Ah, another Universal Monsters jam. I already wrote in my entry of The Invisible Man about the issues inherent on writing about these films from the 1930s, so I won't go into that here. Suffice to say that there's a different scale that you grade these on, you're wearing a different hat as a viewer. You feel more detached, and I think it's impossible to ignore the decades and decades between then and now. The films are not inherently better or worse, just... different. I would say that The Mummy was less of an era-shock (a term I just made up) than The Invisible Man. Looking at it with my 2014 sensibility, dealing with a creature/plot from the ancient past was a better fit with the 1930's mentality as opposed to The Invisible Man - who really is more or less from the future. (Science!) And even though I had some fears going in, it's another great entry in the Universal Monsters canon.
The movie starts with several British archeologists gloating about their latest find - the remains of the high priest Imhotep, who was mummified alive for breaking all sorts of holy ancient-Egyptian rules. He's just kind of propped up against the wall in the back... I guess they felt okay treating their priceless finds like that. Also amongst their findings is an ancient scroll that has the power to bring the dead back to life. The archeologists, being science-first folks, scoff at the idea that the scroll has any real-life power. The brashest young archeologist waits until he is alone and reads from the scroll. Our mummy begins to stir, and the young man freaks out and starts laugh/screaming, and doesn't stop. When the others come to see what the fuss is about, the mummy has vanished and the young man has gone totally mad. We later find out that he "died laughing, in a straight jacket." It's a pretty solid way to start the movie, and was already scarier than anything from The Invisible Man.
My biggest worry going in was how cheesy the movie was going to look - it's hard even today to make a mummy look menacing. But they avoid this by flashing forward ten years from this opening incident, where Imhotep is now pretending to be a local man named Ardath Bey. You know instantly that he's our same mummy, since Boris Karloff is one of the most recognizable people on the planet. He's got some of the same wrinkly makeup on (it looks good!) from the first scene, but otherwise looks like your standard citizen. It's a smart move to get away from the Ace-bandage mummy I was expecting/fearing.
Anyways, Bey/Imhotep suggests a site for another archeological group to check out, where they find the mummified remains of his ancient love. Once she is dug up and put in a museum, Imhotep begins his quest to bring her back to life by sacrificing a young woman named Helen Grovesnor (Zita Johann) who bears a striking resemblance to his former lover. Will she be saved from the wrath of the mummy? Tune in to find out!
What I liked
The Mummy lives and dies based on the strength of Karloff's performance. Once you can get past the idea that Frankenstein (or Frankenstein's monster, if you're a nerd) is the mummy, you get sucked in. Karloff is such a charismatic performer - he just has this natural ability to be the most important thing on screen at any given time. Imhotep has the power of mind-control - you can really buy that he has this magnetic power over people. There is a hypnosis shot that they go to a few times where they zoom in on Karloff's face and manage to light up just his eyes - it's an *awesome* shot, and probably one of the coolest things I've seen over my last month-plus of movies.
I also enjoyed the sets - they really quite artfully designed and constructed. The museum exhibit (where Imhotep attempts to bring his lover's remains back to life) was really cool. You certainly don't see museums like it any more; I loved the dark wood, the fireplace, the ambiance. Much less sterile than what you think of when you picture a museum nowadays. And Imhotep/Bey's lair was awesome too - a big pool in the middle of the room spitting out smoke, columns in background, fabric draped everywhere. Overall, it was a well-designed movie - it was a good mix of the exotic and the polished.
What I didn't like
The non-Karloff actors ranged from okay to annoying. The other male lead - who falls madly in love with Helen in about three minutes after meeting her (which seems to be a thing in these oldies) isn't really a bad actor, but his delivery is just weird - like he's always looking just off-screen and not at the person he is interacting with. It was really distracting.
The main distraction for me though was the lack of aging on any of the artifacts. It's a little unfair to call this out, but i'll do it anyways. I'm sure for audience at the time it may have worked, but when you see a scroll that is supposedly several thousands of years old with crystal clear printing and no wear and tear whatsoever, it's a bit funny.
And it's hard to watch something like this and not think about race/imperialism/etc. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the relationship between Great Britain and Egypt at the time, but when our archeologists are at the dig-site, it seems like they're really close to using slave labor while they sit under a dainty little umbrella. I couldn't help but imagine them thinking "we need this umbrella - we wouldn't want to get sunburned!" while the Egyptians they've hired toil away in the scorching heat, bringing up sand from a giant hole, bucket-by-bucket. It may actually be a relatively accurate portrayal of what it was really like, but it certainly makes our heroes seem less than heroic.
But these are small qualms - most or all of which could just be related to the time of production. Of all of the Universal Monsters, I would have thought that the Mummy would have been the toughest one to make a good movie out of, given the nature of the beast (and the fact that I haven't ever seen another good mummy flick). But this one is damn good.
I would heartily recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment