in 1937, he went freelance rather than re-up or sign with another studio. He wouldn't make another film for Paramount for a couple of decades. He held a grudge. Grant wasn't the only contributor unsatisfied with his work, either. This film credits Preston Sturges as one of its writers and, like Grant, he was unhappy with how little of his work ended up on screen. This is the only film on which Sturges and Grant both worked, so it's a missed opportunity.

Saturday, December 30, 2023

The Grant Mystique: Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944, directed by Frank Capra) is probably the most divisive film in Cary Grant's filmography. It is perennially popular among fans of old movies, among fans of Cary Grant, and among fans of what I can only describe as "cozy horror." Many other viewers, including the actor himself, don't much like it. Grant thought his performance was among his worst. Some viewers don't care for Frank Capra's brand of corny, though I would argue that this is a different kind of corn than the director usually served up. There is a category of viewer who dislikes the film not for what it contains, but for what it left out. Let me explain: Arsenic and Old Lace was a huge success on Broadway. Most of the Broadway cast reprised their roles in the movie version, with the conspicuous exception of Boris Karloff. Karloff played the criminal, Jonathan Brewster, the film's villain. The script mentions Karloff by name in describing Jonathan Brewster. That the role was played by Karloff himself is one of the play's best jokes. Karloff had a financial stake in the play, so rather than abandon the production for a piecework paycheck in the film version, he remained in New York for a more lucrative and extended paycheck. His part in the film was filled with Raymond Massey, but the Boris Karloff joke remains, with Karloff's blessing. The film was shot in 1941 with the stipulation that it couldn't be released until the play closed. The play ran for three years, much to the consternation of Warner Brothers. Karloff backed the right horse.*

Saturday, November 25, 2023

A Remarkable Collection of Dopes

It's a shame that they're killers, because cigarettes used to be the most valuable prop in movies. There are whole films from the 1940s and 1950s--the heart of the cigarette century--that consist of people aggressively smoking at each other. Film noir was rife with such films. It's a miracle anyone can see the players in Laura (1944, directed by Otto Preminger) through the haze of cigarette smoke. I'm exaggerating, I suppose, but only a little. The last time I wrote about Laura, I was taken in with its doomed romanticism and with its old Hollywood elegance. This time through, I was struck by the hard-boiled wit and the queerness of it all. It's a film that repays repeat viewings, because it's one of those films that changes with the viewer.

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Ants in the Pants

"I got ants in my pants and I need to dance!" -- James Brown


It's been a while since I've seen Them! (1954, directed by Gordon Douglas). I didn't remember how hard it goes when generating its scares. I maybe never knew that it was intended to be framed in a moderate widescreen. I don't ever remember seeing the red and blue title card. The last time I saw the film was in the 1990s, maybe? I don't honestly recall. There's a lot of water under the bridge. The two things I did remember about the film are the sound of the giant ants and the blank expression on the little girl at the beginning of the film. That blank expression is terrifying.

Wednesday, October 25, 2023

Bats in the Belfry

Lionel Atwill staring down a frightened Fay Wray in The Vampire Bat (1933)

The Vampire Bat (1933, directed by Frank R. Strayer) is filmmaking opportunism at its finest. Its studio, Majestic Pictures, had a reputation for turning out higher quality product than its poverty row brethren, in part because the studio had a habit of renting out the facilities of bigger studios when those facilities were idle. That's what happened here. The producers filmed great whacks of the film on the sets Universal built for Frankenstein and The Old Dark House, and borrowed a number of character actors from Universal to give it the appearance of being a new Universal production. Lionel Belmore, who played the Burgomaster in Frankenstein, plays the Bürgermeister here as if this film was set in the same universe. Dwight Frye appears here, too, and you could be forgiven for mistaking him for Renfield's imbecile cousin. It's practically the same performance. The real impetus for this film was making use of the two stars of Warner Brothers' Doctor X and The Mystery of the Wax Museum. Doctor X had been a substantial hit, and The Mystery of the Wax Museum had every indication of surpassing it. But the latter film's production took longer than expected and both Fay Wray and Lionel Atwill were idle at the time. Wray already had experience with waiting out complicated productions, having already starred in The Most Dangerous Game while the special effects for King Kong were being completed, using Kong's sets and technicians. In stepped Majestic, with a production ready to go for the two actors. Melvyn Douglas, fresh off James Whale's The Old Dark House, completed the cast. The film beat The Mystery of the Wax Museum into theaters by a little over a month, letting Warners' publicity department do the heavy lifting. Given the improvisational nature of its production, it's a miracle that the film is watchable at all. Seriously, there's no reason at all for this to have turned out to be a good movie. It's a rip off at its core. And yet...this is surprisingly entertaining. Personally, I think the secret ingredient is Melvyn Douglas. He was a talent much too large to stay confined in the horror movie. Fay Wray and Lionel Atwill (and to a lesser extent Dwight Frye) are talents too big for poverty row, too, though perhaps not too big for horror films. Fay Wray made five of them in quick succession in 1932, and they are the films for which she is best remembered. This is a film where the cast provides the alchemy that makes the movie work, which is a good thing because the script has serious deficiencies. To quote The Bard, it's a tale told by an idiot...

