Mummification in ancient Egyptian culture is believed to started in the years prior to the rule of the pharaoahs, and became an integral part of their funeral practices , as detailed in the funerary texts collectively called the "Egyptian Book of the Dead." It was believed that proper mummification (with the preservation of skin and removal of organs) would allow the ka or lifeforce of a person to travel to the afterlife. The Egyptians would have different funeral practices for different classes, with the pharoahs having the most elaborate and ornate. Egyptian mummies would become something of a craze during the early 19th Century, after Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, with mummies becoming something of a collector's item, and the luxuries of the tombs plundered for European consumption, shown at parties, cut up, and examined by the curious. As a result, mummies and the idea of their resurrection would become a fictional theme. Writers like Edgar Allan Poe, H. Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle and even Louise May Alcott would explore the idea in a more romantic or satirical way. The allure of the mummy faded as the tombs were excavated and the appeal wore off. That is until 1922, when British archaeologist Howard Carter uncovered the untouched tomb of minor pharaoh Tutankhamun, still with its riches, which revived the Ancient Egypt craze. Among those inspired by the find (and the subsequent overhyped "curse" associated with it) was Universal producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. who wanted to make a mummy the next monster to scare audiences. With that in mind, he sent Richard Schayer to find a good mummy book to make into a film. When he couldn't find one, he and cartoonist Nina Wilcox Putnam instead wrote a treatment based on 18th century Italian occultist Alessandro Cagliostro. Impressed, Laemmle had John L. Balderston write a script. Balderston had a fascination with Egypt, and had in fact covered the story of Tutankhamun's tomb as a journalist, so he modified the script, renaming the lead Imohotep (after an historical architect and cult figure) and setting the action in Egypt. Karl Freund, the de facto director of Dracula, directed this as his first American feature, and Boris Karloff, now a superstar thanks to Frankenstein, assumed the lead of Imhotep. Jack P. Pierce once again does Karloff's make-up as the resurrected mummy (though the iconic make-up only appears in the opening), and Karloff found it extremely difficult to deal with. Freund and romantic lead Zita Johann didn't get along during the feature. Much like the other films prior, the film was cut up, especially a long historical segment. Released on December 22nd, 1932, The Mummy would become another critical and financial hit, prompting more sequel.
In 1921, British archaeologists Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) , Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan), and Ralph Norton (Bramwell Fletcher) uncover the tomb of Imhotep (Boris Karloff) in an Egyptian dig. They note some irregularities with the mummy, indicating he was buried alive. Sure enough, Norton is late one night to find Imhotep very alive in his bandages, scarring him. 10 years later, Whemple's son Frank (David Manners) and Professor Pearson (Leonard Mudie) met a mysterious man named Ardeth Bey in Egypt, who gives them mysterious instructions about the tomb of Princess Anck-su-namun....
First, the best thing about this film is still Boris Karloff. Unlike the very emotionally charged Frankenstein, he manages to exude quiet menace and presence in the film. The way he walks, speaks, and acts manages to be terrifying with every step. His performance is definitely the strongest, and he really sells the villain. The set design (especially the recreation of ancient Egyptian tombs) is very well done, and Jack P. Pierce's make-up is exquisite.
The story is a little thin. Seemingly starting as just the fact that this maleviolent ancient Egyptian is back, the film just sort of becomes about said Egyptian trying to resurrect his long lost love. It's not even the focus, it's just the lack of attention given to it. Again, this film isn't very long, but the way the relatively thin story is stretched out makes it feel longer. Not helped is very clear edits, and cuts, which makes the pacing even more disjointed. This also makes the film more than a little dull at times.
Overall, much weaker than the previous films. Still, Karloff's performance and the great effects are enough to give this a relatively high recommendation. Probably not one I'd revisit though (except for the sequels most likely.
Next up, a film which had a pretty good remake this year, The Invisible Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment