Connect with us

Editorials

Horror Retrospective: 1931 (Editorial)

Published

on

hammer doctor jekyll movie

Article by Geoff Fogleman

The purpose of this weekly column is to provide readers with a list of the top five horror films from every year, beginning with 1931 and ending, well, we’re not sure yet. Obviously, there were some excellent horror films prior to 1931 – THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1920), THE GOLEM (1920), HÄXAN (1922), NOSFERATU (1922) and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) just to name a few – but, frankly, 1931 was the first “golden” year of horror, due mainly to Universal Studios tireless efforts to bring now-classic monsters to the screen.

Of course, these weekly lists are only one person’s opinion, and my reasons for creating them are two-fold: 1) to hopefully introduce you to some early horror films that you may not be aware of, and 2) to foster discussion about classic horror. I’m hoping that if you have a dissenting opinion (which you surely do!), then you’ll comment on my lists and post your own in the comments section. Happy watching!

THE YEAR: 1931

FRANKENSTEIN

(D) James Whale
(W) Garrett Fort and Francis Edward Faragoh
(S) Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, and Mae Clark

This is the quintessential horror film. Based on the seminal novel by Mary Shelley, FRANKENSTEIN has everything that a genre fan covets: a dark tone, superb acting, and a fantastic monster, wonderfully portrayed by Boris Karloff. By now you know the story: a brilliant – but insane – Dr. Frankenstein (a delightfully deranged Colin Clive) thinks that he can reanimate the dead, and, in true mad scientist fashion, he brings a composite corpse (Karloff) to life in his laboratory (an exquisite set), much to the chagrin of his betrothed, Elizabeth (Clark). Karloff plays the monster with a vulnerability unmatched by any other actor to don the neck bolts, and he has some truly gruesome and heartbreaking scenes. This is a must-watch for horror fans, especially if you’re only familiar with some of the more recent – and unfortunate – “re-imaginings.”

frankenstein

DRACULA

(D) Tod Browning
(W) Garrett Fort
(S) Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, and Dwight Frye

Along with FRANKENSTEIN, DRACULA was Universal’s other heavy hitter of 1931, and it launched Bela Lugosi’s tumultuous career. Lugosi plays the titular Count with a sensuality that was present in the original Bram Stoker novel but missing from previous adaptations (see 1922’s NOSFERATU). Let’s not forget that Lugosi stare, helped immeasurably by Karl Freund’s photography. As good as Lugosi is, Dwight Frye steals every scene he’s in as Renfield, the solicitor who’s initially driven mad – and then driven to serve – by the Count’s bloodthirsty cravings.

dracula-2

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE

(D) Rouben Mamoulian
(W) Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath
(S) Fredric March, Miriam Hopkins, and Rose Hobart

Lon Chaney, Sr. be damned! I kid of course, but this version is my favorite adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson story, and Fredric March’s truly dichotomous performance as the title character(s) is the reason why. It’s no surprise that March won a Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal(s), as he executes the roles of both the debonair Dr. Jekyll and the maniacal Mr. Hyde with equal aplomb. The film is also notable for its then-revolutionary make up techniques that made March’s transformations all the more hideous and memorable. Modern day directors are still trying to get this one right – and not doing a very good job.

dr-jekyll-et-mr-hide-1931-2-g

DRÁCULA

(D) George Melford
(W) Baltasar Fernández Cué
(S) Carlos Villarías, Lupita Tovar, and Barry Norton

No, you’re not seeing double. This Spanish-language version of DRÁCULA shared its English-language counterpart’s stages and sets, but it was filmed at night, whereas Lugosi’s DRACULA was filmed during the day. While this basically matches DRACULA shot for shot, it’s Villarías’s performance as the Count (or, in this case, El Conde) that makes this film a unique experience. Like Lugosi, Villarías plays El Conde with a potent sexuality; however, unlike Lugosi, there is very little “cheese” in Villarías’s performance. If not for the poor performances of the supporting cast, I might have ranked this one a little higher.

George Melford-Dracula

THE MAD GENIUS

(D) Michael Curtiz
(W) J. Grubb Alexander and Harvey Thew
(S) John Barrymore, Marian Marsh, and Charles Butterworth

This selection was a toss-up with another John Barrymore/Marian Marsh film of 1931, SVENGALI. While both movies feature outrageous plots, THE MAD GENIUS is the more twisted of the two tales. Barrymore plays Vladimar Ivan Tsarakov, a crippled puppeteer who helps a young boy, Fedor (Donald Cook), escape from his abusive father (Boris Karloff). Fedor becomes an accomplished ballet dancer and falls in love with Nana Carlova (Marsh) . . . who Tsarakov also happens to admire. Aside from his jealousy, Tsarakov believes that Nana will ruin Fedor’s career as a dancer. Needless to say, things don’t work out as the characters want them to. Don’t miss this bizarre little film!

2013_Ctek_FebMar_MadGenius_613x463

Horror movie fanatic who co-founded Bloody Disgusting in 2001. Producer on Southbound, V/H/S/2/3/94, SiREN, Under the Bed, and A Horrible Way to Die. Chicago-based. Horror, pizza and basketball connoisseur. Taco Bell daily. Franchise favs: Hellraiser, Child's Play, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Scream and Friday the 13th. Horror 365 days a year.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading