"The Mummy"*** (out of ****)
For love or mummy, that is the question in the Hammer horror film, "The Mummy" (1959).
One of the most terrifying moments of my childhood, besides having to speak to my sister, was when I first saw "The Mummy" (1932). I vividly recall the fear that struck my heart when I saw Boris Karloff buried alive.
I grew up watching the classic horror movies of the 1930s and 40s. It wasn't until I was older, looking back on them, I realized outside of "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Wolf Man" (1941) and "The Mummy" quality quickly went south for these movies at Universal. The public lost interest and Universal demoted the movies to their "B" movie department.
What infuriates me most of all was Universal's treatment of The Mummy. In the 1940s Universal created a reboot of the franchise. It seemed like they wanted to erase from memory the Karloff version and released "The Mummy's Hand" (1940). This created a new origin story and a new mummy character. The movie was a failure in my mind as it incorporates too much humor (!) in the story. Why would Universal even bother with this reboot if horror movies had fallen out of fashion? Three sequels followed and it seems when movie fans today think of The Mummy origin it is the reboot movies they are thinking of, not the original version with Boris Karloff.
This leads us to this version of "The Mummy", which was part of the famed Hammer horror films of the 1950s.
Hammer Film Productions was a London based company started in the 1930s. They regained a great deal of popularity in the 1950s, releasing horror movies based on characters introduced in American films of the 1930s released by Universal. These films were known for starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. They were also memorable for their visual style and later on graphic violence.
Watching "The Mummy" part of me wonders why couldn't Universal Pictures treat their Mummy franchise with this amount of respect. Here is a movie that takes its mummy story serious and tries to elicit scares from the audience.
This version of "The Mummy" takes elements of the 1932 version and the reboots of the 1940s. This time around we follow a British archaeologist father and son team; Stephen (Felix Aylmer) and John Banning (Peter Cushing) in Egypt. If you recall in "The Mummy's Hand" the last name Banning was also the character's surname. They have been searching for the tomb of Princess Ananka (also introduced in "The Mummy's Hand. In the original version it was Princess Ankh-es-en-amon). While not shown on-screen, during the search John has managed to have broken his leg. He refuses to desert the expedition and seek proper care. Although, you may suspect the father, Stephen, doesn't want to his son to leave and may not care about his son's health as the discovery of the tomb is of far greater importance. John may also have a bit of hero-worship towards his father and doesn't want to disappoint him.
And so we have established the greed of the Westerner and their meddling of ancient culture as the princess' tomb is discovered. An Egyptian, Mehemet Bey (George Pastell. This name was also used in "The Mummy's Hand" changed from Ardeth Bay in the original) warns the expedition team not to enter the tomb. They do not heed his warning and inadvertently bring back to life a mummy named Kharis, after Stephen reads aloud words from the Scroll of Life. Alone in the tomb with the mummy, Stephen is sent into a severe shock and hospitalized for three years, with no hope of recovery.
It takes Mehemet Bey three years to travel to Engand (it must have been a long walk) and with him he brings the mummy, Kharis (Christopher Lee). Hoping to avenge the God Karnak, Bey will use Kharis to kill those involved in the expedition that desecrated the tomb of Princess Ananka. This all comes from "The Mummy's Tomb" (1942), the first of the three following sequels.
As in "The Mummy's Hand" this movie also finds time for humor. To be fair, many horror movies do, as a way to break tension. In this version of "The Mummy" it is at a much more "acceptable" level. Two drunk carriage drivers (Harold Goodwin and Denis Shaw) are given the task of delivering a large crate to the residence of Bey. The bumpy roads (and their drunkenness) cause the crate to fall off of the carriage and into a swamp. While the two drivers don't know what is in the crate, obviously the audience does.
Thematically there isn't anything new in "The Mummy" but the major contribution to this version may be that it was filmed in Technicolor. Much of the production designs still look like "B" movie quality to my eyes however. Still there is a slickness to this production that leads me to prefer it to "The Mummy's Hand".
Of all the horror movies of the 1930s and 40s that I have seen, each with a strong anti-science message, "The Mummy" is the only one I can readily recall that so directly comments on this theme as well as commenting on the lack of respect Westerners show towards other cultures. One of the most fascinating scenes in the movie isn't a horror sequence but a discussion between Bey and John regarding these issues.
As in other "B" movies the acting is at times a bit wooden. Cushing in particular on one hand has that stuffy British mien that Americans attribute to the British but it seems to go beyond that. The audience doesn't really believe in these performances. Everyone is simply playing their part not fleshing the characters out.
One other improvement this movie makes over the 1940 version is the atmosphere created. "The Mummy" has some good sequences playing around with lighting. Even the comedic scene with the carriage establishes the proper mood creating suspense. Will the mummy Kharis kill these two men? And the scene where Bey brings Kharis to life, out of the swamp is very well done, despite how fake the location looks.
The movie was directed by Terence Fisher, whose works has been closely associated with Hammer films. He directed "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957), "Dracula" (1958), featuring Christopher Lee's first foray as the distinguished count, and "The Hounds of the Baskervilles" (1959) . He is often credited as doing much for Gothic horror films by adding elements of sexuality and morality into the stories.
Not without its own flaws "The Mummy" is still a vast improvement over Universal's destruction of its mummy character. Nice atmosphere, good cinematography, and an effective musical score make "The Mummy" worth watching.
Posts
