I was all over the place deciding on what I should watch next, I considered two movies that are genuinely disturbing; “Psycho” and “Silence of the Lambs.” I couldn’t decide between them so I put them aside. Then I started watching “Carnival of Souls.” But although that movie has some truly disturbing images, the majority of the film is so devoid of acting, interest or sympathetic characters that I turned it off in disgust. I may go back to it later. As I said it has some potent imagery but I just wasn’t in the mood to subject myself to its depressing banality.
I decided to watch the 1932 “The Mummy.”
Of course this is a movie I’ve already reviewed. But I needed something fun and also, I wanted see what I could extract from it by giving it a pair of fresh eyes. So, I tried to imagine what the crowd of 1932 would see in it.
I looked through some of the older and newer discussions about the production and what was common to them all was the link to the King Tutankhamen discovery in the 1920’s. Apparently, that archeological discovery had been enormously popular with the general public and so the filmmakers were right in thinking that a horror movie that piggybacked on ancient Egypt was likely to be popular.
And so, they cobbled together the story line of the Egyptian priest who was buried alive for stealing the secret of resurrection from the sacred Scroll of Thoth to bring back to life his great love; the Princess Anck-es-en-Amon. Of course, whenever Karloff chants the name in the movie it sounds like “ankhs and almonds.” Which made me think of some kind of mummy-themed breakfast cereal like Count Chocula but more health conscious like Honey Nut Cheerios.
But I digress.
So, I could see the audience of young men and teenagers bringing their girls to be frightened by the monster and thereby getting to hug them for moral support.
But what about the modern audience? Well, my favorite scene is the initial discovery of the mummy and the chest holding the scroll of Thoth. In this scene the character played by Edward Van Sloane, the same actor who plays Professor Van Helsing in Dracula and Doctor Waldman in Frankenstein is once again warning the impetuous skeptics about the dangers of interfering in the dark arts. But of course, the young archeologist opens the chest and begins reading the scroll and so, awakes Imhotep (Karloff) who absconds with the scroll and leaves shocked scientist laughing psychotically and headed for death in a strait jacket.
This is the only scene where we see Karloff in his mummy makeup. It was well made. He looked quite like a 4,000-year-old corpse. After that the story goes downhill. Twelve years later the British Museum expedition is back in Egypt but now the son of the previous expedition’s leader is in charge and after receiving a hint as to where to dig, by Ardath Bey (the mummy pretending to be a modern Egyptian), they dig up the undisturbed tomb of ankhs and almonds. Once she is safely deposited in the Cairo Museum of Antiquities Ardath Bey begins to work at resurrecting his former love. And by reading passages from the scroll, he is able to lure ankhs and almonds present reincarnation (a pretty half-English half-Egyptian girl who happens to be Edward Van Sloane’s medical patient).
She falls in love with the young archeologist and it’s a photo-finish to see if she ends up with Ardath Bey as a murdered but re-animated corpse like him or her modern self marrying the Englishman. In the intervening struggle the older archeologist is murdered by Ardath Bey and hijinks ensue. In the final showdown the girl remembers her past life and enough ancient Egyptian language to make a prayer to the statue of Isis to help her by zapping Imhotep with her ankh which both burns up the scroll of Thoth and turns the mummy into a pile of bones.
Being in my senior years I was disturbed to see how little concern the younger archeologist seemed to exhibit at his father’s death. I mean sure, the guy was old but at least a day or two of mourning before proceeding with his pursuit of the hot-looking former Egyptian princess should have been a reasonable thought. Well, that is the essence of life. And she was pretty alluring in her more scantily clad scenes. So, I guess I can cut him some slack.
All in all, it’s a decently entertaining film. Allowances have to be made for the definition of scary a hundred years ago but it’s a fun film. I’ll give it a thumbs up as a light-hearted October viewing.
Update:
War Pig commented:
I, too, am intrigued by what Americans found frightening a century ago. Of course with modern special effects a scary film from today would cause a stampede out the doors of a roaring twenties theater and a call for congress to ban or restrict such films. I also find it curious that naked bodies and other sexual scenes were made verboten while wholesale slaughter and bloodshed were allowed when the 1930s movie codes were mandated.
For me, simple shock and violence are moot. I want suspense. Old classics like Night Of The Demon, Black Sunday, Psycho, Night Of The Hunter or Hour Of The Wolf and Rashoman. There’s just something about black & White cinematography that lends itself to horror movies. Masters of the craft such as Bergman, Hitchcock, Brava and Kurosawa used it to great effect. Horror, and suspense, are best served in black and white where you have to concentrate on the story instead of the fancy effects.
photog replied
Yes, a century has removed all the taboos. But as you say gore and shock don’t guarantee satisfaction with the product. Engage our imagination and gore isn’t that important.