MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #150 The Wolf Man 1941 & The Mummy 1932

THE WOLF MAN 1941

“Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.

There is, quite simply, no way I could possibly hope to contain what The Wolf Man means to me, in all its unsettling lyricism, invented folklore, and shadowy intensity, within the reach of a single essay. To try would be to count every mist swirling through those haunted Welsh woods, or to trace each echo of Curt Siodmak’s poetic fatalism as it seeps beneath the celluloid, marking not just Larry Talbot but the history of horror itself. This is a story that transcends the beast-and-victim paradigm, turning the Universal monster mythos inward, to a place where every man (or woman) —“even those who are pure in heart”—finds the possibility of darkness flowing inextricably through their nature. It is beloved because it feels, on some haunted level, true. And when Lon Chaney Jr. first shambles across the moor on the balls of his hairy feet as Larry, awkward, yearning, resigned to his fate as only Chaney could be, we find a vulnerability so raw and so human that the legend ceases to be a legend at all.

Something else I’ll explore in my in-depth walk through the Welsh woods at The Last Drive In is how classic horror films like The Wolf Man and, for example, Lewton’s Cat People with his production techniques that gave him the new tools in his quest to expand classical horror’s parameters, would navigate the contours of sexuality with a deft subtlety, threading repressed desires and overt fears through their narratives. As Gregory William Mank observes, the movie horrors of the 1940s “took a sly twisty route to the libido and subconscious of its audience” when exploring themes of latent longing and hidden identity beneath the surface of monstrous transformation and psychological terror.

Instead, it becomes a parable of the soul’s double shadow, irresistible precisely because It cannot be reduced to a simple collection of scenes or a fleeting glance at the performances; this film resonates at the very heart of our love for classic storytelling, its living, breathing soul escaping any attempt at neat summary, demanding instead to be felt in every shift of Larry Talbot’s tragic trasnformation and glow of the eeire full moon’s powerful light.

I will have to lavish much more time and loving attention upon this film very soon, returning to the fog, the myth, and the indelible heartbreak that Universal, Siodmak, Waggner, and above all Chaney summoned for all eternity. Until then, this will remain only an overture, a single howl in the woods, echoing all that still calls for closer devotion.

Universal’s The Wolf Man (1941) remains one of the beating hearts of the legendary monsters of classic horror, a work that not only cemented the studio’s iconic status but also set the tone for generations of monster cinema. The film’s script, penned by Curt Siodmak, is as much a reflection of its creator’s experience as it is a fantasy of Gothic terror. Siodmak, a German émigré haunted by the trauma of fleeing Nazi Germany, poured his anxieties about fate, persecution, and transformation into the story of Larry Talbot, an American-educated man returning to his Welsh ancestral home, played by Lon Chaney Jr—the character and the actor; dual souls branded by a dark star of inevitable sorrow and tragedy.

Curt Siodmak’s legacy as a writer is one of profound influence on the horror and science fiction genres, which helped shape mid-20th-century genre cinema. His work is marked by his deft blending of myth, psychology, and existential dread. Best known for creating the werewolf mythos in The Wolf Man (1941), Siodmak infused his scripts with a deep sense of tragedy and inevitability, exploring themes of fate and transformation that transcended typical monster narratives. His notable screenplays aside from The Wolf Man include Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man 1943, a sequel which expanded the Universal monster universe, and The Devil Bat (1940). Siodmak’s work helped solidify Universal’s classic monster cycle, introducing a lyrical and human dimension to monsters. He also wrote The Invisible Man Returns (1940), I Walked with a Zombie (1943), and The Beast with Five Fingers (1946), showcasing his range within horror’s Gothic and psychological realms.

Branching into science fiction, Siodmak also penned Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) and adapted his own seminal novel Donovan’s Brain multiple times for the screen, solidifying his reputation as a visionary storyteller who merged cutting-edge science with speculative terror. Beyond writing, he directed a handful of films, including Bride of the Gorilla (1951) and The Magnetic Monster (1953), demonstrating versatility not only as a screenwriter but also as a filmmaker. His work reveals a captivating mix of literary heart and genre-bending creativity, something that still ripples through horror and sci-fi cinema today.

Lon Chaney Jr. was indeed the son of the legendary silent film actor Lon Chaney, known as “The Man of a Thousand Faces,” but he was not originally known by the stage name “Lon Chaney Jr.” at birth; his given name was Creighton Tull Chaney. After his father’s death, he adopted the stage name Lon Chaney Jr. around 1935 as a career move to capitalize on his father’s legacy, which helped establish his career in Hollywood but also placed him in the shadow of a titan. Over time, especially starting with The Wolf Man, he was billed simply as Lon Chaney, dropping the “Jr.” The name change was more a strategic marketing decision by studios than a nickname he was commonly referred to by early on. Despite this, he made the name his own through his memorable and emotionally compelling performances, especially as Larry Talbot, the tragic Wolf Man, establishing himself as a major figure in Universal’s horror pantheon in his own right rather than just “the son of Lon Chaney.”

Chaney became forever identified with the tormented Larry, a role demanding empathy as much as physical transformation. As Larry, he is awkward yet affable, his longing for acceptance and love quickly poisoned by his fateful encounter with Bela Lugosi’s fortune-teller, whose own lycanthropic curse is only hinted at with brief, powerful screen time. Lugosi, the iconic star of Dracula, brings an eerie sadness even in his cameo as Bela, the doomed Romani who consents to his own tragic fate when he recognizes the pentagram of death.

The director George Waggner had a journeyman’s touch, guiding the film with a sure sense of atmosphere, pacing, and an eye for dramatic transformation. Working alongside cinematographer Joseph A. Valentine, he created a landscape of perpetual dusk, where early mist swirls around atmospheric rural and village settings, hauntingly dark twisted woods, and the brooding interiors of the Talbot estate. Valentine’s cinematography is instrumental: the film is bathed in fogs that never quite reveal the contours of the land or its lurking evils, and the low, slanting light throws elongated shadows that seem poised to engulf Larry at every moment to emphasize Larry’s haunted, dual nature and his looming fate. Valentine later shot Hitchcock’s Rope (1948), known for its visual innovation.

From Man to Monster: The Fierce Alchemy Behind Jack Pierce’s Wolf Man

The transformation scenes in The Wolf Man are a masterclass in classical cinematic metamorphosis, painted with a haunting brush of both dread and melancholy. Jack Pierce’s unsettling makeup work blossoms in gradual, mesmerizing stages as Lon Chaney Jr.’s Larry succumbs to the curse: the slow, spectral fade from human to beast.

One of the most unforgettable signatures of The Wolf Man is the groundbreaking cinematic façade and transformation effects by Pierce, which required hours of work daily and achieved a haunting new realism for the time. Pierce’s alchemical artistry was less about mold and mask and more about breathing wild life into flesh and hair, painstakingly gluing tufts of yak hair strand by strand, then singeing them with a hot iron to forge untamed fur that seemed to grow like creeping tangles across Chaney’s face. Far from a mere disguise, Pierce’s technique was a grueling ritual of transformation, sculpting the werewolf’s visage with layers of cotton, collodion, and that iconic rubber nose, each element breathing a raw, animalistic pulse beneath the surface. The skin coarsened, as if summoned from beneath a wild thicket of fur, sprouting untamed like creeping vines across his face, bristling with fibers, spreading with a brutal, living texture: a wild garden sprung not from earth but from human skin, framing a leathery, primal snout that marked the beast within.

Despite its brilliance, the makeup process tested the endurance and patience of Lon Chaney Jr., who reportedly resented the long, uncomfortable hours spent in Pierce’s chair, yet it was this collaboration that ushered in a breakthrough in horror makeup effects, blending detailed realism with fantastical transformation. Pierce, known for his stubborn craftsmanship and old-world techniques, insisted on building every brow and detail from scratch daily, rarely using molds to maintain the uniqueness and tactile depth of his designs. The painstaking hours in which Chaney bore Pierce’s unforgiving magic, sometimes feeling the searing heat of the curling iron on his cheek, made each frame a testament to old Hollywood’s blend of craftsmanship and torment, creating a monstrous look both terrifying and tragic, utterly inseparable from the actor’s own weary humanity.

The film’s practical dissolves, saving the full horror of the Wolf Man’s visage for a devastating reveal, cutting softly between overlapping images, capture hands retreating into monstrous claws, his skin charged with latent fury, and feet and ankles reshaping into the toe-walking stance characteristic of lupine grace before our eyes. There is an eerie poetry in the way Larry begins to walk on the balls of his feet, a deliberate subversion of human gait that gives his creature form an unsettling, predatory elegance; every step betrays the monstrous nature trying to reclaim its dominion. This gait, unnatural yet fluid, conveys the silent tragedy of his condition: a man stripped of his humanity, condemned to a primal rhythm of loss and rage.

Pierce quietly shaped the soul behind the Wolf Man’s mask. His face carries a raw, aching humanity, a portrait of pain and sorrow, of mournful eloquence, a restless blend of feral instinct and fragile soul, a vulnerable ferocity, and just maybe a reflection of the sorrow we somehow recognize in ourselves. It’s this shared ache that binds us to him. It’s why I’m drawn to helping feral cats. Their ‘humanity’ or more aptly, cats’ (and dogs) sentience, soulfulness, honesty, heart, wild nature and spirit call to us.

Among the cast, Claude Rains stands towering as Sir John Talbot, the rational, emotionally distant father whose skepticism and sternness are shaded by regret and anguish. Evelyn Ankers plays Gwen Conliffe, who brings warmth and intelligence, at once strong-willed and compassionate, divided by duty and genuine affection for Larry.

Lon Chaney Jr. and Evelyn Ankers are remembered as one of classic horror’s most intriguing on-screen pairings, their chemistry in The Wolf Man (1941) palpable and emotionally charged. Despite their compelling collaboration in six Universal films, including The Wolf Man, The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), Son of Dracula (1943), North to the Klondike (1942), Weird Woman (1944), and The Frozen Ghost (1945), their off-screen relationship was famously strained. Ankers reportedly found Chaney to be difficult or brusque at times, occasionally perceiving him as a bully, while Chaney gave Ankers the nickname “Shankers,” which hinted at a complicated back-and-forth, a mix of annoyance and familiarity. While there’s no clear drama or outright hostility on record, they kept things professional enough to deliver solid performances, even if things weren’t always smooth between them.

Ralph Bellamy plays Colonel Paul Montford, the local chief constable who embodies authority, and Patric Knowles plays Frank Andrews, a gamekeeper and Gwen’s fiancé. Both represent parochial suspicion and the protective, watchful, and somewhat skeptical public face of the grieving and fearful community around Larry Talbot and the mysterious werewolf attacks.

Fay Helm is the innocent Jenny, whose fateful palm reading seals her doom early in the tale. Maria Ouspenskaya, as Maleva, is unforgettable: she is all finally honed gravity and sorrow, mother to Bela and soothsayer to the newly cursed. Her delivery of the film’s famous saying, “Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night…,” reverberates as oracle, poetry, and curse all at once. No one but Maria Ouspenskaya could carry that line with such quiet grace and soul, her voice a steady murmur of integrity and solemn truth.

