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 #85 The Invisible Man 1933

THE INVISIBLE MAN 1933

“Now You See Him, Now You Don’t: A Symphony of Madness Unwrapped

“An invisible man can rule the world. No one will see him come, no one will see him go. He can hear every secret. He can rob, and wreck, and kill!”

James Whale’s The Invisible Man is a film that exists in the liminal space between genius and insanity, a story where the unseen becomes the unbearable, and laughter curdles into screams. Adapted from H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel, the film transforms its source material into a kaleidoscope of dark humor, existential dread, and technical wizardry, anchored by Claude Rains’ disembodied voice—a performance so electrifying it haunts the film like a ghost in the machine.

Wells’ tale of a scientist undone by his own ambition is reimagined here as a pre-Code carnival of chaos. Dr. Jack Griffin (Rains), a chemist who has rendered himself invisible through a drug called monocane, stumbles into the village of Iping swathed in bandages and dark glasses, his very presence a disruption to the pastoral order. The novel’s philosophical musings on power and isolation are distilled into a lean, vicious narrative, where Griffin’s invisibility becomes a metaphor for the unchecked id—a force as seductive and destructive as fire.

Rains, in his first major Hollywood role, delivers a tour de force of vocal acting. His Griffin is a man unmoored, his voice oscillating between silken menace and giddy hysteria. Though his face is hidden until the final moments, Rains imbues every chuckle, every snarl, with a manic grandeur. When he declares, “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,” the line thrums with the thrill of a man drunk on his own godhood. It’s a performance that prefigures the rise of the antihero, a villain who is as magnetic as he is monstrous. This line is delivered during Griffin’s chilling monologue, perfectly capturing his descent into megalomania and the film’s blend of black humor and horror.

Whale, ever the provocateur, laces the horror with biting wit. The film’s black humor blooms in the absurdity of Griffin’s antics: trousers dancing without legs, a bicycle pedaled by empty air, a policeman’s helmet bobbing jauntily down the road. These moments are played for laughs, but they blossom into terror as Griffin’s pranks escalate into mass murder. The derailment of a train—a scene rendered through miniatures and matte paintings—is a masterstroke of offscreen horror, the camera lingering on the aftermath: twisted metal, distant screams, and a headline coldly noting “100 Killed.” Whale’s direction quivers with the rhythm of a nightmare, where the ridiculous and the horrific are two sides of the same coin.

The hilarious, legendary character actress Una O’Connor portrays Jenny Hall, the shrill and perpetually flustered mistress of The Lion’s Head Inn. O’Connor’s performance is a wonderful study in comic timing and exaggerated reaction—her shrieks, wide-eyed glares, and frantic energy provide much of the film’s comic relief amidst the chaos and terror unleashed by the invisible Griffin. Whether she’s berating her husband, gasping at Griffin’s bizarre behavior, or unleashing her signature, ear-piercing scream, O’Connor’s Jenny Hall is unforgettable—her blend of fright and farce perfectly embodying James Whale’s unique mix of camp horror and dark humor.

Cinematographer John J. Mescall (The Black Cat 1934, Dark Waters 1944) bathes the film in a stark, expressionist aesthetic. The village of Iping is all thatched roofs and cobblestone streets, its coziness shattered by the intrusion of the uncanny. Shadows loom like sentinels, and the snow-covered finale—a visual echo of Griffin’s moral blankness—is shot with a clinical chill. But the film’s true magic lies in the groundbreaking effects by John P. Fulton. Using double exposures, wirework, and meticulous matte painting, Fulton makes the impossible tangible: bandages unwrap to reveal nothing, shirts button themselves, and footprints appear in fresh snow. The pièce de résistance is Griffin’s gradual reappearance at the film’s end, his body materializing from skeleton to flesh, a memento mori etched in light and shadow.

Key scenes pulse with a perverse energy. Griffin’s unveiling at the Lion’s Head Inn—where he tears off his bandages to reveal a void—is a moment of pure cinematic alchemy, the villagers’ screams echoing our own shock. And the death of Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan), hurled off a cliff in a runaway car, is a symphony of suspense, the camera lingering on the empty driver’s seat as the vehicle plummets.

The film’s legacy is etched in its contradictions: a horror story laced with humor, a technical marvel that revels in simplicity, a monster who is both pitiable and exhilarating. Whale and Rains craft a parable of hubris that feels eerily prescient, a warning of the dangers lurking in the pursuit of transcendence. As Griffin dies, his body coalescing into visibility, he whispers, “I meddled in things that man must leave alone.” It’s a line that lingers, a shiver in the dark—a reminder that some boundaries exist for a reason.

The Invisible Man is more than a landmark of horror; it is a fever dream of the Machine Age, a film where science and madness waltz to the tune of Rains’ maniacal laughter. To watch it is to stare into the void—and find the void staring back, bandaged, bespectacled, and utterly, deliciously mad.

#85 Down, 65 to go! Your EverLovin’Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

Paths to Liberation: Personal Transformation Through Connection in Now, Voyager 1942 and Baghdad Cafe 1987

A common thread between Now, Voyager 1942 and Baghdad Cafe 1987 is the theme of personal transformation and self-discovery through unexpected relationships and environments. In Now, Voyager, Charlotte Vale undergoes a profound journey of liberation from her oppressive mother, gaining self-esteem and independence through love and her own inner strength. Similarly, in Baghdad Cafe, Jasmin’s arrival at the quirky desert Baghdad Cafe and Motel leads to her own transformation as she builds a surprising friendship with Brenda and its quirky inhabitants and finds a sense of belonging in an unfamiliar place. Both narratives highlight how stepping outside one’s comfort zone, be it on the ocean or in the desert, and forming connections can lead to empowerment and fulfillment.

Both Now, Voyager and Bagdad Cafe use clothing as a visual language for personal transformation: Charlotte Vale’s journey from drab, constricting dresses to elegant, self-assured ensembles mirrors her emergence from repression to confidence, just as Jasmin’s shift from tight, hausfrau attire to flowing, colorful garments signals her gradual liberation and blossoming in the desert. In both films, the evolution of each woman’s wardrobe becomes a powerful outward sign of inner change- a metamorphosis from invisibility and constraint to self-expression and possibility.

Where Now, Voyager begins like a deeply penetrating melodrama about maternal abuse and struggling identity, Baghdad Cafe unfolds like a hazy dream. Both women, Charlotte and Jasmin, take a journey toward awakening.

Now, Voyager 1942

“Don’t let’s ask for the moon! We have the stars!”

The iconic American melodrama that inspired the 1942 cult classic film starring Bette Davis. “Charlotte Vale is a timeless and very sophisticated Cinderella.”—Patricia Gaffney, New York Times bestselling author.

