Gow the Killer (1931)

Interesting on two fronts, 10 May 2009

Gow the Killer follows a team of explorers as they cruise the South Pacific Islands searching for cannibals and head-hunters. Remember, this film was made in the 1920s. Places like Fiji, New Guinea, and Samoa were far away, exotic places to be feared. And, remember that in the 1920s, there may have still been some remote islands where cannibalism was practiced. The Gow in the title is a chief whose search for his missing daughter is recounted in the film. But this story is hardly the reason to watch the movie. Instead, Gow the Killer does provide some interesting footage of primitive peoples that cannot be reproduced today. I'm sure they natives were told to "perform" for the camera, but still, there's a glimmer of truth that does come through. And it's for these reasons that Gow the Killer is worth sitting down and watching.

The other interesting facet of Gow the Killer is the attitudes of "civilized" (i.e. white) society toward the natives of the South Pacific. The narrator of the piece would be labeled a racist or worse in today's PC world. And while I'm no champion of political correctness, some of the things this guy says are embarrassing. To say that a native shaving with a clam shell must surely have a different nervous system from whites is one of the more ignorant things I've ever heard. So while I appreciated the scenes of the primitive natives, I was more shocked by the attitudes of the supposedly sophisticated explorers.

5/10

The Black Camel (1931)

"Death is a black camel that kneels unbidden at every gate.", 17 August 2007

On her way to Hawaii to make a movie, actress Shelah Fane meets and falls in love with a very wealthy man. She intends to marry him but something from her past is troubling her. After she is talked out of going through with the wedding by her psychic Tarneverro (Bela Lugosi), Shelah Fane is found dead in her ocean front bungalow. Unfortunately for the murderer, Charlie Chan (Warner Oland) is on the case.

I am a very unabashed Charlie Chan fan. So finally having the opportunity to watch the oldest known surviving Chan film (okay, I realize there are older films with the Chan character, but I do not consider them part of the official series) was a real treat. And if nothing else, The Black Camel is wonderful from a historical perspective. It's a fascinating look into the early developments of the Chan character. It's also a chance to see a very early example of sound used in a movie. And on the basis of these facts alone, the movie deserves to be seen and enjoyed.

But the movie is more than just a historical curiosity. It's an enjoyable murder mystery. It's by no means perfect, but I was nonetheless entertained throughout. The cast is surprisingly strong. In later films, Oland would play Chan more confidently, but here it's interesting to watch him get his feet wet with the character. Lugosi always excelled at playing these foreign mystic type roles and does so here. Also on hand are a very young Robert Taylor, Dwight Frye, and C. Henry Gordon who appeared in a number of Chan films. Overall, it's a nice cast.

The plot in The Black Camel is fairly interesting and director Hamilton MacFadden keeps things moving at a good pace. It's not the most compelling Chan mystery, but I did enjoy playing along. I must confess, however, that the ending does get a bit muddled as to the how's and why's of everything. As The Black Camel was released in 1931, there are a number of shortcomings in the movie common with many of the other early talkies. The movie suffers from the "stagey" feeling I sometimes notice. Also, a soundtrack would have gone a long way in creating even more interest in the film. But these weaknesses are easily forgivable.

Overall, Chan fans should rejoice that The Black Camel is finally available on a legit DVD release. I know it's made me very happy.

7/10

Eran trece (1931)

Worth seeing as a curiosity piece, but that's about the only reason., 26 June 2006

As a curiosity piece for fans of Charlie Chan, Eran Trece is rather interesting as it represents a peak at the lost film Charlie Chan Carries On. It gets bonus points from me for that fact alone. But without that connection and bit of trivia, Eran Trece is a weak film. My problems with the movie do not include most of the actors or technical aspects. Here, the film is comparable to any other Charlie Chan film. Instead, my problems with the movie rest with Chan's lack of involvement in most of the movie and the actor playing Chan. Chan only shows up in the final third of the film. And he doesn't really do much other than make a few wild guesses about the killer's identity. Chan seemed to be as in the dark as I as to who the killer was until he gave himself away. And Manuel Arbo's Chan leaves a lot to be desired. Instead of the intellectual, thinking detective, Arbo plays Chan as more of a fool who would rather wrestle over a clue than logically think things out. Maybe I'm just comfortable with Oland and Toler as Chan. But I sincerely think it's more than that. Arbo, with his lack of screen presence and overly animated acting style, isn't very good.

Even with the film's shortcomings, I'm glad I finally had the opportunity to see this film. I also appreciate Fox for putting Eran Trece on their new Charlie Chan Collection. Unfortunately, however, I doubt I'll be watching it very often.

5/10

Frankenstein (1931)

"Crazy, am I? We'll see whether I'm crazy or not.", 24 May 2006

Revisiting Frankenstein is always a wonderful experience. I watch it today with the same enthusiasm and awe I did nearly 35 years ago. Everything about the film is so perfect. Acting, direction, cinematography, set design, plot, dialogue, special effects, etc. are top notch. And although each of these areas deserves to be discussed in detail (and have in the volumes that have been written on Frankenstein), I'll focus on two areas that really standout to me – Boris Karloff as the monster and James Whales direction.

Is there a more iconic image in horror than Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein monster? I sincerely doubt it. Even those who wouldn't be caught dead watching a horror film are familiar with that image. Beyond Jack Pierce's make-up, Karloff is amazing in the role. Even with the make-up, Karloff gives the monster life. We are able to see and feel the emotions the monster goes through. There is no better example than the scene with the monster and the little girl. As the monster stumbles out of the woods, there is a cautious look about him as his experiences with humans have thus far been less than satisfactory. But when the little girl accepts him and wants to play with him, the look of caution is transformed into a look of utter happiness. He smiles, he laughs, and he plays. But that emotion is replaced by one of confusion mixed with anger when he accidentally kills the girl. It's all there on Karloff wonderful face. It's this life that Karloff imbibes in the monster that makes Frankenstein a real classic.

I've always thought that James Whale's direction was ahead of its time. In an era when directors were using what I call the "plant and shoot" method of filming, Whale made his camera a fluid part of the action. Whale takes the viewer beyond just watching moving images. He uses the camera to take the viewer into the scene. A small example is the way Whale filmed characters moving from one room to the next. The camera moves with the characters. Another example is the tracking shot Whale uses as the father carries his dead child into the town. As I said earlier, it has a fluidity in the way Whale filmed these scenes that makes it seem more natural. Finally, the way Whale introduces the monster is a highlight of the film. The monster backs into the room. As he turns, Whale shows the monster with three quick, ever tighter shots, ending with a close-up of the monster's face. Every Hollywood star of that era could have only wished for an introduction like that.

While I have done nothing but praise Frankenstein, I'm not such a fan that I can't spot flaws in the film. The major issue with me has always been the way the scenes of action, horror, and violence are inter-cut with scenes of tranquility and bliss. I realize that was the way things were done in the 30s so people wouldn't, in essence, overload on horror, but it can make the film seem a little disjointed. But it's difficult to hold Whale overly responsible for this custom of the period.

9/10