The Mummy (1959)

Note to self: next time I invade an Egyptian tomb, I won't read aloud anything I find in there.

Intro.

In keeping with my October fright fest, I've been watching as many old monster movies, zombie flicks and Hitchcock thrillers as I can find.  Today I watched the British remake of The Mummy, which was a Universal picture from 1932 starring Boris Karloff.  The remake was done after Hammer studios in England struck a deal with Universal to remake all the classic horror films - this time in Technicolor.  I regretfully have not seen the 1932 version, but the 1959 version proved to be chilling enough!

Overview

1895 in some unknown area, a team of archeologists uncover the lost tomb of an Egyptian high priestess, Princess Ananka.  The leader of the group, Stephen Banning (Felix Aylmar), explores the crypt alone while his partner Joseph (Raymond Huntley) goes back to tell the others of the find.  Stephen finds an old scroll (the Scroll of Life, he calls it) and decides to read it aloud in the crypt.  Not a good idea, as the words bring to life another mummy (Christopher Lee) from behind the wall panel.  Outside Joeseph and Stephen's son John (Peter Cushing) hear screaming and only find Stephen out of his mind with fear.  He's sent back home to a nursing home, where he's declared beyond help, and the team closes the tomb and returns home with Ananka's coffin and burial relics.  They don't have the scroll though, as a local man, Mehemet Bey (George Pastell), has taken it and decides to try and re-open the tomb, unleash the mummy and seek vengeance on those who have desecrated the Egyptian grave.  Three years later and Stephen is still in the hospital, convinced that something is coming to kill him.  He has a violent outburst at the time when a mysterious package containing "Egyptian relics" is lost in transport in the swamp near the hospital.  It's the mummy alright, and he rises from the muddy swamp at Mehemet's command.  The mummy breaks into Stephen's barred and locked room and kills him.  As you can imagine, the mummy then goes after Joseph, whom he also kills.  The mummy finally goes after John, but is stopped mid-way through the attack by the sight of John's wife Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux).  Isobel bears a striking resemblance to Ananka, and the mummy leaves.  Inspector Mulrooney (Eddie Byrne) begins his investiagation into the murders, and gets the entire legend of Ananka from John.  Apparently when Ananka died, her high priest Kharis (with whom she shared a forbidden love) tried to bring her back to life with the scroll, but was apprehended before he could finish the ritual.  In punishment, he got his tongue cut out, was wrapped in bandages and sealed into the wall of the tomb, to keep eternal vigilance over his Princess.  That explains what finally happens - the mummy returns to kill John, but when Isobel intervenes, the mummy captures her and carries her off toward the swamp.  What will kill the mummy in the end?  Will Isobel and/or John survive?

Highlights
I really enjoyed seeing this film in Technicolor.  Everything feels right for the classic 1950's monster movie, right down the smog rising up from the eerie swamp.  It's shot well and with attention to detail, particularly in the flashback scene of the story of Ananka's death.  I haven't studied Egyptology much, but I can tell that they tried to give some amount of reverence to the rituals of mummification.  What really impressed me was how the mummy came to be a mummy - if you look at the film deep down, it could even be called a love story.  Khardis loved Ananka so much he risked everything to try and bring her back from the dead so that they could finally realize their love.  Even as a mummy he not only seeks vengeance (see below), but recognizes Isobel to look just like Ananka.  It's beauty that tames and kills all beasts, as all the great monster movies show us.

There are some interesting points to be made regarding what this film reflects about our culture.  In the film, Mehemet tells John that his people have dared to assume ignorance and blasphemied his religion.  Although John tries to defend the archeologists and the study of cultures, there is a good point in Mehemet's rage - it is one thing to gather artifacts and study them, but it is another to disregard the beliefs of a culture and desecrate the graves of the dead.  I think what it really comes down to is respect.  Not only that, but it speaks a little to the British empire.  In 1932 Britain still controlled Egypt.  But in 1959, most of Britain's colonies had declared independence.  There was also the British loss of control at the Suez canal in 1956.  So it makes sense to have an Egyptian legend come to life and strike fear into the hearts of the British.  But in the face of all this, it is encouraging to see that while the mummy is terrifying, he is, in a way, justified.  He doesn't go off killing just anyone - only those who desecrated his love's tomb.  He is in effect exacting vengeance not only for the destruction of the tomb, but also for the lack of understanding shown by the British.  He's a monster, but perhaps only a misunderstood one.     

