The Ghoul - review

1933 (UK)

2010 Included on Ultimate Horror Classics SD Blu-ray R(All)

Contains spoilers.

The story of The Ghoul's release, preservation and eventual VHS / DVD release is perhaps as interesting as the film itself. After the film's theatre release in the UK in 1933, the US in 1934, then one final reissue in 1938, the film was for all intents and purposes lost. Not even a trailer existed. In 1969 a virtually inaudible but subtitled version was uncovered in Czechoslovakia, and though it was missing eight minutes of what would have been considered at the time, excessive brutal savagery, it allowed fans to actually get to see Boris Karloff strutting about in his prime. Finally in the early 1980s behind a forgotten Shepperton Studios door a perfect negative was found, The British Film Institute was able to make a clean new print and we're all now able to appreciate this 1933 gothic horror in all its glory.

Director T. Hayes Hunter's The Ghoul is a low budget film of its era. The story is hokey, full of cliché and a little convoluted, the acting stilted, with dialogue on more than one occasion forced and exaggerated. Scene by scene it would be easy to pick holes, yet as whole entity The Ghoul still today, in all its black and white glory, oozes atmosphere and style, with a narrative that stays remarkably on point, pacing that feels unforced and at ease, unlike many horrors of the day, and the myriad of twists and turns does keep the film feeling fresh and interesting.

It's all about The Eternal Light™. Esteemed Egyptologist and soon to be dead Prof. Henry Morlant (Boris Karloff) wanted it, his solicitor Broughton (Cedric Hardwicke) when he discovers how much he paid for it, wants it, Egyptian Sheik Aga Ben Dragore (Harold Huth) wants it back, Ralph Morlant (Anthony Bushell) and cousin Betty Harlon (Dorothy Hyson) want to inherit it, Nigel Hartley (Ralph Richardson) wants to steal it; heck, even the police know about it and want to return it. The thing is servant and most trusted confidant, Laing (Ernest Thesiger) has it and the person this has most annoyed died earlier that day.

It maybe tries a little too hard with the ambitious number of characters all vying for control, and okay, the film does labour a bit over the first thirty or so minutes as it contrives to fill the back story, introduce and give reason to get all the interested parties to Morlant's late night Egyptian slumber party right on time. But once in attendance, and with Morlant ready to make his grand after-death appearance the film flows, with characters and action bouncing off each with spirit and finesse; and it's the perfect vehicle for Karloff to once again work his screen presence.

Morlant wants The Eternal Light™ because he believes it will ultimately grant him eternal life. On his death bed he instructs Laing to wrap the gold-gem-broach-thing to his hand ready for him to be buried in his newly constructed faux-Egyptian tomb where, when the next full moon's light reaches the door, the hand of the nearby statue of Anubis will, if he's done well, clasp it and transfer immortality. Should however The Eternal Light™ be missing he informs him, he will come back to kill! Morlant may be a heathen and a bit self-centred, spending all his inheritance unscrupulously acquiring  the light, but he is at least a man of his word.

Now Morlant wasn't looking great before he died. With heavy eyes, broken deteriorated skin he certainly possessed the right zombie face to immediately fit straight in should there have been a sudden modern outbreak. Up and about, he appears angry, desperate and increasingly gruesome with both deteriorating body and mind. Now, it is suggested near the end that rather than actually being returned from the dead (back to life is a term never mentioned) he was in fact suffering from catalepsy. Whether or not right, there's still a lot of ambiguity. Morlant on returning never speaks, his cognitive functioning appears to be degrading and he appears to possess unnatural strength. His compulsion to reacquire the Light is also all consuming with parallels to the Draugr / Revenant mythology; undead creatures returned from the dead to protect their ill-gotten treasure. Yes he's not the Romero or modern zombie, with memory, and ability to function and interact with the world, but he's not the Morlant that died in bed demonstrable and absolute.

A middle quarter aside that rather drags out and convolutes the set-up, The Ghoul is tight claustrophobic death house gothic horror that remarkably, some 80 years after being made still retains charm, style, atmosphere, and the ability to surprise. Egypt and curses is a trope that's been done to death, but here there's a real early play with the ambiguity of the zombie, or the walking-dead; a play with the life-death dissonance that resonates uncomfortableness on the viewer. Surround this in a solid crime drama with interesting characters all vying to win the prize, and even a bit of light comedy, with the eccentric and exaggerated Kaney (Kathleen Harrison) and the film is a very solid early horror treat that should be sought out. Whether Morlant is a zombie or not, that'll have to be up to you, 7/10.

Steven@WTD.

The Walking Dead (1936) - review

1936 (USA)

On 2009 Karloff & Lugosi Horror Collection DVD R(1) with Zombies on Broadway, Frankenstein (1970) & You'll Find Out. 

Contains Spoilers.

Ask me a year ago whether a frankenstein-esque film such as this had a place on my oh so precious zombie only blog and I'd have shook my head, resolutely quoting my ideological stance that zombie equals reanimated dead and definitely not resurrected and alive. Today I'm a little more relaxed, my naive dogmatic definitions shaped in the post Romero era have crumbled a little and while I still hold to notion zombies and deadness is immutable I'm a little more amenable to whether a lack of pulse is strictly necessary.

Boris Karloff plays John Ellman, a pianist and unfortunate wretch who has recently been released from a ten year stretch. Desperate for employment he becomes the unwitting patsy for a group of wealthy racketeers who see his release as the perfect opportunity to rid themselves of the troublesome Judge Shaw (Joseph King) who has become quite the thorn in their side. Hired by Trigger (Joseph Sawyer), their hit-man for hire, Ellman, who was originally convicted by Shaw, is tasked to wait outside his house and make notes on the judges coming and goings, as if a PI assistant helping establish whether he's engaged in an extramarital affair. It's the perfect set-up. Shaw's body is dumped in the back of his car along with the murder weapon, his note book makes it look like he's been stalking the judge and he has the motivatin as Shaw was responsible for his own sentence ten years earlier. As if this all wasn't enough Nolan (Ricardo Cortez), who is really working alongside the racketeers is put in charge of his defence. His death by electric chair was really quite inevitable.

It's time we mentioned Jimmy (Warren Hull) and Nancy (Marguerite Churchill), two medical assistants who happened to see everything. Despite being threatened to keep quiet they confess all and though they're too late to save Ellman, Nolan makes sure of that, there is a plan B. B stands for Dr. Evan Beaumont (Edmund Gwenn), their boss, who is researching artificial hearts and resuscitation, and because of the great injustice that now appears to have been befallen Ellman agrees with the district attorney and prison warden that it's worth a shot to see if he can be brought back to life.

Director Michael Curtiz depiction of Ellman being brought back to life is sophisticated, modern and understated. Yes there's vials bubbling and electric currents but there's no clap of thunder, hunchbacks pulling levers or screams. The reanimation sequence is clean, scientific and open; indeed Karloff himself was vocal about distancing the cinematic experience to Frankenstein which he filmed five years earlier. There's no stitching together of human pieces and Ellman comes back alive as if waking from a deep sleep to a cheque for $500,000 compensation, his picture in the paper and a guardian to help him back on his feet. So why am I reviewing this? Because the Ellman resurrected is not the Ellman who died.

He has no memories of his life before, not even his name. He can speak and understand, and he does demonstrate a new short term memory but he has no recollection of his death or, which is of particular interest to Dr. Beaumont, that period he was dead. His movements are also now sluggish and limp, and he has a crooked neck and he seems distant, like what has come back is some kind of echo and not the same full soul that departed. He's more than an echo though, and whether one interprets it religiously (there are many instances of scripture quoted), or scientifically, or something else, Ellman is now very much some kind of Ghost of Christmas Past with the knowledge and ability to directly confront all those who engineered his death.

It's a hard and strange one to interpret. There are hints of the old Ellman; he can still play piano, but what has returned, if it is Ellman at all is entirely focused on retribution. One by one he confronts each racketeer asking them "why did you have me killed?" and rather than taking the cheap and easy option portraying him as some knife wielding murderer out for revenge, Curtiz instead portrays Ellman as some untouchable innocent who holds some stark mirror up to the souls of those who caused his death. There's an 'It's a Wonderful Life / Christmas Carol' feel, and it's more subtle and more coherent. Ellman isn't a monster; he's the question, and the omnipotent knowledge and truth the murderers can't escape. Trigger falls back shooting himself, Blackstone runs away into an oncoming train, Merit has a heart attack then falls out his bedroom window; each racketeers' reaction to being confronted is different, some even try to mount an offensive first, but each of their deaths seems inevitable and self afflicted, as if Ellman is now some angel of justice obeying some grand design.

Then again he might not be. There's enough ambiguity, and divine retribution after-all is a bit old testament. He might actually be some primal damaged reflection of Ellman who has seen the infinite nothing of death and just wants to kill his enemies; I don't know. Karloff's character reminded me a little of Andy from Dead of Night (Deathdream), of someone who ought not to have returned. There also a bit of The Returned, the idea of the restless dead who aren't merely apparitions. Either way he might not be a 'ZOMBIE' in any traditional sense, but it's certainly of genre interest and he does die and is resurrected/reanimated, he does stagger towards each racketeer with a vacant look and arms outstretched, and he's definitely not who he was before with what seems like a prescribed agenda, so there's enough going on to warrant a look. Also it's called 'The Walking Dead', and that's something.

The Walking Dead is a delightful piece of cinema. It's beautifully shot with a great script, great score by Bernhard Kaun with believable sets and confident first rate acting. The story of Ellman is poignant and tragic with a beautiful ambiguity that leaves quite many unanswered questions, but no sense of being cheated. One of the best films I've seen from the 1930's The Walking Dead is a delightful, almost contemporary horror that never feels as old as it is and it's thoroughly recommended, 8/10.

Steven@WTD.