“I can think of no better account of the woman’s picture’s central role in American culture. At least we have the stars.” (Patricia White- Criterion essay We Have the Stars)

Here is a passage from David Greven’s Representations of Femininity in American Genre Cinema: The Woman’s Film, Film Noir, and Modern Horror (Palgrave, 2011) that specifically discusses Now, Voyager and Bette Davis’s performance:

“Bette Davis plays Charlotte Vale, and one suspects that what drew Davis to the role was the opportunities it gave her to perform a feat at which she excelled: onscreen transformation from one physical and emotional state into another. While several Davis films showcase her singular talent for such onscreen transformations, they are far from a unique event in the genre of the woman’s film, a prominent Hollywood genre for three decades, from the 1930s to the 1960s. Women frequently transform, either at key points in or over the course of cinematic narrative, sometimes on a physical level, sometimes in more abstract ways, as if in homage to Shakespeare’s Cleopatra and her ‘infinite variety… In her classical Hollywood heyday, Bette Davis made an onscreen transformation her signature feat. In film after film, Davis transforms, usually on a physical level but often emotionally as well. Typically, this transformation is grueling on several levels, ranging from the woman’s social situation to her bodily nature to her psychic state. As I will be treating it as a central issue here, transformation in the woman’s film genre, as Bette Davis’s roles evince, is a traumatic experience.”

Bette Davis and Paul Henreid in “Now, Voyager” 1942 Warner Bros.** B.D.M.

No matter how many times I watch Now, Voyager, I find myself weeping all over again-whether it’s Bette Davis’ profoundly moving performance or Max Steiner’s lush, aching score, the film doesn’t just tug at my heartstrings, it plays them like a symphony of bittersweet heartbreak; it’s more than a tearjerker-it’s a true weepjerker, and I surrender to its beauty every single time.

Now, Voyager, as in so much of her work, Davis’s theatricality becomes a conduit for something deeply authentic, reflecting an existential honesty. She lays bare the raw feelings at the heart of her characters, offering us glimpses of their essential truths. Acclaimed American playwright, actor, screenwriter, and drag performer Charles Busch describes Davis, and writer Ed Sikov sums it up:

“What I find interesting about her is that while she’s the most stylized of all those Hollywood actresses, the most mannered, she’s also to me the most psychologically acute. You see it in Now, Voyager in the scene on the boat when she starts to cry, and she’s playing it in a very romantic style. Henreid says, ‘My darling- you are crying,’ and she says, ‘these are only tears of gratitude – an old maid’s gratitude for the crumbs offered.’ It’s very movie-ish, but the way she turns her head inward, away from the camera, is very real.”

“In that instance, Busch so perceptively describes and appreciates Davis’s use of her melodramatic mannerisms and breathy, teary vocal delivery as well as her seemingly spontaneous nuzzling into Henreid’s chest to express the undeniable legitimacy of self-pity. It’s not a pretty emotion, but Davis somehow makes it so. Through Davis’s elevating, sublimating stylization, this woman’s secret shame becomes beautiful.”– Ed Sikov – Dark Victory: The Life of Bette Davis

Few films from Hollywood’s Golden Age have endured in the cultural imagination quite like Now, Voyager (1942), a sweeping romantic drama that transcends its era through its nuanced exploration and psychological portrait of transformation, female autonomy, and the complex bonds of love and family. Tracing the journey of Charlotte Vale, a woman suffocated by her domineering mother and her own internalized sense of worthlessness and self-loathing, as she emerges into independence, self-acceptance, and a bittersweet love.

Kino. Reise aus der Vergangenheit aka. Now, Voyager, USA, 1942 Regie: Irving Rapper Darsteller: Bette Davis, Paul Henreid. (Photo by FilmPublicityArchive/United Archives via Getty Images).

Continue reading “Paths to Liberation: Personal Transformation Through Connection in Now, Voyager 1942 and Baghdad Cafe 1987”

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:”

Chapter 3 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:

The subtle gay gangster films of the early 1930s – Little Caesar 1931, The Public Enemy 1931 and Scarface 1932

"Criminals should not be made heroes"¦ The flaunting of weapons by gangsters will not be allowed"¦"

“… the fashion for romanticizing gangsters” must be denounced.

The three films also evenhandedly parcel out social pathology and sexual aberration: homosexuality in Little Caesar. Directed by Mervyn LeRoy from the novel by W.R. Burnett Little Caesar was first out of the gate and an immediate sensation. A diminutive bandit whose single-minded ambition compensates less for his stature than his repressed homosexual desire, Caesar Enrico Bandello is compact, swarthy and tightly wound; his golden boy pal Joe played by the scion of Hollywood royalty Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is tall, patrician and easygoing.

When Joe finds a female dancer and show business success, the jilted Caesar unhinged by a jealousy that dare not speak its name even to himself, makes his first mistakes in judgement. The male triangle is completed by Caesar's worshipful lapdog Otera (George E. Stone) who gazes up at Rico with a rapturous desire that, unlike Rico, he barely bothers to sublimate. Doubly deviant Rico dies for his social and sexual sins, asking in tight close-up and choked up tones, "mother of Mercy, is this the end of Rico?"The famous last words inspired an incisive remark from Robert Warshow on gangster psychology:" Even to himself he is a creature of the imagination" from FILMIC – From Sissies to Secrecy: The Evolution of the Hays Code Queer by Mikayla Mislak

"This is what I get for likin' a guy too much," Rico ‘Caesar’ tells himself after he realizes he’s lost, Joe. Joe, who he has referred to as "soft" and a "sissy." The very pretty Joe (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) has decided to give up the racket, to be a professional nightclub dancer. Robinson wisecracks, “Dancin’ just ain’t my idea of a man’s game.”

Joe is romantically involved with Olga (Glenda Farrell). ‘Caesar’ is not only jealous of Joe’s relationship with Olga, but he also appears to have no use for women at all.

In the end, there is a telling close-up, a well of tears in his eyes, a subtle quiver in his face. Rico cannot shoot Joe, even though he needs to keep him from squealing. The image of Robinson coming head-on with his feelings reveals his struggle with the repressed love for his dancing pal. The scene is very effective when the camera closes in on Robinson, capturing his dewy, wide-eyed stare. Behind the scenes what helped the intensity of the look of longing turned out to be a serendipitous moment when Robinson had to fire a pistol while looking into the camera, and was unable to keep his eyes open, each time he pulled the trigger. Eventually, they had Robinson’s eyes held open with cellophane tape. The effect worked perfectly.

Another interesting point in Little Caesar that hints at his latent homosexuality is a scene that highlights his clumsy fussiness. Rico is trying on a tuxedo and gazing at himself in the mirror. Posturing gleefully as he swishes at his own reflection. In this scene, Rico also becomes caught in his effete sidekick Otero’s (George E. Stone) gaze, who joyfully watches his boss flit for the mirror.

In The Public Enemy (1931) there is a noteworthy scene when Tom (James Cagney) goes to his tailor to get fitted for a suit. It’s a hilariously fidgety few moments for Cagney while the flamboyant tailor fawns over his arm muscles. When the movie was re-released, the sequence wound up on the cutting room floor.

According to Mislak In Howard Hawk’s Scarface (1932), it could be seen as having a gay subtext, as Antonio ‘Tony’ Camonte (Paul Muni) shows a repressed homosexual desire for his best friend Guino Rinaldo played by George Raft. Hawk’s film doesn’t work on a blatant exhibition of violence, instead, Scarface’s subtlety draws on the subliminal impression of his sexual impulses.

