(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Bride of Frankenstein

    The 1931 Frankenstein film was very different from Mary Shelley's novel, removing, among other changes, a subplot where the monster forces Dr. Frankenstein to make him a mate, which the latter complies with, until he doesn't. This would form the basis for the sequel to the film, which was conceived during the previews of the first film. Indeed, the ending was changed to have Dr. Frankenstein live specifically so that he could return for a sequel. Initially, however, James Whale didn't want to do a sequel, having had a falling out with Boris Karloff during the production of the film The Old Dark House and feeling that he had done all he could with the concept. Ultimately, he agreed to make the film in exchange for Universal backing his project One More River. Whale was dissatisfied by the scripts offered, including a treatment by Robert Florey, and gave the script to John L. Balderston. Balderston was the one who centered the film on the subplot, making it about the "Bride of Frankenstein" and even wrote a prologue with Mary Shelley herself. Whale, still dissatisfied, pushed the script to William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson, who polished the final script. Karloff and Colin Clive returned, with Valerie Hobson replacing Mae Clarke in the role of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Whale's old friend Ernest Thesiger plays the villain Dr. Pretorius. In the titular role of the Bride was Elsa Lancaster. Born to a bohemian artistic family in London, Lancaster studied dance in Paris under Isadora Duncan, before returning to England and starting a number of venues to pursue theatre and cabaret. Eventually, she started appearing in small scale productions in Britain with her husband Charles Laughton, eventually accompanying him to Hollywood. Laughton managed to carve out a niche for himself, including in The Old Dark House. She had returned to London when Whale offered her the role. She based her signature hiss on swans in Regent's Park, London. Jack P. Pierce and Kenneth Strickfadden return in their roles, with Pierce's original make-up modified slightly to allow the monster to speak (an element Karloff was vehemently against).  Pierce also designed the Bride with Whale, basing it off the Egyptian queen Nefertiti. A very young Billy Barty was prominently featured before his scenes were cut. Released on April 20th, 1935, the film would garner critical acclaim, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made. 

    The film begins with a prologue featuring Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon), Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton), and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Elsa Lancaster) stuck in Byron's villa in Switzerland during a thunderstorm in 1815. Byron and Shelley praise Mary's tale of Frankenstein, and ask that she continue with the story. She agrees, and begins the story: shortly after the events of the first film, Frankenstein (Boris Karloff) emerges from the wreckage of the windmill burned in the original and begins to wander. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) recovers back in the village with his bride Elizabeth (Valerie Dobson) by his side. They're approached by Frankenstein's old teacher Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), who really wants Frankenstein to help him with his own life creation experiments. Eventually, as Frankenstein tries to survive paranoid villagers (including befriending a hermit (OP Heggie)), Pretorius' begins his grandiose scheme: To create a bride. For the Monster. 

    Again, the highlight of the film is Karloff's performance. There's a lot more instances of his physicality and his innocence, conveyed well by Karloff's own movement. For all his opposition to the monster talking, he manages to do the voice well, making that aspect of the character as iconic as it is. Elsa Lancaster does well in her brief appearances as both Mary Shelley and the Bride. Her performance at the end is really good, especially at showing the fear that the creation has at the world around her. Her hissing is very precise, and she makes an impression even though she only appears in the last ten minutes. Dr. Pretorius is very fun in his giddiness, the way Claude Rains was in Invisible Man. I like that the film continues to show the monster as sympathetic, continually despised and misunderstood despite only making mistakes. It really makes the film tragic, as the monster is rejected by all aspects of society, including his creator, the villagers, and even the bride crafted specifically for him. There's been speculation of a queer subtext, given the director and some of the actors and the camp factor of the film. Personally, I think if there is such a subtext, it's in the Creature being besieged by a society that mistrusts and hates him, finding solace only in the relationship he forges with the Blind Hermit. 

    The opening is a little slow, and a bit confusing, especially when Dr. Pretorius arrives and shows the homunculi he created. While the make-up in this film is iconic, I kind of prefer the ones from the original. It looked a lot more natural and this makes Karloff's face look bloated. It doesn't feel right. 

     As with the first one, this is something of a quintessential American horror movie or even quintessential American film. Beyond the horror genre, this has been homaged or referenced so many times, that it's hard to not to at least know of its existence. Even Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein utilizes the imagery and menace that this film had pioneered. In that sense, it's almost required viewing for that reason. Helps that it is really, really good in its own right. 

    I feared this would happen. Yes, unfortunately, I have to take this into September. Like everyone else, it's just been a hard year for me, and writing these tends to be a more intensive form because of the research. Hopefully, I will be able to finish by mid-September. Anyway, next time, we will look at Werewolf of London. 

Summer of Terror-The Universal Monsters: The Invsible Man

     HG Wells' The Invisible Man was inspired in part by references to invisible men in a WS Gilbert poem and Plato's Republic. It, along with War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, would be seen as one of the classics from Wells. The film version began production as early as 1931, but ran into a number of production problems. The film had multiple treatments with wildly different takes on the story, including one set on Mars. RC Sheriff (who wrote Journey's End, which director James Whale had produced on stage in 1928) eventually found the original novel in a secondhand bookstore, and wrote the script around that. Even that had issues, as the script was helped by then-famed science fiction writer Phillip Wylie (later known for proto-superhero work Gladiator and When Worlds Collide, who integrated elements of his novel The Murderer Invisible into the script) and future Oscar winner Preston Sturges, who were then taken off the project. Director Cyril Gardner was replaced by the reliable James Whale. Originally, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive were considered for the role of the Invisible Man. However, Whale had a small falling out with Karloff and Clive declined, so the role went to a newcomer to film named Claude Rains. Rains, a British World War I veteran, had been a rising star on the London stage (thanks, in part, to him modifying his Cockney accent into a trans-Atlantic accent) , and had been an instructor in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, where John Gieglud and Laurence Olivier were his students. He had appeared in a silent film in 1920, but largely remained a theater actor and came to Broadway in 1928. In 1931, he was offered a screen test for an RKO picture called A Bill of Divorcement. While the screen test failed, James Whale happened to overhear it, and impressed by Rains' voice, hired him as the Invisible Man. Even still, production remained troubled, with a fire breaking out at one point, shutting down production. The Invisible Man effect was well-regarded in its time. Wires on set were used to display the invisible man running around, but the actual effect when Rains took off his mask was achieved through a special velvet black suit Rains wore against a velvet black background, which was combined with a location shot through a matte. Released in 1933, the film was Universal's biggest success after Frankenstein , and would launch Claude Rains into an incredibly illustrious film career. Wells himself would have mixed feelings on the film, commenting that while he enjoyed it, he didn't like that the scientist had gone insane from the process.

    A bandaged man (Claude Rains) walks into a hotel and asks for a room. It's revealed that this bandaged stranger is in fact, Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist working for Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers, aka "Clarence" from It's a Wonderful Life), and engaged to Cranley's daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). They, and Dr. Kemp (Willaim Harrigan) have concerns for Griffin, especially when they come across a dangerous formula in his collection. Sure enough, when the innskeeper (Forrester Harvey) tries to kick him out, Griffin dispatches him, and grandly reveals that he has gained the ability to become invisible. 

    So, the special effects hold up really well. The invisibility effect is extremely well-done in close up, and I was shocked when I read up on how it was done (hence why I noted it in the intro.) It also helps that the other invisibility effects are also well-done, making the character feel present even if you can't see him. Claude Rains does well in his de facto film debut, delivering the grand villainous monologues with energy and gusto that makes him very appealing to watch. Helps that he also has legitimate malice and menace to him that makes him a very real threat. I also liked that the film had some good intentional humor that was legitimately funny, but also felt more like fun than the relatively dour films prior to it. It also has a conclusion that feels like an actual conclusion, rather than feeling like something was cut out.

    Some parts, like the opening and some of the middle, were a bit confusing and hard to follow. I only learned from looking at the synopsis what a discovery in the middle of the film actually meant, and some of the extensive middle part felt confusing. Also, the way he's dispatched at the end was a bit anti-climatic, especially with his grandiose gesturing throughout the film.

    Pretty entertaining film overall, and an interesting companion piece to the very recent remake (if you managed to see it in theaters before... everything.) I'd say I prefer the new one a little more, but this is definitely worth a watch, if only for the insane monologues Claude Rains delivers and the incredible special effects. 