The film unwinds in visual and dramatic episodes that are now canonical: Larry’s awkward attempts to reconnect with his father after the death of his brother, his courtship of Gwen, and the trio’s night walk to the Romani camp that ends in violence. After Bela reads Jenny’s palm and sees the pentagram, terror erupts in the woods as a wolf attacks. Larry’s desperate defense leaves him bitten; he later learns he has killed not a beast, but Bela himself. Thus begins his spiral of paranoia and remorse. Doubts from Sir John and the villagers, the growing suspicion as evidence piles up, and the mounting internal pressure, all are punctuated by fog-wrapped evenings, floating camera movements, and the Wolf Man’s prowling. And, there is the tragic climax, with Sir John using Larry’s own silver-headed cane to fell his monstrous son while Gwen and Maleva watch in horror and pity.

In the muted mist of ancient Llanwelly, Wales, The Wolf Man begins with a poignant son’s return: Larry Talbot, played with aching vulnerability by Lon Chaney Jr., comes home, seeking reconciliation with his distant father, Sir John Talbot after the tragic death of his brother. The estate, shrouded in fog and silence, is the stage where fate waits patiently. A fleeting reunion with Sir John speaks of unresolved grief and cold distance, setting a tone of brooding melancholy.

The first meeting between Larry and Gwen Conliffe in a quaint antique shop where he buys a cane that is crowned with a silver wolf’s head, flickers with the gentle glow of innocence and burgeoning affection, set against the ominous backdrop of fate’s cruel hand.

This moment carries with it symbolic weight: This fateful acquisition is no mere accessory but a foreshadowing talisman, taking a mundane step into the realm of the mythical. The cane’s silver top both marks Larry’s new identity and offers a wary defense against the curse’s grip, a breakable yet brave charmstick. Larry is quietly drawn to the strength it embodies, even though it cannot ultimately protect him —in a world about to darken irrevocably. The wolf’s snarling head on the cane is an ominous reflection of the beast lurking beneath Larry’s skin, a beast he will soon struggle to contain.

Gwen’s spirited presence balances Larry’s brooding vulnerability; her quick smile and steady gaze are a brief respite from the shadow encroaching on him. Their interaction hums with a subtle spark that is equal parts infatuation and protective care, marked not by flamboyant passion but the slow, tentative unfolding of affection that makes Larry’s later descent all the more heartrending, laying the groundwork for a tragedy that feels intimate, personal, and deeply sorrowful.

Larry’s tentative courtship of Gwen feels like a fragile light pushing through gathering shadows. Their meeting blossoms with understated warmth, though the weight of fate hangs quietly between them. Not long after, accompanied by Gwen and her spirited friend Jenny (Fay Helm), Larry ventures to a Romani camp that feels like a threshold to the uncanny. Here, the mysterious and foreboding Bela (Bela Lugosi) reads Jenny’s palm and, seeing the pentagram’s cruel mark, signals a grim warning of what’s to come.

The night suddenly erupts into raw fury when a wolf, snarling and spectral, attacks Jenny. Larry steps in, striking down the beast with his new wolf-headed cane, a chilling emblem of his curse just beginning to take hold.

By morning, Larry sees the cost clearly: he discovers the wolf was none other than the ill-fated Bela, and he has been marked by a wound that speaks of something supernatural. Larry’s wound mysteriously heals overnight, casting doubt and suspicion among the villagers and local authorities, including Colonel Montford and Dr. Lloyd (Warren William). Larry sets out to convince others of his plight, but is shunned.

After the bodies of Bela and another villager are found, and Larry’s silver cane is discovered at the scene, suspicion quickly falls on Larry. The fact that he and Gwen weren’t with Jenny when she was attacked only fuels the gossip, with whispers hinting at something scandalous. Despite Gwen’s fiancé Frank Andrews doing his best to defend her reputation, the rumors just won’t die down, and Larry and Gwen find themselves increasingly alienated from the community.

The story emerges piece by piece through suspicion and isolation as Larry’s once steady world begins to crack. His father’s cold disbelief, the village’s whispered gossip, and Larry’s own rising paranoia hang over him like a shadow of loneliness.

In search of answers, Larry encounters the stoic Romani matriarch, Maleva, whose somber knowledge carries the weight of tragic inevitability. She reveals the curse binding Larry to the lycanthropic fate foretold by “even a man pure at heart.”

The scene where Larry Talbot first meets Maleva is hauntingly significant and steeped in a palpable sense of fate and sorrow. When Larry encounters her, she is a solemn figure whose grim knowledge casts long shadows over his future. Maleva approaches with a quiet authority, her voice both commanding and compassionate as she reveals the terrible truth that Larry, having been bitten by the werewolf, is now bound to the same curse that claimed her son Bela. The exchange is suffuse with ritualistic importance and Maleva’s prophetic warnings, her offering of a protective charm, and the atmosphere thick with inevitability. Through her, the film pierces the veil between superstition and reality, underscoring the tragic destiny that Larry is powerless to escape. Ouspenskaya’s presence is like an ancient echo, a living embodiment of sorrow and tragic acceptance.

The transformation sequences unfold as slow, agonizing poetry, hands morphing, feet reshaping into lupine claws, Chaney’s haunted movements shifting to the primal gait of the creature stalking the creepy, people-less marshy woods. Larry’s terror intensifies as he senses the irrevocable loss of his humanity. The full moon, a spectral sentinel, claims his nights as he becomes both the hunter and the hunted.

The chilling progression of Larry’s curse unfolds chronologically: first, he transforms and kills a villager, then he is trapped and rescued by Maleva’s incantation. Haunted by the knowledge that he will next attack Gwen, whose hand he now sees marked by the fatal pentagram, Larry confesses all to his father. Sir John, ever the rationalist, binds Larry in a chair to prove his son is suffering from delusion, keeping the silver cane as a safeguard. But when Larry transforms and escapes, chaos erupts.

In the heartbreaking climax, Larry, now fully transformed as the Wolf Man, attacks Gwen in the foggy woods and is ultimately brought down by Sir John, wielding the silver-headed cane, a symbol of human judgment and supernatural justice, but who does not yet realize the beast is his own son. Maleva arrives, intoning her elegy, her haunting lament that echoes over the scene as the wolf’s death unveils in backward-surging, Larry’s broken human form once more, a final testament to the price of the curse.

Larry’s desperate plea for mercy from a world that has turned against him ends with his execution at the hands of his own father, while the vengeful townsfolk close in, their presence looming at the fringes of the tragedy. Amid the uncertainty of Larry’s curse, a fatal irony emerges; his story, shrouded in fog-laden landscapes and shadowy silhouettes, leaves only confusion and fear in its wake.

This fluid journey cries and growls through mist, moonlight, and heartbreak; it is less a mere monster story than a mournful elegy to the human soul’s frailty, a tale where every shadow holds a mirror, and every howl is an echo of loneliness unspoken.

The Wolf Man includes many compelling scenes that chart Larry’s transformation, both physical and emotional, a haunting odyssey from man to monster, marked by moments of unsettling beauty, creeping threat, and heart-wrenching loss, all delivered with stunning visual poetry and unforgettable performances.

Universal’s The Wolf Man was not just entertainment; it crystallized horror’s capacity for emotional complexity. The film established tropes that would define werewolf stories for generations: the use of silver as a weapon, the pentagram as a mark of the victim, and the curse passed by bite. The Wolf Man forged a tragic monster, one whose most extraordinary victim is himself, and this mythic treatment set it apart from Universal’s previous giants, Frankenstein’s creature and the undead Gothic aristocrat, Dracula, by rooting it in personal guilt, community alienation, and the fear of uncontrollable change. By doing this, it guaranteed Universal’s brand a place in the pantheon of cinematic horror: the brooding sets, expressionist lighting, archetypal monsters, and deeply human stories remain a template imitated but never surpassed, with The Wolf Man as both a brilliant chapter in horror history and a testament to the enduring power of the Universal Monsters.


THE MUMMY 1932

Eternal Longing and the Unseen Bonds: Unraveling the Timeless Enigma of Universal’s The Mummy (1932)

The original The Mummy (1932), is the film that expanded Universal’s archetype of the ancient, restless undead. The film directed by visionary, cinematic pioneer Karl Freund and elegantly captured by cinematographer Charles J. Stumar (Werewolf of London 1935, The Raven 1935) , stands among Universal’s most poetic nightmares, a fusion of supernatural longing, colonial unease, and cinematic innovation.

Freund, whose experience behind the camera as cinematographer on Metropolis and Dracula deeply influenced his visual storytelling, brings weight and subtlety to an archetypal monster that is more haunted lover than shambling mindless killer. The screenplay, shaped by John L. Balderston with contributions from Nina Wilcox Putnam and Richard Schayer, draws inspiration from the fevered headlines around the excavation of Tutankhamun’s tomb, the real-life Mummy’s curse that gripped the headlines in the early 1920s, and the West’s obsession with all things ancient and forbidden.

Boris Karloff, transformed by Jack Pierce’s legendary makeup, is Imhotep—a mummy driven by passion, for whom centuries mean nothing when love and vengeance burn.

The cast is rounded out by Zita Johann (as Helen Grosvenor/Anck-es-en-Amon), David Manners, Edward Van Sloan, and Arthur Byron. Van Sloan plays Dr. Muller in The Mummy (1932), an expert in Egyptology serving as the knowledgeable scholar who helps confront the supernatural threat posed by Imhotep. This character aligns with Van Sloan’s recurring typecast as the wise, heroic professor, similar to his roles in other Universal horror classics, such as Professor Abraham Van Helsing in Tod Browning’s Dracula 1931 and James Whale’s Frankenstein 1931, where he plays Dr. Waldman, the scientist who cautions Colin Clive’s Henry Frankenstein against playing God.

In The Mummy, Boris Karloff plays a dual role, embodying both Imhotep, the ancient, cursed Egyptian priest buried alive for attempting to resurrect his beloved Anck-es-en-Amon, and his modern guise as Ardath Bey, a mysterious Egyptian who infiltrates the contemporary world in pursuit of the reincarnation of his lost love. As Ardath Bey, Karloff is enigmatic, almost hypnotic, a man who wields ancient power quietly but with relentless intent. Both portrayals reflect a singular essence: a tortured soul yearning for reunion beyond the boundaries of mortality. This duality captures the tension between the past and present, the supernatural and the earthly, embodying the film’s threads of Colonialism and cultural imperialism, the persistence of memory and destiny, forbidden knowledge, obsession, and immortality.

Boris Karloff in the role of Imhotep gives a performance that is a haunting blend of tragic dignity, simmering menace, and the burden of centuries. He moves with a slow, unnatural shuffle, with the weight of time wrapped around him, a figure caught between roles of hunter and haunted. His portrayal synthesizes an ancient longing with a brooding intensity, breathing life into his mummy with a poignant mix of sorrow and relentless obsession. Karloff’s Imhotep is less a mindless creature and more a tortured soul, hidden within endless silence and dust, yet driven by an undying love and vengeful will. In one of his most mesmerizing and elegiac roles, he manages to capture the delicate balance between love’s eternal flame and the dark curse of damnation.

