Review: Monsters of a Universal kind



THE MOVIE MONSTERS OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, by James L. Neibaur. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017, 213 pages. $38 (hardcover), $36 (e-book).

 While the field of book-length studies of the iconic monster films produced by Universal Pictures between the 1930s and '50s is a crowded one, James L. Neibaur proves there's always room for one more with a fresh viewpoint and solid observations about what makes those flicks great and what doesn't. THE MONSTER MOVIES OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS is written with the assurance of a devotee, but one who can view them dispassionately and be unafraid of calling them out on their defects -- not there are that many, in this reviewer's humble opinion.

 "The monster movies ... have extended beyond the context of the era of their release and have lived on over time and generations," Neibaur rightly contends in explaining the book's thesis when it comes to the Universal classics. "The iconic characters and enduring stories continue to resonate."

 The book begins as expected with the studio's first sound foray into monster territory, 1931's DRACULA, but extends its overview beyond ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) -- where many studies end or fail to include -- to the Creature from the Black Lagoon movies that represented Universal's last gasp at creating a new monster to serve audiences in an era where science fiction supplanted gothic horror. That is, until later in the '50s when Great Britain's Hammer Films once more made Dracula and Frankenstein all the rage.

 It is the inclusion of the Creature films of 1954-1956 that make the book unique, with the author working hard and successfully at convincing his readers that they were as much fright films with a distinctive type of monster as they were SF thrillers. More often, the Creature movies have been treated as a special case by historians, while classic monsters' appearances in the Abbott & Costello comedies ...MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951) and ...MEET THE MUMMY (1955) are dismissed because these cinematic bogeymen were included in burlesques to bolster the career of the longtime comic team. These movies are included in THE MOVIE MONSTERS OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS because they were extensions of the classic beings created in the '30s, Neibaur maintains while providing each the full treatment in plot outline and critical discussion.

 One can be expected to disagree with Neibaur on some points because each fan has their own likes and dislikes. Case in point, his analysis of WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) as a misfire in light of THE WOLF MAN, which hit screens six years later. THE WOLF MAN remains a great movie for many reasons, but was very much a product of the "new" Universal that replaced the regime of studio founder Carl Laemmle Sr. and his son, production chief Carl Jr., in the mid-'30s. THE WOLF MAN, like other Universal product of its time, is fast and compact, a mixture of mood and action. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is more representative of the Laemmle days, heavy on atmosphere if slow in pacing, but unforgettable once seen. But to each his own.

 In fact, the only quibble to be had with THE MONSTER MOVIES OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS is that it needed a good proofreader (and who doesn't?) before going into print. But Neibaur, a film historian with a number of books to his credit (with one forthcoming on the Charlie Chan movies of the 1930s and '40s), is to be forgiven as he informed Facebook friends of difficulties encountered in completing the volume that may have prevented a thorough once-over before publication. Still, don't allow any of that to deter you from enjoyment of the book and Neibaur's informed commentary on the films built around Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Wolf Man and the Creature. 

 As advertised in its title, Neibaur's work does not discuss other famous Universals as THE BLACK CAT (1934) or THE RAVEN (1935) because its "monsters" were all too human, not a product of the supernatural, scientific error or a throwback to ancient times. Perhaps a look at thrillers such as Bela Lugosi's MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1932) or one-offs like MAN-MADE MONSTER (1941) with Lon Chaney Jr., not to mention the studio's early '50s attempts at gothic terror in THE STRANGE DOOR and THE BLACK CASTLE, is in the works. If produced, such a piece of scholarship would be just as welcome as Neibaur's page-turner of a study as we now possess. -- Kevin Kelly.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sherlock Holmes' (1932): Clive Brook and the Great Detective

Image
For a brief time in the early days of talking movies, Hollywood's sole portrayer of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's immortal sleuth, Sherlock Holmes, was British actor Clive Brook, who had become a screen idol in the latter days of silents thanks to some high-profile pictures, made primarily for Paramount. Dubbed "The Perfect Englishman" by U.S. media for his stern, stiff-upper-lip delineation of roles that appeared to suit his personality, Brook played the Great Detective three times before making his last appearance in Fox's SHERLOCK HOLMES (1932), a grandly melodramatic thriller that did not concern itself so much with Holmes' deductive brilliance as it did with thrills, intrigue and his intense rivalry with the "Napoleon of Crime," Professor James Moriarty. Gauging Brook's performance in SHERLOCK HOLMES is difficult at first. Lower-keyed but more waspish than Basil Rathbone's conception of Holmes, and to contemporary audiences, a study in
Read more

Jinx Money: 'Indubitably,' one of The Bowery Boys' best

Image
Jinx Money: 'Indubitably,' one of The Bowery Boys' best When it comes to The Bowery Boys -- those good-natured, ne'er-do-well descendants of the slum-bred street urchins of the 1930s social drama DEAD END -- there are basically two schools of thought. One is advocated by the group that adores the 48 comedic second features that comprised the series, and the other faction that simply detests them and everything about them. Devotees of the former camp can conclude The Bowery Boys are not for everybody. The locale in what was considered one of New York City's most depressing areas, star Leo Gorcey's verbal slaughter of the English language, co-star Huntz Hall's goofiness, Three Stooges-like slapstick and labored plots didn't endear the series even to natives of the Big Apple. But it was a consistent moneymaker for home studio Monogram Pictures and successor Allied Artists for about a dozen years. The series built a new audience when sold to local TV s
Read more

Don't I know that TV sleuth from somewhere? (Part II)

Image
In an earlier post we examined how some movie stars of the post-World War II period, finding their film careers on the decline, embraced the new medium of television to maintain their visibility in the entertainment industry. While some of these actors still under contract to studios were expressly forbidden from appearing on the tube in one of the more extreme moves taken to stem TV's bite into ticket sales, others were freelancing, working for the rising roster of independent producers or getting supporting parts in A projects. These actors found offers of steady employment and exposure in a series not only lucrative but attractive. A series kept the actor's name out before the public and served as stopgap until the studios took notice of them once more. A goodly number of male stars found TV a refuge as they matured and desired movie roles became less plentiful. With film production slowing down in the late 1940s into the '50s, an emphasis on "big" movies
Read more