Best Pictures #26: 1929-30 (3rd) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee, The Divorcee (1930)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #26: 1929-30 (3^rd) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee

The Divorcee (1930)

The Divorcee’s nomination for Outstanding Production shows that the Academy’s interest in controversial but popular films existed since its early years. This film is based novel The Ex-Wife by Ursula Parrott, which was also popular and controversial when it was released. The controversy of the novel and film stems from its subject matter: marital infidelity and divorce. MGM was hesitant to be associated with the racy novel, so the title of the film adaptation was changed to The Divorcee, a classier way to say “ex-wife” I suppose. This would not be a racy or controversial film today, but it remains quite entertaining. The Divorcee has interesting characters, good performances, and a good sense of humor and drama. The Divorcee was released on DVD in the TCM Archives Forbidden Hollywood Collection Volume 2, but this set has since gone out of print making tracking down a copy slightly difficult and expensive (it currently sells on Amazon.com for $130). However, it airs occasionally on TCM, and I very much recommend watching it should it be on the schedule.  

MGM may have acted like they did not want to court controversy, but is seems as though they didn’t put great effort into making The Divorcee any less controversial. The Divorcee may be tame and even conservative by 21^st century standards, but modern viewers should keep in mind that this was a time when the subject of divorce, let alone female sexuality, made for impolite and improper conversation. This movie pushed boundaries, addressed the double standards of male vs. female infidelity, and, most of all, it had a good, well-developed, strong, and interesting female character as the lead.

I had been looking forward to watching The Divorcee since I haven’t seen many Pre-Code movies. Pre-Code Hollywood refers to the brief time period after the advent of sound films until the strict enforcement of the Hays Code in 1934. At this time films were not protected under the First Amendment because of a Supreme Court ruling in 1915, which declared films were purely commercial and not art. That unfortunate and idiotic decision would be overturned in 1952. The Hays, or Production Code, was actually created in 1930, but it was not enforced until the summer of 1934 when every film was required to have a Production Code seal of approval before it could be released. The Production Code severely regulated and limited a film’s content and subject matter. Before then movies were free to contain violence, risqué subject matter (like infidelity and divorce), and, most notable of all, highly suggestive innuendo.

The coveted title role of The Divorcee went to Norma Shearer, but it did not come easy to her even though she was married to MGM production chief Irving Thalberg. He originally wanted to cast Joan Crawford. At that time, Shearer was known for playing “lady-like” characters, so Thalberg thought she lacked the sensuality the role would require. To prove her husband wrong, Shearer had a series of photos taken of her posing provocatively in a revealing dress. Her plan worked. Thalberg cast her and she won Best Actress at the next Oscars. Shearer’s nomination, however, was for The Divorcee and her performance in another film, Their Own Desire (1929). When she was announced as the winner, only The Divorcee was specified and the reason for this remains unknown even to Academy historians.

The film begins with a group of friends having a getaway party at a country house. Jerry (Norma Shearer) announces her engagement to Ted, played by Chester Morris, much to the poorly hidden disappointment of her other suitors, Paul (Conrad Nagel) and Don (Robert Montgomery). Paul gets very drunk but still drives a car full of people, including Jerry’s sister, Dorothy, down a winding road. The car crashes and Dorothy is disfigured. As Jerry marries Ted in a pretty ceremony in a church, Paul marries Dorothy out of pity in a hospital room. After three happy years, Jerry discovers that Ted has been unfaithful and responds by having an affair of her own, with Don. Jerry and Ted divorce, and then Jerry decides to live it up.

I was worried that The Divorcee would be tonally uneven with the first half being light and romantic and the second half being mostly dramatic, such as with The Crowd (1928) and The Love Parade (1929). Like those films, it does begin as a light romance, then becomes a drama but never becomes too heavy to be entertaining. Though the second half of the film is where all of the drama and tension lies, it is not devoid of comedy. The Divorcee has a good sense of humor and delivers laughs at a steady, consistent pace. In a scene late in the movie, Don runs into Ted in New York. Ted is a mess from the divorce. The scene grows tense as Ted describes to Don what he’d do if he ever found the man with whom Jerry had her affair. It’s an awkwardly funny and tense scene that is capped with a good visual punchline from Montgomery.

The tagline for The Divorcee asked the scandalous question: If the world permits the husband to philander, why not the wife? When Jerry and Ted become engaged they agree that their marriage will be a partnership and they would be equals. The film takes subtle steps to suggest that Jerry is the equal of her male counterparts. In the novel, the main character’s name is Patricia, but— according to the DVD commentary by film historians Jeffrey Vance and Tony Maietta— was changed to Jerry for the film to represent gender equality. Vance and Maietta cite other elements like Jerry wearing masculine clothing (trousers) in the opening scene and her turning down Don with a polite handshake as aspects showing that Jerry would treat people and situations the way a man would, not the way society dictated a woman of the time would. I concur with their assertions. When Jerry confesses her infidelity to Ted, which she feels very guilty about, she begs him to remember what he told her about his own affair: it didn’t mean anything. As Jerry confronts Ted with this role reversal, the movie confronts the audience with the double standard towards female infidelity. Ted does not take it well. Jerry’s indiscretion is done in part as an act of revenge, but also an act of equality.

I can see why Shearer want to play the part of Jerry; it’s an interesting, well-developed, and challenging role for any actress to play. The great thing about Jerry is that even while “living it up” she is never indecent or immoral. The film’s climax is a test for her character: she runs into Paul who tells her that he still is and always has been in love with her and is ready to leave his wife, her sister, for her.

The Divorcee has everything I’d hoped to see in a scandalous Pre-Code movie. The parties the characters attend throughout the movie are big, glamourous, and ornate with balloons and streamers, and lots of alcohol, even though the movie was made during Prohibition. The parties are what you think of when you imagine parties of that era. It is interesting to see how films of the Pre-Code era managed to be risqué without being crude or crass. The Divorcee, like all Pre-Code films, implies more than it shows which ends up making certain scenes more provocative and effective. The movie shows us Jerry sitting close to Don in a taxi with a devious look on her face. The next thing we see is a shot of a window and curtains closing.

The Divorcee has a fair share of visually interesting moments beginning with a shot of everyone at the country house standing in the doorway watching Jerry and Ted. The scene of a drunken Paul driving a speeding car down a winding road is already tense enough, but the POV shots of the road speeding toward the screen intensifies the danger and suspense. Perhaps the most memorable sequence is a brief montage of Jerry meeting men after her divorce. She is dressed glamorously and her hair is done up gorgeously. The film shows us each man’s hand holding her hand. She accepts jewelry from one of the gentlemen saying, “I’ve heard of platonic love but I didn’t know there was such a as thing as platonic jewelry.” The movie leaves it up to the audience to decide what happens before or after each shot.

I found The Divorcee quite entertaining as both an attempt at social commentary and as a romance film. By addressing the real and stressful moments that often do rear their ugly head on a happy couple, The Divorcee becomes a film of substance and emotion. While its ultimate conclusion seems old fashioned or “traditional” by today’s standards, it also ends with a happy couple, which fits the tone of the movie. It’s clear to any modern viewer that the film treats divorce as something that is detrimental to everyone and seems more forgiving of male infidelity, however, The Divorce as a whole should not be disregarded because of these dated aspects. I hope that modern viewers won’t dismiss it as a quaint but unsuccessful attempt at a feminist movie. It is a glimpse at what a particular era thought of marriage, infidelity, and sexuality. It is also enjoyable to see a strong female character as the lead in a film from the 1930’s—something that remains unfortunately infrequent in films of today.

Nominee: MGM

Producer: Robert Z. Leonard

Director: Robert Z. Leonard

Screenplay: continuity and dialogue by John Meehan, Treatment by Zelda Sears and Nick Grinde, based on the novel Ex-Wife by Ursula Parrott

Cast: Norma Shearer, Robert Montgomery, Chester Morris, Conrad Nagel

Release Date: April 30^th, 1930

Total Nominations: 4, including Outstanding Production

Win: Actress-Norma Shearer

Other Nominations: Director-Robert Z. Leonard, Writing-John Meehan

Best Pictures #25: 1929-30 (3rd) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee, Disraeli (1929)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #25: 1929-30 (3rd) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee

Disraeli (1929)

Disraeli is not the first biopic to earn a Best Picture nomination, that distinction goes to The Patriot, nominated at the 2^nd Academy Awards, but since that film is tragically lost, Disraeli is the first biopic I’ve seen for this project. It will be the first of many. Disraeli, also one of a great many Best Picture nominees adapted from a stage play, stars George Arliss as the title character. Arliss won Best Actor for his performance, becoming the first actor to win an Oscar for a role created on the stage (and in a previous silent film adaptation) by the same actor.

