"She-Wolf of London" *** (out of ****)"She-Wolf of London" (1946) may not be the howling good time you're expecting.
Universal Picture's "She-Wolf of London" is a rather misleading title and by extension sets up false expectations.
Despite the title of the movie (which may sound campy) and the fact that it was released by Universal Pictures, which by 1946 was well established as having released some of the finest horror movies of their era, and having released "Werewolf of London" (1935) and "The Wolf Man" (1941), it would be fairly logical to assume "She-Wolf of London" would be a horror movie and a werewolf picture.
"The Wolf Man" had a visual style that was influenced by film noir, "She-Wolf of London" is a continuation of that style. Because of that I'd be more willing to call the movie film noir than I would horror. There is also a psychological component to the movie, not unlike "The Wolf Man". What is missing in "She-Wolf of London" is horror and a werewolf. If it had that, I'd be willing to go as far as saying it is an unsung gem.
Scotland Yard has been investigating murders believed to have been committed by an animal, most likely a vicious dog. However, Detective Latham (Lloyd Corrigan) believes a werewolf is responsible for the attacks. Reading the local newspapers, Phyllis (June Lockhart) believes she is the werewolf the police are looking for. Legend has it, Phyllis' family, the Allenby's, have been cursed. This curse, Phyllis believes, has turned her into a werewolf.
Of course, she has good reason to suspect herself. Each night she passes out and sometimes awakens to find blood on her hands, her clothes dirty and doors unlocked from the night before. Has she really been turning into a werewolf at night, going on a killing spree?
Phyllis' aunt, Martha (Sara Haden), tries to comfort her by telling her she is not a werewolf and advising Phyllis to keep these thoughts to herself as either the police will lock her in an asylum and / or her fiance, Barry (Don Porter) will call off their engagement.
"The Wolf Man" and to an extent "Werewolf of London" dealt with the duality of man and our inner animal instincts, "She-Wolf of London" isn't interested in that concept and instead has the viewer question whether or not Phyllis is crazy. This is a more straight forward story.
Like other horror movies made at Universal in the 1940s, this is essentially a "B" movie. It isn't as bad as some "Frankenstein" or "Mummy" movies released around this time but still could have benefited from a larger budget for set designs. The cinematography doesn't do nearly enough to create atmosphere. And, too many scenes take place during the day. There isn't even mention of a full moon being responsible for turning Phyllis into a werewolf.
It becomes clear fairly early on we weren't dealing with an origin werewolf story following the tradition folklore we remember in "The Wolf Man". And, isn't it disappointing, given the title of the movie, the character isn't the daughter of Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr)? The movie also keeps delaying a surprise, will we or won't we see Phyllis transform into a werewolf. I won't reveal the answer to that. It is however the only card the movie has to create suspense. The movie doesn't even have the decency to show us a murder scene.
If "She-Wolf of London" will work on audiences it will be primarily if viewed as a film noir picture. The horror elements aren't strong enough to correctly classify the movie as such. It is for that reason I recommend the movie. As a psychological noir picture (does that exist?) the movie is somewhat successful in its ability to keep an audience entertained despite being able to predict the outcome of the plot within the first few minutes of the movie.
June Lockhart, whom some may fondly remember for her role on the television series "Lost in Space", gives a performance that exudes innocence. Like our friend Larry Talbot, we sympathize with the young woman because we know she is a good person, even if she does now and then turn into a werewolf. She is an innocent person caught in an unfortunate situation which was not of her own doing. By not showing murder scenes the movie distances Phyllis from them allowing Lockhart to give this kind of a performance which enforces our sympathy.
The movie was directed by Jean Yarbrough. An interesting choice. I know Yarbrough for directing a few Abbott & Costello comedies, "In Society" (1944) and "The Naughty Nineties" (1945). He did direct two horror movies besides this, "House of Horrors" (1946) and "The Creeper" (1948). However he spent his last two decades working almost exclusively in television, directing various episodes of some popular shows; "Petticoat Junction", "My Favorite Martian" and "The Addams Family". He wasn't a great director and wasn't the correct person to direct a movie such as this. This is both the blessing and the curse of the studio system. Assigning directors to various genres, which they didn't necessarily know anything about.
"She-Wolf of London" is a bit of a mis-leading title and in my mind doesn't qualify as a horror movie however if ranked among the 1940s Universal horror movies, this one edges out compared to "House of "Frankenstein" (1944), "The Mummy's Hand" (1940), and "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). You also have to appreciate June Lockhart's performance, which really carries the movie. If you really want to see a female werewolf movie, Wes Craven directed "Cursed" (2005) starring Christina Ricci.
Posts