Through my readings, it has been noted that there is a coded gayness inferred from the character of Camonte in Scarface. Rather than the repressed sexual desire for his close friend Guino, I catch more a wind of an incestuous desire for his sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak). Camonte hovers over her with an iron will, not allowing her to have any man touch her. She even alludes to his untoward attentions at one point telling him that he loves her more than just a brother. Camonte (Muni) does focus obsessively over his hair and his wardrobe, which Poppi (Kathy Morely) tells him is ‘sweet’. But there are a few references to Guino being queer. He wears a carnation which is a code for being a gay man in film. Camonte says he’d like a carnation too, takes it out of Guino’s lapel, and tells him “Better no one sees you with this.” He also makes a comment about one of the North Side gang members not being taken seriously because he owns a flower shop! Guino doesn’t show any interest in women until nearly close to the end of the picture, when he submits to Camonte’s sister, Cesca.

“The placement of homosexuality or the real possibility of it in an antisocial context is quite natural. Homosexuality when it is invisible is antisocial. The only condition under which homosexuality has ever been socially acceptable has been on the occasion of its voluntary invisibility, when homosexuality were willing to pass for heterosexuals. Obvious homosexual behavior is reflected onscreen as in real life, only in the ‘twilight world’ of misfit conduct. During the brief period of explicit reference to homosexuals in pre-Code films of the early 1930s. Gay characters were psychologically ghettoized by their routine relegations to a fantasy world or an underworld life….

….in addition to strengthening the Code in 1934, Will Hays reacted to criticism by inserting morals clauses in the contracts of performers and compiling a “doom book’ of 117 names of those deemed “unsafe” because of their personal lives. Homosexuality was denied as assiduously off screen as it was on, a literally unspeakable part of the culture. By 1940 even harmless sex-roles farces such as Hal Roach’s Turnabout were considered perilous in some quarters. The film, about a married couple (Carol Landis and John Hubbard) who switch roles by wishing on an Oriental statue, was described by the Catholic Legion of Decency as dealing with ‘subject matter which may provide references dangerous to morality, wholesome concepts of human relationships and the dignity of man.’ ” –Vito Russo

HITCHCOCK SUBVERTS SUSPENSE!

Hitchcock sensed the ambiguous sexuality in Mrs. Danvers (nicknamed Danny) who embodies the forbidding identity of the coded lesbian in 1940s films. As she strides down the halls of Manderley, there is an element of the angry older woman trope, who is vacant of male companionship by choice, with an added streak of dissatisfied longing. She embodies the sterile matron, showing characteristics of an ‘old maid’ attributed to a repressed lesbian.” Rebecca serves as Fontaine’s idealized mother and that Hitchcock’s films present images of ambiguous sexuality that threaten to destabilize the gender identity of the protagonist.” -(Tania Modleski)

Gay Coding in Hitchcock films

Article by Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier

“In typical Hitchcock-ian fashion, the “Master of Suspense” often employed in his films subtle references to gay culture, defying conservative attitudes of the late ’50s.”-Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier | February 7, 2017- Editor's note: The following article, like many of Alfred Hitchcock's films, includes references to sex and violence.

Did Martin Landau play a homosexual in North by Northwest? Did Alfred Hitchcock really show gay sex on-screen in Rope, albeit in an unusual way? Was the whole plot of Rebecca driven by the twisted jealousy of an evil lesbian? And, most surprisingly, did Hitchcock depict a gay marriage way back in 1938's The Lady Vanishes?”

Alfred Hitchcock was a complicated man, who put a singular stamp on all his films, infusing them with his droll and macabre sense of humor and imbuing his work from the point of view of a satyr. Hitchcock projects his dark and twisted view of the world as at the end of his films there is sort of a perverted release that he leaves us to contemplate. It also appears that he was playful with the use of his gay-coded characters in many of his films.

Nothing Hitchcock did was unintentional, thereby reinforcing proof that there is a gay subtext to many characters in various films. He was very measured in every detail even before the camera captured the scene. But this method of implying a queer pathology and positing queer elements to the narrative. He was ingenious in the way he veiled his ciphers within the cloak of deniability, in order to slip it by the censors in his cheeky manner.

Though Hitchcock would often imbue his pictures with coded gay characters, among scholars it is still speculative as to which side his view fell on. Given that everything Hitchcock constructed was intentional, it’s easy to see why he would be viewed as homophobic, due to his use of stereotypes that eventually led to queerness possibly being as the source of the crimes. But you have to consider that during the time he reigned, it’s a tribute to Hitchcock that he even embraced the complex issue of homosexuality. It shows me that there was a conscious level of understanding.

In his life, Hitchcock surrounded himself with gay culture be it in England or Hollywood, and he worked with many gay writers and actors. Ivor Novello who starred in two of Hitchcock’s silent pictures was good friends with him and Alma. Hitchcock was also friends with Rope stars John Dall and bisexual Farley Granger who played coded gay characters in the film. Granger also had the lead in Strangers on a Train, co-starring Rober Walker who plays another of Hitchcock’s coded gay characters, Bruno. Anthony Perkins who struggled with his sexuality in real life, plays the ambiguous, stammering, Norman Bates in Psycho. According to Jay Poole, Robert Bloch was interested in ‘abnormal psychology’ and was familiar with Freudian theories on sexual identity. His novel was more suggestive of the taboos, in terms of the incestuous relationship with Norman’s mother and his confused sexual identity.

The assessment of ‘camp’ and queerness can be seen as negative. More contemporary audiences might perceive Psycho as more campy than lurid or scary. Norman’s appearance in the fruit cellar might register with audiences as if he’s a big ugly ridiculous drag queen with a knife. The rest of the film is darkly humorous. (Doty cites Danny Peary)

In contrasting these male characters, one representative of sexually suspect psychosis, the other of gendered and sexual normalcy, Hitchcock blurs the lines between them, creating effects that will inform future depictions of American masculinity… While Lila Crane has been read positively as a lesbian character, and also as Carol Clover’s prototype for the ‘final girl” I demonstrate here that Lila is a more ambiguous figure, tied to social repression and the law. […] (Norman’s voyeurism and Lila’s examination of Norman’s room as pornographic) Infusing these pornographic motifs with addition levels of intensity and dread was the increasingly public threat of homosexuality within the Cold War context in which Hitchcock’s related themes gained a new, ominous visibility. What emerges in Psycho is a tripartite monster-voyeurism-homosexuality-pornography.” — (Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier)

WARNING SPOILERS:

Saboteur (1942) producer/writer Joan Harrison wrote the screenplay and collaborated with Hitchcock on many projects for both film and television. In the period of the 1940s to the 1950s, movies often conflated homosexuality with unsavory characters like Nazis, communists, and terrorists.

Saboteur stars Robert Cummings as plane mechanic Barry Kane who is framed for the terrorist bombing of a military installation’s aircraft hanger where they manufacture planes. After he sees his friend die in the explosion, police assume that it was Kane who filled the fire extinguisher with gasoline. Kane goes on the run, to try and find the man he suspects is the saboteur, Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd) who is the real murderer who committed the heinous crime.

Kane stumbles onto a secret group of ‘the firm’, 5th columnists who are plotting to sabotage key targets, military planes, ships, and dams. Kane is dropped into the middle of a cabal of dangerous Americans who have infiltrated positions of power in order to carry out their nefarious plan to disrupt the democratic system and cause chaos. Socialite dowager Mrs. Henrietta Sutton (Alma Kruger) is a New York philanthropist who provides cover for the ‘firm’ run by Otto Kruger as the coldly, sinister Tobin. Kane pretends to go along with the group, and in one scene in a taxi with Alan Baxter who plays Mr. Freeman, there is a queer exchange between the two. Freeman tells Kane about his two little children, one of them is a boy, whom he wishes was a girl. He’s letting his son’s hair grow long and hesitates to cut it. Then he shares his reminiscence about his boyhood when he had glorious long blonde curls. Kane tells him to cut his son’s hair and “save yourself some grief.”

Purely by Hitchcockian fate, Kane is thrown together with Pat (Priscilla Lane) who comes to his aid and at one point tries to distract Fry at the top of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful Pat flirts with Fry in order to stall him until the police get there, but he isn't the slightest bit interested in her at all. In fact, he seems annoyed by her presence. He's a slim effete figure, a swishy loner with a serpent-like grin. Theodore Price, in his book ‘Hitchcock and Homosexuality (1992), has no doubt Fry was gay. (Ken Mogg 2008)

Saboteur climax prefigures that of North by Northwest between Thornhill (Cary Grant) and the sinister Leonard (Martin Landau) who is also a gay Hitchcockian figure.

We first hear a remark spoken by socialite Mrs. Sutton (Alma Kruger) when Barry (Kane) is taken to the saboteurs’ New York lair, as Barry enters the upstairs room. Mrs. Sutton is addressing a couple of her male colleagues, whom she reprimands: ‘I have to hover over you like an old hen.’

This is precisely the line Hitchcock uses in Rebecca to characterize the somewhat de-natured estate manager Frank Crawley (Reginald Denny) – nearly all the men in the film are so afflicted – and will be used again in The Paradine Case to characterize the gay Latour (Louis Jourdan).

Frank Crawley is ‘as fussy as an old mother hen’; Latour, we’re told, had been ‘like an old mother hen’ to his beloved master, the blind Colonel Paradine.- Ken Mogg (2008)

In North by Northwest (1959) Martin Landau’s character Leonard, displays an undercurrent of homosexuality, that is subtly implied. He’s a devoted bodyguard whose gaze on his boss, Phillip Vandamm, seems to be bubbling with a refined sensibility, romantically fixated on Vandamm (James Mason), a communist spy being hunted by the CIA. For a 1950s film, Leonard’s immaculate fashion sense and his fastidious swagger are a cue of his being queer. Nearing the climax of North by Northwest, the telling scene set in a mid-century modern house reveals Leonard’s love for Vandamm. Hitchcock even sets up the motive for Leonard shooting the object of his affection, jealousy, and rejection. In a notable line toward the end of the movie, Leonard remarks, “Call it my woman’s intuition” affirming the effete stereotype of a feminine gay man. Vandamm is genuinely flattered (contrary to homosexual panic) by Leonard’s feelings, which hints at his motivation for killing the thing he loves. Vandamm (Mason) tells him in that coldly sober tone of his, “I think you’re jealous. I mean it, and I’m very touched. Very.” As Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier point out, Hitchcock’s direction shows a “progressive perspective for its time but so brief that it doesn’t fully register with most viewers. Much later, Landau acknowledged that he played Leonard as a homosexual, albeit subtly.”

From the opening of Strangers on a Train (1951), Hitchcock frames the entranceway to the story with a close shot of the main character’s shoes walking to catch the train. Bruno wears elaborate wing tips with high heels and Guy wears a more toned-down fashionable pair of shoes, which are in opposition to each other and illustrate the contrast between the two main characters.

Robert Walker’s Bruno is a menacing, creepy guy with flashy ties, who positions himself after a chance meeting on a commuter train, to assert his influence over famous tennis player, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Bruno begins to flatter Guy and insinuate himself by sharing his knowledge of Guy’s personal life. He is very proud of the tie that his mother gave him. It is a garish accouterment dappled with lobsters. Like his silken smoking robe and another tie with the name, Bruno embroidered on it. Bruno also spouts a lot of ‘ideas’ he has in that ever prompted mind of his, when talking about Guy’s upcoming divorce and bigamy scandal, “I've got a wonderful theory about that."

Bruno insists on Guy having lunch with him, “sent to my compartment… You see you'll have to lunch with me.” It is obvious, though Hitchcock is very subtle about broadcasting the cues, that Bruno is wooing Guy. Bruno is very effeminate in his demeanor, you could say that he has a ‘flaming’ air about him, always dropping hints about his sexuality. “My father hates me”, insinuating that he is not the kind of man he expects of him. “I've got a theory that you should do everything before you die." He tells Guy amorously, “I like you, I’d do anything for you.”

Bruno Anthony’s plan is for both men to exchange for each other’s murders. There are several scenes that scream Hitchcock’s gay coding. Initially, when the two men meet each other on the train, Bruno is flirtatious, dressed in ‘flamboyant clothes’, which to gay audiences, is seemingly clear to be a gay pickup. Bruno’s not only attracted to the handsome Guy, but he is in fact stalking him as an ‘object’ to fulfill his needs and be his ‘partner’ in his deranged homoerotic plot.

His mother, Mrs. Anthony (the wonderful character actor Marion Lorne) does Bruno’s nails and dotes on her son. As Bruno tells his mother, he wants his nails to look right.

Homosexuality is not explicitly stated, but there is too strong an import for critics and audiences in the know, to ignore. And, considering Hitchcock’s fascination with homosexual subtexts, it’s not a stretch to read into various scenes this way.

There is also the insinuation that Bruno has some serious mother issues, which is one of Hitchcock’s points of reference for his gay coding, such as his use of it with Norman Bates in his film Psycho. Bruno amuses himself by antagonizing his mother (Marion Lorne) who is completely in the dark about the twisted pathology of her homicidal son.

Bruno has set up a visit from Guy who finds himself talking to the sociopath, who’s been waiting for Guy while lying in bed in his silky pajamas. Is this actually arranged as a bedroom seduction?

Another brief sequence takes place at the end which centers around a carousel, a possible symbol of fluid sexuality, and sexual foreplay. The scene shows Bruno and Guy wrestling with each other, the movements could be read as Bruno really achieving what he wanted, to have sex with Guy. Hitchcock even cut different versions of the movie for Britain and the U.S., toning down the implied homosexuality in the American version "” proof positive that he was fully aware of the gay implications in his movies. –(Badman and Hosier)

Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) is based on the play by Patrick Hamilton Rope's End is perhaps one of the more obvious coded gay films with homosexual subtexts in his canon. Arthur Laurents, who eventually came out of the closet and wrote the screenplay, said during a commentary “What was curious to me was that Rope was obviously about homosexuals. The word was never mentioned. Not by Hitch, not by anyone at Warners. It was referred to as ‘it’. They were going to do a picture about ‘it’, and the actors were ‘it’.” The original British stage play was loosely based on the sensational true crime committed by Chicago students Leopold and Loeb in 1924, who killed a fellow student, just to see if they could get away with a motiveless crime. The script was penned by Arthur Laurents in collaboration with Hume Cronyn and Ben Hecht.

Brandon (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) are entitled, affluent snobs, who are self-aggrandizing psychopaths with a Nietzschean superiority. Hitchcock arranges a taut stage play, around a case of Folie à deux. Brandon and Philip are implied coded lovers, who used the crime of murder to stimulate each other as if it were a sex act. The intellectual discourse they have at the beginning of the picture is overshadowed by the sexual banter that precedes what ultimately will become the act of committing a murder. Rope from the beginning of the picture inaugurates a very feverish sexual undercurrent.

In real life, John Dall was gay but died in 1971 without talking openly about his homosexuality. Farley Granger was bisexual when making the movie and then was in a lifelong gay relationship starting in 1963. Alfred Hitchcock was well aware of the sexual orientations of both actors and was reportedly pleased with what is now called the on-screen "chemistry" between the two.

He coded Brandon and Philip as gay by their "sex scene." It occurs at the very beginning of the movie, which is also the murder scene. Hitchcock is strongly equating murder with sex. The murder-sex occurs behind curtained windows. The death scream corresponds to the orgasm. Now visible, the murderers Brandon and Philip quickly put the body in a cabinet and go into a postcoital exhaustion. Philip doesn't even want the light turned on. In an inspired touch, Hitchcock has Brandon light a cigarette, a standard Hollywood indicator for "we just had sex." – (Badman and Hosier)

The unorthodox murderers throw a dinner party with the victim stuffed inside an antique trunk. The film was initially banned in Chicago and other cities, because of its implied homosexual relationship between the two killers. In 1959, the story was revised as Compulsion directed by Richard Fleischer scripted by Richard Murphy, and based on the novel by Meyer Levin. Compulsion remains closer to the actual true-life crime, and the implicit queer undertones are brought more to the surface, with less of Hitchcock’s cheeky innuendo.

Hitchcock employs many homoerotic symbology and allusions, as the couple reenact the murder, with the director conflating violence and sex. For instance, Brandon gets a bottle of champagne still invigorated by the murder, while Philip the weaker of the murderous pair, is nervous. Brandon fondles the bottle of champagne as the two stands close together very intimately. He grasps the champagne bottle as phallus and flirts with the top of the bottle, yet not releasing the cork. All this is stages as foreplay. Philip finally takes the bottle from Brandon and liberates the cork. They then toast to their victim. Film Critic Robin Wood asserts, in The Murderous Gays: Hitchcock’s Homophobia, that these films could be made as more positive or sensitive to homosexuality rather than “traffic in homophobia” and that it perpetuate the notion that homosexuality leads to violence.

Psycho (1960)

Psycho works as a warped adult fairytale about getting lost and paying for one’s transgressions. Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is a Phoenix secretary who embezzles forty thousand dollars from her employer’s client and goes on the run. Marion is also shown to be a fallen woman, a sexual deviant herself with no morals, not only is she a thief but she is also having an affair with a married man Sam Loomis, (John Gavin). Driving in torrential rain, she pulls into the Bates Motel, an eerie, remote motel off the beaten path. The motel is run by a ‘queer’ sort of young man, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who lives up in the brooding house on the hill, under the dominant authority of his cruel and elusive mother. As Poole puts it, Norman “remains locked in a disturbed world, and, as the film progresses, becomes murderously mad.”

Norman Bates: “A boy’s best friend is his mother.”

Norman is not a masculine figure, he is a mama’s boy who does his mother’s bidding. He is continually identified with his mother and, according to Freud and his psychological tunnel vision, would probably have evolved into a homosexual because of his Oedipal desires. Hitchcock perverts Freud’s narrow theory, by making sure the narrative shows Norman to be attracted to women, not men. It is when Norman’s arousal by the female body, that he dresses in frumpy dresses to represent his mother, who then takes over and annihilates the object of Norman’s desire. Many viewers assume that Norman is a repressed homosexual because he dressed in women’s clothing when manifesting his mother’s personality. Cross-dressing was stereotypically associated with homosexuality, however, Hitchcock’s film tries to make it clear that Norman is attracted to women from the very beginning with the seductive Marion. The concept of fluid sexuality was not understood in 1960, so conflating cross-dressing with homosexuality was a commonly misleading view.
Another interesting point that Jay Poole (Queering Hitchcock’s Classic) brings out is how the décor of the house is itself, queer. Referring to what he cites Foucault’s theory of ‘We Other Victorians’ which essentially invokes ‘the image of the imperial prude.’ Therefore the Bates house itself with its provincial Victorian style from a queer perspective represents the constraints of Victorian sexual expectations, which is — we do not speak of sex, and any relations are to remain between a heterosexual married couple in the privacy of their own bedroom. Norman is surrounded by this oppressive atmosphere and tries to fight his impulses and his carnal desires. He does this by dwelling in his mother’s house, hoping that she will control the voyeuristic, dirty lustful desire he is having about Marion.

Norman Bates: “People never really run away from anything. The rain didn’t last long, did it? You know what I think? I think that we’re all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch.”

Marion Crane: “Sometimes we deliberately step into those traps.”

Norman Bates: “I was born in mine. I don’t mind it anymore.”

Psycho, is the first of Hitchcock’s films to break tradition from his usual cultured mystery/suspense tropes. He decided to present this narrative using a pallet of B&W to set up a different tonality. Without the use of the vivid colors that he often used with cinematographer Robert Burks. Psycho deals with a more graphic, monochromatic, psycho-sexual sickness. A sickness that erupts in unprecedented perversity and violence for the director. Hitchcock also kills off his heroine in the first 20 minutes of the film. Psycho, will forever be known for ‘the shower scene.’

It also brings to the screen one of THE most hauntingly intense scenes that will remain in the collective consciousness, for what it lacks in vivid bloodshed, it possesses an uncomfortable voyeuristic gaze that brings us into Norman’s mind with the twists and turns, it assaults us, because of its deeper brutality, a more queasy feeling of psychic angst and inverts our gaze, as Marion stares back at us with her lifeless eyes.

“It’s not like my mother is a maniac or a raving thing. She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven’t you?”

In the 1950s into 1960 was a time when Americans were seeking out the American ideal, and cultural conformity. It was also a time when many audiences did not explore alternative sexualities and would have conflated homosexuality with a deviant and dangerous personality. Poole suggests “Hitchcock queers the image of sexual purity but reinforces naturalized heterosexuality as the film progresses… Hitchcock utilizes the Freudian explanation of homosexual development in his explanation of Norman’s development as a psychopathic killer despite Norman’s apparent heterosexual orientation.”

Hitchcock believed he made the perfect choice in casting Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, the homicidal misfit who put on a dress and wig to embody his cruel mother. Norman became a serial killer with a fixation on his castrating mother because she dominated his life and turned him into a monster. Perkin’s himself soft-spoken, androgynous, even perhaps a slightly effete actor. Alfred Hitchcock envisioned another gay character whose inherent corrupted humanity stems from their conflict of being queer. By queer, it can refer to the process of shattering normalcy and vision from the perspective of a heternormative lens. Psycho takes the audience into a place of dis-ease, where seemingly ordinary people are capable of monstrous acts. If Hitchcock’s film is subverting the value of 1950s America, and the transgressive content of Psycho breaks from societal norms, then it can be read as a ‘queer’ film.

[voiceover in police custody, as Norman is thinking]” It’s sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn’t allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They’ll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man… as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can’t move a finger, and I won’t. I’ll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do… suspect me. They’re probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I’m not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching… they’ll see. They’ll see and they’ll know, and they’ll say, “Why, she wouldn’t even harm a fly…”

As ‘Judith Butler’ Gender scholar, and ‘Hall’ speak of gender as performance, Hitchcock was clear in the way he developed Stephano and Bloch’s central characters in Psycho. In the final scene, the murderer is revealed and his inner monologues keep hidden, the source of a disturbed, untroubled ‘victim’ of faulty psychological development.’ The opening montage sets the scene for the dark thing that takes place inside ordinary towns and inside the minds of ordinary people. (source: Poole)

Psycho was a vehicle that queered what the public had come to expect from Hitchcock films, and,much like its real-life inspiration (Ed Gein), it queered the notion that America was a place where ‘normal,’ was defined as a quiet, safe, small town life, free from the darkness that lurds in modest roadside motels… With Psycho, Hitchcock abetted by Stefano’s script, would shock audiences with sexual innuendo, apparent nudity coupled with a sadistic stabbing scene. Perhaps most shocking of all, he would leave audiences wondering what might lie below the surface of family, friends neighbors and themselves.” (Jay Poole)

Rebecca (1940), was not one of Hitchcock’s favorite films at all. Adapted from the Gothic novel by Daphne du Maurier, the sick soul here is a menacing lesbian. The formidable Mrs. Danvers ( played by the equally formidable Judith Anderson) is the head Matron of Manderley, living in the shadows of the former Mrs. de Winter. She is a lovesick sapphic with an unnourished desire for her dead mistress, Rebecca. Manderley itself is like a hollow mistress that consumes those inside its ominous hallways. ‘Danny’ resents the new Mrs. de Winter and in one revelatory scene taunts her (Joan Fontaine) trying to drive her to suicide through her cruel torments. She parades Rebecca’s lingerie with a lustful smirk on her diabolical face, running her hands under the sheer, delicate fabric as if she were fondling Rebecca herself.

Mrs. Danvers’ jealousy of Maxime de Winters’ new bride is driven by obsession, a lesbian-coded manifestation, one of jealousy and sexual desire. For Joan Fontaine’s character, Danvers reenacts through storytelling, all the attention she used to lavish on her beloved mistress, running her bath, brushing her hair, admiring the finery of her monogrammed pillowcases. Though Rebecca is only seen as the painting of an alluring woman her ghost haunts Manderley and the new Mrs. de Winter.

In Hollywood movies of the 1940s, coded lesbian characters were far less common than coded gay men. Portrayals of lesbians might define them as dangerous and threatening, as is the case with Mrs. Danvers. Mrs. Danvers implies that she had been married. This allowed Hitchcock's deniability against Judith Anderson’s lesbianism But Mrs. Danver’s eventual demise is brought about by her inability to accept Rebecca’s death or allow anyone to replace her love. And so her desire consumes her literally, in fire.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

When I first saw Charters (Basil Radford) and Caldicott (Naughton Wayne) in The Lady Vanishes my radar went off like a firehouse siren during the scene where they are both sitting up together in a small bed, one wearing the pajama tops and the other wearing the bottoms, (giving the appearance of both being naked in bed. It was such a marvelous coded moment and I knew they were a loving married gay couple. I found it so refreshing to see the British comedy duo playing a cheeky proper English couple who are cricket fanatics trying to get back to London while the Hitchcockian espionage is happening under their noses.

I enjoyed their farcical vignette about a pair of golfers, the one comedic entry in an otherwise moody collection of ghost stories- Dead of Night (1945) which like The Lady Vanishes, also stars Michael Redgrave.

Hitchcock excelled at getting fine performances from his supporting cast members. They usually are finely honed characterizations portrayed by perfectly cast actors, fascinating and funny, imbued with his dry British humor. Charters and Caldicott are wonderful examples. Played by Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne, two fine stage actors who reprised these characters in subsequent movies and BBC radio programs, Charters and Caldicott follow a long tradition of comedy duos of older men in British Music Hall, vaudeville and stage performances. Most audiences of the time, especially British audiences, would have interpreted their relationship simply as one between eccentric, middle-aged bachelors. (Badman and Hosier)

Though there are so many elements of the duo that is ambiguous, Hitchcock imbues Charters and Caldicott with an affection and closeness that reads like a positively coded gay pairing. The two aren’t played as stereotypically flamboyant or campy. Later in the movie, Charters and Caldicott are heroic in facing down danger, during an onslaught of gunfire by fascist spies.

Charters and Caldicott are stranded at the only hotel in a tiny alpine village. The desk clerk informs them that they must share the maid's room. When they meet the voluptuous Germanic blonde, they glance at each other with an expression that appears to be saying they’re not interested. When they follow the maid to her cramped room, Charter cracks “It’s a pity they couldn’t have given us one each” which could be interpreted as each having their own woman, to have a bit of a romp with. But Charters clarifies himself by saying he meant two rooms. One for the maid and one for them. A mainstream audience could read their conduct as two heterosexual British gentlemen, but if you read between the lines, it is suggested that they have no interest in women. In another scene when the maid enters their shared room without knocking, both men act startled by the intrusion. Caldicott moves in a way that conjures up the role of a protective mate. Once she leaves, Caldicott locks the door.

A master of queering the screen, Hitchcock plays with sexuality using his skillful methods of innuendo and artful suggestiveness "” In an already masterful way of blurring the lines of reality and adeptly flirting with transgression, Hitchcock's milieus are perfect playgrounds for coded gay characters.

Continue reading “Chapter 3 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:”