Let’s begin with the opening sequences, where the film’s poetic tone is set against the backdrop of Egypt’s sands and the whispers of ancient curses. The scene opens with a sweeping aerial shot, an endless desert of shifting dunes and silent threats, where the camera slowly descends toward the excavation site. This visual intro, bathed in low-key lighting and punctuated by the ominous theme music, immediately evokes the otherworldly tension between the known and the unknowable, the modern and the ancient, representing the expedition in 1921 where the mummy of Imhotep is discovered. The setting was filmed on location at Red Rock Canyon, California, which convincingly doubled for the Egyptian desert, its rocky and sandy terrain providing an authentic backdrop to evoke ancient Egypt.

In the stark, ritual-laden opening the archaeologists on a British expedition, led by Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) and his assistant Ralph Norton, digging with their tools striking tombstone and sand pries open the sealed tomb of Imhotep, a high priest punished for sacrilegious passion, buried alive for centuries with the forbidden Scroll of Thoth, forging a moment – that Western tradition has always misunderstood: the reckless human desire to conquer the sacred. This sets the curse in motion. Their’s is the embodiment of the era’s colonial scientific mindset caught between curiosity and the supernatural consequences of disturbing ancient tombs.

As the camera captures this act of defiance, an almost ritualistic violation of eternity, the film delves into layered symbolism. The tomb is more than a burial site; it represents the threshold of forbidden knowledge, a portal through which the past reaches into the present. The scroll, inscribed with hieroglyphs and cursed warnings, whispers of retribution beyond life, hinting at the peril of uncovering truths best left undisturbed. The scene’s richness is underscored by Freund’s use of shadow play, a flickering torchlight that transforms faces into masks of mortal hubris and ancient wrath.

As archaeologists debate science versus superstition, Bramwell Fletcher, who plays Ralph Norton, grows fatally curious.The pivotal moment occurs when Norton, heedless of warnings, unrolls the scroll and recites the incantation aloud. This act, seemingly simple, becomes a poetic defiance, an act of arrogance that awakens the dormant curse. The moment is charged with an ominous silence, broken only by the first whispers of Imhotep’s resurrection.

The resurrection is choreographed with eerie grace: Karloff’s Imhotep, lying down in his tomb, bound and wrapped in his burial linens, slowly unfurls from his eternal dormancy like a cathedral of nightmares emerging from the shadows. The makeup, a masterpiece of pain and patience, emphasizes the ancient’s agony, eyes sunken, face gaunt with centuries’ silence, a vessel filled with longing, revenge, and his tragic burden of release and eternal searching for his forbidden love. This moment, captured in Stumar’s shadow-edged frame, becomes one of horror’s most indelible images: Karloff’s Imhotep shuffles out of legend, stealing both the scroll and Norton’s sanity with a glance that carries the weight of centuries.

When Norton first encounters the awakening mummy, his face becomes a canvas of surreal terror and disbelief that quickly dissolves into hysteria. This moment is one of the most understated yet unnerving sequences in horror cinema. As Norton reads aloud from the Scroll of Thoth, the camera holds tight on his expression, his eyes widen in mounting horror, a numbing shock that tightens his features like the grip of an unseen curse. The mummy’s hand silently appears, seizing the scroll unseen, leaving Norton isolated in an invisible confrontation with death and the ancient unknown. The transformation that follows is hauntingly poetic: Norton’s initial shriek fractures into a manic, hysterical laughter, unearthed madness sprung not from overt spectacle but from the weight of ancient dread pressing down on his fragile psyche. a chilling inversion, his laughter echoing like a death knell, fraught with the collapse of reason under the oppressive silence of the tomb. It is a moment of sublime horror, where the thin veil between the living and the dead frays, captured in Norton’s tortured face, a visage etched by fascination, fear, and the fatal surrender to the curse that has begun its relentless march.

A decade later, Imhotep, reborn as Ardath Bey, steps seamlessly into modern Egypt’s shadows, guiding the next generation of explorers, Sir Joseph’s son, Frank Whemple (David Manners), and Professor Pearson (Leonard Mudie), to rediscover the tomb of Anck-es-en-Amon and helping him to reunite with his lost love. Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann) is introduced as a young British-Egyptian woman tied to the museum through her connection to Dr. Muller. The treasures are exhumed; Helen, who seems uncannily like the lost princess, is drawn into a web of haunted longing as the ancient love triangle coils toward tragedy.

The scenes move between luminous Egyptian tombs and exquisitely shadowed museum corridors, every setting steeped in colonial anxiety. Moving into the next stretch of the film, it shifts to the orientalist grandeur of Cairo’s museum, where the Egyptian relics reside amidst colonial relics of Western curiosity and conquest. The British characters treat ancient relics as spoils, yet find themselves at the mercy of a power that refuses to be buried by history. Here, Freund’s use of chiaroscuro lighting and sweeping close-ups evokes a spectral beauty, and worlds of myth and history connect. The rediscovery of Imhotep by the modern explorers becomes symbolic of the enduring power of ancient memory, resurfacing from the depths of denial, exposing the hubris of Western imperialism.

As Bey manipulates museum staff to recover the Scroll of Thoth, his magic and malice mount. He uses arcane powers to draw Helen ever closer, inducing her past-life memories as Anck-es-en-Amon. His obsession escalates: Bey kills Sir Joseph to protect the scroll, bewilders Helen with visions of ancient Egypt, and ultimately seeks to murder and mummify her so she will rise again at his side in the afterlife, a horror that fuses death with desire, eternity with regret.

The scene of Helen Grosvenor’s resemblance to the lost princess veers into the realm of poetic tragedy, suggesting that love and obsession are merely two sides of the same ancient coin, centuries-old passions reborn in the modern world. Helen’s increasing vulnerability to past-life memories is painted with eerie lyricism, as Ardath Bey’s rituals and hypnotic influence place her at the center of a struggle not just for survival, but for spiritual possession.

Zita Johann’s Helen Grosvenor, a woman torn between her modern life and ancient memories, enters Imhotep’s orbit, haunted by flashes of past identity and a love that, for Imhotep, has not died. Karloff’s performance, amplified by Jack P. Pierce’s iconic makeup, layer upon layer of collodion, clay, and bandage, endured stoically for hours each shoot, infusing the mummy with sorrow and dignity, and is never merely monstrous; he is driven by passion, regret, and the doomed pursuit of reunion.

Throughout the film, Imhotep’s slow, shuffling approach through shadowy corridors becomes a haunting ballet, a tragic figure embodying longing, regret, and the unbreakable cycle of death and desire. The scene where we learn how Imhotep’s mummy is wrapped, layer upon layer of linen, becomes a poetic metaphor for entrapment and the inescapability of destiny, sealing his fate as both monster and tragic lover.

Ardath Bey’s rites, infused with symbolism, evoke the ancient Egyptian worldview: death as transcendence, yet also as imprisonment. The ritualistic scenes, with their rhythmic incantations and torchlit hieroglyphs, echo the film’s deep-rooted cultural fears, an ancient world that refuses to die, where love, vengeance, and the curse are woven together like the intricate carvings on temple walls. Bey’s magic, such as mesmerism, telepathy, and the curse of death by remote incantation with the burning of tannis leaves during his rituals, serves as a mystical rite that connects the living to the dead, acting as an incense to summon and bridge the ancient spiritual forces. The smoke is symbolic of spiritual awakening and necromantic power, helping to awaken the mummy and fuel its supernatural abilities.

This bridges the realms of forbidden love and lost empire; his efforts to reanimate Anck-es-en-Amon carry the breath of myth and the sting of transgression. More than a monster, Imhotep is a critique: his longing for resurrection, possession, and redemption echoes Western fears of the East and unconscious desires for what lies beyond rational knowledge.

As the story escalates toward its climax, Freund’s direction famously builds the suspense to a fever pitch, the chase across a ruined Egyptian temple, the flickering firelight revealing Imhotep’s gaunt, tormented face, illuminated intermittently by flames, emphasizing his undead and tragic nature, creating a tense atmosphere of supernatural horror during this pivotal sequence. The imagery is both physical and symbolic, illustrating centuries of suffering and obsession.

The moment Helen recalls her past life as Anck-es-en-Amon, a revelation staggered with the pain of reincarnation becomes a poetic invocation of memory over time’s erosion, as she begins to remember her ancient identity and the forbidden love that drove her to be reincarnated. Her voice, trembling with the weight of centuries, ripples through Freund’s framing as if to say my love has lasted longer than the temples of our gods. This lyricism underscores the film’s core theme: the persistence of love and longing through reincarnation and ritual, that death cannot truly sever the bonds forged in ancient Egypt. The Mummy explores how love transcends mortality and how ancient rituals attempt to conquer or preserve the past.

The film’s climax, set against the ruins of a forgotten temple, layers suspense with poetic tragedy, Frank and Dr. Muller pursuing Helen, while Imhotep attempts his final, blasphemous ceremony.

When Imhotep tries to draw Helen (Anck-es-en-Amon) into his doomed existence, he tries to persuade her, saying: “No man ever suffered as I did for you…”, imploring her to understand —not until you are about to pass through the great night of terror and triumph. Until you are ready to “face moments of horror for an eternity of love.”

“I loved you once, but now you belong with the dead! I am Anck-es-en-Amon, but I… I’m somebody else, too! I want to live, even in this strange new world!”

Ardath Bey’s dark ritual attempting to murder Helen and revive her as the reincarnation of his bride Anck-es-en-Amon is foiled only by her desperate invocation of the goddess Isis, a moment of spiritual defiance and protection, breaking the power of the Scroll of Thoth by shattering it and ultimately reducing Imhotep to dust and memory, marking the triumph of sacred power over ancient curses and dark magic.

In these few minutes, the film conflates horror with tragedy, a motif that echoes throughout Universal’s monster canon.

The final scenes, where fire consumes the mummy and the curse is lifted, Imhotep reduced to dust, are imbued with poetic justice. Freund’s use of slow dissolves and stark lighting creates a visual elegy for the fallen priest, and the scale of destruction underscores the futility of defying destiny. The last shot, lingering on Helen’s face as she turns away from the smoldering ruins, the flames purifying, leaves a lingering sense of melancholy, a reminder that some curses, like love, are forever etched into the fabric of history. The lovers are left in a world where ancient curses and colonial ambitions have collided, echoing with both the legendary and the human.

Jack P. Pierce’s makeup artistry achieves a paradoxical effect: imprisoned within linen and prosthetics, Karloff’s face expresses agony, longing, and a sense of being unmoored from time itself. Pierce’s work painstakingly shaped the Gothic iconography of Universal’s monsters, rendering Imhotep as both singular and archetype.

Karloff ANECDOTES:

Karloff said about working with makeup artist Jack Pierce: “He was nothing short of a genius, besides being a lovely man… After a hard day’s shooting, I would spend another six or seven hours with Jack… More than once I wondered if my patience would be rewarded with a contract to play the Monster.”

