1930s, 2/4, Horror, Karl Freund, Review

The Mummy

#19 in my ranking of the Classic Universal Monster movies.

This third entry in the Universal Monster movies, what was at the time a loose collection of films with generally similar plots and tones, is the first that the lead producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. didn’t base on some piece of 19th century British literature, leaving his screenwriting team, led by John L. Balderston for this film, to come up with something original. Well, without that backbone the director, recent German immigrant and cinematographer Karl Freund (who had previously worked with Murnau, Dreyer, and Lang), given his first directing job in Hollywood, struggled to come up with much of any real interest on any level. There’s a certain competence to everything, a general side effect of the Hollywood studio system of the 30s, but there’s no terror, no horror, and no real emotional investment. It’s generally just kind of dull.

Egypt, 1922, and the British Museum’s research team led by Joseph Temple (Arthur Byron) have found the mummy of the disgraced Imhotep (Boris Karloff) as well as a mysterious box containing the Scroll of Thoth which his friend, Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan), warns him he should rebury and forget. Temple’s assistant Ralph (Bramwell Fletcher) reads from the scroll, raising Imhotep from the dead and driving Ralph mad. Skip ahead ten years to the expedition led by Joseph’s son, Frank (David Manners), and he’s about to give up his two month’s worth of work having found nothing when the mysterious Ardeth Bey (Karloff) comes to him with the location of a hidden tomb to an Ancient Egyptian princess named Ankh-esen-amun. It’s the greatest find since Tutankhamun, and the Egypt Museum in Giza houses it all, unveiling it with a large opening that invites all the right people, including Dr. Muller and the daughter of a friend, Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann).

This is the setup, and I think it’s easy to see where the problem is. Imhotep isn’t really much of a bad guy. Raised from the dead, his sole objective is to raise his long-dead love back to life. Does he want to murder anyone? Does he lead a revolt somewhere? Does he want to take over the world? It eventually morphs into something along the lines of the first when he decides to use Helen to reanimate Ankh-esen-amun, needing to kill her for reasons even though she ends up possessing the girl, and that points to another problem: the magic is really unclearly drawn. First, it seems like Imhotep is actually really fragile. He’s not a physical threat in any way, and one solid punch would do him in. I like that approach in concept, changing the nature of the horror from the previous films which had heavy physical elements into something different, but that requires a clear threat of a different source. What is Imhotep’s threat?

Well, he seems to sit in front of a pool in a house, conjure images, and then gesticulate dramatically towards the image of someone he wants to kill until their heart stops. Except the time with the guard in the museum. Also, it doesn’t work on someone else. It’s not all that clear or dangerous.

The focus ends up moving from this kind of amorphous threat of Imhotep to the more romantic side as Imhotep tries to bring back his girl 3,700 years dead. This stuff is okay, and it’s part and parcel of the early efforts in these Universal movies to make the monsters more than monsters, especially after Frankenstein’s monster. However, his motive for too long is too nice. He’s underhanded about it because he’s a 4,000 year old mummy, which makes sense, but he’s not exactly a threat to anyone. That is, until he kills a guard interrupting him while he’s trying to raise the dead. That’s not really the makings of a great monster, though. The threat is too small in every way.

There are also visual design issues I have. The first two Universal monster movies were opulent to look at. Dracula’s castle and Frankenstein’s watchtower were huge sets with incredible detail. The first fifteen minutes of this film are on a tiny, one-room set with bare furnishings. There’s an extended flashback scene that details the history of Imhotep and Ankh-esen-amun, and it has these smooth floors that look incredibly fake and remind me of the sets in The Silver Chalice. For a series of films that had started with grand sets, seeing them diminished to looking so cheap and small is a disappointment.

Essentially, it feels like Carl Laemmle Jr. was falling into the typical Hollywood pattern of cheaping out on his productions in every way early. The script is essentially Dracula in the grand strokes. The sets are simple and functional at best. The director was probably inexpensive and, having no Hollywood directing experience, probably followed Laemmle’s orders (though I doubt he told Freund to get into a feud with his leading lady Johann). This is Laemmle saying, “This is going to make money no matter what, so just put something out.” According to Wikipedia, the budget for this was just over half of the budget for Frankenstein, and Frankenstein had been a big success. That’s a disappointing mentality that Hollywood fell into for a very long time, and the effect is easily felt here.

Still, it’s functional. The nascent romance between Frank and Helen is there. The romantic angle to Imhotep’s motive is actually kind of interesting. It’s not scary at all since the mummy himself isn’t a threat, though. I don’t think it really works, but it’s far from the worst thing I’ve seen.

Rating: 2/4

17 thoughts on “The Mummy”

    1. I don’t think Stephen Sommers is any kind of genius, but he chose the perfect monster to make into a rousing 90s action spectacle. He’s no one’s favorite, so you can mess with the story all you want, and it had the most room for improvement.

      Like

  1. We need to do a 1999 Mummy review in this series as well.

    Honestly, this one is all Karloff’s show, again. He is the central pillar around everything else hangs…mostly limply.

    I guess I do get the horror of the walking dead here. The Mummy (and mummies in general) look gross. To see one start to move, to move towards you…yeah, I get a little hair raising on my arm. I thought the makeup effects by Jack Pierce were good, actually. I also like that there’s no camp here, the story is played straight. So many of the future mummy appearances will make the walking dead into a weak joke.

    The supporting cast does let Karloff down, or he’s just operating at a higher level, maybe. I don’t want to oversell him, but…he’s really good. And David Manners…just isn’t. This is the second Universal horror movie he’s been in, right?

    Like

    1. The creepiness of the dead come to life seems to be more effective when it’s gross instead of just wrinkly. Bey looks like he’s spent a lifetime on the beach becoming leather rather than that. Add in the fact that he’s dressed to look skinny and weak, and it’s just a weird monster that doesn’t have a physical threat. Can there be a great monster that’s not physical? I think so, but his powers need to be clearly defined, at the minimum. So, despite Karloff’s efforts at making this thing, weak creature imposing, he can only do so much because the writing is simply not there to create the character and danger.

      And yeah, Manners was Harker in Dracula. I’m pretty sure this is last appearance in a monster movie, though. We’ll have plenty of other unimposing, vaguely good-looking young men to take up the mantle soon enough.

      Like

      1. That’s one of the things that the 1999 movie had going for it–the mummy was initially weak and lacked his entire physical form, but as he gained power he could control minds.

        Physically weak characters who have outsize mental abilities can be imposing–think of the Mule from Asimov’s Foundation books.

        Like

      2. Yeah, I just don’t know how to make that cinematically without going all out surreal, and even then that has the danger of looking silly.

        No less silly than Boris Karloff gripping his hand towards the camera and someone pretending to have a heart attack, though.

        I suppose Regan, possessed by the demon, in The Exorcist is a possible direction to go, but that’s heavily psychological and requires a whole lot of great character work to pull off.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s