Postcards from Shadowland no. 16 Halloween edition –

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) Directed by Jack Arnold adapted by Richard Matheson and starring Grant Williams
Five Million Years to Earth (1967) Directed by Roy Ward Baker, written by Nigel Kneale starring Barbara Shelley and Andrew Keir
The Manster (1959) Directed by George P. Breakston starring Peter Dyneley, Jane Hylton and Tetsu Nakamura
The Twilight People (1972) Directed by Eddie Romero
Bluebeard (1972) Directed by Edward Dmytryk. Starring Richard Burton, Raquel Welch, Virna Lisi, Natalie Delon, Agostina Belli, Karen Schubert, Sybil Danning, Joey Heatherton and Marilù Tolo
The Beast with Five Fingers (1946) Directed by Robert Florey with a screenplay by Curt Siodmak. Starring Robert Alda, Peter Lorre, Andrea King and J. Carrol Naish
Carnival of Souls (1962) Directed by Herk Harvey starring Candace Hilligoss
The Beast with Five Fingers (1946) Directed by Robert Florey Starring Robert Alda, Peter Lorre, Andrea King and J. Carrol Naish
Bedlam (1946) Directed by Mark Robson Starring Boris Karloff, Anna Lee, Ian Wolfe,Billy House, Richard Fraser, Glen Vernon and Elizabeth Russell. Produced by Val Lewton
Dracula (1931) Directed by Tod Browning adapted from the novel by Bram Stoker-Starring Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Frances Dade and Edward Van Sloane
Blood and Roses (1960) Directed by Roger Vadim. Adapted from the novel by Sheridan Le Fanu- Starring Mel Ferrer, Elsa Martinelli, Annette Stroyberg
Black Sunday (1960) La maschera del demonio-Directed by Mario Bava Starring Barbara Steele, John Richardson and Andrea Checci
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) Directed by William Dieterle Starring Charles Laughton, Maureen O’Hara and Cedric Hardwicke adapted from the novel by Victor Hugo
War of the Colossal Beast (1958) Directed by Bert I. Gordon Starring Sally Fraser and Roger Pace
It Conquered the World (1956) Directed by Roger Corman- Starring Beverly Garland, Peter Graves Lee Van Cleef and The Cucumber Monster
Curse of the Faceless Man (1958) Directed by Edward L. Cahn–Starring Richard Anderson, Elaine Edwards, Adele Mara and Luis Van Rooten
The Old Dark House 1932 directed by James Whale-Gloria Stuart and Boris Karloff
Dead of Night (1945) Directed by Alberto Cavalcanti, Charles Crichton, Basil Dearden, and Robert Hamer.–Starring Michael Redgrave, Mervyn Johns, Roland Culver, Googie Withers, Mary Merrall, Sally Ann Howes, Frederick Valk, Anthony Baird
Die! Die! My Darling! (1965) directed by Silvio Narizzano with a screenplay by Richard Matheson adapted from a novel by Anne Blaisdell–Starring Tallulah Bankhead, Stephanie Powers, Peter Vaughan, Donald Sutherland and Yootha Joyce
The Tenant (1976) Directed by Roman Polanski–Starring Roman Polanski, Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas, Jo Van Fleet, Bernard Fresson, Lila Kedrova, Claude Dauphin and Shelley Winters
House of Horrors (1946) Directed by Jean Yarborough starring “The Creeper” Rondo Hatton, Martin Kosleck and Virginia Gray
Spirits of the Dead (Italy/France 1968) aka Histoires extraordinaires
Segment: “William Wilson” Directed by Louis Malle
Shown from left: Brigitte Bardot, Alain Delon
Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors (1965) Directed by Freddie Francis–Screenplay by Milton Subotsky–Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Neil McCallum, Ursula Howells, Peter Madden, Katy Wild, Alan Freeman, Ann Bell, Phoebe Nichols, Bernard Lee, Jeremy Kemp
Doctor X (1932) Directed by Michael Curtiz-Starring Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Lee Tracy, Preston Foster, John Wray, Harry Beresford
Frankenstein (1910) Produced by Thomas Edison Directed by J. Searle Dawley
Horror Hotel aka The City of the Dead (1960) Directed by John Llewellyn Moxey Starring Christopher Lee, Patricia Jessel, Dennis Lotis, Tom Naylor and Betta St. John. From a story by Milton Subotsky
House of Frankenstein (1944) Directed by Erle C. Kenton from a story by Curt Siodmak. Starring Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr. J.Carrol Naish, John Carradine, Anne Gwynne, Peter Coe, Lionel Atwill and George Zucco
Island of Lost Souls (1932) Directed by Erle C. Kenton Starring Charles Laughton, Bela Lugosi, Richard Arlen, Leila Hyams and Kathleen Burke based on a story by H.G.Wells
Isle of the Dead (1945) directed by Mark Robson written by Ardel Wray-Starring Boris Karloff, Ellen Drew, Marc Cramer, Katherine Emery, Helene Thimig, Alan Napier, Jason Robards Sr.
Carl Theodor Dreyer Leaves from Satan’s Book (1921) starring Helge Nissen
Diabolique (1955) Directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot adapted by Pierre Boileau Starring Simone Signoret, Véra Clouzot and Paul Meurisse
The Wolf Man (1941) Directed by George Waggner Starring Lon Chaney Jr. Claude Rains, Warren William, Ralph Bellamy, Patric Knowles, Bela Lugosi, Maria Ouspenskaya, Evelyn Ankers and Fay Helm original screenplay by Curt Siodmak
Night Must Fall (1937)
Directed by Richard Thorpe
Shown from left: Robert Montgomery, Dame May Whitty
Phantom of the Opera (1925) Directed by Rupert Julian and Lon Chaney. Starring Lon Chaney and Mary Philbin story by Gaston Leroux
Strangler of the Swamp (1946) directed by Frank Wisbar-starring Rosemary La Planche, Robert Barrat with an original story by Leo J. McCarthy
Nosferatu (1922) directed by F.W.Murnau Starring Max Schreck
The Abominable Snowman (1957) Directed by Val Guest starring Forrest Tucker, Peter Cushing and Maureen Connell written by Nigel Kneale
The Bat Whispers (1930) Directed by Roland West-starring Chance Ward, Richard Tucker, Wilson Benge, DeWitt Jennings, Una Merkel Grace Hamptom, and Chester Morris
The Curse of the Cat People (1944) directed by Gunther von Fritsch- Starring Simone Simon, Kent Smith, Jane Randolph, Ann Carter, and Elizabeth Russell. Screenplay by DeWitt Bodeen
Mighty Joe Young (1949) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack
Young Frankenstein (1974) Directed by Mel Brooks Starring Gene Wilder, Peter Boyle, Marty Feldman, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, Teri Garr, Kenneth Mars and Liam Dunn.
The Devil Bat (1940) directed by Jean Yarborough Starring Bela Lugosi
The Fly (1958) directed by Kurt Neumann screenplay by James Clavell, Starring David Hedison, Patricia Owens and Vincent Price
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) directed by Tobe Hooper. Starring Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger and Gunnar Hansen as Leatherface
The Undead (1957) Directed by Roger Corman written by Charles B. Griffith and Mark Hanna Starring Pamela Duncan, Richard Garland, Allison Hayes, Val Dufour, Bruno VeSota, Mel Welles, Dorothy Neumann and Billy Barty
The Witches (1966) directed by Cyril Frankel Written by Nigel Kneale Starring Joan Fontaine, Kay Walsh and Alec McCowen
The Uninvited (1944) directed by Lewis Allen Starring Ray Milland, Ruth Hussey, Donald Crisp, Cornelia Otis Skinner and Gail Russell
THE NIGHT CALLER [BR 1965] aka BLOOD BEAST FROM OUTER SPACE MAURICE DENHAM, JOHN SAXON, JOHN CARSON Date: 1965
Poltergeist (1982) directed by Tobe Hooper written by Steven Spielberg. Starring JoBeth Williams, Beatrice Straight, Craig T. Nelson, Dominique Dunne Heather O’Rourke

