The Year in Movies: 1931 - Mystery and Horror

Dracula (1931)



It's tough not to compare Tod Browning's Dracula to Murnau's Nosferatu from nine years earlier. The ability to add sound to movies was a great reason to do a new version of Stoker's story (with all the proper rights, too, instead of sneakily changing the characters' names) and Browning was a good choice to direct it. His style is very different from Murnau's, but it's distinct and creepy and brings some beautiful atmosphere to Dracula.

But Murnau's version is actually scary and Browning's never is. Murnau's Count Orlok is a true monster, from his very appearance to his strange powers that Murnau so cleverly gives him through special effects. Browning's version - truer to Stoker's novel - is meant to be creepily charming. You don't realize he's a threat until it's too late. Which is cool, but Browning uses so little effects that even when Dracula is supposed to be frightening, it's mostly suggested by the way other characters are reacting to him.

That can be very effective sometimes, especially in the case of Dwight Frye's Renfield, who's easily the most chilling character of the film. Edward Van Sloan also adds to Dracula's menace as Van Helsing. The Van Helsing character is a giant weakness of Nosferatu, but I always have a lot of fun watching him work in Dracula, trying to first figure out who the vampire is (initially suspecting Renfield), then playing a game of wills against Bela Lugosi's monster.

I wish that Helen Chandler was a better Mina, though. Mina is the heart of any version of Dracula and it's important to get her right. Nosferatu gives her a tragically heroic role (renamed Ellen and played with full commitment by Greta Schröder). In Browning's movie, Mina is simply the MacGuffin; the object that the characters are all fighting over. She's not written very well, but she's played even worse by Chandler who never eases into the character and always reminds me that she's an actress playing a role. (Lupita Tovar is much better in the Spanish version that was shot simultaneously with Browning's using the same script and sets, but with a different director and cast. That's a different review, though.)

The movie is also dreadfully slow, but in spite of that and my misgivings about Chandler, I always enjoy revisiting Browning's Dracula for its mood and its cultural impact and especially for Lugosi, Frye, and Van Sloan. I should give a quick shout out to David Manners' John Harker, who's mostly nondescript, but has one great moment when he throws down his newspaper in disgust and leaves the room because of Van Helsing's crackpot ideas about shape-changing, immortal blood-suckers. Manners is visually pretty nondescript, but he's grown on me as an actor and I always seem to find something to enjoy in his performances.

The Sleeping Cardinal (aka Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour) (1931)



Unlike the silent Sherlock Holmes from 1922, this is a pretty good representation of Holmes and Watson. Holmes is smart and knows it, but his arrogance is gentler than in a lot of adaptations. Watson is always a step behind, but he's familiar with Holmes' methods and no fool. I liked these guys a lot.

I also enjoyed how much focus the movie gives to some of the supporting characters before bringing in the detectives. That helped pull me into the mystery.

M (1931)



Sort of Ocean's Eleven meets Silence of the Lambs with a gang of crooks teaming up to capture a serial killer/pedophile. Peter Lorre is super creepy and appropriately baby-faced as the murderer, but my favorite part is the cat and mouse game when the criminals have him holed up in an office building and he's working to get away from them. That section holds up next to any modern thriller.

And the film wraps up with a fascinating meditation on justice that had my son and I arguing about what the right thing to do would be. Nicely done.

The Maltese Falcon (1931)



It's been a long time since I've seen the original, so I can't compare the two versions, but I really enjoyed Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade. He's a sleazy, but charming ladies' man in a way that Bogart can't possibly pull off. As interesting as that is, though, I couldn't really root for him the way I can with Bogart. And I kept missing Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet.

It was sure great seeing Dwight Frye as a tough though. I love that guy.

The Black Camel (1931)



It's fun to see Warner Oland as Charlie Chan interacting with Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye from the same year as Dracula. And The Black Camel a pretty good mystery story. But this is early days in the Charlie Chan series and it moves slowly. There are much better as the series goes along.

Murder at Midnight (1931)



Fun, if unbelievable and convoluted mystery about a murder that takes place during a party in front of witnesses. Once you know the relationships between the victim and the other characters, the broad strokes of the plot are predictable, but there were also a couple of twists that I didn't see coming.