About the grueling makeup process he endured, Karloff admitted: “I lost track of the number of hours I submitted to the physically draining experience… The application took eight hours, and removal took two hours. It was exhausting but necessary to bring the character to life.”

Karloff’s dedication to the role is captured in how he tolerated discomfort: “The makeup was painful but I was too much of a gentleman to reveal the full extent of the misery I suffered.”

Composer James Dietrich’s orchestration, inflected with haunting stock music and borrowed strains from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, contributes an atmosphere that is both hypnotic and haunted, auditory echoes of lives interrupted, destinies replayed,  joins with the script’s rhythmic incantations to suggest a world always teetering between myth and reality. In this way, The Mummy is not just spectacle and monster, but a meditation on longing and loss, possession and release, past and present souls intertwining in the half-light of mortal dreams.

The cultural resonance of The Mummy lies in its layered meaning and the tensions between Western curiosity and ancient mysticism, an interchange fraught with imperial hubris and the desire to possess what should be sacred. Critical scholars have noted how the film subtly critiques colonialism, positioning Imhotep as both a victim of cultural theft and a symbol of the unhealed wounds of history. Freund’s direction, paired with Karloff’s portrayal, a creature at once terrifying and profoundly tragic, transcends simple horror, becoming a meditation on the eternal human quest for love and understanding.

Freund’s direction is full of smooth dissolves, chiaroscuro lighting, and haunting close-ups, which imbue every frame with spectral resonance. Throughout, The Mummy dances between dream and waking, colonialism and myth, science and ancient faith.

In essence, The Mummy (1932) is poetic in its imagery, rich in symbolism, and profound in its exploration of the subconscious fears that haunt us across centuries. It is a film that resonates on a primal level, speaking to the universal themes of desire, betrayal, the unyielding passage of time and the haunting beauty of a story that is as much about the soul’s eternal unrest as it is about monsters from Egyptian tombs.

The Mummy’s impact is enduring. Its influence reaches far beyond Universal’s franchise, still influencing generations of filmmakers and artists drawn to themes of memory, forbidden love, and the fine line between science and superstition. It evokes, with painterly restraint, not simply the terror of the undead but the melancholy of things lost and reclaimed. The film holds steady as a key lens for study on Western appropriation, imperial dreams, and the simultaneous allure and threat of the Other. Freund’s The Mummy is perhaps the purest realization of that, a supernatural tale wrapped in dust, longing, and the persistent whisper of what should remain buried but never does. Freund and Karloff’s masterpiece, with its ancient passions and ritual intensity, digs deeper than graves, lingering in story, psyche, and spirit.

This is your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl, saying — it’s official, this is #150 done and done!

After 150 restless days and nights charting the eerie pulse of classic horror with The Last Drive In, it’s only fitting we drift back to our very first foray—where the terror first stirred in that delicious shadowed threshold between wakefulness and dreams, good old-fashioned smirks, snickers, and screams!

If you want to go tip-toe backward toward the first trembling step, use the link below!

https://thelastdrivein.com/category/monstergirls-150-days-of-classic-horror/

If you’d like the full list of links to each title!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror

 

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #97 M (1931) & Mad Love 1935

M (1931)

Whistling in the Dark: Fritz Lang’s M and the Shadows of Modern Guilt and the Sympathetic Monster.

Fritz Lang’s M (1931) is less a film than a fever dream of modernity—shadow-drenched streets and suffocating interiors mirror the moral decay of a society where guilt, justice, and collective hysteria collide, within Weimar Germany that is teetering on the edge of fascism. Berlin becomes a labyrinthine character here—a claustrophobic maze of tenements, taverns, and rain-slicked alleys where guilt, contagious panic, and a shared frenzy smolder.

Made on the precipice of Nazi Germany’s rise, it pulses with the anxieties of a society unraveling, its streets choked by fear and its institutions crumbling.

Fritz Lang treats Berlin as a character—a tangle of crowded dwellings, shadowy watering holes, and wet, winding alleyways and backstreets. His camera glides with predatory grace, stalking characters through doorways and down corridors, as if the city itself is complicit in the hunt and conspires in their ruin.

Lang, the architect of dread, with his expressionist roots -bends the cityscape into a feverish dreamscape of jagged shadows and sharp angles, that seems to thrum with unseen menace, that bleeds into every frame: warping reality, chiaroscuro lighting carves faces into grotesque close-ups, mask-like, into something nightmarish.

Sound, still novel in 1931, becomes a character. —whispers, the clang of streetcars—into a symphony of dread. And the absence of a score amplifies the story’s everyday noises with an undertow of anxiety—footsteps echo like gunshots, whistled tunes twist into death marches, and silence screams louder than any audible scream. A master of Weimar cinema, Lang wields sound and image like weapons here, crafting a proto-noir that feels as urgent today as it did in 1931. The audience is forced to project their own fears onto Beckert, making him a blank canvas for societal rage, forcing the audience to confront their own complicity in the myth of the monster.

Beckert’s whistling of In the Hall of the Mountain King acts as a sonic scar, threading through the film like a nursery rhyme turned dirge. Lang’s use of silence is equally potent: the infamous cut from a mother’s desperate cries to the stillness of her child’s empty chair and a balloon tangled in power lines.

Yet M belongs to the New Objectivity movement, its bleak realism a rebuke to Weimar’s decadence. Lang’s research was meticulous—consulting police, visiting asylums, even casting real criminals in the kangaroo court scene—lending the film a documentary grit that grounds its surreal horror.

Lorre’s Performance: The Monster as Mirror

At the film’s center is Peter Lorre’s Hans Beckert, a serial killer of children whose torment mirrors the moral rot of the world around him. Peter Lorre’s Beckert is a revelation—a figure of pity and revulsion. His bulging eyes and twitching hands betray a man enslaved by compulsions he cannot name.

Lorre’s performance is a triumph in duality—pitiable and monstrous, fragile and terrifying. His infamous monologue in the kangaroo court scene (“I can’t help myself! I have no control!”) —cracks open the film’s moral abyss. revealing a soul trapped in a nightmare of its own making. Lorre plays Beckert not as a predator but as a terrified animal, his voice rising to a shriek that echoes the collective madness outside.

Lang frames him in isolation: dwarfed by crowds, cornered in shadows, or pinned under the gaze of his accusers. The opening murder: Elsie’s death, his crimes occur offscreen, rendered through chilling ellipsis and silences—a bouncing ball abandoned, a stray balloon adrift, a mother’s cries fading into the hum of a vacant apartment, a balloon tangled in power lines. Lang denies catharsis, leaving the horror to fester in the imagination. The Shadow Pursuit: Beckert, marked with chalk, flees through streets that seem to contract around him. His reflection in a shop window—a trapped animal—prefigures his fate.

Lang’s genius lies in his refusal to offer heroes or resolution. M is a procedural without heroes. Police and criminals—mirror images in tailored suits—scour the city with equal brutality. Intercutting their meetings, Lang lays bare the absurdity of their parallel quests: bureaucrats debate search protocols while mob bosses deploy beggars as spies.

The climactic trial, lit like a Goya etching, a kangaroo court held in a derelict distillery, pits Beckert against a tribunal of thieves and murderers, highlighting the hypocrisy of both systems.

Beckert’s “defense” hinges on his insanity, but the mob cares only for retribution. Their rage masks their own guilt, turning justice into vengeful theater. His final plea- “Who knows what it’s like to be me?” —hangs unanswered, a question that implicates every character in the cycle of violence.

The final shot—mothers mourning in a hollow courtroom—offers no solace, only a whisper: monsters are not born. They’re sculpted by the shadows we refuse to name. Nearly a century later, Lang’s Berlin still feels unnervingly familiar—a world where the line between hunter and hunted blurs, and the real horror isn’t the killer. It’s the silence that answers his plea. 

Cinematographer Fritz Arno Wagner paints Berlin in gradients of gray, where wide shots reduce crowds to swarming ants while close-ups magnify the sweat on a trembling hand. The film’s most iconic image—Beckert’s shadow looming over a “Wanted” poster—distills the story into a single frame: the monster and the mob, inseparable. Lang’s tracking shots are virtuosic, particularly in the apartment raid sequence, where the camera glides past doors, each revealing a fragment of lives upturned by fear. His use of vertical space—spiral staircases, balconies, factory rafters—creates a world that feels both expansive and suffocating, a prison of modernity’s own design.

Released two years before Lang fled the Nazis, M pulses with prophetic warnings. The police’s authoritarian tactics, the mob’s bloodlust, the public’s hunger for spectacle—all foreshadow the collapse looming just beyond the frame. M endures because it stares unflinchingly at the darkness within systems and souls.

Yet the film transcends its era and more than a genre cornerstone, becoming a timeless autopsy of societal rot, where the line between hunter and hunted blurs, and the real horror isn’t the killer—it’s the world that made him. This is a film that refuses resolution. Its final shot—mothers mourning in a courtroom—offers no solace, only a warning: monsters are not born. As Lang himself noted: “We created them.”

In Beckert, we see the birth of the “sympathetic monster,” a template for everything from Psycho 1960 to Silence of the Lambs’ Hannibal Lecter. But M is no mere genre artifact. It’s a mirror cracked and held up unflinchingly to the darkness we ignore, the injustices we tolerate, and the collective dread we feed, that is terrifyingly clear.

MAD LOVE 1935

Galatea’s Shadow: Obsession, Artifice, and the Haunted Hands of Mad Love:

Haunted by the feverish grandeur of Mad Love, I feel the urge to explore the twisted wings of the Théâtre des Horreurs, wander the flickering footlights of Grand Guignol nightmares, and linger in the shadow of Galatea’s silent gaze and peer into the film’s delirious heart. Mad Love is a Gothic marvel of theatrical horror that begs for deeper exploration at The Last Drive In.

Peter Lorre’s entrance into American horror with Mad Love (1935) is as unforgettable as a nightmarish, feverish trance, a showcase for his singular allure—those wide, haunted eyes, the off-kilter smile, and a voice that slides effortlessly from tender to terrifying. Lorre’s acting style is a study in contradictions: he is at once pitiable and sinister, capable of evoking empathy even as he chills the blood. This strange magnetism had already made him a sensation in films like M (1931), and would later define his turns in The Maltese Falcon 1941, playing Joel Cairo, an effete and cunning criminal whose gardenia-scented calling cards and anxious manner set him apart from the film’s hard-boiled world. As one of the eccentric villains entangled in the hunt for the jewel-encrusted statuette, Lorre’s Cairo is both sly and ineffectual—forever scheming, easily flustered, and frequently outmaneuvered by Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade. His memorable quirks and nervous energy make him a standout among the film’s rogues’ gallery, adding both comic tension and a sense of unpredictability to John Huston’s noir classic.

In Casablanca 1942, he plays Ugarte, a nervous, slippery black marketeer, whose desperation sets the film’s plot in motion. Lorre’s Ugarte is both pitiable and sly, quick with a nervous grin and always glancing over his shoulder, embodying the kind of small-time schemer who thrives on the margins of wartime Casablanca. And then there’s Arsenic and Old Lace, where he played Dr. Herman Einstein, the nervous, alcoholic plastic surgeon and sidekick to the villainous Jonathan Brewster, played by Raymond Massey.

Of course there’s always the Peter Lorre who is an absolute scene-stealer in Roger Corman’s The Raven (1963), playing the hapless and hilariously disgruntled Dr.Adolphus Bedlo—a bumbling sorcerer who spends much of the film either as a talking bird or trying to get his dignity back from Vincent Price and Boris Karloff. Lorre’s Bedlo is all wisecracks, ad-libs, and exasperated shrugs, tossing out modern slang and sarcastic asides that turn Poe’s gloomy poem into a supernatural buddy comedy. Whether he’s flapping half-transformed wings, bickering with his “son” Jack Nicholson, or grumbling about his lot in magical life, Lorre delivers every line with the timing of a world-weary stand-up comic. In a film where everyone else is busy conjuring storms and hurling spells, Lorre’s greatest magic trick is making you laugh so hard you forget you’re supposed to be scared.

Critics and film historians have noted, and Sara Karloff herself shared with me, that her father, Boris Karloff, as well as Peter Lorre and Vincent Price, didn’t just share the screen in The Raven (1963)—they also turned the set into their own private comedy club. According to interviews and biographies, the trio delighted in making each other laugh and were notorious for playing practical jokes, creating a backstage atmosphere so lighthearted you’d think they were filming a screwball comedy instead of a Gothic horror. Their camaraderie and mischief are well documented, proving that the real magic on set was less about spells and more about who could crack up the others first.

But in Mad Love, Lorre is unleashed as Dr. Gogol, a role that lets him inhabit the full spectrum of obsession, vulnerability, ominous melancholy, and madness.

Frances Drake, who brings to life the hauntingly beautiful Yvonne Orlac, the object of Gogol’s desire, possessed a luminous, dark-haired beauty—her features refined yet expressive, with eyes that could flicker from vulnerability to resolve in a single glance. On screen, she brought a poised, almost ethereal presence, often cast as the terrified heroine whose emotional depth elevated even the most outlandish plots. Among her most memorable performances were Yvonne Orlac in Mad Love (1935), Eponine in Les Misérables (1935), and Diana Rukh in The Invisible Ray (1936). Drake’s elegance and subtlety made her a standout in 1930s Hollywood, especially in horror and mystery films, where her ability to convey fear, longing, and dignity set her apart from her contemporaries.

Mad Love was directed by Karl Freund, a pioneering force in both German Expressionist cinema and Hollywood horror. Freund, who brought his atmospheric genius to Metropolis and Dracula, here crafts a world that is both Gothic and surreal, a feverish echo of the original story’s French roots. Mad Love is based on Maurice Renard’s novel Les Mains d’Orlac (The Hands of Orlac), the tale of a brilliant pianist whose hands are destroyed, only to be replaced with those of a murderer—an operation that brings not only physical change but psychological torment. Freund’s adaptation leans into the psychological horror, emphasizing mood and character over spectacle, and the result is a film that feels both intimate and grandly operatic.

Lorre’s Dr. Gogol is a surgeon whose genius is matched only by his obsession with the actress Yvonne Orlac. When Yvonne’s husband Stephen (Colin Clive, himself a master of the tortured soul from Frankenstein) is maimed in a train accident, Gogol seizes the opportunity to bind the couple to him through a grotesque act of medical wizardry—transplanting the hands of an executed knife-thrower onto Stephen’s arms. The horror, of course, is not just in the surgery but in the slow, psychological unraveling that follows: Stephen, once a gentle artist, now finds his hands compelled to violence, while Yvonne is caught in a web of fear and unwanted devotion.

Dr. Gogol’s obsession in Mad Love isn’t just a maniacal fixation on a woman—it’s a mythic longing shaped by the very theater that first cast its spell on him. The object of his desire, Yvonne Orlac, is not simply an actress but a living embodiment of the Grand Guignol’s dark magic, a muse who nightly endures staged tortures before a rapt Parisian audience at the Théâtre des Horreurs—a place modeled after the infamous Grand Guignol, where horror and art entwine in a danse macabre.

Gogol’s infatuation is steeped in the mythic and the theatrical. When Yvonne retires from the stage, he purchases a wax figure of her character, naming it Galatea after the Greek myth of the sculptor Pygmalion, who falls in love with his own creation and prays for her to come to life.

In Gogol’s lonely, fevered mind, Yvonne becomes both goddess and captive, a modern Galatea whose image he worships and whose absence gnaws at him like a phantom limb. The wax figure is more than a prop—it is a shrine to unattainable desire, a silent witness to Gogol’s unraveling, and a metaphor for the way art and obsession can blur the boundaries between life and fantasy.

The Théâtre des Horreurs itself is a mythic space, a shadowy cathedral of agony and spectacle, where Yvonne’s nightly suffering is both ritual and performance. For Gogol, the theater is a temple and Yvonne its tragic saint, her staged torments feeding the flames of his longing. His love is not for the real Yvonne but for the mythic creature conjured by footlights and greasepaint—a figure of pain, beauty, and unattainable grace. When he loses her to the everyday world of marriage and domesticity, his desire descends and unfurls into madness, and he tries to rewrite the myth, casting himself as both creator and destroyer.

Gogol’s obsession with Yvonne is then painted in the broad, haunted strokes of myth and theater—a love that is less about possession than about the desperate yearning to animate the inanimate, to turn wax into flesh, and to make the fantasy real, no matter the cost.

Freund’s cinematography is a stunning demonstration of atmosphere. Shadows pool in the corners of Gogol’s sinister laboratory, light glances off surgical steel, and the camera lingers on faces twisted by doubt, terror, or longing. Gogol’s home and laboratory are filled with strange medical instruments, wax figures, and unsettling curiosities, all bathed in dramatic, high-contrast lighting that throws warped shadows across the walls.

The sets are a delirious blend of Gothic arches and surreal angles, with the Orlac home a place of haunted elegance and Gogol’s clinic a cold, clinical tomb. Costumes are used to sharpen these contrasts: Stephen’s refined concert attire is a reminder of his lost artistry, while Gogol’s clinical garb and later, his grotesque disguise amplify his descent into madness.

Peter Lorre’s most iconic and unsettling look in Mad Love is not that of a surgeon, but something far stranger and more theatrical. When Dr. Gogol stalks through the Parisian night in his bizarre disguise, he wears a rigid, mechanical neck brace that clamps around his throat, giving his silhouette a stiff, unnatural quality. Enhancing the eerie effect, he dons dark, round sunglasses that obscure his eyes and lend him an air of impenetrable menace. His outfit is a dark, overcoat—formal, severe, and entirely at odds with the surgical garb you might expect. This ensemble, with its Gothic flair and almost funereal elegance, transforms Lorre into a living specter: a figure whose every movement is haunted by obsession and madness. The combination of the neck brace, dark glasses, and deathlike attire creates a chilling, unforgettable image that perfectly embodies the film’s macabre theatricality and Gogol’s unraveling mind.

The costume was carefully designed and created by Dolly Tree, MGM’s renowned wardrobe designer, who crafted Gogol’s dark, theatrical outfit that included the distinctive rigid neck brace and dark glasses, contributing to his eerie, unsettling presence. The makeup effects, especially the grotesque work on Lorre’s hands to simulate surgically grafted-on limbs, were done by Norbert A. Myles (uncredited makeup artist), who painstakingly built up the finger joints and created the ghastly scars and discolorations that made Lorre’s hands appear unnatural and disturbing.

Lorre himself discussed the intense makeup process for his hands, describing how the prosthetics were built up with wax, stained in unsettling hues, and detailed with exaggerated wrinkles and scars, causing him physical discomfort throughout filming. This combination of costume and makeup—Dolly Tree’s dark, somber garments and the mechanical neck brace, paired with the haunting prosthetic hands—helped create one of 1930s horror cinema’s most iconic and visually striking characters.

The supporting cast adds further texture. Colin Clive’s Stephen is a study in unraveling nerves, his every gesture weighted with dread and confusion. Frances Drake’s Yvonne is more than a damsel in distress—her expressive eyes and trembling poise lend the film its emotional core, even as a ‘living statue.’

Ted Healy provides a touch of comic relief as a bumbling reporter, but even his antics are tinged with unease, a reminder that in Freund’s world, laughter and horror are never far apart.

Key scenes unfurl with poetic dread: the nightmarish surgery, lit like a ritual in a cathedral of shadows; Stephen’s first, trembling attempt to play the piano with his new hands, the keys resisting him as if haunted; Gogol’s unmasking at the wax museum, where love flowers and bleeds into obsession and the line between life and death blurs. The film’s climax—a feverish confrontation in Gogol’s lair, where madness, love, and violence collide—is as operatic as it is intimate, the camera swirling around Lorre’s tormented face as he spirals toward the abyss of insanity.

Mad Love is more than a showcase for Lorre’s peculiar genius; it is a testament to the power of style, mood, and performance to elevate horror into art. Freund’s direction, the expressionist cinematography, and the Gothic art design by Cedric Gibbons, with William A. Horning serving as associate art director. Cedric Gibbons was one of MGM’s most celebrated and influential art directors, known for his ability to blend opulence with atmosphere, while Horning later became a prominent designer in his own right. The result is a look that is surreal, labyrinthine, baroque, and sinister.

All this, including the nuanced performances, combine to create a tale of hands possessed, hearts broken, and a mind unraveling in the mercurial shadows.

#97 Down, 53 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

Chapter 4 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:

CODED CLASSIC HORROR THEORY “The Uncanny & The Other”

“Scenes of excessive brutality and gruesomeness must be cut to an absolute minimum.”

“As a cultural index, the pre-Code horror film gave a freer rein to psychic turmoil and social disorientation because it possessed a unique freedom from censorship… the Hays Office admits that under the Code it is powerless to take a stand on the subject of ‘gruesomeness.‘(Thomas Doherty)

Horror films in particular have made for a fascinating case study in the evolving perceptions of queer presence; queer-horror filmmakers and actors were often forced to lean into the trope of the “predatory queer” or the “monstrous queer” to claim some sense of power through visibility and blatant expressions of sexuality.- Essential Queer Horror Films by Jordan Crucciola-2018

Though Hollywood execs refused to show explicit queerness, they were willing to pay for scripts that dealt with characters who were social outcasts and sexually non-normative. The horror genre is perhaps the most iconic coded queer playground, which seems to have an affinity with homosexuality because of its apparatus of ‘otherizing’ and the inherent representation of difference. The horror genre crosses over boundaries that include transgressions between heterosexuality and queerness. The villain, fiend, or monster plays around with a variety of elements that, while usually separate, might merge male and female gender traits.

The horror film, in particular, found its place asserting a queer presence on screen. The narratives often embraced tropes of the “˜predatory queer’ or the “˜monstrous queer’ in order to declare themselves visible while cinematic queers were elbowed out of the way. Filmmakers had to maneuver their vision in imaginative ways to subvert the structure laid out for them by the Code.

As Harry M. Benshoff explains in his book Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality in the Horror Film, “Immediately before and during the years of World War II, Universal Studio’s horror films began to employ a more humanistic depiction of their monsters,” and the films of Val Lewton, like Cat People, reflected “a growing awareness of homosexuality, homosexual communities, and the dynamics of homosexual oppression as it was played out in society and the military.” So even though Hollywood execs refused to show explicit queerness, during the first true horror boom in American cinema, they were willing to pay for stories about social outcasts and sexually nonnormative figures. Horror fans thus found themselves awash in some of the genre’s most iconic queer-coded characters of all time.

On a Greek Island, Boris Karloff plays Gen. Nikolas Pherides in Val Lewton/Mark Robson’s Isle of the Dead, 1945. Driven insane by the belief that Thea (Ellen Drew), who suffers from catalepsy, is the embodiment of an evil vampiric force, is a demon called a vorvolaka. Lewton drew on collective fears, and all his work had an undercurrent of queer panic and a decipherable sign of homophobia.

The Vorvolaka has beset the island with plague. Thea- “Laws can be wrong, and laws can be cruel, and the people who live only by the law are both wrong and cruel.”

The Pre-Code era was exploding with American horror films that reflected the angst, social unrest, and emotional distress that audiences were feeling. Personified in films that used graphic metaphors to act as catharsis, the images were often filled with rage, as Thomas Doherty calls it ‘the quality of gruesomeness, cruelty and vengefulness’. Think of the angry mobs with their flaming torches who hunt down Frankenstein’s monster, eventually crucifying him like a sacrificial embodiment of their fury. James Whale’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 1931 was a smash hit for Universal. Other studios were trying to ride the wave of the awakening genre of the horror picture. Paramount released director Rouben Mamoulian’s adaptation of the novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Scottish writer Robert Louis Stevenson, published in 1886. The film Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which was released in 1931, stars Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins. During the Pre-Code period, many horror films proposed grisly subject matter that would shock and mesmerize the audience. For example, actor/director Irving Pichel’s The Most Dangerous Game (1932) starring Joel McCrea, Leslie Banks, and Fay Wray.

In 1932 Michael Curtiz directed Doctor X starring Lionel Atwill who would become one of the leading mad scientists of the genre.

Michael Curtiz’s macabre horror/fantasy experiment of homosocial ‘men doing science’, crossing over into profane territories and embracing dreadful taboos!

All scenes below are from Dr. X (1932).

Fay Wray is Atwill’s daughter who is the only woman surrounded by a group of scientific nonconformists.

The adaptation of Bram Stoker’s story of the Eastern European incubus was interpreted by Tod Browning in Dracula 1931, immortalized by Hungarian stage actor Bela Lugosi with his iconic cape and mesmerizing stare. While his nightly visitations were blood-driven and cinematically sexual in nature, there is a very homoerotic element to his influence over Renfield (Dwight Frye) and his gaze of gorgeous David Manners as John Harker.

Bela Lugosi looks down upon David Manners in a scene from the film ‘Dracula’, 1931. (Photo by Universal/Getty Images)

Robert Florey directed the macabre Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) based on a story by Edgar Allan Poe. And a film that has no connection to Poe’s story but in the name is one of the most transgressive, disturbing horror films, rampant with vile taboos, such as necrophilia, incest, sadism, satanism, and flaying a man alive, is the unorthodox The Black Cat (1934). The film stars Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, one of four pictures they would do together. A pair of enemies who have a score to settle, ghosts of a past war, and stolen love all take place against the backdrop of a stylish Bauhaus set design and high-contrast lighting.

Paramount released Murders in the Zoo (1933) with Lionel Atwill, a sadistic owner of a zoo who uses wild animals to ravage and kill off any of his wife’s (Kathleen Burke) suitors. Kathleen Burke is well known as the panther girl in Erle C. Kenton’s horrifically disturbing Island of Lost Souls 1932, an adaptation of master fantasy writer H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau. Incidentally, Welles, Laughton, and his wife, Elsa Lanchester, had been good friends earlier on, before the filming of Lost Souls. The film stars Charles Laughton as the unorthodox, depraved scientist who meddles with genetics and nature. He creates gruesome human/animals, torturing them with vivisection in his ‘house of pain.’ The film also stars Richard Arlen, Leila Hyams, and Bela Lugosi as The Sayer of the Law.

In 1933, King Kong showed a giant ape grasping the half-naked object of his affection, with unmentionable connotations of bestiality between the ape and Fay Wray. With scenes of Wray writhing in his gigantic paws, he lusts after her until his desire kills him. It’s almost like fantasy noir: the object of your desire will ultimately kill you!

The 1930s and 1940s Fear the Queer Monsters:

Re-assessing the Hitchcock Touch; by Wieland Schwanebeck -As Rhona Berenstein asserts, the horror genre “provides a primary arena for sexualities and practices that fall outside the purview of patriarchal culture, and the subgeneric tropes of the unseen, the host and the haunted house.”

By the same token, Kendra Bean concludes that Mrs. Danvers is portrayed as “a wraith; a sexual predator who is out to make Mrs. de Winter her next victim.”

Queer characters in horror films during the early period, reveal similarities between Mrs. Danvers and the staging of earlier sapphic characters, such as Gloria Holdens’s well-known portrayal of Countess Marya Zaleska in Dracula’s Daughter 1936. Yet, similar to the self-discipline of Mrs. Danvers, Dracula’s Daughter remains a figure of primacy and pity Ellis Hanson argues Dracula’s Daughter presents “the possibilities of a queer Gothic” early on in Hollywood history, “rich in all the paradox and sexual indeterminacy the word queer and the word Gothic imply.

There was a revival of the horror craze during the period of WWII. The Hollywood studios, both major and ‘Poverty Row” like Monogram and Republic, realized that horror movies were a lucrative business. The studios began to revisit the genre, looking for not only fresh formulas but they resurrected the classic monsters, dropping them into new plots. They also envisioned uniting gangster films with horror films, and this homogenizing led to a ‘queering’ of the two styles that demonstrated phallocentric ( guns, scientific penetration) and homoerotic themes and images into a sub-genre.

Public awareness of homosexuality reached a new height during these years, primarily due to the new set of social conditions wrought by war. Slowly , the love that dare not speak its name was being spoken, albeit in ways almost always obscurantist, punitive and homophobic. The linkage of homosexuality with violence and disease remained strong. Monsters in the Closet -Harry Benshoff

Rhona Berenstein, in her insightful book Attack of the Leading Ladies points out that films featuring the mad scientist trope operate with the homosocial principle, which speaks of the homoeroticism of males working together in consort subverting science together as a group of men who hide behind their objectification -the female object of their gaze, are in fact, figures of objectification themselves. They are simultaneously homosocial, homoerotic, and homophobic in aspect; … potentially possessing an extra-normative commitment between the two men.

Mad Doctor movies are homosocial in nature. The Mad Doctor movie is a subgenre that, below the surface, glorifies intimate male camaraderie and male homosexuality, and by the close of the picture, society, the prevailing culture, must, in turn, annihilate that which is repressed. However, it is not exclusively a vehicle to express homosexuality through homosocial interactions. There is a component not only of male bonding, but also a world without women; the thrust is a synthesis of misogyny and patriarchal tyranny and oppression of women. Homosocial relationships between men in these science horrors show the man’s desire for connection to other men, even one created by his own hand.

According to Twitchell in his Dreadful Pleasures and Attack of the Leading Ladies, Rona Berenstein, Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein in all three Universal pictures, was at least performing bisexuality. Whale’s 1933 Frankenstein might give way to the homosocial realm of the mad scientist trope of ‘homoerotic indulgence’ as these men exclude women from the pursuit of their fulfillment. Twitchell views the scientist’s fluid sexuality in order to examine the concept of a man controlling women’s primacy of giving birth. This might explain Dr. Frankenstein’s venture into unnatural reproduction—a process he wants to divert to himself without women’s exclusive right to motherhood. In the scene where he is as close to giving birth to a full-grown man, he seems to display sexual arousal when his creation comes to life. Henry Frankenstein provokes nature and defies his heterosexuality. As Whale was an openly gay director in Hollywood, it can be pondered whether he knew exactly what he was suggesting. Thesiger’s sexually ambiguous, or okay, not so ambiguous Dr. Pretorius, the mad scientist who pressures Henry Frankenstein to revitalize his experiments and create a mate for the monster. Pretorius is the scientist who insists that Henry continue his creative efforts in Bride of Frankenstein. Vitto Russo called Thesiger, a “man who played the effete sissy”¦ with much verve and wit.”

George Zucco, like Lionel Atwill, often portrayed the unorthodox scientist who flirted with taboos. He plays mad scientist Dr. Alfred Morris in The Mad Ghoul (1943) As a university chemistry professor, he exploits medical student Ted Allison (David Bruce) with his experimental gas that transforms Ted into a malleable, yielding macabre ghoul, whom Morris directs to kill and remove the victim’s hearts using the serum to temporarily bring Ted back from his trance like death state. David Bruce’s character is represented as a ‘queer’ sort of young man. He is not quite masculine and is unable to get his girlfriend, Evelyn Ankers, to fall in love with him. As the Mad Ghoul, he becomes a monstrous queer.

In 1932, director Tod Browning’s Dracula was based on Bram Stoker’s story of a fiendish vampire who, in a sexually implicit way, violates his victims by penetrating them with his fangs. The story pushed the boundaries of storytelling, and there was an inherent subtext of ‘queer’ ravishment when he sucks the blood of Dwight Frye to make him his loyal servant.

In Jonathan Harker’s Journal, the protagonist recounts his impressions of his interaction with the vampire, Dracula “As the Count leaned over me and his hands touched me I could not repress a shudder. It may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me, which do what I would, I could not conceal.” For (Noël Carroll) the entry in his diary conveys revulsion by the Count’s closeness and offensive presence, which causes him to become sickened.

But it also could be read that Harker’s ‘shudder’ is not about his revulsion, but rather, an uncontrolled sexual response to the vampire’s looming over him, which could be interpreted not just as hunger for his ‘blood’ but an expression of repressed sexual desire and the fear it causes.

Horror movies have always pushed the boundaries of normalcy, by virtue of the fact that these films are inhabited by ‘monsters’, something ‘queerly’ different. And it is natural to observe two diverging responses to the impact of the horror genre and often, its persecution of what is ‘different’ and the source of what causes our anxiety.

Dracula may appear as the image of a man, but the count is far from human. While monsters in classical horror films are based on systems of maleness, they are split from being actual men. Although there are physical interactions and suggestive contact with the heroine, there isn’t the foundation of heterosexuality, but something quite deviant within their aggressively erotic encounters and/or assaults. The understanding of sexuality and the most narrow identifications that are assigned to varying orientations in a large sense is not translatable for the deeper layers of the monster and their relationship to their victims. In Hollywood, horror films can be seen as heterosexuality being invaded by an abhorrent outside force; inherent in the underlying message could be racism, classism, sexism, and gay panic. Though it can be interpreted as a landscape of heterosexuality that is in the full power of its universal presence, horror films are perfect platforms that can illustrate the collapse of heterosexuality and the subversion of sexuality.

The horror genre is a breeding ground for portrayals of the shattering of heterosexual power. This can be seen in Lambert Hillyer’s Dracula’s Daughter (1936) starring Gloria Holden as the sapphic vampire who lives in a New Village-type artist’s den, which signals her outsider status from domesticity and normalcy.

In White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi plays the eerily menacing Legendre. He turns men into lifeless workers who run the sugar mill. Legendre also begins to turn the plantation owner, Charles Beaumont (Robert Frazer), into one of his zombies. His motivation for his control over people is ambiguous, though there seems to be sexual reasoning for both the beautiful Madeline (Madge Bellamy) and Beaumont. In the scene where Beaumont is nearly paralyzed, Legendre’s control over his male victim parallels the sexual entrapment of the movie’s heroine.

MAD LOVE (1935) I have conquered science! Why can’t I conquer love?

Karl Freund’s Grand Guignol Mad Love (1935) shifts from gazing at the female to gazing at the male. Here, the focus is on Peter Lorre in his American screen debut as Dr. Gogol, who has an obsession with Frances Drake as Yvonne Orlac, an actress who works at the Grand Guignol Theatre. To Gogol, she is the typified defenseless heroine whom he tries to lure away from her husband, Stephen (Colin Clive), using his knowledge of scientific alchemy.

Though Gogol tries to become Yvonne’s master, his Galatea, there are critics who read the struggle between the two men as not just a rivalry for Yvonne’s love but Gogol’s desire for Stephen as well. Gogol is responsible for grafting new hands onto Stephen’s mangled body after a train crash. Mad Love could fit the criteria for the subgenre of science/horror films where the male gaze is diverted from the female object toward other men, in this case, what connected the two was the preservation of Stephen’s hands. Why, then, is it not possible that the focus could shift from Gogol’s attraction to Yvonne to the homosocial dynamics between Gogol as a doctor and his subject, Stephen?

Mad Love possesses some of the horror genre’s most tenacious performances of gender play. (Carol Clover) asks us to take a closer look at Freund’s film. It is less about the “suffering experienced by women, but at a deeper, more sustained level, it is dedicated to the unspeakable terrors endured by men.”

In a similar fashion to Waldo Lydecker’s (Laura) and Hardy Cathcart’s (The Dark Corner) pathology of objectifying Laura and Mari, Gogol worships Yvonne – his Galatea, with a measure of scopophilia that lies within his gaze upon the perfection of female beauty. To control and possess it. The pleasure is aroused by the mere indulgence of looking at her.

Gogol pays 75 francs to purchase the wax statue of Galatea. The seller remarks, “There’s queer people on the streets of Montmartre tonight.”

Gogol’s maid, Francoise, talks to the statue, “Whatever made him bring you here. There’s never been any woman in this house except maybe me… “I prefer live ones to dead ones.”

A Time Magazine review of Mad Love in 1933 notes this queer appeal directly, even comparing Lorre’s acting skills to those of another homosexual coded actor: I find the comment about their faces rude and insulting to both Lorre and Laughton, both of whom I am a tremendous fan.

Mad Love’s insane doctor is feminized throughout the film… In fact, the same reporter who noted Gogol’s sadism argues for his feminine demeanor: “Lorre, perfectly cast, uses the technique popularized by Charles Laughton of suggesting the most unspeakable obsessions by the roll of a protuberant eyeball, an almost feminine mildness of tone, an occasional quiver of thick lips set flat in his cretinous ellipsoidal face. This reviewer came closer than any other to articulate the subtext of mad doctor movies. He seems on the verge of noting that Lorre, Like Laughton is an effeminate madman obsessed by unspeakable homosocial desire. Attack of the Leading Ladies: Gender Sexuality and Spectatorship in Classic Horror Cinema by Rhona Berenstein.

Frances Drake’s heroine masquerades as a wife who deludes herself into believing that her husband is more masculine than he really is. Gogol has a curious empathy with Stephen, whom he touches frequently and prolonged. Although Gogol pursues the heroine, Yvonne, at the theater, forcing a kiss on her, his focus is primarily manipulating Stephen’s body, rejoining his hands and massaging them to stimulate life back into them. When he realizes that Stephen’s hands cannot be grafted back successfully to his wrists, he turns to another man, the hands of a knife thrower who was executed as a notorious murderer. Once Stephen recovers from the surgery, he can no longer continue as a concert pianist, but does develop the desire to throw sharp knives.

On the surface, the plot of Mad Love appears to be a heterosexual obsession; the most unspoken context is the connection between Gogol and Stephen. As is true of Frankenstein’s labor of love in Whale’s first film, Gogol sews men’s body parts together, and the result is a monster of sorts. (Berenstein)

In the film’s climax, Yvonne hides in Gogol’s bedroom and pretends to be the wax statue of Galatea. When Gogol touches the statue, she lets out a scream. In a euphoric daze (as in the original story), he believes that he has the power to bring Galatea’s statue to life. Yvonne begs him to let her go as he tries to strangle her.

Stephen then rushes to his wife and holds her in his arms. With his eyes fixed on the offscreen space in which Gogol’s body lies, he croons: “My darling.” The homosocial desire is destroyed when Stephen murders Gogol who intones, “Each man kills the thing he loves”“” echoing on the soundtrack.

In the film’s closing moments, the secret desire is finally spoken out loud…Has Stephen killed the man he loves? Given that the phrase that Gogol mutters was written originally by Oscar Wilde, whose homosexuality scandalized the British social and legal system in 1895, reading the homosocial desire into Mad Love within the very last moments, we are left to decipher the suspended cues. We are left with Stephen’s gazing at Gogol’s face and his knifed body as he lay dying, he speaks the words, “˜My darling” while the camera frames the two men sharing that moment in the closing scene.

The mad doctor narrative is particularly predisposed to homosocial impulses. “intense male homosocial desire as at once the most compulsory and the most prohibited of social bonds” – Epistemology of the Closet (Sedgwick)

Sedgwick investigated early fantasy/horror novels, Shelley’s Frankenstein 1818, Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1886, and Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau 1895. At the beginning of the 1930s, these stories centered around mad doctors who delved into unorthodox, profane explorations and were all adapted to the screen. All of these nefarious or scientific, inquisitive men cultivated secret experiments, challenging the laws of nature. What Sedgwick found was that the Gothic literary representations of men performing homosocial collaborations were ‘not socially sanctioned and shunned.’

It was considered a necessary narrative element as well as a monstrous possibility that threatened to subvert the status quo. The combination of these two attitudes is expressed in homosocial narratives- male bonding is both horrifying and guaranteed, entailing the simultaneous introjection and expulsion of femininity. (Sedgwick)

“My darling”…

James Whale was a gay auteur who often imbued his work intentionally or with the ‘intentional fallacy’ of a ‘queer’ sense of dark humor. This comical, campy absurdity was always on the edge of his vision of horror and subtle profanity. His picture, The Invisible Man (1933), adapted from H.G. Wells’s story and starring Claude Rains, was classified as a horror film by the Code.

Dr. Jack Griffin (Rains), the antihero, is a frenzied scientist addicted to his formula as he seeks the ability to make himself invisible. His sanity begins to ‘vanish’ as his hunger for power, delusions of grandeur, and bursts of megalomania grow out of control. He plans on assassinating government officials, and he becomes more belligerent the longer he turns invisible. The idea that he displays radical ideas and runs around in the nude didn’t seem to arouse the censors; in 1933, a letter from James Wingate to Hays states, “highly fantastic and exotic [sic] vein, and presents no particular censorship difficulties.”

What’s interesting about the presentation of the story is that the coded gay leitmotifs were paraded out, right under the Code’s noses, and didn’t stir any indignation for its ‘queer’ humor.

Gloria Stuart and Claude Rains in James Whale’s The Invisible Man 1933

The Invisible Man perpetrates campy assaults on all the ‘normal’ people in his way, with intervals of sardonic cackles and golden wit and, at the same time, a menacing reflection of light and shadow. Claude Rains is a concealed jester who makes folly of his victims.

“An invisible man can rule the world. Nobody will see him come, nobody will see him go. He can hear every secret. He can rob, and wreck, and kill.” –Dr. Jack Griffin (The Invisible Man)

Claude Rains plays Dr. Jack Griffin, an outsider (a favorite of James Whale’s characters) who discovers the secret of invisibility, which changes him from a mild yet arrogant scientist into a maniacal killer. The film bears much of Whale’s campy sense of humor, with Griffin’s comic shenanigans abound until things turn dark and he becomes uncontrollably violent. “We’ll begin with a reign of terror, a few murders here and there, Murders of great men, Murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction. I might even wreck a train or two… just these fingers around a signalman’s throat, that’s all.”

According to Gary Morris (Bright Lights Film Journal), ‘The film demands crypto-faggot reading in poignant scenes such as the one where he reassures his ex-girlfriend, who begs him to hide from the authorities: “the whole world’s my hiding place. I can stand out there amongst them in the day or night and laugh at them.”

Though Griffin’s (Claude Rains) character is unseen at times, there are potent moments when he is animated as he skips to the tune, “Here we go gathering nuts in May,” flitting around like a fairy.

It is suggested that The Invisible Man is a metaphor for the way homosexuals are seen/not seen by society – as “effeminate, dangerous when naked, seeking a male partner in “crime,” tending to idolize his fiance rather than love her, and becoming ‘visible’ only when shot by the police…monitored by doctors, and heard regretting his sin against God (i.e., made into a statistic by the three primary forces oppressing queers: the law, the medical establishment, and religious orthodoxy” (Sedgwick)

The Invisble Man [undressing] “They’ve asked for it, the country bumpkins. This will give them a bit of a shock, something to write home about. A nice bedtime story for the kids, too, if they want it”

Continue reading “Chapter 4 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:”

MonsterGirl’s Halloween – 2015 special feature! the Heroines, Scream Queens & Sirens of 30s Horror Cinema!

tumblr_mrdmksI2HG1suchdko1_400

gif5

tumblr_msogmvVn8O1sx3mjso1_500

tumblr_muj99vpFow1qa70eyo1_500

Horror cinema was at it’s spooky peak in the 1930s~ the era gave birth to some of the most iconic figures of the genre as well as highlighted some of the most beautiful & beloved heroines to ever light up the scream, oops I mean screen!!!!

We all love the corrupted, diabolical, fiendish and menacing men of the 30s who dominated the horror screen- the spectres of evil, the anti-heroes who put those heroines in harms way, women in peril, –Boris, & Bela, Chaney and March… From Frankenstein, to Dracula, from The Black Cat (1934), or wicked Wax Museums to that fella who kept changing his mind…Jekyll or was it Hyde? From the Mummy to that guy you could see right through, thank you Mr. Rains!

tumblr_nkwgyn1paz1rltb2zo1_1280

Gloria Stuart The Invisible Man

Last year I featured Scream Queens of 40s Classic Horror! This Halloween – – I felt like paying homage to the lovely ladies of 30s Classic Horror, who squealed up a storm on those stormy dreadful nights, shadowed by sinister figures, besieged by beasts, and taunted with terror in those fabulous frisson-filled fright flicks… but lest not forget that after the screaming stops, those gals show some grand gumption! And… In an era when censorship & conservative framework tried to set the stage for these dark tales, quite often what smoldered underneath the finely veiled surface was a boiling pot of sensuality and provocative suggestion that I find more appealing than most contemporary forays into Modern horror- the lost art of the classical horror genre will always remain Queen… !