Disraeli focuses primarily on the flamboyant 19^th century British Prime Minister’s attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal for his queen and country. George Arliss does a very fine job at bringing to life the lively, flamboyant, and clever Victorian historical figure. With his peculiar hairstyle, ringed fingers, and vibrant speeches, Arliss’s Disraeli is one Victorian era politician I know would not be dull company. The film begins with scenes of people in different parts of London talking up Disraeli’s political rival, William Gladstone. They fear and despise Disraeli, and also build an interest in him. In addition to rivals within the British government, he also has to contend with Russian spies that want control of the Suez for their own empire. The Prime Minister proves to be more cunning than his opponents believed of him, working on negotiations to purchase shares of the canal in secret while Parliament is out of session.

Disraeli reveals his political and practical wisdom through monologues that, while lengthy, are not preachy and are excellently delivered by Arliss. His monologue to convince his protégé, Charles of the necessity of British control of the canal is similar to one of Plato’s dialogues. Through a lengthy back and forth Disraeli allows his listener to reach the conclusion he wants through what the other person thinks is their own conclusion. This is most effective in the heated speech Disraeli delivers to secure final financing for the purchase of the canal shares. In addition to those particular scenes, Arliss has several good speeches delivered with solid, thunderous authority. I’m sure some scenes playout as they did on stage, but they still work on the screen because of the performances from the fine cast.

Any casual student of film has at some point read or heard about the low ceilings in Citizen Kane. It was the first film to significantly show ceilings and if you wonder why that is a big deal I would show you the unusually tall walls of several rooms in Disraeli. Since these rooms are sets built on sound stages, the high walls hide the rest of the soundstage comfortably. It is slightly distracting since you know the building they are in has a second floor.

The sound quality of the film is so good that you don’t notice it, aside from a couple of times when it cuts out for less than a second, but that is likely just an issue with the VHS tape I was watching—to date, Disraeli has yet to be released on DVD and is somewhat difficult to track down. The sound quality of the outdoor scenes is vastly improved from the first outdoor talkie, In Old Arizona—made only a year prior.

Disraeli is not all politics and foreign relations, however. There are many light and humorous moments throughout, thanks mostly to the personality of the Prime Minister. A perhaps unintentional humorous moment comes when a female Russian sympathizer eavesdrops on Disraeli’s conversation with Charles about the canal by hiding behind a bush, but her very ornate and very visible hat pokes out from behind the bush.

Disraeli’s purchase of the Suez Canal might be a footnote today, but it is a footnote that changed the course of world history. I doubt that the details of the true story of Disraeli securing the Suez Canal line up with the scenes in this film, but movies have never been good sources of history, even during the classic era. No matter how accurate or inaccurate to real events, Disraeli is a well-made, entertaining dramatization of one of Britain’s most famous Prime Ministers and his major accomplishment.

Nominee: Warner Bros.

Producer: Jack L. Warner

Director: Alfred E. Green

Screenplay: Julien Josephson, from the play by Louis N. Parker

Cast: George Arliss, Doris Lloyd, David Torrence

Release Date: November 1^st, 1929

Total Nominations: 3, including Outstanding Production

Win(s): Actor-George Arliss

Other Nominations: Writing-Julien Josephson

Best Pictures #24: 1929-30 (3rd) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee, The Love Parade (1929)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #24: 1929-30 (3^rd) Academy Awards Outstanding Production Nominee

The Love Parade(1929)

Director Ernst Lubitsch’s final silent film, The Patriot (a Best Picture nominee the previous year), is a lost film unfortunately, but, thankfully, his first talkie and musical has been preserved and is available on home video as part of the Eclipse series released by the Criterion Collection. It also airs occasionally on TCM. The Love Parade received the most nominations of any film at the 3^rd Academy Awards with a total of six, including nominations for Maurice Chevalier and Ernst Lubitsch, but it did not win in any category. This film is allegedly the first movie musical to incorporate songs and performances into the narrative, as opposed to a backstage musical, such as The Broadway Melody, in which the characters are singers and dancers.

Lubitsch, who had directed many silent films, takes to talking pictures quite well right out of the gate. There is nothing clunky or awkward with the composition and staging of shots or overall style that suggests someone working through a learning curve. Of course The Love Parade has several strong elements working together in addition to Lubitsch’s skill behind the camera. Based on the play The Prince Consort, the script is loaded with lively dialogue, a sharp sense of humor that does not shy away from innuendo, and likeable characters. Maurice Chevalier plays Count Alfred, who is recalled from Paris to his homeland of Slyvania after (several) scandals involving married women.

