The other night as part of my Criterion Challenge (another post for another time) I watched the 1931 movie “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. As I said in my Letterbox review, even though some of the acting and direction was dated, it was a very effective adaptation of this well-known story. The Hyde character was truly repulsive. You could relate to the fear he engendered in everyone he encountered.
What made the movie especially interesting was that as vile as Hyde was, he was clearly a part of Jekyll, whose name for some reason was pronounced “Gee-kill”. He reflected and exaggerated Jekyll’s arrogance. He was Jekyll’s barely contained lust come to life. This was not a brainless monster, or some general creep. This was a side of Jekyll himself unleashed.
The sophistication of this story led me to consider the incredible array of excellent horror films that came out in the early 1930’s. Even film buffs don’t watch a lot of films from the era. Talking pictures were new. While there are notable exceptions, most of the films from 1930 through 1933 are stilted, unimaginative and forgotten. Then there are the horror films, which created images and icons that continue to radiate through popular culture today. These films are still shown in theaters and on TV to appreciative audiences.
The best known of these early talking films are Frankenstein (1931), Dracula (1931), The Mummy (1932), The Invisible Man (1932) and King Kong (1933). Each of these films has been remade again and again, but it is the original conception of the titular characters that stick with us. (I know, I know. Frankenstein was the Doctor and not the monster, but does anyone think of it that way?). No matter the quality of the remake, or the superior effects employed, we cling to those original depictions.
Most of these films come from well-known source materials. Shelley’s Frankenstein, Stoker’s Dracula and Well’s Invisible Man are still great reads. Yet, it is impossible to do so without conjuring up the images from the films as you do so. As Count Dracula greets Renfield in his Transylvanian castle you hear the sonorous voice of Bela Lugosi, whether you want to or not. When the scientist Griffin checks into the inn at Sussex, the mind’s eye calls up Claude Raines wrapped in bandages hiding his face behind a floppy hat and sunglasses.
Frankenstein is the ultimate example of this phenomenon. According to IMDB, there have been over 30 Frankenstein movies made since the 1931 version. And yet, when my elementary school son wanted to be the monster for Halloween, we got him a mask that was modeled on that original monster. When Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks set out to make “Young Frankenstein” 40 years after the original, they could feel comfortable that their audience would know the source of the satire.
These films not only presented characters that became iconic, but they are also smart and often thoughtful. They came out before imposition of the Hays Code in 1934, and so the filmmakers had a bit more latitude than films that followed, and they took advantage. I doubt if the naked lust of the 1931 Dr. Jekyll would have made it through code standards. While the 1941 remake starring Spencer Tracey wisely retained many of the elements of the 1931 version, Hyde was not as clearly driven by Jekyll’s sexual needs.
All of this still begs the question as to why there should have been this outpouring of such films at that time. Some of it can be attributed to Carl Laemmle, Jr., son of the founder of Universal Pictures, who produced many of these masterpieces. Laemmle used his position as the boss’s son to overcome skeptics who saw such movies as second-rate filler. He hired creative people to helm the projects and provided ample funding to help them bring their visions to life. The result was massive hits that made Universal synonymous with horror.
Still, that does not explain why these films resonated as they did, and do, with the public. Did these monsters and mad scientists somehow reflect the general unease as the effects of the Great Depression continued to spread? Were they a reflection of the anger and frustration with the lords of industry who claimed the power through the stock market to create an everlasting trough of wealth?
Or maybe it was more basic. We like to be scared, and the filmmakers of the early 30’s found that the addition of sound allowed them to enhance the atmospherics that help create an aura of dread. In doing so, they defined the genre. It’s not as if silent films were devoid of horror, but they lacked that final ingredient to truly generate sweaty palms and the pounding of the heart.
I tend towards this last explanation. I cannot imagine Frankenstein without the gathering storm and buzz of the Doctor’s equipment. What would Dracula be without the beating of bat wings? There is nothing to match the demonic cackling of the Invisible Man or the ominous sound of the Mummy’s shuffling gait or the mighty roar of Kong.
I know that this does not explain why the images from these films became so iconic. That may have to be laid at the feet of the filmmakers themselves who did not see their creations as throw away fodder for the masses. They were able to imbue what could have been stock monsters with personality, depth, and heart. At times, you even found yourself rooting for them to prevail.
Whatever the reason, I relish the chance to see these films again this time of year. Sometimes I even get the chance to view them on the big screen, and that only enhances the fun. So, my advice is to pop some popcorn, turn down the lights and put on one of these classics. No matter how many times you’ve seen them before, it is time well spent.