Topic: Universal Horror '30s/'40s

[Svengarlic]

Mr. Diesel, I had no doubt that the site was functional. It's me that's not.

Oh boy! I can see by your sig that you were bitten by the Universal bug, if not  Talbot himself, by the conversation between Claude Rains and the doctor. (no, I can't remember who played the doctor)

[Shemp_Diesel]

Yeah Svengarlic, I'm something of a Universal horror nut as well, and I think I'm a bigger fan of most of the 1940s horrors that seem to get a lot of mixed reviews--The Ghost of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein, The Mummy's Tomb, love it. Although I can do without House of Dracula--even I have my limits.


 

[Svengarlic]

Yeah Svengarlic, I'm something of a Universal horror nut as well, and I think I'm a bigger fan of most of the 1940s horrors that seem to get a lot of mixed reviews--The Ghost of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein, The Mummy's Tomb, love it. Although I can do without House of Dracula--even I have my limits.


 

Uh oh.....I see now that we are going to have trouble. I put House of Drac squarely between SON and GHOST. I will however, admit that even as a small child I wondered how a transfusion from a vampire resulted in a hairy homicidal maniac.

[Svengarlic]

I see I messed up the quote box too. This place may be too high tech for me 

[metaldams]

I see I messed up the quote box too. This place may be too high tech for me 

Nah, you'll be alright.  I fixed the post for you, just make your post below the final quote writing and you'll be fine.

Now I gotta get in on this.  I like 40's Universal Horror, but overall, I'm a bigger fan of 20's and 30's horror in general.  Just overall better atmosphere and writing.  Even my two favorite 40's horrors are not Universals, being THE LODGER and THE BODY SNATCHER.

SON OF DRACULA is interesting in that it's the only monster film I can think of where I find the love interest to be more intriguing than the monster!

[Shemp_Diesel]

I had to look up The Lodger on IMDB. Never heard of it until now, but I see some familiar names from the cast list: Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Doris Lloyd.

Son of Drac, is indeed interesting in that Robert Paige is not the usual dull-as-dishwater male lead one typically finds in the Universal horrors. His slow descent into madness is fun to watch, but I think Chaney as Count Alucard does a better job than many have given him credit for over the years. That whole movie is much better than the bad reviews I had heard so many times before I actually sat down & watched it.

And there's some great atmosphere in the 40s. Chaney's floating coffin going across the water; the atmosphere found in most of The Mummy's Tomb always intrigued me & of course, there's the opening minutes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

But I will definitely have to see if I came come across a copy of The Lodger. My curiosity is piqued.

[Svengarlic]

Nah, you'll be alright.  I fixed the post for you, just make your post below the final quote writing and you'll be fine.

Now I gotta get in on this.  I like 40's Universal Horror, but overall, I'm a bigger fan of 20's and 30's horror in general.  Just overall better atmosphere and writing.  Even my two favorite 40's horrors are not Universals, being THE LODGER and THE BODY SNATCHER.

SON OF DRACULA is interesting in that it's the only monster film I can think of where I find the love interest to be more intriguing than the monster!

You fixed it!?? I see you have power. (tipping hat)

I'm familiar with both of those films of course. Well made....atmospheric....but I saw them AFTER the great monster flicks. I was spoiled. However: as a suspense movie with a Jack the Ripper theme The Lodger was very effective. Now if you are referring to the silent Hitchcock version: I haven't seen it. I'm thinking of a '40s film, and I'm not even sure if it was titled "The Lodger", but it was a British film and plenty creepy.

I'm not sure where to start with Son 'O Drac. Sure, I liked it as a little kid but it has not withstood the years. Chaney...so miscast. And there's a scene where he and his host are both reflected in a full size mirror. Hard for a purist to brook.

But it was Drac's other kid that I really liked. She was creepy/alluring and a much better made film. I don't think I have ever seen her (or her butler) in any other movie.

 In recent years I have read of lesbian overtones in the film, but I don't see it. It's a reach. Now if you want to talk about Dr. Pretorious, that's a different matter. 