Lubitsh transitions from silent filmmaking to working with sound and dialogue smoothly. He does not over indulge in dialogue and music and still uses silent visuals to great effect. When a servant in the Queen’s palace asks why Alfred has a French accent, Alfred says that he went to see a doctor about a cold but was greeted by the doctor’s wife. The movie cuts to an exterior shot of the palace and through a window we see Alfred whisper the rest of the story to the servant. When the movie cuts back inside Alfred says that the cold was gone, but he had that terrible accent. I had never seen a movie starring Maurice Chevalier before and he is as charming and lively and French as I’d imagined.

Jeanette MacDonald, in her screen debut, plays Queen Louise who in addition to having the responsibilities of a governing queen is also under pressure from her ministers and advisors to marry. The trouble with finding her a suitor is that he would be only Price Consort and have no power or responsibility in governing. She meets Count Alfred to reprimand him for his scandals, but they both quickly charm each other and flirt through song.

Aside from a dolly shot or two, I must confess that I was so caught up with the characters and story that I hardly noticed the camerawork, or lack thereof. Lubitsch fills the screen with entertainment, so even static shots are hardly dull. The songs are pleasing and catchy. The palace sets and costumes are opulent and impressive. There are memorable scenes both with and without music. From his balcony at the beginning of the film, Chevalier sings his goodbye to Paris and the women on nearby balconies. His valet, Jacques, played by Lupino Lane, joins in and sings goodbye to Parisian maids. Then Chevalier’s dog sings, by barking, to the female dogs of Paris. We see none of Alfred and Louise’s first date. Instead we see the Queen’s advisors, her ladies in waiting, and Jacques and the Queen’s maid spying on the date and reporting to each other like a game of telephone. The Queen’s maid, Lulu, played by Lillian Roth, and Jacques have some good songs together too.

The Love Parade is almost overwhelmingly enjoyable, up to a point. There are two distinct halves to this movie. The first half is very funny, jaunty, and romantic. The second half, after Alfred and Louise are married, deals with their marital problems. There is still humor and entertainment value in this half of the film but at a diminished level. Queen Louise and Alfred seem to misunderstand and mistreat each other immediately after they are married and solely for the sake of dramatic conflict. Their main conflict is that Alfred does not have the traditional role of a man in their marriage or in the monarchy. Queen Louise runs the country and palace. Traditional gender roles in marriage and government being the central conflict of a musical from 1929 is interesting, however, as you might imagine, these issues are addressed but not challenged. The two tonally different halves of The Love Parade make for an uneven but overall enjoyable musical. There is still a lot to enjoyed in The Love Parade and it is a good step forward for the nascent musical genre.

Nominee: Paramount Famous Lasky

Producer: Ernst Lubitsch

Director: Ernst Lubitsch

Screenplay: Ernest Vadja and Guy Bolton, from the play The Prince Consort by Leon Xanrof and Jules Chancel

Cast: Maurice Chevalier, Jeanette MacDonald, Lillian Roth

Release Date: November 19^th, 1929

Total Nominations: 6, including Outstanding Production

Win(s): N/A

Other Nominations: Actor-Maurice Chevalier, Director-Ernst Lubitsch, Cinematography-Victor Milner, Art Direction-Hans Dreier, Sound Recording-Franklin Hansen

13 Nights of Shocktober: Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

by A.J.

Happy Halloween! The countdown is over and Halloween is finally upon us. Tonight, hopefully, you'll be relaxing, eating some candy, and watching a scary, or not-so-scary, movie. There are a lot of options for tonight and I hope I've been of some help. Here is my final recommendation to help bring an end to Shocktober:

Night 13: Happy Happy Halloween!

“He’s a Stanislavsky lunatic! That’s what’s wrong with him!”

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

The idea behind Shadow of a Vampire is a novel and clever one: director F.W. Murnau found a real vampire to star in his 1922 silent horror masterpiece, Nosferatu. As you can imagine, this would cause problems with the shoot. Shadow of the Vampire is not just a horror movie, or a vampire movie, it is about the creation of one of the most important and scariest horror films ever made. Nosferatu is still a chilling and unsettling film to watch. Shadow of the Vampire exists in the shadow of Nosferatu, but it is no less a creative, creepy, and spooky film.

John Malkovich plays German director F.W. Murnau, an auteur if there ever was one. Only a real vampire can satisfy his need for authenticity and desire to make a film that transcends entertainment and becomes immortal art. He is addressed by his crew as “herr doctor” and poetically pontificates about cinema and art. On the train ride to the shooting location in Czechoslovakia he says, “we are scientists engaged in the creation of memory, but our memory will neither blur nor fade.”

When the production leaves the safety and control of the studio in Berlin they finally meet the mysterious character actor Max Schreck who is to play the vampire. Schreck’s methods are “unconventional” and his background is hard to pin down. Murnau claims that Schreck studied with Stanislavsky, the Russian who pioneered acting techniques that would become known in modern times as “the method.” Schreck will only appear in full makeup, will remain in character for the entire shoot, and will only shoot his scenes at night.

Willem Dafoe plays the vampire in question, who Murnau introduces to the cast and crew as Max Schreck. The real Max Schreck gave one of the most chilling and iconic performances in horror film history. If you’ve never Nosferatu, you’d likely still recognize the pale vampire or his stiff silhouette and strangely long knifelike fingers. At all times he seems otherworldly and monstrous. Schreck so disappears into the character of Count Orlok that is not difficult to accept the idea that he might have been a real vampire.

Portraying Schreck’s vampire in a movie about the making of Nosferatu is a tall order, but Dafoe is more than up to task. For his superb performance Dafoe received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Dafoe, still slightly recognizable under all that vampire makeup, also disappears into his role as the vampire. He plays Schreck with a dark sense of humor. This vampire seems to be aware of the absurdity of being a vampire pretending to be an actor pretending to be vampire. However humorous Dafoe undeniably is as Schreck, he is also menacing and chilling. In one scene he answers the questions of two drunk crew members about being a vampire. They think he is being "in character," but his answers are simultaneously unnerving and melancholy. Schreck’s payment for participating in the shoot is the lead actress, Gretta (Catherine McCormack).

Crew members fall mysteriously ill and the rest of the cast and crew are uneasy around Schreck. As the vampire feeds off the crew he jeopardizes the production which infuriates Murnau. Malkovich plays Murnau as an artist obsessed. He is willing to achieve his vision at all costs. His interactions with Dafoe as Schreck result in some darkly comedic scenes. Murnau condescends to Schreck and Schreck is mischievous and petulant. Shadow of the Vampire is a movie about making movies, a favorite genre of mine, and there is some good showbiz humor. Murnau yells at Schreck for feeding on the cinematographer, “why not the script girl?” Later in the movie Schreck suggests that the writer is no longer necessary. In one scene, Eddie Izzard, playing one of the actors in the film within a film, accidentally cuts his finger for real in a scene with Schreck only to be attacked by the crazed character actor. Izzard’s character shouts, “He’s a Stanislavsky lunatic! That’s what’s wrong with him!”

Several memorable scenes and images from Nosferatu are recreated in Shadow of the Vampire. The film does not draw unnecessary attention to these scenes and they match same spooky tone and atmosphere of the rest of the movie. Dafoe’s vampire in the recreated scenes is equally as striking and frightening as the real Schreck’s vampire. The supporting cast is outstanding and includes: Eddie Izzard, Cary Elwes, Catherine McCormack, and Udo Keir.

This film does an excellent job creating an eerie, portentous atmosphere transporting you to another time and place that feels paradoxically ethereal and all too real. There is very little blood and gore. Instead of a few horrific set pieces, Shadow of the Vampire opts for a sustained ominous mood punctuated by the presence of a monster. Directed by E. Elias Merhige and written by Steven Katz, Shadow of the Vampire is an homage to a landmark horror film and also an effective horror film in its own right.

13 Nights of Shocktober: Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 12: Werewolf Party Night/Hammer Horror Night 

I’m not sure that’s how you make a werewolf…

Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

I’m glad to have come across Hammer Films’ werewolf movie entry to their series of loose remakes of the Universal Monsters films from the 1930's and 40's. Hammer Films is the British film studio that is most famous for their atmospheric and often campy horror movies made from the 1950’s through the 70’s. The most famous of these films are the Dracula and Frankenstein movies and their many sequels, usually starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. The best of these films were directed by Terence Fisher, who directs Curse of the Werewolf. Cushing and Lee are absent from this film, however, Curse of the Werewolf still ranks in the top tier of Hammer horror.

Curse of the Werewolf is based on the novel The Werewolf of Paris by Guy Endore, so naturally the film is set in Spain. Perhaps the most memorable thing about this movie is its unconventional and convoluted method of creating a werewolf. The film begins with a beggar wandering into a Spanish village and happening upon the wedding banquette of a cruel and evil Marques. The Marques pays the beggar to act like a pet and humiliates the beggar before having him thrown in a dungeon where he is quickly forgotten. The beggar becomes more and more beastlike the longer he is imprisoned and attacks and rapes the jailer’s daughter. Then, she attacks and kills the now decrepitly old Marques. She runs away to the forest and is found by Aldredo (Clifford Evans) who takes her into his home where she gives birth to a son on Christmas Day. Alfredo’s maid believes it is an insult for an unwanted child to be born on the same day as the Lord. Alfredo raises the child, Leon, as if he were his own, but when Leon is a young boy the village is plague by wolf attacks at night. Yong Leon has terrible nightmares, thinks that blood tastes sweet, and has fur growing on his hands and arms.

A priest tells Alfredo about evil spirits that leap into bodies and battle with the soul for control of the body. Leon has a werewolf in him and “only love” can cure the inner wolf. Alfredo and his maid raise Leon well, giving him much love and keeping the inner wolf at bay. More time passes and Leon, now a young man (Oliver Reed), leaves home to make his own way in the world. He falls in love with Christina Fernando, the daughter of a wealthy vineyard owner, who is already engaged to someone else. She falls in love with Leon but knows her father would never allow their marriage. Then vicious wolf attacks begin on the nights of the full moon.

Curse of the Werewolf isn’t actually a remake of the Universal Studios’ film The Wolf Man (1941), but the design of the werewolf is, like all Hammer monster designs, close to the look of the Universal monsters, but distinct enough to be fresh and memorable. This werewolf is a classic wolf-man monster, not just a man that turns into a wolf. Those familiar with The Monster Squad will see a strong similarity between that film’s wolf-man and the wolf-man in Curse of the Werewolf. There aren’t many werewolf scenes, this is a low budget movie after all, but the costumes, sets, performances, and score make up for that and keep the film moody and atmospheric.

All of the elements of a top notch Hammer horror film are in Curse of the Werewolf. This film is set some time in the past but no specific date is given. If I had to guess I would say it is set sometime in the 19^th century, but a specific time period isn’t necessary. This is a folktale fantasy like a campfire story that lets you fill in the details. The sets manage to look fake and convincing at the same time and only add to the atmosphere of the movie. The costumes look great with vibrant, bold colors that are synonymous with Hammer horror. Blood in this movie is a bright almost orange-red color. The cast is as tan as British people can be made to look without being offensive. All of this adds up to a movie that is a lot of fun. The climax goes on just a bit too long without anything really happening but that is a small hiccup in an otherwise well-paced, entertaining film. 

It’s hard to go wrong with Hammer for entertaining atmospheric horror. Curse of the Werewolf is a great not-so-scary horror movie for people that want a Shocktober movie that isn’t excessively violent, or gory, or disturbing.

13 Nights of Shocktober: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 11: Vincent Price Night
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon...words fail me, gentlemen."

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

I couldn’t let Shocktober go by without at least one Vincent Price movie on the list, and The Abominable Dr. Phibes is one of his absolute best. Price plays the titular Dr. Phibes, who is exacting revenge on the doctors he holds responsible for the death of his wife. He goes about this by murdering them in ways inspired by the 10 plagues of Egypt, making him quite abominable indeed. Each murder is a more and more elaborate and macabre tableau as the methods of murder become more and more outlandish. The Abominable Dr. Phibes is an undeniably campy film, but it is also excellent entertainment for anyone, even someone skittish of horror movies, looking for spooky fun viewing on Halloween night.

Vincent Price’s performance as Dr. Phibes is silent, mostly. Phibes was presumed dead in a car accident but actually survived and was horribly disfigured. He speaks by connecting cable from a gramophone to his neck. We never see his mouth move and he speaks through this device in only a few scenes so Price uses body language and facial expressions to bring this villainous antihero to life. He speaks through the gramophone to a photo of his deceased beloved wife, Virginia, professing his love and reasserting his vow of revenge. A large reason this movie works is because of Vincent Price’s serious performance. He is believable as Phibes because he has fun playing the character but never winks at the audience. This can also be said of the tone of the movie. Though it has a dark, off beat, British sense of humor, it is still more horror than horror comedy. The death scenes are needlessly over the top but the movie makes sure they are still gruesome. The horror in this movie is appropriately horrific which makes the scenes of humor really pop. While Phibes goes about filling a doctor’s bedchamber with bats, Price is dead serious and sincere about what he is doing. His performance makes Phibes’s revenge a loving tribute to his lost love.

There is of course no denying the odd and comical nature of a man being impaled by the head of a brass unicorn statue while under police protection. But the police take it seriously and Phibes takes it seriously which lets the audience have all the fun. Scenes of outright comedy and jokes are left to Scotland Yard as they work on solving the mysterious murders. This is where the British sense of humor really shines through. In one scene a detective regains consciousness after being knocked out and takes a drink before calling for help. The reaction of the detectives to the murders always seems to be understated. “A damn strange business,” one says after discovering the first murder. Their reactions always seem subdued compared to the deaths, or, in other words, they are appropriately British.

Joseph Cotton, one of my favorite actors of the classic movie era, plays Dr. Vesalius, the chief surgeon of the team that failed to save Virginia Phibes. He is the ultimate target for Phibes’s final act of macabre revenge. Cotton gives the movie another serious, unwinking performance. His character gives the movie urgency and is a good counterbalance to Phibes.

Phibes has a mysterious and beautiful assistant named Vulnavia, played by Virginia North, who never speaks. She wears lovely flowing dresses and in one scene she plays the violin while Phibes drains the blood of one of his victims. In another scene at Phibes’s secret lair she sweeps while Phibes’s band of automatons, The Clockwork Wizards, play a slow mellow song like it is closing time at a night club. Yes, Phibes has a band of musical automatons in his lair.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes was directed by Robert Fuest, who began his career as a production designer. This would explain the artistry of the murder scenes and the quality and attention paid to the stylish sets and costumes. This movie is a period piece thought the year is never explicitly stated. From the cars I would guess the time period is the 1910’s or 20’s, so the look of this film is a mixture of the swinging London of the 1970’s and Edwardian England.

Is there a more elaborate way to kill someone than by decapitating a brass unicorn statue and catapulting it across a London street impaling the man? Yes, there is, and Dr. Phibes has thought of it and planned it out carefully. From describing this movie, you might think that The Abominable Dr. Phibes falls into the “so-bad-it’s-good” category, but this film is intentionally and genuinely entertaining. It seems to know it is an offbeat horror movie but never aims to be an outright comedy. The Abominable Dr. Phibes is self-aware enough to have fun with its content, characters, sets, and death scenes without drawing attention to itself. Directly or indirectly Dr. Phibes influenced the nascent slasher genre and Phibes himself and his ever increasingly elaborate murders are reminiscent of Jigsaw from the Saw film series. The special effects are practical as you might expect and with the exception of a fake bat or two hold up very well. The first time I saw this movie was on Halloween night one year ago and I can’t recommend it enough. This movie was one of Vincent Price’s favorites and it’s not hard to understand why.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes airs on TCM Sunday, October 30th at 5PM CT

13 Nights of Shocktober: Young Frankenstein (1974)

by A.J.

This is my favorite time of year, second only to Christmas. Autumn has arrived, the weather is cooling down, and October becomes the month long celebration of scary movies called Shocktober. There are a lot of horror movies out there, but as a genre, horror is still looked down upon by some mainstream critics and moviegoers. It doesn’t help that, admittedly, there are so few quality horror movies made but, like comedy, it’s a very difficult and subjective genre. So, in the days leading up Halloween I’ll be posting some recommendations for scary movies to help you celebrate Shocktober.

Night 10: Horror Comedy Night/Gene Wilder Memorial Night
Puttin' on the Ritz!

Young Frankenstein (1974)

Like many people my age I first saw Young Frankenstein as a kid when it aired on TV for Halloween. After several reassurances from my mother that it wasn’t scary I watched hesitantly. It didn’t look or feel like any comedy I had seen up to that point in my life. It still doesn’t look or feel like any comedies I’ve seen. The other day, while working at the video store, I put this movie on in the background. Even without actually seeing it, just hearing it, the jokes still made me laugh and smile. Customers paused and watched for long stretches, their faces filled with delight. I heard “this is my favorite part” from different customers at different parts of the movie. I’ve worked at the video store for four years now and I can say that this rarely happens. No, this film isn’t like other comedies. It is something quite special indeed.

Gene Wilder plays the titular young Frankenstein, Frederick, who is trying to escape the shadow of his grandfather Victor’s abominable experiments. He insists his name is pronounced “Fronkensteen,” giving us one of the most memorable quotes of the film. Frederick travels to his grandfather’s homeland after inheriting the family castle in Transylvania. The castle comes complete with eccentric characters: Marty Feldman as Igor (pronounce eye-gore, giving us the second most memorable quote of the film) the hunchback servant, Inga (Teri Garr) the lovely lab assistant, and Frau Blucher (Cloris Leechman) the mysterious woman lurking in the castle playing eerie violin music. Fredrick discovers Victor Frankenstein’s laboratory and is coaxed into continuing his grandfather’s work and creates the Monster, but due to a mix up the monster has a brain that is “abby-normal.”

Young Frankenstein works both as a parody and homage to the Universal Studios monster movies of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Some of the sets are in fact the same sets used in the Frankenstein movies of that era. Young Frankenstein is beautifully shot in black and white by Gerald Hirschfeld to give it the same look as those classic movies. The cinematography and sets give Young Frankenstein a timeless feel. This film doesn’t look or feel like a 70’s movie, though it is from 1974. Hairstyles do not date this movie and neither does the film score, which is orchestral. The style of comedy also does not date the movie. Unlike modern parody films, in which making a reference to the original film is the punchline (and not a funny one), Young Frankenstein makes subtle references to past Frankenstein films but the jokes come from the characters. This is a film that has great affection for the films that inspired it and instead of cynically riffing those films, it uses them as inspiration.

There are great performances all around. Cloris Leechman as Frau Blucher is frighteningly funny and plays her character with an intensity that matches Wilder’s outbursts. Her very name causes horses to rear up and she leads a tour of the castle with an unlit candelabra. Marty Feldman finds a way to stand out as the comic relief in a film filled with funny characters. He provides a classic “walk this way” gag and countless others. Everything he says is a punchline and every joke lands in every scene.

Madeline Kahn as Frederick’s fiancé is a strong personality though perhaps Frederick is not the right match for her. Teri Garr as Inga is more than just the pretty assistant; she makes Inga a lively and competent character, and is perhaps a better match for Frederick. As the Monster, Peter Boyle is hilarious and sympathetic. He is silent, aside from screams and grunts, for most of the movie but he makes it clear that there a lot going on inside the mind of the Monster. Boyle’s Monster is of course an homage to Boris Karloff’s portrayal in the Universal Studios series of films, but is also distinct and memorable. When Boyle finally does speak at the end of the film, his speech to the villagers is beautifully delivered and encapsulates the heart of this movie.

From start to finish Young Frankenstein is an excellent showcase for Gene Wilder’s superb comic sensibilities. He can be broad and intense (is there anything funnier than Wilder shouting?), but he is also great at subtle, nonverbal comedy. He’ll let the audience catch an errant longing side eye gaze, which, in addition to being a quick, funny moment, builds character in an instant without any dialogue. That’s good acting and being a good comedian. While Wilder is infinitely memorable for his explosive outbursts of rage, he also brings a sweet tenderness to Frederick as well. Believably moving between these two extremes is a very difficult thing to do for any actor, but Wilder seems to accomplish it with a natural ease.

Young Frankenstein is paced differently from modern comedies. Despite all of the hilarious shouting, it feels like a quiet and intimate film. Mel Brooks, who co-wrote the screenplay with Wilder, does not let his direction does not call attention to itself. Like in the horror films of the 1930’s there are special transitions like wipes and fades, but rather than being an elbow poking you in the side (did you notice? Did you notice??) these techniques help evoke the feel of a movie from 30’s.

There are too many memorable comedic set pieces and hilarious jokes to list. There’s plenty of physical comedy but most of the humor is verbal (Werewolf? — There wolf. There castle). All of the comedy, physical and verbal comes from the characters being themselves. This might be why jokes and gags are still funny even if you know they are going to happen. This is a very organic comedy. Nothing feels out of place or contrived. No gag or set piece lasts longer than it should.

One of the most memorable scenes has the Monster meeting a blind man played by Gene Hackman. The blind man pours hot soup on the Monster’s lap, breaks his cup of wine, and sets the Monster’s thumb on fire. You can see all of the gags coming a mile away but they are delivered perfectly and work every time. Another favorite scene is, of course, Frederick and the Monster performing Puttin' on the Ritz. Though it is quite brief, I think my favorite scene is when Wilder and Teri Garr discover the spinning bookcase (Put the kendle beck!). I’ve seen Young Frankenstein twice in the last month and it is funny every time. I’ll likely see it again this Shocktober (it airs on TCM on Sunday, October 30^th, at 7PM Central Time). You should too.