Postcards from Shadowland No. 8

Ace in The Hole 1951
Billy Wilder’s Ace in The Hole (1951) Starring Kirk Douglas and Jan Sterling
Brute Force
Jules Dassin’s prison noir masterpiece-Brute Force 1947 starring Burt Lancaster, Hume Cronyn, and Charles Bickford
citizen kane-
Orson Welles- Citizen Kane (1941) also starring Joseph Cotten
devil and daniel webster
William Dieterle’s The Devil and Daniel Webster 1941
hangover square
Directed by John Brahm-Hangover Square 1945 starring Laird Cregar , Linda Darnell and George Sanders
House by The River
Fritz Lang’s House By The River 1950 starring Louis Hayward, Lee Bowman and Jane Wyatt.
i cover waterfront-1933
I Cover the Waterfront 1933- Claudette Colbert, Ben Lyon and Ernest Torrence
Jewel Mayhew and Wills Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte
Robert Aldrich’s Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte 1964 starring Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, Joseph Cotton, Mary Astor, Agnes Moorehead and Cecil Kellaway
Key Largo
John Huston’s Key Largo 1948 Starring Edward G Robinson, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall
Killers Kiss
Stanley Kubrick’s Killers Kiss 1955 Starring Frank Silvera and Irene Kane.
Lady from Shanghai(1947)
Orson Welles penned the screenplay and stars in iconic film noir The Lady from Shanghai 1947 featuring the sensual Rita Hayworth, also starring Everett Sloane
lady in cage james caan++billingsley
Lady in a Cage 1964 directed by Walter Grauman and starring Olivia de Havilland, James Caan, and Jennifer Billingsley.
long dark hall
The Long Dark Hall 1951 Starring Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer
lorre M
Fritz Lang’s chilling M (1931) Starring Peter Lorre
Mark Robson The Seventh Victim
Mark Robson directs, Val Lewton’s occult shadow piece The Seventh Victim 1943 Starring Kim Hunter, Tim Conway and Jean Brooks
Meeting leo-Ace in the hole with leo 1951
Kirk Douglas in Ace In The Hole 1951 written and directed by Billy Wilder
mifune-and-yamamoto in Drunkin Angel 48
Akira Kurosawa’s film noir crime thriller Drunken Angel (1948) starring Takashi Shimura and Toshiro Mifune
Panic in the Streets
Elia Kazan’s socio-noir Panic in The Streets 1950 starring Jack Palance, Richard Widmark, Paul Douglas, Barbara Bel Geddes and Zero Mostel
persona
Ingmar Bergman’s Persona 1966 starring Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson
Queen of Spades
The Queen of Spades 1949 directed by Thorold Dickinson and starring Anton Walbrook, Edith Evans and Yvonne Mitchell
Saint Joan of the Angels 1
Director Jerzy Kawalerowicz’s beautifully filmed Mother Joan of The Angels 1961 starring Lucyna Winnicka.
shanghai express
Josef von Sternberg’s Shanghai Express 1932 Starring Marlene Dietrich, Clive Brook and Anna May Wong
The Devil and Daniel Webster
The Devil and Daniel Webster 1941
The Haunting
Robert Wise’s The Haunting 1963. Screenplay by Nelson Gidding based on the novel by Shirley Jackson. Starring Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, and Russ Tamblyn
the Unsuspected_1947
Michael Curtiz’s The Unsuspected 1947 starring Claude Rains, Joan Caulfield and Audrey Totter
Viridiana
Luis Bunuel’s Viridiana 1961 Starring Silvia Pinal, Fernando Rey and Fransisco Rabal
What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?
Robert Aldrich’s cult grande dame classic starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford-What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? 1962

Reccuring Iconography in Classic Noir, Suspense & Horror: Stairs…

Battleship Potemkin 1925- Sergei Eisenstein known for his montage framing and editing offers up the epic dramatization of the social uprising in Russia, which brought about a grim massacre with an iconic scene of the baby carriage plummeting down the great stone steps.
Dr. Caligari’s somnambulist, Cesare (Conrad Veidt) ascends the abstraction of a stairway to nowhere…in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
F.W. Murnau’s 1922 masterpiece of shadow and light. With subtle prominence, the silhouette of the stair rails makes cogent the sinister outline of Max Schreck’s Nosferatu all the more.
Alfred Hitchcock’s crime thriller Blackmail (1929).
She 1935 Irving Pichel and Lansing C Holden’s fantastical saga based on H. Rider Haggard’s novel about an ancient esoteric civilization reigned over by the cruel high priestess She who must be obeyed, upon the steps by the secret eternal flame of everlasting youth! with an intoxicating score by Max Steiner.
Again in 1935, SHE was released in both B&W and a gorgeous colorized version. I’ll be doing a larger overview of the film very soon. Using images from both.
Steps upon steps, leading to divinity, or leading to death?
Thorold Dickinson’s hauntingly sinister fable- The Queen of Spades 1949- See the intricate network of elaborate stairs that wind within the vast manor house, which lead to the infamous lady who bet her soul away to the devil in order to win at a game of cards.
In Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious (1946) Cary Grant carries Ingrid Bergman to safety down the moonlit stone steps.

Charlie Chaplin in City Lights 1931.

Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho 1960.

Jack Clayton’s The Innocents 1961 starring Deborah Kerr.

In notorious (1946) Claude Rains stands alone facing his fate up those moonlit stone steps…the end scene.

Siodmak’s The Spiral Staircase 1946 Ethel Barrymore, Dorothy Maguire, & Elsa Lanchester.

Douglas Sirk’s Thunder on the Hill 1951 starring Claudette Colbert.

Lewis Allen’s The Uninvited 1945- Stars Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey.

The Picture of Dorian Gray 1945 with George Sanders and Hurd Hatfield.

MORE TO COME!!!!!!!

I’ll be heading back up the ‘steps’ here at the drive-in, be well- MonsterGirl!

From The Vault: The Man Who Watched Trains Go By or The Paris Express (1952)

THE MAN  WHO WATCHED TRAINS GO BY 1952 or The Paris Express

Claude Rains is The Man Who Watched Trains!

If you’ve been following my blog for a while you might have picked up on the fact that I adore Claude Rains, and any film his wonderful presence has graced. Masterpiece or B-grade picture, he brings an inimitable style to any movie! Here: Claude Rains plays a mild-mannered clerk named Kees Popinga who discovers that his boss Julius de Koster, Jr. (Herbert Lom) has wiped out the company funds, while under the influence of a beautiful Parisian girl, Michele Rozier played by Marta Toren.

Popinga takes the money and goes on the lam after killing de Koster, while the police are in hot pursuit.

Also starring the lovely Anouk Aimee as Jeanne the prostitute.

This obscure thriller is directed and co-scripted by Harold French based on the novel by George Simenon.

There are thousands of films in my collection, this is just one of them! See it for yourself-MonsterGirl

Friday’s Trailer to keep the Boogeyman away! Where Danger Lives (1950)

A consummate entry in the film noir canon Directed by John Farrow, starring two of my favorite actors the rugged  Robert Mitchum, the sublime Claude Rains, and the very lovely Faith Domergue as the movie’s femme fatale.

A young doctor falls in love with a fatal attraction, a disturbed young woman, who becomes involved in the death of her husband and has to flee with her to the Mexican border.

“She’s tempting in a penthouse and dangerous in a border town dive!”

Jeff Cameron: Look, I want you, not the money.

Margo: Money can help. It’d be awfully tough for a young doctor, Jeff.

Jeff Cameron: I’ve aged considerably in the last five minutes.

Margo: Poverty’s sordid. If you were broke…

Jeff Cameron: I will be, I promise you.

 

Margo- “Nobody Pities me!”

Happy Trailers! MonsterGirl