Daughter of the Dragon (1931)



Aside from the problems of non-Asian actors playing Asian characters, I always enjoy Warner Oland as Charlie Chan. That doesn't make him a good Fu Manchu though. He's not threatening enough, though Daughter of the Dragon's script gives him a pretty good scheme to implement.

As the title suggests, it involves his daughter, played by Anna May Wong. She's great in the role, but the character has super shaky motivations for taking over her father's vendetta against an English family. And not just that, but she also has extremely good, personal reasons not to pick up that mission. But even though her struggle isn't really earned, the movie does some interesting things with it and there are enough pulpy elements to keep the story entertaining.

The Phantom (1931)



I usually have a high tolerance for slow-moving movies of the early '30s, especially if there's an old, dark house involved, but I couldn't finish this one. Without an interesting actor to latch onto or any sort of plot development that I haven't seen done better in countless other mystery/horror films, it became too much of a chore to keep going. Dull and unremarkable.

Frankenstein (1931)



Seen it a million times, but I'm still surprised at how scary and creepy it is. Not much faithful to the plot of Mary Shelley's novel, but very faithful to its themes.

My only issue is the way it rushes through parts of its final act. Everyone learns about the monster and processes that information really quickly. On the other hand, I'm not sure I actually want a slowed down version.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)



The inventive camera work can be distracting, but the performances are so earnest and March's makeup is so effective that the movie is legitimately horrifying, even today. Miriam Hopkins is especially heart-breaking as Hyde's terrorized, primary victim. March's Hyde is easily the most monstrous of movie monsters from that era.

The Year in Movies: 1927

The King of Kings (1927)

After the heavy-handedness of Cecil B DeMille's original Ten Commandments, I was nervous about how he'd portray Jesus' story in King of Kings. And I was right to have some of those fears. HB Warner's Jesus tends to be over-serious and often sounds like he's quoting himself instead of having conversations. And I hated the way the film portrays Mary Magdalene's conversion as a miraculous act that's possibly even against her will. (It's really well done from a technical standpoint; I just hate the theological implications.)

But the movie does great things with Magdalene and by the end of the movie I had no doubt that at some point she'd made her own decision to follow Jesus. And there are some great, human moments for him, too, especially in his interactions with kids and the woman caught in adultery.

And of course DeMille knows how to create a spectacular set, so every scene in the movie looks like an elaborate Renaissance painting. It's a gorgeous film to watch.

Metropolis (1927)

If you asked me a month ago if I'd seen Metropolis, I would've told you, "Yes," but that's almost not true. I have a crappy, murky, horribly framed print of the heavily trimmed down version, so that's what I've seen a few times. Recently though, I watched the restored version with all the extra footage. It looks great and improves the story significantly. The edited version I'm used to retains the plot, but cuts out a lot of character stuff. This time, I cared more for the characters than I usually do.

But I still have many of my usual problems. I love the theme about the relationship between heart, head, and hands, but the movie is so eager to get that point across that it makes some dire mistakes. It's super didactic, for one thing, but that's not as bad as the way its characters act. People do the craziest things, not because it makes sense to the story, but because they have to in order to make the analogy work. Drives me crazy.

But I do like the characters and the world and the concepts and above all else the look of the film. It's visually astonishing and needs to be seen if for no other reason than that.

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

There have been many versions, but this is my favorite. No surprise, since it's Hitchcock, but for reasons that I can't go into without spoilers, I also love this story best. The others add their own plot twists, but end up diluting an an almost perfect story.

It (1927)

There's a contrived misunderstanding in order to drive a wedge between the romantic leads, but it's no worse than the plots of most modern romantic comedies. And few of those have leads as likable as Clara Bow and Antonio Moreno. Or goofy best friends as adorable as William Austin. It's easy to see why It is such a classic.

Tarzan and the Golden Lion (1927)

For some reason, Tarzan has a sister and a best friend who are in love with each other. Jane is in the movie, but she doesn't do anything. Sis gets all the plot (that's her in the poster above). Also, Boris Karloff plays an African warrior.

So the movie makes some weird choices, but James Pierce is a great Tarzan. He's not wearing a goofy wig, for one thing, nor does he occasionally stop to pound his chest like Elmo Lincoln and Frank Merrill would do. He's just a straightforward, clean-cut hero who happens to wear leopard skins. And he looks really cool hanging out with his pet lion. It's a minor Tarzan film, but a memorable one.

The Unknown (1927)

The plot is essentially an EC Comics horror story fleshed out to full length, but that's not a complaint. Once I figured out that's what it was, it let me predict the broad strokes of the outcome, but I love chilling tales of comeuppance for evil people, so I didn't enjoy it any less.

The bigger challenge was getting past Nanon's (Joan Crawford) goofy chirophobia. It's not goofy because it's irrational, but because it's so easily dropped when the plot needs it to be.

Still, the movie has a lot of style and the effects used to make Lon Chaney appear armless (like integrating the feet of an actual armless man to make it look like Chaney's manipulating objects with his toes) are seamless and amazing.

College (1927)

Buster Keaton's version of a sports movie. It's neither my favorite Keaton film nor my favorite sports movie, but I still cheered at the end and had a great time throughout.

 London After Midnight (1927)

I watched the reconstruction with stills and it made me mourn the loss of the real version. It's a very cool story that I'd rather not spoil and the sharp-toothed stranger has a fantastic, iconic look. It deserves a better remake than 1935's Mark of the Vampire (which is enjoyable on its own terms, but not a good version of London After Midnight).

The Year in Movies: 1925

Since most of my 7 Days in May posts have been around the massive silent movie kick I'm on lately, I'm weeding out the extra stuff and am just going to concentrate on sharing the silents. I think that makes a better post than a miscellaneous hodge podge of stuff. And since I've been working my way through the silents chronologically, it makes sense to re-title this The Year in Movies. Here are the movies from 1925 that I've recently checked out (or rewatched).

Seven Chances (1925)



This Buster Keaton feature starts off as a romantic comedy in which Keaton's character needs to get married by a certain time in order to inherit seven million dollars. The jokes in that part are all about his proposing to various women at his country club and getting turned down, hilariously.

Then one of his buddies hits on the idea of putting out an ad that attracts probably about a hundred women. At that point, it becomes a chase movie as they run Keaton through the streets and across the countryside. And it's a brilliant, funny chase, too (way better than the one in Cops), especially when the rock slide starts.

There are some racist gags that I wish weren't in there, but generally it's one of Keaton's stronger movies.

Don Q: Son of Zorro (1925)



Put it on the list of sequels that are better than the original. Fairbanks' Mark of Zorro is amazing and fun, but Don Q goes to another level with a more intricate plot, a great group of characters, and even better actors to play them. I cared a lot about the people in this story, despairing and cheering right alongside them.

I'm glad I don't have to choose between Douglas Fairbanks and Buster Keaton for whose athleticism I admire more. I've said before that Fairbanks may not be as handsome as some of the swashbucklers who followed him, but he rules them all in terms of energy and sheer physical impressiveness. He's the definition of swashbuckler, always full of life and joy - even in the darkest moments - and never willing to walk or climb when a leap will get him there faster.

The Lost World (1925)



I really thought I'd seen this before, but didn't recall it as I was watching and think I would have. It's about half-faithful to the Arthur Conan Doyle story it's adapting with Wallace Beery (whom I know as King Richard from Douglas Fairbanks' Robin Hood) as a great Professor Challenger. He's physically imposing with a perpetual, angry brood on his face most of the time. The other actors are great as well, but the real stars are the makeup and special effects.

Bull Montana is legitimately frightening in his ape-man makeup by Cecil Holland, and legendary effects artist Willis O'Brien (who'd go on to supervise the visual effects for King Kong) worked on the charming stop-motion dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are so great that I'm glad the movie modified the end of the story by having a brontosaurus rampage through London (another foreshadow of King Kong).

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)



Seen this one a million times, but the sets and costumes are still spectacular and it's creepy in all the right places. Chaney is magnificent; equal parts evil and pathetic. Christine is flighty and pretty dumb, but her shenanigans just add to my enjoyment.

The Unholy Three (1925)



It may star Lon Chaney and be directed by Tod Browning, but The Unholy Three is no horror movie. It's a crime story, just with the twist that the trio of criminals in the title met in a sideshow act. Chaney plays Professor Echo, a ventriloquist who teams up with a little person and a strong man to pull elaborate burglaries, using a pet store as a front.

Complicating the situation is Echo's girlfriend, Rosie, an official member of the gang who's spending more time than Echo likes with Hector, the pet store clerk whom Echo's keeping around as a possible fall guy if things go wrong.