[metaldams]

I had to look up The Lodger on IMDB. Never heard of it until now, but I see some familiar names from the cast list: Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Doris Lloyd.

Son of Drac, is indeed interesting in that Robert Paige is not the usual dull-as-dishwater male lead one typically finds in the Universal horrors. His slow descent into madness is fun to watch, but I think Chaney as Count Alucard does a better job than many have given him credit for over the years. That whole movie is much better than the bad reviews I had heard so many times before I actually sat down & watched it.

And there's some great atmosphere in the 40s. Chaney's floating coffin going across the water; the atmosphere found in most of The Mummy's Tomb always intrigued me & of course, there's the opening minutes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

But I will definitely have to see if I came come across a copy of The Lodger. My curiosity is piqued.

You would've heard of Laird Cregar, the star of THE LODGER, if he didn't die at age 31.  A lot of people think he would've had the career Vincent Price had (who ironically delivered Cregar's eulogy), had he lived.  A sad story, he was an overweight homosexual, never being comfortable with either feature.  Tired of playing heavies and wanting to play romantic leads, he went on some crazy crash diet where he lost 100 lbs., had to have surgery, and died of a heart attack a few days later.  THE LODGER is more a Jack the Ripper psychological horror than a monster film, but damn is it a good one!  You can get it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Collection-Hangover-Undying-Monster/dp/B000TLTCT0/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1402795390&sr=1-1&keywords=fox+horror+classics

You're right those 40's horrors did have atmosphere as well, no doubt.  On their own merit, excellent, but compared to the early 30's stuff or some German horror of the 20's, the 40's film felt more studio product to me.  I do like those 40's Universals, though I gotta be honest and say the House Monster rallies and the 40's Mummy films all kind of blend together for me.  Always had a place in my heart for GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, though. 

By the way, wanna hear a crazy story which I probably told years back but I'll repeat anyway?  I have Josephine Hutchinson's autograph.  She was the Frankenstein wife in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN.  When my grandmother passed in 2007, we were looking through a bunch of old photos and an autographed picture of her dressed as Alice from her 1934 stage appearance of ALICE IN WONDERLAND was found.  It was personalized to my great grandfather and likely that he took my then 12 year old grandmother to see it.

[Svengarlic]

Diesel: I'm pretty sure that THE LODGER I saw was a remake of Metal's silent version. I only saw it once about 20 years ago and I still remember it. I think Una O'Conner was in it, but I'm not sure. I don't know who the director was either.

But I liked it very much. I want to see it again, and I watch for it, but no luck.

[metaldams]

You fixed it!?? I see you have power. (tipping hat)

I'm familiar with both of those films of course. Well made....atmospheric....but I saw them AFTER the great monster flicks. I was spoiled. However: as a suspense movie with a Jack the Ripper theme The Lodger was very effective. Now if you are referring to the silent Hitchcock version: I haven't seen it. I'm thinking of a '40s film, and I'm not even sure if it was titled "The Lodger", but it was a British film and plenty creepy.

I'm not sure where to start with Son 'O Drac. Sure, I liked it as a little kid but it has not withstood the years. Chaney...so miscast. And there's a scene where he and his host are both reflected in a full size mirror. Hard for a purist to brook.

But it was Drac's other kid that I really liked. She was creepy/alluring and a much better made film. I don't think I have ever seen her (or her butler) in any other movie.

 In recent years I have read of lesbian overtones in the film, but I don't see it. It's a reach. Now if you want to talk about Dr. Pretorious, that's a different matter. 

I saw the silent Hitchcock version years ago, and the only thing I remember is that I enjoyed it.  I am due for another viewing.

As for DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, yes!   Love that film.  Gloria Holden is very beautiful in that film, a very unique kind of beauty I can't describe, and she plays a fascinating and tragic character.  As for the lesbian angle, beyond that one scene in the studio taken on it's own, it doesn't really carry throughout the film. 

[metaldams]

Here's an interesting picture attached below.

[Svengarlic]

I saw the silent Hitchcock version years ago, and the only thing I remember is that I enjoyed it.  I am due for another viewing.

As for DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, yes!   Love that film.  Gloria Holden is very beautiful in that film, a very unique kind of beauty I can't describe, and she plays a fascinating and tragic character.  As for the lesbian angle, beyond that one scene in the studio taken on it's own, it doesn't really carry throughout the film.

Exactly. As a matter of fact I just watched it again a few weeks ago on Svengoolie. A show with a comic creeped-out host ala' Vampira (or my woman Elvira) airing on the ME TV channel, Sat. @9PM Central. As I speak it's coming on right now.....But ulg! It's a Hammer film. 

BTW, I was surprised that Drac's Daughter was only about an hour long! Shorter even than THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. I'm sure you know that a sub-plot was edited out of the Bride that had Carl (Frye) murdering a family. If that scene was recovered it would be worth a bazillion dollars.

[Svengarlic]

Here's an interesting picture attached below.

Oh my! I have never seen that. And she's in costume so Bela must have been on the set! I wonder why?

[Shemp_Diesel]

Here's an interesting picture attached below.

Never saw that before & I've seen a ton of pics from the Universal horrors. Thanks Metal & it only makes me wonder, what if Lugosi had been in Dracula's Daughter--imagine the possibilities.

[metaldams]

While on the classic horror thing, how about we name our top 10 30's and 40's horrors.  Here are mine, in no particular order.

Dracula (1931)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Island of Lost Souls (1933)
The Black Cat (1934)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Mad Love (1935)
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
The Devil Bat (1940)
The Lodger (1944)
The Body Snatcher (1945)

[Svengarlic]

While on the classic horror thing, how about we name our top 10 30's and 40's horrors.  Here are mine, in no particular order.

Dracula (1931) *
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) *
Island of Lost Souls (1933) *
The Black Cat (1934)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Mad Love (1935)
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
The Devil Bat (1940)
The Lodger (1944)
The Body Snatcher (1945)

That's quite a who's who of classic horror. Rock solid. But I placed an * on the three with no musical score. They are at a huge disadvantage to those that came later.

 For example: Spencer Tracy is miscast in Dr. J & Mr. H... Fredric March, an actor that I never really cared for was better. Miriam Hopkins was more believable as the tawdry dance hall girl than the stately Bergman, yet I rate the '40s version better because of  the score.

Thank you Cooper and Schoedsack for insisting on it for King Kong to get the musical ball rolling. Now my list:

1) Bride of Frankenstein
2) King Kong
 and the random 8
"M"
Werewolf of London
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Laughton)
The Ghost of Frankenstein
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman **
Dracula's Daughter
The Black Cat
The Lodger (1944)
honorable mention: Island of Lost Souls/Mad Love
 
** This in spite of the many flaws in the production of the film

[metaldams]

That's quite a who's who of classic horror. Rock solid. But I placed an * on the three with no musical score. They are at a huge disadvantage to those that came later.

 For example: Spencer Tracy is miscast in Dr. J & Mr. H... Fredric March, an actor that I never really cared for was better. Miriam Hopkins was more believable as the tawdry dance hall girl than the stately Bergman, yet I rate the '40s version better because of  the score.

Thank you Cooper and Schoedsack for insisting on it for King Kong to get the musical ball rolling. Now my list:

1) Bride of Frankenstein
2) King Kong
 and the random 8
"M"
Werewolf of London
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Laughton)
The Ghost of Frankenstein
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman **
Dracula's Daughter
The Black Cat
The Lodger (1944)
honorable mention: Island of Lost Souls/Mad Love
 
** This in spite of the many flaws in the production of the film

You put a double asterisk next to FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN for production flaws after I put THE DEVIL BAT in my list.  Your choice is CITIZEN KANE next to mine.

Nice list, though.  For the record, I do enjoy some of those lack of soundtrack pre code horrors, as I feel they add a quiet sense of eeriness never found in horror films again.  That said, soundtracks certainly add to some films, like THE BLACK CAT and THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS.  I never think of M as a horror film, but I guess it fits.  Fantastic movie no matter how you label it, though.  Watching Peter Lorre in front of the jury like a trapped rat is one of the great acting performances caught on film.

[Seamus]

Even though they're artistically inferior to the originals (subjectively, but you know), I still have a weird fondness for the sequels (both Universal and the Hammer cycles, although Hammer's sequels managed to maintain a higher standard than the Universals).  It's largely a carry-over of the fascination I had reading about these films in those big monster movie books I devoured as a kid, years before I was ever able to actually watch them.  The stills and lurid titles (GHOST of Frankenstein!  EVIL of Frankenstein!  Frankenstein MUST BE DESTROYED!  Dracula has RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!) exited my eight-year-old imagination, and the general inaccessibility of these movies just added to the mystique.  Funny how some of these childhood fascinations stick with you as an adult.

[Svengarlic]

Metaldams said:Watching Peter Lorre in front of the jury like a trapped rat is one of the great acting performances caught on film.

Yep...that was the scene that got me. Funny thing about sub-titled films to me is that they are at first distracting, but if the flick is good about half way through I don't notice it anymore. I don't know how "M' would have struck me if I saw it as a kid. It's one of the few classics that I didn't catch 'till adulthood.

Seamus said: The stills and lurid titles (GHOST of Frankenstein!  EVIL of Frankenstein!  Frankenstein MUST BE DESTROYED!  Dracula has RISEN FROM THE GRAVE!) exited my eight-year-old imagination, and the general inaccessibility of these movies just added to the mystique.  Funny how some of these childhood fascinations stick with you as an adult.

I can relate to that. My folks loved for us to watch the old Wolfsteincula features but wouldn't let us buy comic books! But they were fine with our subscibing to Famous Monsters of Filmland where we read of Chaney Sr. and saw stills of and a slew of films that were not shown on our Saturday night "Spook Spectacular" show.

I didn't see London After Midnight 'till I was 40. A patchwork effort, half film and half stills. Like Metropolis, it was more interesting than entertaining.

[metaldams]

I didn't see London After Midnight 'till I was 40. A patchwork effort, half film and half stills. Like Metropolis, it was more interesting than entertaining.

Actually, it's ALL stills, since LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is a completely lost film.  I appreciate the effort since we'll never see the real thing, but yeah, a film of stills is quite boring to watch.  The half film half stills movie I saw was GREED, and again, while I appreciate the effort to bring it as close to Von Stroheim's vision as possible, I want to see the pure film version someday, no matter how badly MGM butchered it. 

Yeah, count me in the school of thought that likes Universal overall better than Hammer but concedes Hammer made more interesting sequels.  Hey, at least Hammer tried new things, and FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED is not only my favorite Hammer, but one of my favorite movies, period.  Cushing's FRANKENSTEIN is so sadistic in that film.

[Seamus]

Actually, it's ALL stills, since LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is a completely lost film.  I appreciate the effort since we'll never see the real thing, but yeah, a film of stills is quite boring to watch. 

True, the LONDON reconstruction was pretty soporific.  I'd hoped some of the flavor would come through, but it wasn't much better than reading a detailed synopsis punctuated with a few stills (Zzzzzz).  Watching the recon just made me want to put on MARK OF THE VAMPIRE instead.

I don't know if I could play favorites between Universal and Hammer.  There was a time when I leaned more in Hammer's direction, but I think I'm swinging back toward the Universals these days.  The movies in Universals first horror wave are so iconic, and drip with delicious black-and-white shadowy atmosphere, and have that interesting whiff of early film history about them as a bonus.  And the movies from their second horror wave in the '40s are goofy fun for all their flaws.

I'm looking forward to seeing the 1931 Jekyll and Hyde for the first time (and on the big screen, no less) next month as part of an annual summer movie series they put on here in Columbus.  It's on a double-bill with Lugosi's RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, so should be an enjoyably weird evening. 

[metaldams]

True, the LONDON reconstruction was pretty soporific.  I'd hoped some of the flavor would come through, but it wasn't much better than reading a detailed synopsis punctuated with a few stills (Zzzzzz).  Watching the recon just made me want to put on MARK OF THE VAMPIRE instead.

I don't know if I could play favorites between Universal and Hammer.  There was a time when I leaned more in Hammer's direction, but I think I'm swinging back toward the Universals these days.  The movies in Universals first horror wave are so iconic, and drip with delicious black-and-white shadowy atmosphere, and have that interesting whiff of early film history about them as a bonus.  And the movies from their second horror wave in the '40s are goofy fun for all their flaws.

I'm looking forward to seeing the 1931 Jekyll and Hyde for the first time (and on the big screen, no less) next month as part of an annual summer movie series they put on here in Columbus.  It's on a double-bill with Lugosi's RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, so should be an enjoyably weird evening.

You're in for a treat with DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, one of the four great 1931 U.S. Horror films (SVENGALI with John Barrymore rarely gets mentioned here and should be included as the fourth).  Miriam Hopkins is sexy in that pre-code kind of way, classic garter scene with some risqué for the time symbolism you'll never see in a code film.  She puts on a fantastic performance overall.  The melodramatic goodness vs. the bestial evil of Jekyll and Hyde is quite a contrast and there's some nice camera work as well.  I think you'll like it.

The 1941 version Svengarlic mentioned earlier I've only seen once and even though I like the principal players involved in other films they've done, I thought this version to be too glossy as opposed to the seedier 1931 version.  It has been a long time since I've seen the '41 version, though, and I plan to give it another viewing this weekend. 

The 1920 John Barrymore version is also a favorite of mine.

[Seamus]

You're in for a treat with DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, one of the four great 1931 U.S. Horror films (SVENGALI with John Barrymore rarely gets mentioned here and should be included as the fourth).  Miriam Hopkins is sexy in that pre-code kind of way, classic garter scene with some risqué for the time symbolism you'll never see in a code film.  She puts on a fantastic performance overall.  The melodramatic goodness vs. the bestial evil of Jekyll and Hyde is quite a contrast and there's some nice camera work as well.  I think you'll like it.

The 1941 version Svengarlic mentioned earlier I've only seen once and even though I like the principal players involved in other films they've done, I thought this version to be too glossy as opposed to the seedier 1931 version.  It has been a long time since I've seen the '41 version, though, and I plan to give it another viewing this weekend. 

The 1920 John Barrymore version is also a favorite of mine.

I had the same impression of the 1941 version when I finally saw it a couple years ago.  Much too "MGM" for that type of story. 

[Svengarlic]

Seamus: Watch out for the transformation scene in the March version of J&H. Film techs of the time figured a way to alter shadowing using light and filters. It was less dramatic than the later film overlapping technique of the various wolfmen, but it was seamless and pretty cool for the time.

A word on Svengali: I happened upon a classic film site and saw it again just a day after I joined 3S.net....I still can't decide how they created the eerie eyeballs.

A word on Miriam Hopkins: I've read dozens of bio and autobio's over the years and have come to the conclusion that she was quite the diva bitch. Bette Davis said that the scene in the movie where she got to shake Hopkins violently was great fun. ("Can I have a re-take Mr. Sherman") Of course Davis was no slob in the Diva department herself.

Metal mentioned that she was hot in Dr J&Mr H, and she was. But in the final edit a gob of her scenes were removed. Too hot even for pre-code?

 

[Svengarlic]

You put a double asterisk next to FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN for production flaws after I put THE DEVIL BAT in my list.  Your choice is CITIZEN KANE next to mine.

LOL. I'm not sure how meant that. Coincidentally after seeing the D-Bat on your list I watched it on the site I mentioned. I remembered that I had seen it before but this time I just couldn't get past the first 20 minutes.