 

Review and Recommendation    
Overall good acting and nice detail in the cinematography, I think this version of The Mummy is very well done.  It's very entertaining and not too serious - a great film for any fans of the horror, thriller or monster-movie genres.

P.S. Fun fact from TCM - Christopher Lee was the first actor to play all three classic monsters: Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958), and The Mummy. 

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Well, a slightly more sloppy, drooling, cannibalistic version of us, but still us.

Intro.

Part of my new induction to the world of zombie films included watching both the original Night of the Living Dead from 1968 and the remake from 1990.  Even if you haven't seen either film, you probably know the story - a group of strangers in a farmhouse; lots of slow, flesh-eating zombies; some crazy girl named Barbra.  You've probably even heard the line "they're coming to get you, Barbra!"  So my question going into this film was will it live up to its mighty legacy?   

Overview
Night of the Living Dead actually starts in the evening, with Barbra (Judith O'Dea) and her brother Johnny (Russell Streiner) venturing out to a country cemetery to pay respect to their father.  Although Barbra is obviously uncomfortable in the creepy graveyard, Johnny teases her like when she was a kid - "they're coming to get you, Barbra!" he calls out to her.  The only problem is that another "visitor" in the cemetery actually is coming for her and when he attacks her, Johnny steps in only to get gnawed on himself.  Barbra takes off running, but realizes that Johnny had the car keys.  She coasts the car downhill, hits a tree, then runs to the nearest farmhouse.  She isn't alone long, as a pickup truck pulls up and out comes well-dressed Ben (Duane Jones).  He seems to know exactly what to do and sets about barricading the house.  He even covers the homeowner's half-eaten corpse, despite Barbra's obvious state of shock and complete helplessness.  He tells her about how he saw a gas station blow up because of those "things" and he realizes that they are afraid of fire.  A few stray zombies later and they realize that there are people (non-zombie people) hiding in the basement of the house.  There's a young couple, Tom (Keith Wayne) and Judy (Judith Ridley), and a married couple, Harry (Karl Hardman) and Helen (Marilyn Eastman) who have a young daughter who is sick in the basement.  Harry is pretty stubborn about everyone taking refuge in the cellar and waiting until help arrives.  Ben nixes that idea as there is only one way in and out and he doesn't want to get cornered.  Tensions grow, fights break out, but in the end they all have to work together to survive or become lunch meat.  A television broadcast tells them there's an emergency shelter nearby, and they agree to risk taking Ben's truck to the nearby gas pump to fill up the tank and get them all out of there.  But of course, nothing really works out for our survivors and they get picked off one by one until there's just Ben in the house.  And even his life is in jeopardy.

Highlights

Boy, there is so much to discuss!  George Romero redefined the zombie genre with this film.  It's funny, but some dynamics in this film reminded me of some previous films in different genres.  Although that can happen when a genre begins or is redefined - often the shaping influences are from a wide range of sources and media.  What Night of the Living Dead reminded me of were the Westerns of John Ford and the thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock.  I thought a lot about Ford's classic, Stagecoach, which in its own way helped revitalize the Western film genre.  In Stagecoach, the idea is very simple - take a group of strangers with different and sometimes clashing personalities, put them together in a tight situation and then give them some "outsiders" to fight, which ultimately brings them together.  Be it in a way station on the stage route or in the farmhouse, the tensions and arguments for the best course of survival are the same.  I even expected Ben to say "I saw a ranch house burnin' last night" and then he tells Barbra he actually did see a fire!  In Night of the Living Dead, the argument is to either stay in the basement or to make a break for it; in Stagecoach the argument is to push on towards Lordsburg or to return with the cavalry where they may or may not be safe.  In respect to Hitchcock, there is some great camera work and also the feeling of claustrophobia - almost the entire film takes place in one space - the farmhouse.  Hitchcock often tried to contain his more intense thrillers (like Lifeboat or Rear Window) to one space.  It creates more tension between the characters in close quarters and increases that claustrophobia! *   

I also keep mentioning "others".  In Night of the Living Dead the monsters are never called zombies.  In fact, in most zombie films, the word is never said.  They are the others, the outsiders.  Although in White Zombie the zombies are named - recognized for the people they are.  That's why it's so important that Johnny and later the daughter are recognized among the zombies (sorry for the spoilers, but really? what did you expect - it's a zombie film!!).  It makes it much harder to fight people you know - how can you be expected to shoot your brother or daughter in the head? **  Recognizing the "other" is the key here - they are us.

