Blogtober Chapter 1: Come Out Under the Stars of Egypt

Bit of a schedule rearrangement.  The movie that was originally slated for today (which is still more or less a secret) has been pushed back to later this week, and we'll instead be looking at the oldest film on the list this year.

THE MUMMY (1932)

Blogtober Qualifications: Mummies, death, black magic, madness, bland romance

This is actually part one of a "through the years"-style retrospective, as over the next few days I'll be reviewing every movie ever released in North American theaters featuring the exact title of "The Mummy."  I'll be reviewing them in order of release, seeing where they intersect and where they diverge, and just generally seeing what each one has to offer.

First, though, I just want to express that I've never been a huge fan of the mummy as a horror monster.  I respect it because of what a classic archetype it is, and I enjoy seeing it used, but in the grand scheme of classic monsters, it would be low on my list of favorites.

A large part of this, I think, comes from how relatively unintimidating the mummy is as a monster.  When you boil down the classic trope, it's essentially a man, wrapped in cloth, shambling slowly behind its latest victim.  The most interesting aspect of the mummy archetype is the idea of the curse that comes along with it, but it seems like, generally speaking, "curse" is just the mummy strangling everyone.

The original film from 1932 features none of these things.

Boris Karloff, the titular mummy, is seen wrapped in bandages in the beginning of the movie, and being wrapped in bandages in a later flashback, and that's it.  For the rest of the entirety of the movie, Karloff looks like a normal man, though admittedly a very tall one.  In addition, rather than strangling his (relatively few) victims, much of his intimidation factor comes from his use of mysterious magical powers.  He can kill you from miles away unless you know how to protect yourself, and he isn't afraid to do so.

Karloff is of course best known for playing the monster in Universal's Frankenstein, released the previous year, but honestly, it's still difficult to believe the two are played by the same person.  The mummy character couldn't be more different from the simple, lumbering brute that was Frankenstein's monster.  Here Karloff is calm, cold, collected, and rarely ever not in control.  Bela Lugosi's Dracula may be overall more charismatic and memorable, but Karloff's Imhotep is no slouch in the department of sheer presence.

Also, it's just amazing to me that you have a man named Boris Karloff, playing a man named Imhotep, in disguise as a man named Ardeth Bay.  That's, like, cool name-ception.

Imhotep's main adversary, Dr. Muller, is portrayed by the great Edward Van Sloan, and is essentially a reprisal of Van Sloan's role of Abraham Van Helsing in 1931's Dracula.  Note, this is a good thing, as that version of Van Helsing may well be the best ever put to film, and the same character has been played by Peter Cushing, so you know I'm not joking around about it.  In fact, I'll go ahead and put forward the theory that Dr. Muller is a descendant of Professor Van Helsing, after a family name change or two.

Far beneath these two in terms of ability and stage presence is, quite literally, every other main actor.  Arthur Byron, here playing Sir Joseph Whemple, is an intriguing character in the early prologue of the movie, but after a ten year time skip he's little more than the guy that kind of doesn't buy all this mummy mumbo jumbo.  He plays the role well, but he just doesn't have much to do before he's removed from the plot.

David Manners, playing Byron's son Frank, is a 1930s leading man, which means he's bland and only going through all this rigmarole because he wants a date.

Zita Johann, here playing Helen Grosvenor, a ward of Dr Muller's (as well as possibly maybe a reincarnated Egyptian princess), is difficult to judge.  Her acting is, well... sub-par might be a nice way of putting it.  But I'm honestly not sure if it's her fault.  Most of her lines fall into one of three categories: blank staring, bland romance, or overacted despair.  I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and blame the directing.

Speaking of the directing, it's good, and it successfully creates the atmosphere it should.  Most of it is nothing amazing, outside of an absolutely superb scene early on when the mummy first wakes up.  That scene alone makes the movie worthy of being called a classic, and it's the most terrifying scene in the whole picture.  The rest of it is enjoyable, particularly any scene featuring Karloff and/or Van Sloan.  Nothing stands out as objectionably bad, though there is a scene late in the movie where Frank walks the wrong way around a car just so he can notice something he wouldn't have otherwise.  Just rework the shot!

All in all, this version of The Mummy is most definitely a classic.  It's enjoyable, atmospheric, and it's barely over an hour.  It's easily my favorite mummy movie, although I haven't actually seen that many... yet.

Tomorrow we coast through time a good 30 years, give or take, for the next movie to share the same title.  I personally can't wait.

Until next time!

Current interests:
Listening - Pink Floyd: The Division Bell (1994)
Playing - Golf Story (2017)
Reading - Baltimore or, The Steadfast Tin Soldier and the Vampire (2007)
Watching - Unsolved Mysteries (1987)