Friday, October 13, 2023

A Murderer's Dozen

"Stiff." That's the word for most films from the dawn of talkies. "Stilted" is a good one, too. The Thirteenth Chair (1929, directed by Tod Browning) fits both descriptions. It's a bit of an evolutionary missing link, given that it was filmed in both a silent and sound version while Hollywood was still in the process of learning how to make talkies. Many theaters at the time were still unable to even show them. The silent version is lost, alas, and I can't help but think that it's a much better film. The silents of the late 1920s were some of the glories of cinema, attaining heights of artistry it took sound pictures almost a decade to equal. This assumes you believe they ever did. I'm dubious of that very last point. This particular film is notable for two reasons. First, the lead role was offered to Lon Chaney. Had he accepted it, it would have been his last collaboration with Browning, and their only talkie before Chaney died of cancer. Chaney did not accept the part. Second, it teams Browning with Bela Lugosi for the first time and prefigures Lugosi's screen image in the films that followed Dracula. Browning ultimately made three films with Lugosi. Beyond the trivia, The Thirteenth Chair is a slog for a contemporary audience, but it's not without interest.

Sunday, October 08, 2023

The Blood is the Life

Tod Browning's Dracula (1931) is a pivotal movie in the history of horror movies. It is the first major horror film of the sound era. Without its success, the explosion of horror movies during the pre-Code era possibly doesn't happen, or, maybe, happens on a smaller scale or just differently. The movie studios of the day, big and small, were increasingly desperate for hits in 1931 as the Great Depression deepened and paying audiences evaporated. Anything that drew a crowd was all right by the heads of the studios. What drew crowds in those days was sin, salaciousness, violence, licentiousness, and sensation. Horror movies could provide all of that. The genre itself is built on transgression, after all. Moreover, the elements of what came to be defined as the Universal horror movie were already in place. Universal made big money on horror movies during the silent era. Two of Lon Chaney's biggest hits--The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and The Phantom of the Opera (1926)--were made at Universal, as was the John Barrymore version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920). Universal was also the landing spot for Paul Leni, the German director who had huge success for Universal with The Cat and the Canary (1927) and The Man Who Laughs (1928). So Universal, at least, was already in the horror movie business before Dracula.

Carl Laemmle, Sr., the company's founder, did not want to make Dracula. He thought it was essentially demonic, unlike the studio's previous horror films, which he viewed as essentially humanist. Carl Laemmle, Jr., however was keen on the property and only convinced his father to buy the rights to the play because MGM was ready to step in if Universal passed on it. It is likely that an MGM production would not have been very different from what Universal eventually made. Tod Browning was under contract to MGM, after all. Universal had to borrow him for their film. Browning for his part wanted Dracula long before Universal took an interest. He had already discussed the possibility with Lon Chaney. Chaney had already worked up a make-up look for The Count. He wanted it as much as Browning. Other filmmakers at Universal wanted Dracula, too. Paul Leni was keen to make Dracula with HIS frequent collaborator, Conrad Veidt, in the role. In some alternate universe, such a picture is one of the masterpieces of the genre. Veidt might even have made the film had he not gone back to Europe at the time, afraid that his thick accent would be a hindrance to his American movie career. If he only knew... Two things conspired to shape the film that was ultimately made: Leni died of blood poisoning in September of 1929. Chaney died of lung cancer in August of 1930. Without Chaney, MGM lost interest in the property. Browning, without a star for the project, decided to cast the relatively unknown Hungarian actor, Bela Lugosi, in the part. He had worked with Lugosi once before in The Thirteenth Chair (1929). Lugosi had drawn crowds to the theatrical version by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston on the stage and had a much publicized dalliance with Clara Bow, so he wasn't obscure, exactly. Just obscure in movies. The match was made and Dracula went into production on September 30, 1930.