To make a bit of a detour, I wanted to talk about what was going on when Night of the Living Dead was made.  The cause for the zombie outbreak is attributed to some radiation brought in by a satellite returning from Venus.  It seems a bit silly now, but in 1968, we were 1) in the middle of the Cold War and worried about nuclear warfare 2) we were also in the Space Race and 3) had yet to land on the moon.  Makes it more of a concern, I think.  And it makes the Russians are the "others" of 1968.  It makes it that much more tragic when Ben dies - not at the hands of the zombies, but at the hands of the overzealous survivors who mistake him for a zombie.  Our own fear and paranoia will destroy us. 

Speaking of Ben and his horrible end, Night of the Living Dead was meant as a commentary on racism.  Ben's the lone African-American in the film, the one guy with any class and BAM he gets killed by friendly fire (or should that be not-so-friendly fire?).  This is where the film really diverges from its parallels with Ford's Westerns - there is no happy ending.  Ben doesn't get to go off into the sunset with a girl.  He gets killed anyway, like the whole thing was for naught.  Society (the guys coming in as relief) doesn't recognize his efforts or what he's endured.  But we see it.  Romero makes us see it and makes us painfully aware that Ben is treated as just another dead zombie.  What does that say about audiences in 1968?  What does it say about us now? ***

As much as this film is about racism, it fails to also address sexism (a major criticism).  Barbra, although in shock, just shuts down once a man arrives to take care of her.  My friends and I yelled at her the entire film because of her inability to do or say anything.  Although it is a good step above White Zombie, it still makes you very angry at Barbra.  Luckily we have more sensible women like Judy and especially Helen to balance it out some.  My friend Rachel brought up a good point - Barbra seems to be more afraid of Ben because she's alone in a house with him (and he's an African-American) than she is of the zombies.  If nothing else, she definitely takes on the "deer in headlights" attitude.  Which is fitting because in this farmhouse there are several animal heads mounted on the wall and Barbra is often shot being close to or right in front of the deer's head.  In some way, this could explain her docile nature.  She can't run, so she freezes up and won't move.  That explains why she's also taken by the zombies - she's easy prey.

The Remake - The Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Since the remake of Night of the Living Dead isn't a classic time-wise, I won't give it a separate write-up.  The basic plot and story line remain, but there are some major changes.  Thankfully the biggest one is Barbra (played by Patricia Tallman).  She kicks ass in the remake!  The new Barbra is a determined woman, one who won't passively cower on a couch when there are zombies to kill and people to save.  Instead of Romero commenting on racism, this version he focuses on sexism.  The ending is also very different, as Barbra actually makes it out of the house, down the road and stumbles onto the search and rescue crew.  A key scene there is when she sees a fenced in ring and spectators watching a "zombie fight."  It's a way to distance yourself from zombies being real people - in the remake Tom is related to the farmhouse owner and recongizes many of the zombies as friends and neighbors.  It's a chilling thought about how far you would have to go to survive.  To survive as an individual then, must you turn your back on your family?  Does that have anything to do with the re-establishment of Barbra as a woman of her own independence?  Think about the films of the eighties that dealt with the breaking up of families as a result of women going back to work (Die Hard) comes to mind.  I'm not sure if these ideas are related, as it is getting pretty late and I'm feeling a bit sleepy.  So let me end with this - are zombie movies really about monsters after all?  Or about facing what scares us most about our own selves?    

Review and Recommendation

I recommend both versions of the Night of the Living Dead.  Each one has very good merits and serve as great reflections and commentaries on society.  I have a new-found respect for the zombie genre and look forward to watching more films! 

P.S. I know I've probably left a lot out of this post, which is why you should check out Catherine's zombie blog, here.  If you think of any points you want to bring up, feel free to post comments!!

P.P.S. I was just looking for other sites to reference you for further reading and check this out - it's an article about how Romero was influence by Ford and Hitchcock.  I wasn't making it up - who knew?!  I'm still reading through it, but I couldn't resist linking it!

* I should mention that Romero also used the classic vampire film I Am Legend as inspiration, and possibly the film Things to Come.  

** I also watched the modern zombie film Zombieland right after seeing this film and I loved it!  It mixes both the traditional zombie films with a great sense of humor.  It's a very dark, survival type of humor, often like that seen in war films.  The movie also makes the point never to learn anyone's real name, as you never know when you might need to kill them.  Distance from the other is again in play.  Also, check out the opening shot of Zombieland and the opening shot of Night of the Living Dead (1968).  See anything identical?  I'll give you a hint - it's a pretty big hint that this film is about to comment on American culture.