    Next up, the very  first sequel in the Universal Monsters franchise with The Bride of Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Mummy

           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.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Frankenstein

     Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus needs no introduction. Not its origins in the electric experiments conducted by Luigi Galvani, showing that electricity can induce movement in dead limbs, nor the real Castle Frankenstein, where alchemist  Johann Conrad Dippel did experiments on human bodies. Not how Shelley conceived it while stuck in a Swiss cabin with future husband Percy and poet Lord Byron. Nor its place as the first work of modern science fiction and horror. I suppose let's begin with adaptations. Frankenstein started being adapted into plays during Shelley's lifetime, with 1823's Presumption; or, the Fate of Frankenstein being the first, followed by The Man and the Monster! in 1826 and Frankenstein; Or The Model Man in 1849. In 1887, a musical adaptation, Frankenstein, or The Vampire's Victim was made. As film came into prominence, film adaptations also followed. In 1910, J. Searle Dawley wrote and directed the first, a short adaptation for Thomas Edison and his film studio. Life without Soul in 1915 and Italian adaptation The Monster of Frankenstein  (both lost) followed. The story of this film begins in 1924, with another stage adaptation by British playwright Peggy Webling, commissioned by Hamilton Deane, who made the stage adaptation of Dracula made into the 1931 film. Notably, the monster (unnamed in the Shelley novel) was named Frankenstein after its creator. With Dracula's towering success, Universal purchased the rights to John L. Balderston's (who also produced the successful Broadway version of Deane's Dracula) unproduced Broadway version of Webling's play. (Ultimately, said version never made it to stage). Bela Lugosi originally wanted to be Victor Frankenstein, but was relegated to being the monster. In the original version with director Robert Florey at the helm, Lugosi's monster would be simple killing machine, a charaterization Lugosi resented and eventually led to his and Florey's ouster. In their place was  James Whale  a successful British stage director, who had recently made the transition to film as director and an unknown minor character actor named Boris Karloff as the monster. Boris Karloff, despite the name, was not in fact another Eastern European refugee. In fact, he was an Englishman, born William Henry Pratt, from a diplomatic family (his maternal great aunt was Anna Leonowens, most famous for being the subject of The King and I). Pratt would change his name to Boris Karloff when he became an actor to avoid embarrassing his family (Accounts vary on where he got the name). After years in Canadian and American acting troupes, he would eventually make his way to Hollywood, where his relatively darker skin complexion (owing to some Indian ancestry) would cast him in minor ethnic roles throughout the silent era. Whale purportedly cast Karloff because of his intimidating size. The supporting cast was rounded out: Colin Clive (who had appeared in Whale's production of the play as Journey's End and it's 1930 adaptation) as Henry (not Victor) Frankenstein, Mae Clarke (who appeared opposite James Cagney in The Public Enemy earlier that year) as Henry's love interest Elizabeth Lavenza, and Dracula's Edward van Sloan and Dwight Frye as Dr. Frankenstein's mentor Dr. Waldman and his hunchback assistant Fritz respectively. Set designer Kenneth Strickfaden would design the iconic set describing the creature's creation (including a Tesla coil from none other than Nikola Tesla himself), which was used in later films. The iconic make-up of the creature was done by Jack P. Pierce, and was so evocative that Universal trademarked it (which it still holds) and has been associated with the character since. Released on November 21st, 1931, Frankenstein would be a commercial and critical success, and is now regarded as an iconic piece of American cinema. 

    In some nondescript place in Central Europe in some nondescript time, Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) dig up recently buried corpses for a project to create a living being from the parts of dead bodies, but needs a brain. He sends Fritz to steal a healthy brain from his teacher Dr. Waldman (Edward van Sloan), but Fritz screws up and brings a criminal brain meant for comparison. Henry's fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and friend Victor Mortiz (John Boles), along with Dr. Waldman, find Henry about to perform his act: using lightning to bring his Creature (Boris Karloff) to life...

    The best thing about the film definitely is Karloff as the creature. The performance is incredible. He manages to have unique mannerisms, the way he moves his arms, his expressions, his grunts, the way he moves, all helps create a very convincing portrayal of the monster as very sympathetic and misunderstood. He can be intimidating, but the film shows very well how the monster is constantly besieged and misunderstood by people. Karloff's performance as the Monster really makes the film work in the way it intend, and is really the main thing that is most memorable, especially the iconic scene  with the little girl. Not to say the rest of the film is very well done. Strickfaden's sets are very meticulous, with a German impressionist look to the architecture and a very haunting look to the electrical equipment in Dr. Frankenstein's office. The cinematography is also very well done, with some very well done long shots and overviews which increase the drama of each scene. I liked that the film took full advantage of its relatively short running time and  told the story it intended to tell well, and with very few interruptions. 

     That said, there were some scenes towards the end celebrating Frankenstein and Elizabeth's wedding, that felt a bit like padding. Or was the studio trying to do big celebration scenes like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It ultimately felt superfluous except to establish the crowd which later hunts down Frankenstein. The short length probably makes this worse. And like Dracula, the film just sort of stops rather than have a proper conclusion, though this at least feels like the film should've ended at this point. 

     One might call this the quitessential American horror film. Every horror film that followed either followed at least parts of the precedents it set or rejected it. Even early New Horror film Targets relied on the intimidating power of Boris Karloff's performance. So, I think it's worth a watch on that ground. It's also really quite good and affecting in its own right, with the stand out being Karloff's performance and the large scope of the story. So, it's definitely worth a watch. 

    Next comes the first original property with The Mummy. 

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Dracula (Spanish)

     Not too much history on this one. In the early days of sound, many were skeptical of audience expectations and the limitations of the technology, especially when it came to dubbing in other languages. Thus, many films had a completely separate version filmed in another language (usually Spanish,  French, German, and Swedish), with different native speaking actors, but which usually had the same sets and wardrobes than their English counterparts. Aside from that,the films were actually given a little more license and laxer restriction by the main studios to just improvise with their material. Given Latin America was a large market for American movies, Spanish language versions became the main examples of this. Such was the case here. The Spanish version of Dracula was filmed on the sets at night after Tod Browning concluded filming during the daytime. The director, George Melford, didn't speak or understand Spanish, so his co-director Enrique Tovar Ávalos was the main interpreter. The film was done on a lower budget, but the production ran much smoother than its English counterpart, completing a few days before the latter. The Spanish version is more than 30 minutes longer, mainly because Melford didn't cut as much of the film, and censorship wouldn't be a big issue in the countries it was released in. The film is also more explicit in terms of violence and sexuality because of that. However, much like other productions of this nature (which eventually lead to the discontinuing of the practice), the actors were from different parts of the world. For instance, Dracula was played by Spanish actor Carlos Villarías, while Eva (Mina) was played by Mexican Lupita Tovar (notably a centenarian who lived to 106 and the star of one of Mexico's first sound films.) The result was a mismatch of differing accents and dialects. Of the actors, only Villarias was allowed to see rushes of concurrent English version, so that his performance could emulate Lugosi's. The film was unknown and incomplete until the 1990's, where it had resurgence on home video.
    No real need for a synopsis here, since it's the same story.
    The longer length of this film definitely improves a lot of it. A lot of the scenes feel a lot more complete, there is a lot more development given to the characters and to the titular character, who does feel like more of a menace disrupting the lives of these people. The more explicit nature of the film helps increase the horror of it,  with more explicit and definite biting and death scenes (especially at the end.) It's much more of a satisfying watch. Spanish actor Pablo Álvarez Rubio does a much more intimidating and interesting Renfield than Dwight Frye. Big question: is Carlos Villarías better than Bela Lugosi? Well.... he's certainly different to some extent. Villarías is a lot more emotional and feral than Lugosi, having adverse, stronger reactions and emotions. That doesn't necessarily make the performance better, but it does provide an interesting contrast between the two. Lugosi plays Dracula with more finasse and menace, while Villarías has a lot more energy and viciousness to his performance. They're different, but one isn't really better than the other.
     While the extended length is generally a good thing, part of the film does drag a little, since it feels a lot slower in the middle. It's not too grating, but it definitely has a lot slower pace. Maybe to build the horror, but it was hard to keep interest until the climax and ending happened. Also, like the English version, the Spanish version just ends. It doesn't really have a satisfying ending, just kind of stops before the conclusion can come through.
      I wouldn't say this was better than the English version, but it definitely feels a lot more of a complete film. A lot less editing, and a lot more focus on developing the characters and story. It's definitely an interesting watch, especially if you see the Bela Lugosi version first to compare and contrast.
     Next up, we're looking at one of the most iconic films ever made: Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- Universal Monsters: Dracula

     Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, based on folklore of Eastern European vampires and the infamy of Vlad Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Vlad Dracula or "Son of the Dragon") was already adapted into a German film in 1922: FW Murnau's Nosferatu . However, that adaptation was unauthorized and Stoker's widow Florence sued to have all copies destroyed (which was a failure). The origins of this film lie instead in a 1924 English stage play adaptation by Irish playwright Hamilton Deane that was approved by the Stoker estate. This stage play would be revised by John L. Balderston for Broadway in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in the title role. Lugosi, a one-time bit player in the Hungarian National Theatre, had appeared in German silent films after his exile from Hungary in 1919 (for organizing an actor's union following the failed 1919 communist revolution), before immigrating to the United States in 1920, and became a stage actor. This would be Lugosi's first major English speaking role. Carl Laemmle, Jr., a producer under his father at Universal, saw Stoker's novel as a potential historical tragic epic in the vein of Hunchback and Phantom and bought the rights to Stoker's novel as well as the stageplay. The writers used the stage play as the basis, with some inspiration from Nosferatu. Laemmle was reluctant to cast Lugosi, despite his good reviews in the play, looking instead to actors like Paul Muni, before Lugosi lobbied heavily to reprise his role. Also reprising his role from the play was Edward van Sloan as Van Helsing, the effective hero of the story. Directing the film was Tod Browning, a former Vaudville actor who directed several Lon Chaney movies during the silent era (including the vampire picture London After Midnight, which would've been covered, had the film not been lost). Browning initially envisioned the titular character as largely unseen figure played by a relative unknown, but the studio overrode it. By most accounts, Browning delegated much of the directing cinematographer Karl Freund (who was most notable for his cinematography on Fritz Lang's Metropolis), effectively making the latter co-director. The film was shot on the Universal lot with the sets being reused for a Spanish language version being made at the same time. While there were fears that a straight forward supernatural horror movie may not do well, it was an resounding success, though for a 1936 reissue, some scenes, including an epilogue by Van Helsing were cut, and subsequently lost. The film would be considered a seminal film in the development of the Universal monsters and the horror genre in general.

     Renfield (Dwight Frye) is an English Solicitor on business in Transylvania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is visiting the castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), but is warned of his proclivity for vampirism by some of the residents. Sure enough, Dracula brainwashes and enslaves Renfield to take him in a coffin back to England. There, Dracula steadily begins a killing spree, while getting the attention of Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and her friend Lucy (Frances Dade). While Dracula terrorizes them, Mina's father Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) and Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), investigate Renfield's vampirism, which brings them into conflict with the count.

    The definite highlight of this film is Bela Lugosi. He exudes a quiet menace to him, being dignified as an Eastern European count but also being incredibly creepy and threatening when need be. He doesn't talk much during the film, so a lot of his performance is conveyed through his motion, especially as he attacks or threatens people around him. It is a stellar performance. Surprisingly, given how it's saturated in pop culture, Lugosi's accent isn't all that thick in the film. It sounds almost English, with some slight indications Dwight Frye's Renfield (taking the role Harker had in the book) is also a joy to watch, showing the opposite with his psychaotic mannerisms and insane ramblings. The film had exquisite set design, and especially good use of shadows and lighting, tying of course to the other two films covered before. It truly enhances the terror of it, especially the lack of a soundtrack (which was apparently more of a cost saving measure, but makes a lot of the film's main set pieces work well).

    The film is surprisingly short, at only 71 minutes. I can tell a lot was probably cut because of censorship, particularly during the Hays Code era. There are some scenes that abruptly end or cut in the middle. The ending is the biggest example, where the aforementioned epilogue is not there and the film just ends on the characters climbing a set of stairs. While this sometimes enhances the horror, it also makes parts of this film confusing. Another, smaller complaint is that the effects haven't aged well. Especially the bats and the clear use of the fog machine.

    This was surprisingly effective, even today. It's not "scary" in a traditional sense, but the way the film uses subtle acting and editing to convey its scares was definitely an influence on modern day horror movies. It's an interesting historical film, and definitely should be sought out for that, and just as an entertaining, well-made film in its own right.

    Apologies for the lateness of this. I had a breakdown a few days ago, and couldn't muster the energy to do much writing. As such, this Summer of Terror will be a lot more erratic and spread out. I might not finish until September, but we'll see. Anyway, next time, after someone suggested it, we'll take a look at the briefly mentioned Spanish language version also produced by Universal.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Silent Era

      From 1921 to 1960, the Universal Monsters terrified and enthralled audiences across America with their grotesque, but sympathetic creatures, all of whom represented something about mankind that spoke to them. While they have mostly entered the pop culture lexicon as fixtures stripped of their original horror elements and reduced to kitsch items, their legacy can still be felt in horror to this very day. And with a new decade ahead of us, I figured there was no better franchise to start off a new decade than what is considered the first true horror franchise. If you haven't really noticed, I do actually burn out a lot when I do these, and I have a lot of trouble with this, given there is a large number of films outside the classic monsters, and the nebulous definition of a "Universal Monster" film. So, I'm going to do this a bit differently. The big films with the big creatures get full reviews. However, smaller films get smaller mini-reviews that are compiled together. They won't have a full in-depth look, but just a brief examination. This is especially true of these first two features, both of which are silent. Silent movies aren't exactly my area of expertise, so instead of doing my usual schtick, I'll just list stuff I enjoyed about the film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    Of course, based on Victor Hugo's 1831 novel of the same name, it follows the story of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the titular hunchback who rings the bells of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, during the reign of Louis XI (Tully Marshall) in the 14th Century. Quasimodo ventures out to a large festival being held, with his master Jehan (Brandon Hurst), Jehan's brother, clergyman Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier, analogous to Claude Frollo from the book), and dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) in attendence. He is celebrated, only for people to turn on him upon learning of his deformity. Only Esmeralda shows sympathy, causing a chain of events involving Esmeralda, Jehan, and Phoebus (Norman Kerry)
     Popular legend attributes the creation of this film to producer Irving Thalberg (later a seminal figure at Universal's rival MGM and whose life was later fictionalized by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Last Tycoon),but the film by most accounts, was the idea of Lon Chaney, having then established his reputation as a versatile character actor and who lobbied heavily for the role of Quasimodo. He later chose the director Wallace Woolsery (who had worked with Chaney on some productions at Goldwyn), after his first choice, Erich von Stronheim, was fired by Thalberg. Thalberg did originate the idea to make the film more of a large scale dramatic epic instead of a straight forward horror movie. Because of censorship prohibiting mocking religious figures, the villain of Claude Frollo (a Catholic priest) in the book was instead given a brother, who would take up the role.
    What really works about this film is the large scale of it. The massive sets, the extras, the sheer sizeof it can be overwhelming. Yet, despite this large scale epic scope of the thing, it does manage to have some intimate moments, especially with Quasimodo. Speaking of, Lon Chaney does pretty well as the Hunchback. He imparts his performance with a lot of physicality and emotion, giving an audience enough to sympathize with him, especially at the end. Finally, it uses its sets very well, especially with dark scenes set in the corridors of the Cathedral.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

     The Paris Opera House suddenly finds itself in the thrall of the mysterious "Phantom" (Lon Chaney), who has taken an interest in a young understudy named Christine (Mary Philbin). While the new owners and Charlotta (Virginia Pearson) laugh off the threat, the Phantom soon makes his presence known, which guides Christine at first, but slowly, the Phantom makes plans to kidnap her, and the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) must navigate the strange architecture of the Paris Opera House to stop him.
     Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel was based around various myths and legends centering around the Opera House (including the use of a real skeleton in an 1841 production.) Leroux met Carl Laemmle, the head of Universal, in 1921 during a visit by the latter to France. Leroux gave Laemmle the book, and Laemmle envisioned it as a vehicle for Lon Chaney. Chaney made up his own make-up for the film. The film's turntable set would continue to be used for another 90 years after the completion of the film. The film's gigantic success would be the impetus for the Universal monsters.
   I remember being terrified of the Phantom's make-up as a kid. Never actually saw the film until years later, but the make-up just scared me. It (meant to apparently invoke a skull) is still effective, especially when the Phantom is unmasked towards the middle of the film. Again, Lon Chaney is the star here, and even more so, he is the main reason to watch, with his physicality and his ability to balance menace with some humor. The set of the Paris Opera House also looks incredible, even today, and it also has a massive scope.

----

Well, that begins this Summer of Terror. Apologies for the lateness of this. As with all of us, the pandemic hasn't been exactly great for me, and it's been a struggle to muster the energy to do this. Not helping is the fact I tend to burnout on these, and I had a pretty bad case of burnout yesterday. If some entries are late or come a few days after the last one, that's probably why. Apologies in advance if this ends up inconsistent as a result. Nevertheless, I feel like starting off this new decade with something different, and what better than the first horror franchise, one that was influential for years to come. Join me tomorrow for Dracula.

And as always, if you enjoy this or other works, I have a Ko-Fi page to donate to, if you're interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc