Film Essay: The Struggle with the Inner Demons in the Hearts of Men

Last Halloween, I talked about two of cinema's greatest foes with a split personality Norman Bates, and Professor Jarrod. Both were frightening characters that carried out such vicious acts in their place of business, as we found ourselves having a bit of sympathy for them. I'd like to revisit the topic this Halloween, only instead of being characters who completely snapped as villains with no way to return back to sanity, I'm looking at the characters who always struggled. The kind of characters with personalities that are conflicted, or even at times split, like Jekyll and Hyde for instance.

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

Two of these examples will include the classic Universal Monsters, only I'm going to start out with a character who's not from a horror film which is the man (George O'Brien) from "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans". The film falls under the category of a romantic melodrama. Nevertheless, some elements in the film would qualify as being part of a thriller or a psychological drama. The atmosphere at times looking dark and dreary. It has nerve-racking suspense. And watching O’Brien performance of a man driven to insanity is highly intense to watch. Plus having F.W. Murnau (the director of "Nosferatu") in the director's chair would indeed help a lot when bringing terror where the film needs it.

To have the audience connect with the characters, Murnau chooses to give them no names to indicate that the events in the film could happen to anybody. The man in the film finds himself torn with the decision to kill his wife (Janet Gaynor). Before the events that currently take place within the film's narrative, he and his wife were once very happy as they lived on their farm without a single worry. As time went by, their love for each other began to fade away. They don't hate each other, but the spark that they once shared together is not as strong as it once was. Adding to his misery is that he is financially struggling to keep his farm, leading him to a loss of hope of rebuilding everything he previously had in his life.

Upon meeting a woman from the city (Margaret Livingston) who is visiting the countryside, he finds a new hope to gain something better than what he currently has. He is resistant at first, until she starts seducing him with a kiss and a promise for a new life of living in the city with her. All this excites him, because he has a chance to live with someone who gave him the same amount of love he used to have with his wife in the glory days. As well as living in a new environment that he's never been to before, but has heard amazing things about. Rather than just running away with her, the woman insists that he must kill his wife in order to sell his farm and live with her. For his envy to live a new life with a different woman, he takes up a more sinister personality to end his relationship with his wife by drowning her.

While looking hostile when trying to carry out his dark deed, he finds himself torn if he should go through with it or not. He wants to leave his old life, but he still feels remorse for her. Right from the start when he's given the idea, he doesn't jump-on it right away, he's very hesitant and fights back against the woman who puts these notions in his head. The primary reason why he finds himself so conflicted is that his wife is not exactly a bad person. She is sweet, humble, cares for him, and tries to help him out in any way she can. Her purity is what keeps him from murdering her, making him realize how blinded he was with excitement to be tempted to kill someone who has done him no harm. Because of his hesitance, he fulfills something better than what he was offered. He gets to rekindle his love with his wife by having a romantic date in the city together. During the trip unfortunately, he still fears giving into temptation when seeing a girl who reminds him of the city girl when given a shave. And when noticing that a rich man is hitting on her, believing that she will leave him or worse he threatens him with a knife. Though he finds himself incredibly happy with her, his fears of abandonment, and the savage side that was released from the woman he met earlier hasn't exactly left him.

Horror is always a great place to look for characters who struggle with their different personalities. Another famous mad scientist who struggles between personalities is the character Dr. Jack Griffin, better known as the Invisible Man (Claude Rains). Griffin was a struggling chemist who is deeply in love with his employer’s daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). Feeling that he had nothing to offer her to be a worthy husband, he wanted to do something great to assure finical success by making a scientific break-through. He achieves this by finding the means to make himself invisible with the use of an obscure drug called monocane. Until he finds a way back to becoming visible, Griffin covers his face with bandages and dark goggles and runs off to an Inn far from home without anyone knowing his secret. The people at the Inn grow suspicious of him by his odd look and behaviors. When the owners have had enough of his strange habits as he is falling behind with paying rent, they try to evict him only to cause him to assault one of them forcing them to summon a police officer to arrest him for his crime. This action along with the dangerous side effects of the monocane that can cause a person to go insane causes him to snap and take-up his Invisible Man personality.

As the Invisible Man, he gives up using his discovery to benefit the world by seeking for world domination as his new goal. Knowing how he is the only person to have the power he found, he can use it to spread terror by causing mayhem through vandalism, robberies, and murders. The fact that no one will see him when he commits these crimes leaving people with the uncertainty of when and where he will strike next brings him nothing but joy. He shows no remorse when committing these crimes, he is insanely happy to watch people scream and suffer at his mercy. Having this power makes him feel like a god than just any other ordinary criminal. Though he is powerful, he acknowledges that he's not immortal because Mother Nature can still cause him to be spotted whether its water from the rain being on top of his head and shoulders, or the footprints he leaves in the snow as he freezes in the cold (he has to go about naked to be fully invisible). However, he is confident that he can work against Mother Nature after making such a grand discovery. With his power and fellow Scientist Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan) assisting him (who he forcefully recruited) he feels that nothing should get in his way.

There is one thing that can help Griffin regain sanity, the very person that motivated him to carry on his experiments, Flora. As soon as he hears about Flora's arrival to Kemp's home, his wild and hostile behavior dies down as he's reduced back to his old gentle sentimental self. Flora's presence reminds him of why he began all this in the first place, making him consider giving this power to the world instead of himself. With Flora bringing him back to the kind man he was before his transformation, her Father Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers) can reason with him by informing him about the dangers of the drug he used. Griffin is almost willing to call off his scheme, but due to the drugs still taking a toll on his way of thinking followed by the arrival of the police force, he goes back to his Invisible Man personality, but not before protecting Flora with the promise that he will return to her. He does see her, only it is on his deathbed after being shot in both lungs. Before dying, with the drug wearing off the last thing he tells her is his realization that there are things that man should not meddle with, leaving the viewer with his dead body slowly becoming visible.

Mad scientists are not the only kind of characters in the Universal Monster series that struggles between personalities. Let us not forget about how poor Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) struggles when he became the Wolf Man. Unlike how the previous two characters developed their alternate personality through their desires, Larry was simply a regular man who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Before Larry's incident with the wolf, he already had problems. For being away from home for so long in another country, he feels out of place, having trouble adjusting to his old surroundings as he's about to be given the estate after his brother's passing. The only thing that is keeping his feet on the ground is his love interest in Gwen (Evelyn Ankers). Ever since his encounter with the wolf he killed, he found himself descending into madness. Everybody in the village suspect him of being murderer since he owns the weapon that killed a gypsy (Bela Lugosi). And when he tries to convince others that he killed a werewolf and was bitten by one, people think he's insane since there is no evidence to prove it (down to the point where is bite mark disappears).



While the villagers point fingers at him for going off the deep end, the Mother (Maria Ouspenskaya) of the deceased gypsy tells him that he is becoming a werewolf after being bitten by one who used to be her son before he killed him. Larry would never ever think or believe about the subject of werewolves. Now that he is in an environment where people are making him feel and think that he's a murderer and a werewolf, it brings him to a paranoid state of mind where he becomes nervous around everyone, especially when he hears or sees something that's related to the symbol of his fear. When asking his Father (Claude Rains) about his fear, he tells him that there is good and evil in every man's soul, where in his case his evil has taken the form of a wolf. People tend to simply judge life simply what they see is good or bad. Considering how everybody has a different point of view, the more a person dives deeper into the topic of trying to understand every side the less sure of an answer shall be found. He closes this conversation by informing him that "anything can happen to a man in his own mind".

Larry discovers the truth after waking up from his second transformation, as the Wolf Man. When becoming the Wolf Man, Larry has no control of his actions now that his inner demons have taken control of his alternate personality. Therefore, he will go on attacking anybody he sees, especially those who are marked for death when he sees the pentagram appear in his or her hand. To avoid hurting anyone with his other personality, he tries to run and hide from those who want to help him, going as far to begging his Father to strap him in a chair and lock him up in his room. He knows he can't save himself from this curse, but he can try to save others from him. Never does Larry find any moments of peace from his struggle with his split personality until he suffers from the same fate that the Gypsy did, only this time it is at the hands of his own father instead of a stranger.

Hopefully next year I will find time to write more than one horror related and essay for October. Until then, Happy Halloween!

FILM ESSAY: MY GUYS CHARLIE CHAPLIN, THE MARX BROTHERS, AND WILLIAM POWELL

Back in October, I provided early examples of Psychological Thrillers based on the genres definition by exploring how their characteristics are presented. Well now, I'd like to dive-in into a genre that everybody likes which is comedy. It's a vague topic given that there are so many different kind of sub-genres in comedy to explore such as parody, romantic comedies, dark comedies, and animation. Not to mention there being tons of classics to touch upon. Therefore, to keep it simple I will discuss two sub-genres of comedy from early cinema, starting with slapstick.

The dictionary defines slapstick as "comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events." During the silent era of cinema slapstick was highly popular in comedies, as many of the popular ones would feature stars like Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, and of course Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin has done a number of comedic shorts at the time playing his trademark character the Tramp, a child-like vagrant who tries to behave like a sophisticated gentleman yet always finds himself getting into trouble. The first full length that Chaplin starred in as his trademark character was the 1921 silent classic "The Kid" which he also directed, produced, and written. The film has been praised enormously for its emotions, social commentary, and touching bond between Chaplin and the kid. As it succeeds incredibly as a drama, it also works perfectly as a slapstick comedy.



A film involving Chaplin's Tramp character would never be complete if we did not see him getting into trouble at the cost of himself or others. As soon the Tramp enters the film, already he finds himself in a situation that he has trouble getting out of, resulting with him being humiliated at every turn. Upon finding a baby that was abandoned in an alley, the Tramp tries various attempts to get rid of the child. He tries to put the child in a woman's baby carriage with another infant, only for him to be yelled at. When that doesn't work he places the baby back in the alley where he found him to then instantly retrieve him when a cop watches this action. Upon coming across another bum on the street, he gives the baby to him, only to place the child back inside the baby carriage by the same woman the Tramp met earlier. Once she sees the Tramp passing by, he gets blamed for it, resulting with him being dragged and hit by her umbrella as she summons the same police officer he met earlier.



The highlight of the film demonstrating its physical humor at its strongest is without question the fight scene in the alley. The kid gets into a fight with another kid, which gains the neighborhood's attention. The people watching this aren't exactly against seeing two kids fight; if anything, they're thrilled by it (including the Tramp), treating it like a boxing match. The Tramp is excited to see the kid he raised win until the other kid’s larger than life brother walks in threatening the Tramp that he will beat him up if his brother loses. The other kid loses, as the Tramp tries to make him look like he won the fight, only to see his own kid still attacking his opponent. The older brother tries to hit the Tramp as he ducks his punches and hides. While being attacked the brother swings punches at a cop, punches through a brick wall, and causes a lamppost to tilt. The fight comes to a halt by the film's leading female star, who forces the two to shake hands. The man offers the Tramp to hit him on the cheek as an excuse for him to attack him. The Tramp does so, and then proceeds to hit him on the head with a brick, followed by a kick, and another hit to the head (through one of the oldest tricks in the book). Once again, the Tramp keeps ducking his opponent’s punches, as well as hitting him. And at the climax of it all, the Tramp retreats inside a building where the bully decides to politely knock on the door (as opposed to bursting inside), where the Tramp answers by giving him another hard hit to the head, making the other man walk away exclaiming that "he isn't home".



One person can be all you need for slapstick, but let’s not forget the many teams who doubled the amount laughs. The late 20s through the 50s was practically the golden age for comedy teams that have provided laughs that are still as hard as they were back when they came out. We've had Laurel and Hardy, the Little Rascals, Abotto and Costello, Martin and Lewis, and the Three Stooges. A team who is up-there with the greats are the famous Marx Brothers who were witty, spontaneous, over the top and insanely funny (with the exception of the fourth Marx that nobody cares about Zeppo). As the early 20s gave Chaplin a chance to star as the Tramp in a full-length film that he created, the late 20s gave the Marx Brothers their start in starring in an hour and half film titled "The Cocoanuts". The film is a mess full of contrived musical numbers, a convoluted plot with little focus, and a romance involving Zeppo that just exists. What saves the film from being an uneventful mess is when Groucho, Chico, and Harpo appear on-screen. Groucho's cynical sense of humor and his exchanges with the dimwitted Chico are always filled with such roaring laughter that proves you don't always need to swear to be insulting and funny. But when regarding the Marx Brothers from a slapstick stand-point, most of the physical humor comes from the mute of the group Harpo. Everything he does in the film is highly unpredictable. Sometimes he'll just eat random props (such as a phone, buttons on a bellhop,s jacket). Other times he'll just goof around with a random stranger for no reason. And half of the time he would be able to steal items without you noticing it, as you're left baffled with how he managed to achieve this (he steals a guy's jacket from under his trench-coat without him noticing or ripping it off). Harpo's spontaneous personality usually results with him either harming others (like a bellhop who he thinks is stealing his suitcase), or himself (when trying to break Zeppo out of jail).



Harpo's funny on his own; however, when the Marx Brothers (with the exception of Zeppo) all get involved into the slapstick, what we see is pure comedy gold. A scene that is perfectly timed, written, and choreography involving the three Marx Brothers is the Door Routine sequence. The scene takes place in two rooms in the hotel that are next door to each other. In room 320 we witness the film's scheming antagonist Penelope plan to steal the necklace from the rich women in room 318, Mrs. Potter, who's currently not in her room at the moment. A simple scheme that should be finished in a snap, until Harpo sneaks under Penelope's bed undetected, as Chico (who was invited to her room earlier) tries woo her. Next-door Groucho plans to strike up a deal with Mrs. Potter only to find her gone, yet checks on the other room. For about 5 minutes, we see the Marx Brothers running around in circles from both rooms and the hallway by trying to accomplish their desires while also avoiding each other. To make things more chaotic, Mrs. Potter eventually shows up to her room as all this mayhem is happening around her, consequently making things difficult for Penelope to steal her necklace. And if that isn't enough, a detective who's suspicious of Chico and Harpo gets involved in this crazy chase. Neither one of the Marx Brothers gets what they want in the end of the scene; therefore, through all this nonsense involving their physical comedy, they are left in embarrassment.



 Another form of comedy that was popular in the 30s were Screwball comedies. This kind of comedy is defined as a "genre of motion picture or play where opposites were juxtaposed; characterized by snappy dialog, and a blend of sophistication and slapstick." A fine example of a classic screwball comedy would be "My Man Godfrey, starring William Powell and Carole Lombard. The film portrays an upper class rich family as wild spoiled fools who pass judgement on people who aren't part of the same class. That all changes when a bum named Godfrey is found at the city dump during a scavenger hunt by one of the daughters, Irene, who eventually decides to hire him as a Butler. Godfrey proves himself to be more than just a typical bum; he's in many ways very sophisticated who speaks his mind condemning the upper class for acting less civilized when compared to the lower class. To him, after being let down by the rich due to a broken love affair that cost him everything that he had and nearly led him to suicide, he discovers that the poor are willing to support each other and fight for their beliefs as opposed to just complaining about everything, as they selfishly think about themselves and money. By being brought back to the upper class performing his duty as a Butler, while noticing their flaws he acknowledges the good in them as well as learning from each member of the family, and so does the family when they discover how smart and hardworking a “forgotten man” can be.



 As the film explores the conflict through social classes between Godfrey and the family, all kinds of comedic mayhem ensues. There are many times in the film Godfrey is put in situations that could get him into serious trouble. As Cornelia (one of the daughters), tries to put him in jail by framing him that he stole a necklace after failing to make him miserable. Godfrey off-screen removes the necklace from the hiding place, as a disappointed Cornelia accidentally spills the beans that she orchestrated it, leaving her humiliated. At another point Godfrey sees one of his friends at a party he's serving, who he tries to avoid meeting to keep his past private, where he eventually asks him to take part in his lies about his past to the family after they meet up. Some of the film's comedy does include elements of slapstick. Take the scene when Irene who's madly in love with Godfrey fakes swooning to get his attention. Godfrey's knows well that she's faking it, so instead of leaving her, he puts her (fully clothed) under a cold shower. Rather than being upset by this action, she rejoices that he did it because he loved her, which Godfrey denies. The characters in the film are all played for comedy given how silly, and exaggerated, their personalities are where the majority of the film's humor relies on jokes based on their characters. Most of the witty humor comes from Godfrey himself for his comments of the odd behaviors he serves for, as we ourselves as laughing with him while also being as weirded out by their actions as he is.

I can go on forever talking about the great comedians who specialize in slapstick in early films, and more gut busting works from Chaplin and the Marx Brothers. There are tons of rich Screwball comedies that can be used as a prime example of the genre (such as "The Awful Truth", "Bringing Up Baby", "Some Like It Hot"). These are all just a taste of the kind of comedies you'd expect from both genres and some of the comedians. If there is one thing to take away from any of these films when judging them on a level of comedy, they prove that no matter how old they are, they can be just as big with their laughs as they were when they first came out.

FILM ESSAY: EARLY EXAMPLES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLERS

What defines a psychological thriller? Well according to definitions.net, a psychological thriller is a "thriller story which emphasizes the psychology of its characters and their unstable emotional states. In terms of classification, the category is a subgenre of the broader ranging thriller category, with similarities to Gothic and detective fiction in the sense of sometimes having a "dissolving sense of reality", moral ambiguity, and complex and tortured relationships between obsessive and pathological characters. Psychological thrillers often incorporate elements of mystery, drama, action, and horror, particularly psychological horror." There are tons of great examples that fit this description such as "Cape Fear", "Shutter Island", "The Shining", "Silence of the Lambs", and "Psycho". But I'm going to tackle the subject from the early stages of cinema through different eras.

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

A perfect example of a psychological thriller film made in the silent era of films is the famous German expressionism film "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" that was groundbreaker for the art of film-making. The film contains a surreal Gothic fantasy environment that would influence many filmmakers (most notably Tim Burton) for how distorted everything appears. Apart from the film’s first and last scene, the film contains an environment that is distant from any kind of reality. Therefore, the film creates a world of its own, that looks incredibly imaginative while also appearing ominous for how these twisted pointy sets are consumed by darkness and shadows to establish a horror environment.

To bring method to the madness to the film's bizarre look is the story itself that is quite ahead of its time in regards to the use of storytelling through cinema. The majority of the film takes place in the past as opposed to the present, and even so, there would be a few flashbacks within the flashback. Though it may not exactly be the first film to have a non-linear story, its still one of the major influences especially regarding the last scene of the movie. The film's story centers around two characters, the film's protagonist Francis (Friedrich Feher) and antagonist Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss). Caligari is a traveling showman who features a somnambulist (a sleepwalker) named Cesare (Conrad Veidt), who has been asleep for 23 years inside a coffin box. He awakes Cesare to answer questions from the audience concerning their future. During Caligari’s visit, a series of murders have been taking place in the town, causing Francis to suspect that Caligari has something to do with it. It's easy to tell that Caligari is involved with the murders happening, only throughout the course of the film, we're presented with so many twist and turns that we’re given more questions that we’re eagerly waiting to see answered. The film has all the ingredients that a psychological thriller should have through its mysterious story line, dramatic surprises, and use of horror from the antagonist, his slave, the atmosphere, and scenes of suspense.

However, a psychological thriller would never be complete if the film didn't explore psychology of some of its characters, and it most certainly delivers. During the course of the movie, we along with Francis discover new information surrounding Caligari. At first, he's a sinister looking showman. Then it's revealed he is the mastermind behind the murders by ordering Cesare to do his dirty work for him, as he keeps a dummy of him inside the box to avoid suspicion. Just when we think he's a crazy old who escaped the town's insane asylum, it turns out he's the director of it. As we wonder why the Doctor would commit such horrible deeds outside his profession, we discover that he became obsessed with wanting to know the secrets of controlling a somnambulist based on his research of a man from the 1700s with the same name. Upon receiving a new patient who is somnambulist, he decides to practice the experiments on him. But to fully achieve this he believes that he must become Calgari himself, therefore forcing himself to believe that he is the man resulting with him developing an alternate personality. His unhealthy obsessions with discovering the secrets of the real Caligari have caused him to take up a violent alternate personality where he achieves his goal of finding out Caligari's secrets. He successfully does but uses them to kill people like the person he’s fascinated with instead of figuring out the benefits that can be used with this kind of power, making it questionable if his intentions of studying Caligari was beneficial in the first place.

The shocking part of this whole affair is nothing surrounding the asylum director’s obsession matters in the slightest. In a bizarre twist, that no one would ever see coming (even from modern audiences who have never seen the film), it’s revealed that everything we witnessed in Francis’ past are nothing more than delusions that he has. Francis (if that's his actual name) the whole time was a mental patient in an insane asylum who's delusion are based on the people around him. The somnambulist Cesare is actually a harmless inmate confused and lost as he fiddles with flowers. His lover Jane is a patient who believes that she is a Queen. And the insane Asylum director who believed he was Caligari, is the director of the asylum that Francis is confined, who doesn't at look as intimidating as he did in Francis' fantasies. Some may also notice how the film's portrayal of reality, looks less distorted than the scenes that take place in Francis' story, giving audiences a very subtle hint that the events happening are not going on in the film's world therefore explaining the film’s false sense of reality. During this twist, we discover the cause of Francis' delusions, but not the reasons why he was placed in the asylum. All we know is that he's insane as he hurts the Doctor that wants to cure him, when in his fantasy he's the righteous hero unmasking the demons of a mad doctor. The unique element of the movie that makes it such a groundbreaking psychological horror film is not just for how ahead of its time it is, not just for how visually amazing it is, but the fact that the entire story takes place in the mind of a mentally unstable individual. Ever since this film launched the popularity with its twist ending, other filmmakers have been inspired to bring the same element of surprise when dealing with the minds of people who are mentally disturbed. 

Another example that may not be nearly as popular or groundbreaking as "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is "The Most Dangerous Game", released in 1932 during the pre-code era.  Like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”, the film contains all the elements that many would expect to be part of the genre. As the characters are forced to stay inside an old spooky dark castle, they question about the nature of their host, what has happened to the people they were with, and what he has hidden inside his trophy room resulting in a stunning twist. The mystery of the story ends when it’s revealed, but the drama, horror remains when the action portion of the story comes into to play as they fight for survival in the jungle of the remote island they're stranded on.

The film suits the thriller part of the genre, while the psychological elements is focused on the film's hero and villain. The character who’s given a lot of depth out of the two is the film's antagonist Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks). The one thing in life he obsesses over is hunting. Ever since he was five years old, the thrill of tracking an animal down and killing it has been more of a way of life to him than being just a fun sport. After killing a large number of animals in many different exotic locations, hunting has no longer been a thrill to him any more due to it being not as challenging as it once was to him. By refusing to let his passion for the sport die, he decides to hunt human beings, believing it will provide him more sport than what a wild, furious beast can bring. He achieves this by living alone in a castle on a deserted island, shifting buoys to lure ships to his Island and placing dangerous obstacles to cause them to shipwreck. Any survivors that comes to his door, he provides them with his hospitality by giving them food and shelter. When he's ready to hunt his victims, he locks them up for an hour in a trophy room filled with the heads of the men he's hunted to give them fear. As soon as that hour is up he lets them loose in the jungle with a knife and a full day start before the game begins. Although he still never loses, this new challenge becomes his new obsession in life for how unique it is. He believes he's being civilized by taking care of his victims, giving them a chance to survive, and not shooting females when he's out hunting, but in reality he's just as savage as the wild animals he's hunted.

Just like how "The Cabinet of Dr. Calgari" supports the delusional state of mind that Francis' envisions through its visually presentation, this film does the same. It's nowhere are as grand or inspiring as the visuals from the previous film I analyzed. However, when categorizing the look as being part of the psychological thriller it certainly fits the genre! The environments look intense, but it’s how these environments connect with Zaroff's "disolving sense of reality". The Castle's living room represents the tiny bit of civilized behavior that Zaroff has. The trophy room reflects his madness. The empty ominous castle is like Zaroff's mind of having nothing but dark intentions masquerading as something he considers civilized. And the jungle is his heaven since he can play the sport that he loves without some kind of authority stopping him.

The film's protagonist Bob Rainsford is not a random civilian who found his way to Zaroff's island; he himself is a hunter, and a famous one too. He's the kind of person who believes an animal is savage for killing to survive, while hunting for sport is civilized, which he has completely backwards. But to him, since animals aren't exactly civilized like humans are, there's no need for him to think of their feelings. He goes as far to justify that he was acting in self-defense since his latest kill was hunting him first, rather than thinking that he was being hunted for invading the animal's territory with the intention to kill it. It's not until Zaroff puts him through the perspective of an animal when he becomes the hunted instead of the hunter. Like an animal, Bob only has his resources as he carries a knife (acting as his claw in this battle), who is forced to face every kind of terror that an animal has been through at his mercy. Through this experience Bob views Zaroff as a self-reflection to himself as a hunter, making him realize that he is the one who is savage as opposed to the animals he has hunted.

It doesn't matter how popular or obscure these old classic films are, they're both well made movies in their own right that perfectly fit the definition of the genre. Both contain a plot full of mystery, drama, horror, and action with the psyche of the protagonist and antagonist acting as the meat of the story. By watching these films we learn about how the obsessions of the antagonists takes an unhealthy effect on their life, as the protagonist are effected by the environments around them. And to reflect the characters state of mind whether it would be fear or insanity are the eerie environments surrounding them.  

FRANKENSTEIN (1910)

Here we go horror month, where I'll be reviewing 31 days of horror films, supernatural films, films about freaks, films by famous odd and horror directors, and horror themed TV shows.


In my first year of reviewing films, I reviewed the horror classic "Frankenstein". I found it groundbreaking, scary, sad and left a horrifying image to the famous monster.


In my second year of being a critic, I reviewed the film's sequel "The Bride Of Frankenstein". I found it just as great as the first one and gave huge praise in the development of the monster and build up to its bride. Every horror fan and film buff knows these two films and images in a heartbeat, but there's one film we tend to forget. That film is the first and original "Frankenstein" film made in 1910.

The film was made by the Edison Studios and became a big shocker for the time. This film has been lost for decades, but thank god that somebody has finally found it. In honor in finding this film and for my past two reviews on the "Frankenstein" films, I'm going to review the film that started it all. Now the film is a short silent film, so this is going to be a short review.

The story has the same basis as all the other stories. A mad scientist creates a creature, but instead of it acting human, it acts like a monster and spreads chaos. With that being the basic plot, it's completely different to the images and scenes you've seen or are familiar with.