*** Last note, I swear.  I just realized that 1968 brought America into Vietnam as well.  That's a whole other blog post about racism and fighting "the others".  Something to think about!

High Society (1956)

Intro.

Normally, I hate remakes.  If a film isn't particularly good, then I can understand wanting to redo it, or if there's some big change or improvement (like making a silent film into a talking picture) that warrents a new film.  I also appreciate it when the new film's director pays homage or does something to respect the new film.  Case in point, Cape Fear.  The original Cape Fear from 1962 starred Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum.  When it was remade in 1991, Martin Scorsese made sure that both men had roles in the film (both of them play lawyers in the remake).  That shows class and respect.  High Society is a different kind of remake.  It takes the movie, The Philadelphia Story, and makes it into a musical.  As it has changed genres, the film loses some of its punch, but adds some beautiful songs.  It's enjoyable in a wholly different way, which is one of the reasons I like it.

Overview
Wealthy Tracy Lord (Grace Kelly) is getting remarried at her family estate.  Her ex-husband, C. K. Dexter Haven (Bing Crosby) however, lives next door and has opened his home to a jazz festival which will coincide with (and possibly ruin) her wedding.  Dexter is still in love with his ex-wife, despite her cool condescension of his work as a "jukebox hero."  Tracy's snobbery extends to her father, who has left home due to rumors of an affair with some showgirl.  Her wedding plans get even more complex when Spy Magazine threatens to run a tell-all story about Mr. Lord - a threat which is stopped in exchange for an inside scoop of Tracy's wedding.  The two magazine reporters, Mike Conner (Frank Sinatra) and Liz Imbrie (Celeste Holm), don't know about the deal, and hate their job almost as much as Tracy hates having them there.  If things couldn't get any harder for her, her father shows up unexpectedly, Mike starts to fall for her, and in the end her in tact virtue starts to crumble when a drunken late night swim with Mike leaves her uncertain of just how far they had gone.  Her fiancee refuses to marry her, thinking her unfaithful, and the resulting mess turns into a great ending after all.

Highlights
To judge this film on its own merits, it is a very fine piece of entertainment.  I wouldn't say it was the best musical I've ever seen, but certainly one of the most charming.  I mean, how can you resist Grace Kelly, Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra in a love triangle?  Each performer in the movie is definitely worth watching.

I think the music really adds to this film.  Songs like "True Love" and "You're Sensational" are well-performed and showcase the two singer-turned-actors.  I have always loved the Sinatra/Crosby duet, "Well, Did You Evah?" which is a funny portrait of the follies of the upper class.  You also have to laugh at the Sinatra/Holm duet, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"  And of course, we can't forget the jazz festival, which features none other than Louis Armstrong as himself (how cool is that?).

It's difficult to watch High Society and not compare it with The Philadelphia Story.  Each movie is fun, entertaining and features some great talent.  That being said, I think the point of the story - Tracy's fall from grace and final understanding that no one is perfect - is portrayed much more effectively in The Philadelphia Story.  In some ways, I consider that film to be a comedy-drama.  The characters are much more developed and fragile.  In the original, Dexter is an alcoholic and hit Tracy, which led to their divorce.  In High Society, their divorce isn't really explained except that Dexter is just another crooner.  Likewise, Mike's character is much more developed in The Philadelphia Story - he is a real person trapped in a job he hates who connects with Tracy after talking to her about his writing.  In High Society, Mike's a more of a plot device (I hate putting it that way!) used to make the story work.

The addition of music allows the film to not only be light-hearted, but to sort of poke fun at the upper class more so than the original film did.  One thing that really struck me in High Society is the scene where Tracy takes Mike to see the "graveyard" of the rich - mansions abandoned because the taxes are too high.  The world she belongs to is falling apart and she wants to make sure he realizes it isn't all about dinner parties and pink champagne.  But that is as serious as the film gets.  And I think that's really what they wanted to achieve - to take a comic look at the "rich and mighty", not a deeper one that borders on the dramatic.

Review and Recommendation
On its own, High Society is a fun, upbeat musical comedy.  Grace Kelly is magnificent, as are her two crooning suitors, Sinatra and Crosby.  The score is incredible, and I guarantee you'll have at least one of the songs stuck in your head afterward!  While not as deep or well-developed as The Philadelphia Story, the film achieves its purpose to entertain and to showcase three legends on screen together.  This is one remake I can love and recommend!

P.S. The original Cape Fear is still far better than the remake, by the way.