There's a lot that has to be overlooked to enjoy the movie. The way ventriloquism and courtrooms work, for instance. But there's a great, emotional core that keeps it interesting and makes it worthwhile. When allegiances shift - and boy do they - it always feels natural and because of who the characters are. Now I'm curious to see the 1930 remake that brought back Chaney and the three-foot Harry Earles with sound.

Go West (1925)



A very sweet story about the relationship between a friendless man and a brown-eyed cow. I love Buster Keaton's usual romantic shenanigans, but Go West is a refreshing change of pace. Though there is a woman, of course, and that story is sweetly told, too.

Wolf Blood (1925)



Wolf Blood (Wolfblood?) has even less to do with werewolves than the infamous She-Wolf of London, because that one at least starts its misdirection early on. Wolfblood spends most of its time creating drama between rival lumber operations and setting up romance between its lead characters. The lycanthrope element is tossed in towards the end as a romantic foil more than anything else.

But at least it has a pretty great character in Edith Ford, a flapper who also owns one of the lumber companies. In fact, if the movie had just been about her trying to decide between her surgeon fiancé and the handsome foreman of her company, I would have liked the movie better. Like She-Wolf, my biggest problem is its trying to squeeze in a supernatural plot and being half-hearted about it.

Tumbleweeds (1925)



A cool silent film covering the same events as the finale of Far and Away, which I have fond memories of and need to watch again.

Tumbleweeds makes a nice companion piece to The Covered Wagon, which also has people in covered wagons looking for a place to settle down. But in Covered Wagon they're opening up the frontier in the 1840s, while Tumbleweeds has them filling it in 50 years later.

I'd never seen a William S Hart movie before and I can see now why he was a big Western star. He's got a kind face, but a tough attitude. I doubt I'll track down his other movies, but I liked him in this.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)



Like with the two Ten Commandments movies, I've always wanted to see the original Ben-Hur. Now that I have, I'm pretty sure I like it better than the Charlton Heston version. It's been a long time since I've seen Heston's, but I'm not a huge fan of him anyway and Ramon Novarro is extremely handsome and appealing as the title character.

I can see why William Wyler's remaking it was a good idea with new technology (and am curious to see how Timur Bekmambetov will do it again this year), but Fred Niblo totally got it right the first time. It wraps up too neatly and conveniently for me, but it's got all the spectacle and it's well-acted.

The Mummy (1932)

Who's In It: Boris Karloff (Frankenstein, The Black Cat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas), Zita Johann (Tiger Shark, The Sin of Nora Moran), David Manners (Dracula, The Black Cat), Edward Van Sloan (Frankenstein, Dracula), and Arthur Byron (The Prisoner of Shark Island).

What It's About: An ancient, undead being (Karloff) preys on a young woman (Johann) as the men in her life (Manners, Van Sloan, and Byron) try to protect her.

How It Is: The Mummy is essentially a remake of Dracula, from the plot description above to Edward Van Sloan and David Manner's basically playing Van Helsing and Harker all over again. Also, The Mummy's director Karl Freund was officially the cinematographer of Dracula, but making that film was such a chaotic mess that Tod Browning unofficially let (made?) Freund direct most of it. Add in an Egyptian protective charm that substitutes nicely for Dracula's crucifixes and the similarities are too many to ignore.

But if it's a remake, it's better than the movie it's imitating. The plots of both hinge on their leading ladies and Zita Johann's Helen is way more compelling than Helen Chandler's Mina. That's partly because Johann is a better actress (Chandler's melodramatic performance nearly ruins Dracula for me), but her character also has stronger ties to the villain and takes a more active role in fighting him. In fact, she ultimately saves herself from Karloff's Imhotep and the men just rush in afterwards to help clean up.

The pacing of The Mummy is brisker than Dracula, so it's a more exciting film. It also has more genuine chills. Imhotep is much creepier than Dracula, though he sacrifices Dracula's charisma to get there. That's one place where Dracula beats The Mummy. Imhotep is scarier, but I like Dracula more. I also prefer the gothic aesthetic of Dracula to The Mummy's Egyptian one, but that's a minor advantage. From a storytelling standpoint, I'll take The Mummy every time.

Rating: 4 out of 5 resurrected princesses.