Instead of dead body parts being stitched together and lightening giving it life, we get a whole new different idea and look at how the creature was born. Dr. Frankenstein mixes some positions and chemicals together, puts them in a cauldron, puts the cauldron into a giant oven and boom the monster is born. This is the only version where the monster is just instantly made, a lot of people may reject to the idea, but to be completely honest, I actually found this sequence better than the other films. I know it's unrealistic and I agree with that statement, but the special effects, set, and facial expressions from Dr. Frankenstein is so good and so amazing for the time that it just upstages them all. Just throw in a card that says "It's Alive" and the scene will be complete.



The monster is nothing like the image you're familiar with. It actually looks like a combination of an animal and the Hunchback of Notre Dame. The image you're looking at may look goofy, but once you watch the film you'll at least understand why audiences found it scary. The way the monster acts and behaves is more animalish than a walking zombie, but it's just as eerie as Karloffs performance. If you look carefully at the monster in some scenes, you'll see a tortured soul, just like the monster we know and love. The music is so scary that it sets the mood and tone for the monster, which is another huge reason why it can be so frightening. The monster was so scary for audiences of the time that the film got banned. If you erase the Karloff image, while watching the film, you can find the monster to be pretty creepy. Without giving away the ending, I must say the mirror scenes that plays a big part in the ending was something that I found to be deep.

Even though the film is upstaged by the 30's film and will always live in its shadow, it still was the first film of the series and will always be a hidden gem to horror fans. It has good special effects, the aspects of the story we all know and love, a creepy and different looking monster, and was a groundbreaking film for its time that should not be forgotten.

RATING 5/5

FRANK BORZAGE'S STREET ANGEL

The film takes place in Naples and our main character is a young lady named Angela(Janet Gaynor). She steals money to pay for a cure for her sick mother but she gets caught in the act, her mother dies and she joins a circus. She then meets a painter named Gino (Charles Farrell). Gino decides to go to Naples to sell his art work and a reluctant Angela goes but worries that she might be figured out as a criminal and may lose her lover for good. The story has nearly every love story cliche in it. Love at first sight, misunderstanding, women with a troubled past, leaving a man without saying why (which is indeed a dick move), liar revealed and having a happy ending. It's really really cliched and the only thing that's new to the cliche is the ending becomes grim which I thought was going to end sad but no it went to not only a predictable ending but also to a corny ending as well.



Now aside from these over used cliches in this film, I still feel the romance from these two characters. I feel the pity and love from our lead Angela and Janet Gaynor really pulls a great performance. Same goes to Charles Farrell as Gino because I love the passionate love he has for her and I love how the heartbreak turns him into a mad man. The chemistry between them is good but for me the best and emotional scene the two have together is when Angela only has one hour with Gino before she goes to jail while Gino is happy for a great future. Cliche writing but the love is there as well as the passion from the actors.



The film is actually really good looking. The cinematography is great epically when it captures the misty streets of Naples. The sets and art direction is very creative, very dark looking and the shadowing for some of the scenes are really neat. What really impresses me is the films sound. While sound is still being explored at the time we hear a knock on the door, the sound of people singing and some really haunting whistling. The score itself also brings the happiness, the romance and the darkness to this film.

If you can get passed these not so new cliches, I think you'll enjoy it for the acting, sets, cinematography and music. With that said for me it's an ok film, nothing new but the stuff that's good is done well.

RATING 3/5

THE JAZZ SINGER

Here's a film that many consider to be the first talkie film called...


The films plot is about a Jewish kid from a very cultured Jewish family and his father is a Cantor in the synagogue. The boy runs away from home due to his Father's hatred towards Jazz and years later (Now played by the great Al Jolson) he becomes a Jazz Singer. The film is actually NOT the first talking film, sound film or musical film for that matter. It's not even the first full length talking film. With that said, it was a major success and it did inspire film studios to take a step further and that's what made it a milestone film. The film was sadly not nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars due to being unfair that it's the only talkie film, however, the film did receive a special Oscar for being a milestone hit that same year. So in a way, it did win best picture.


 

The characters in this film are great but it's Jolson who steals the show! His performance is fun, likable, emotional and his relationship with the characters are touching but where he really shines is whenever he sings! His performance, his singing, his deliverance and improv dialogue is so great that it shows why he's so great and aspiring to performers. Now let me get this out of the way, I HATE MINISTERIAL SHOWS! They were the cool and hip thing at the time but even if I was living in the time, I still wouldn't like them. They're ugly, unfunny, stereotypical, dancing and acting like buffoons and are just plain mean spirited in general. With that said, there are some exceptions such as some of the songs becoming American household tunes, Fred Astaire's famous dance sequence in "Swing Time", Robert Downey Jr. in "Tropic Thunder" and Laurence Olivier in "Othello". I'm not saying they're not offensive but they at least had class to it then just act like dumbasses. Al Jolson is one of those exceptions. While looking like an offensive black caricature, he at least puts class, heart and emotion when he sings then acting buffoonish. In fact he was very supportive to African American performers and while being a struggling Jewish immigrant like most Jews at the time, he put on Blackface as a metaphor to show the struggle of races and expose white American audiences to African American music. I'm not going to say he didn't have performances that weren't stereotypical, insulting or offensive (With the exception of Blackface) but when he got it right, he not only got it right but also exposed white audiences to African American music. Jolson is and always will be one of the greatest entertainers of all time and it shows in this film.



The score is nothing that new or original but it does fit the scenes and adds the emotion to the dramatic moments. The cinematography is really good and I like some of it's creative approach with Al's visions. While not having a lot of talking scenes, the silent scenes do indeed help tell the story and the silent actors (Including Jolson) are great at their acting and expressions. As for the songs in this film, they're all fantastic!

The film as a great and powerful story, an outstanding performance from Jolson, a nice score, great characters and wonderful cinematography. While not being the first talkie film, it was very influential and without it's influence we probably wouldn't have had talking and sound in film.

RATING 5/5

"Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain't heard nothin yet!" Here's a bonus review that relates to the film!

In 1936, "Merrie Melodies" payed tribute to this film and performer by doing a cartoon called...

I LOVE TO SINGA



The cartoon is about an Owl family who only sing and play classical music, however, their son Owl Jolson loves to sing Jazz, as a result his Dad kicks him out and he goes out to become a Jazz Singer. The cartoon is both funny and cute. I love the tribute and animal parody on this classic film, I love the clever pun and homage on Jolson, I enjoy the animation, I love our main character and on top of it, I love the song he sings called "I Love To Singa" (Which is a popular Jolson song). I should also note the voice of our lead is the kid who played Butch in "Our Gang", also Trey Parker and Matt Stone homage it on "South Park". The cartoon is a great parody and tribute to a great film and it's one of the best Merrie Melodies cartoons of all time!

RATING 5/5

BEAU GESTE (1926)

I know it's not the last day of the month but I'm going away tomorrow so I'm ending Herbert Brenon as our Director Of The Month today. I was originally going to end it with a review on his film "Peter Pan" but sadly I'm having trouble getting a hold of it, so I'm  instead ending the Month with this film...


Three Brothers join the infamous French Foreign Legion after one of them has stolen a priceless gem from their adoptive family. While fighting in the deserts of North Africa, the brothers face the dangers of war epically when dealing with their cruel commander.


 

I like the concept and ideas to the story. I like how the film opens up with the aftermath of the climatic battle leaving the viewers with questions that will soon be answered as the film plays on. I like the foreshadows to the events that will later happen in the film. I like that our Three main characters will take part in the French Foreign Legion. It really does have a solid story, with that said the film does sadly fall a little flat. Our characters in the film really don't interest me and nor does the film feel like it's trying to make the characters appeal to us. They're just kind of there and hardly share any chemistry between each other. Even the actors don't make the characters look or act interesting, they look kind of bored and it really pains me because some of the actors portraying them are up and coming actors who will later be popular such as Oscar winner Ronald Coleman, Neil Hamilton (Commissioner Gordon in the 60s "Batman" show) and William Powell (The Thin Man).



The cinematography is ok. Comparing it to the previous films I reviewed of Brenon's works it can really be good, epically the shots of the army riding in the desert. Sometimes I wonder if some of these shots inspired the epic classic "Lawrence Of Arabia". However, with that said the majority of these shots are not all that amazing. The fight scenes in the film are very anti climatic and don't really seem epic or sad. By the way, the Fort being caught on fire in the opening looks like a model? The music doesn't really give the film any drama or make a scene become thrilling, it mostly sounds like the calm music you'd hear in "Mister Roger's Neighborhood".

As much as I dislike the film, I actually don't think it's not all that terrible. The story is good, some of the shots are nice and the casting is good. If the actors and the film gave the characters more character, had a better score and had more good cinematography, the film would be a hit and a classic. This film is not a bad film but it's not a great film either.

RATING 3/5

And that's the end of Herbert Brenon being the Director Of The Month. Well looking at these films, he doesn't seem like to be a good Director, however, most of his films are lost and he's made over a hundred films, so who knows maybe the films I just reviewed aren't his strongest and the majority of his other films are better. If I find anymore of his films in the future, I'll defiantly review them.