Let’s drink a toast to that notion!

freakgif3

tumblr_lkv0lu7sdN1qb7328o1_500

The Scream Queens, Sirens & Heroines of 1930s Classic Horror are here for you to run your eyes over! Let’s give ’em a really big hand, just not a hairy one okay? From A-Z

DoctorX4

FayWray_KingKong_d

phantom in the rue morgue 1954
Phantom in the Rue Morgue 1954.

ELIZABETH ALLAN

Elizabeth Allan

A British beauty with red hair who according to Gregory Mank in his Women in Horror Films, the 1930s, left England for Hollywood and an MGM contract. She is the consummate gutsy heroine, the anti-damsel Irena Borotyn In Tod Browning’s campy Mark of the Vampire (1935) co-starring with Bela Lugosi as Count Mora (His birthday is coming up on October 20th!) Lionel Atwill and the always cheeky Lionel Barrymore… Later in 1958, she would co-star with Boris Karloff in the ever-atmospheric The Haunted Strangler.

Mark of the Vampire is a moody graveyard chiller scripted by Bernard Schubert & Guy Endore (The Raven, Mad Love (1935) & The Devil Doll (1936) and the terrific noir thriller Tomorrow is Another Day (1951) with sexy Steve Cochran & one of my favs Ruth Roman!)

The film is Tod Browning’s retake of his silent Lon Chaney Sr. classic London After Midnight (1927).

The story goes like this: Sir Karell Borotin (Holmes Herbert) is murdered, left drained of his blood, and Professor Zelin (Lionel Barrymore) believes it’s the work of vampires. Lionel Atwill once again plays well as the inquiring but skeptical police Inspector Neumann.

MARKOFTHEVAMPIRE
Irena (Elizabeth Allan) and Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore) hatch an intricate plot to trap the murderers!

Once Sir Karell’s daughter Irena ( our heroine Elizabeth Allan) is assailed, left with strange bite marks on her neck, the case becomes active again. Neumann consults Professor Zelin the leading expert on Vampires. This horror whodunit includes frightened locals who believe that Count Mora (Bela in iconic cape and saturnine mannerism) and his creepy daughter Luna  (Carroll Borland) who trails after him through crypt and foggy woods, are behind the strange going’s on. But is all that it seems?

Mark of the Vampire (1935)

Elizabeth Allan and Carroll Borland Mark of the Vampire
Elizabeth Allan (below center) and Carroll Borland as Luna in Tod Browning’s Mark of the Vampire (1935).
Allan and Borland
Elizabeth Allan and Carroll Borland in Mark of the Vampire (1935).

The Phantom Fiend (1932)

Directed by the ever-interesting director Maurice Elvey (Mr. Wu 1919, The Sign of Four, 1923, The Clairvoyant 1935, The Man in the Mirror 1936, The Obsessed 1952) Elizabeth Allan stars as Daisy Bunting the beautiful but mesmerized by the strange yet sensual and seemingly tragic brooding figure- boarder Ivor Novello as Michel Angeloff in The Phantom Fiend! A remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s first film about Jack the Ripper… The Lodger (1927) starring Novello once again.

the-phantom-fiend-ivor-novello-elizabeth-allan-1932
Ivor Novello is the strange & disturbing Michel Angeloff. Elizabeth Allan is the daughter of the landlords who rent a room to this mysterious fellow who might just be a serial killer. Daisy Bunyon falls captivated by this tormented and intense young man…
The Phantom Fiend
A.W. Baskcomb plays Daisy’s (Elizabeth Allan)father George Bunting and Jack Hawkins is Joe Martin the regular guy in love with Daisy.
You trust me, no matter whatever I've done
Michel Angeloff (Ivor Novello) to Daisy Bunting (Elizabeth Allan) “Stay away from me… don’t ever be alone with me…{…} -You trust me, no matter whatever I’ve done?”

The Mystery of Mr. X (1934)

There is a murderer loose in London who writes the police before he strikes with a sword cane, he signs his name X. It happens that his latest crime occurs on the same night that the Drayton Diamond is stolen. Robert Montgomery as charming as ever, is Nick Revel the jewel thief responsible for the diamond heist, but he’s not a crazed murderer. The co-incidence of the two crimes has put him in a fix as he’s now unable to unload the gem until the police solve the murders.

Elizabeth Allan is the lovely Jane Frensham, Sir Christopher Marche’s (Ralph Forbes) fiancé and Police Commissioner Sir Herbert Frensham’s daughter. Sir Christopher is arrested for the X murders, and Nick and Jane band together, fall madly in love, and try to figure out a way to help the police find the real killer!

CapturFiles_1

CapturFiles_4

HEATHER ANGEL

HEATHER-ANGEL-

Heather Angel is a British actress who started out on stage at the Old Vic theatre but left for Hollywood and became known for the Bulldog Drummond series. While not appearing in lead roles, she did land parts in successful films such as Kitty Foyle, Pride and Prejudice (1940), Cry ‘Havoc’ (1943), and Lifeboat (1944). IMDb notes -Angel tested for the part of Melanie in Gone with the Wind (1939), the role was given to Olivia de Havilland.

Heather Angel possessed a sublime beauty and truly deserved to be a leading lady rather than relegated to supporting roles and guilty but pleasurable B movie status.

The L.A Times noted about her death in 1986 at age 77 “Fox and Universal ignored her classic training and used her in such low-budget features as “Charlie Chans Greatest Case and “Springtime for Henry.”

Her performances in Berkeley Square and The Mystery of Edwin Drood were critically acclaimed… More gruesome than the story-lines involving her roles in Edwin Drood, Hound of the Baskervilles or Lifeboat put together is the fact that she witnessed her husband, stage and film directer Robert B. Sinclair’s vicious stabbing murder by an intruder in their California home in 1970.

Heather Grace Angel was born in Oxford, England, on February 9, 1909.
Heather Angel in Berkeley Square (1933) Image courtesy Dr. Macro

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1932)

Heather Angel is Beryl Stapleton in this lost (found negatives and soundtracks were found and donated to the British Film Institute archives) adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes thriller Originally serialized in The Strand magazine between 1901 and 1902.

In this first filmed talkie of Doyle’s more horror-oriented story, it calls for the great detective to investigate the death of Sir Charles Baskerville and solve the strange killing that takes place on the moors, feared that there is a supernatural force, a monstrous dog like a fiend that is menacing the Baskerville family ripping the throats from its victims. The remaining heir Sir Henry is now threatened by the curse.

hound-of-the-baskervilles-chien-des-baskervilles-1932-g

Mystery of Edwin Drood (1935).

heather_angel_
Douglass Montgomery as Neville Landless and Heather Angel as Rosa Bud in the intensely superior rare gem The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1935)

Mystery of Edwin Drood (played by David Manners) is a dark and nightmarish Gothic tale of mad obsession, drug addiction, and heartless murder! Heather Angel plays the beautiful and kindly young student at a Victorian finishing school, Rosa Bud engaged to John Jasper’s nephew Edwin Drood. The opium-chasing, choir master John Jasper (Claude Rains) becomes driven to mad fixation over Rosa, who is quite aware of his intense gaze, she becomes frightened and repulsed by him.

tumblr_ntr7a0kTvf1qbnleeo1_500

The brooding & malevolent Rains frequents a bizarre opium den run by a menacing crone (Zeffie Tilbury), a creepy & outre moody whisper in the melody of this Gothic horror/suspense tale!

Angel and Hobson

Valerie Hobson plays twin sister Helena Landless, the hapless Neville’s sister. (We’ll get to one of my favorites, the exquisite Valerie Hobson in just a bit…) When Neville and Helena arrive at the school, both Edwin and he vies for Rosa’s affection. When Edwin vanishes, naturally Neville is the one suspected in his mysterious disappearance.

OLGA BACLANOVA

Olga Baclanova

Though I’ll always be distracted by Baclanova’s icy performance as the vicious Cleopatra in Tod Browning’s masterpiece Freaks which blew the doors off social morays and became a cultural profane cult film, Baclanova started out as a singer with the Moscow Art Theater. Appearing in several silent films, she eventually co-starred as Duchess Josiana with Conrad Veidt as the tragic Gwynplaine, in another off-beat artistic masterpiece based on the Victor Hugo story The Man Who Laughs (1928)

Freaks (1932)

Tod Browning produced & directed this eternally disturbing & joyful portrait of behind-the-scenes melodrama and at times the Gothic violence of carnival life… based on the story ‘Spurs’ by Tod Robbins. It’s also been known as Nature’s Mistress and The Monster Show.

It was essential for Browning to attain realism. He hired actual circus freaks to bring to life this quirky Grand Guignol, a beautifully grotesque & macabre tale of greed, betrayal, and loyalty.

Cleopatra (Baclanova) and Hercules (Henry Victor) plan to swindle the owner of the circus Hans, (Harry Earles starring with wife Frieda as Daisy) out of his ‘small’ fortune by poisoning him on their wedding night. The close family of side show performers exact poetic yet monstrous revenge! The film also features many memorable circus folks. Siamese conjoined twins Daisy & Violet Hilton, also saluted in American Horror Story (Sarah Paulson another incredible actress, doing a dual role) Schlitze the pinhead, and more!

Freaks

Anyone riveted to the television screen to watch Jessica Lange’s mind-blowing performance as Elsa Mars in American Horror Story’s: Freak Show (2014) will not only recognize her superb nod to Marlene Dietrich, but also much reverence paid toward Tod Browning’s classic and Baclanova’s cunning coldness.

Baclanova-Olga-Freaks

( BTW as much as I adore Frances McDormand, Lange should have walked away with the Emmy this year! I’ve rarely seen a performance that balances like a tightrope walker, the subtle choreography between gut-wrenching pathos & ruthless sinister vitriol. Her rendition of Bowie’s song Life on Mars…will be a Film Score Freak feature this Halloween season! No, I can’t wait… here’s a peak! it fits the mood of this post…)

Annex - Baclanova, Olga (Freaks)_02

Baclanova and Earles

harry-earles-180
“You Freaks!!!!”
freakgif4-1
Gooba Gabba… I guess she isn’t one of us after all!

here she is as the evil Countess/duchess luring poor Gwynplain into her clutches The Man Who Laughs (1928).

Annex - Veidt, Conrad (Man Who Laughs, The)_01

Flicker Alley and Universal Pictures Present Paul Leni’s The Man Who Laughs (1928) The Tortured Smile “Hear how they laugh at me. Nothing but a clown!”

Continue reading “MonsterGirl’s Halloween – 2015 special feature! the Heroines, Scream Queens & Sirens of 30s Horror Cinema!”