Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

  • Mark of the Vampire (1935, USA, Tod Browning) **1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The auteur theory was made for movies like Mark of the Vampire.  Taken as itself, it’s a mediocre horror movie with a few effective moments.  But seen as entry into its director’s larger body of work, it gets really interesting.

    The movie is a sound remake of Browning’s 1927 hit London After Midnight, perhaps the most famous of all lost films.  It’s considered by most to be the first American vampire film and featured a brilliant makeup job by Lon Chaney, Sr., which can still be seen in stills.  It’s obviously impossible to make any real comparison as the quality between the two films, but the basic plot of the original maintained.

    Another Browning film we do have left to compare is his 1931 masterpiece Dracula, which also stars Bela Lugosi as a vampire (here he’s called Count Mora and has a vampire daughter named Luna, played by Carroll Borland).  David J. Skal and others have argued that Browning was disinterested in the Dracula project, and some have speculated by the real auteur may have been cinematographer Karl Fruend, who would go on to direct another masterpiece with a similar style and tone, The Mummy.  I found this theory plausible but after watching Mark of the Vampire I am not so sure that Browning had as little to as Skal claimed, as there many elements of the movie that are taken directly from Dracula, right down the appearance of the female lead, Elizabeth Allen, who not only bears a striking resemblance to Helen Chandler, but has her costumes and hairstyle duplicated exactly.  There is also a Van Helsing like vampire hunter named Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore), a sequence where Count Mora rises from his coffin that’s very, very similar to Dracula’s entrance, and film’s comic relief has the exact same brand of humor, as all of Browning’s other films.

    Where Mark of the Vampire and Dracula differ is in tone and quality- the former film is essentially a mystery with a heavy emphasis on plot on rationality, the latter simulates the feeling of a dream more than any film I ever seen.  One is literal, the other is mythic.  Frankly, one is shallow, the other deep. 

    Most viewers will probably feel that the London After Midnight elements (except perhaps for the amazing surprise ending) are the movie’s weakest.  Set in Czechoslovakia (what was wrong with Prauge After Midnight?), the movie follows Zelen and Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill) as they investigate the murder of Sir Karell Borotyn (Holmes Herbert), who was found with two bite marks on his throat.  Neumann believes vampires are ridiculous, but Zelen argues that he sure they are to blame, and that Count Mora and Luna are stalking Karrell’s daughter Irene (Allen). 

    The machinations of the mystery are pretty boring, but the film lights up whenever Mora and Luna are on screen, there are some real scenes of great gothic atmosphere.  But then the movie gets too caught up in endless discussions of clues, motives, and other plot points, and after those elements take over, the movie gets boring.  But if you do see this picture, be sure you stay to the end, where’s you’re going to be amazed.   

    Mark of the Vampire (1935)


  • The Cameraman (1928, USA, Buster Keaton/Edward Sedgewick) ***1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Cameraman  (1928)

    The Cameraman is regarded by many scholars as the last great Buster Keaton film.  It was the last movie he made where he had a majority of creative control over the project, even though his new contract at MGM meant the studio was already causing problems (there are no dangerous stunts).  But, to my surprise, I found the film to be very good, but not one of Keaton's masterpieces.

    The director's credit is given to Edward Sedgewick, but it's pretty obvious who the auteur of this movie is.  I have a feeling that, like most of his pictures, Keaton handled the scenes that he felt were important, and left some of the more basic expository stuff to his buddy Edward.  But unlike so many of his work, this does not flow like a perfectly constructed Bach composition.  It seems more like a collection scenes, strung together by a very basic plot outline.

    The basic plot involves still photographer named Luke Shannon (Keaton) who develops a crush on a girl named Sally (Marceline Day) who works as a secretary at the MGM newsreel office.  In an attempt to impress her, he goes to a pawn shop and trades for a movie camera, and attempts to find newsworthy subjects to film. 

    Despite the title, most of the movie involves Luke's attempts to win Sally- obsessively waiting by the phone, trying to share a bus ride when only one of them has a ticket, and so on.  Much of this is funny, but it's not sweet in the way that Keaton's relationships to women are in pictures like Seven Chances or Steamboat Bill, Jr.  

    The best scenes in the picture involve Luke trying to use his camera and making technical errors that cause his films to be unintentionally hilarious, such as a ship floating down a New York street.  Every one who has ever made a film can identify with the scene where Luke watches his footage dumbfounded. 

    But this movie is not as well as edited or structured as the director's (and I'm not talking about Sedgewick's) other work.  The movie doesn't really lead anywhere, and many of the bits could be randomly place throughout the movie and not make much difference. 

    At the risk of sounding like a total Keaton sycophant, this is not what we expect from the great stone face.  For Harold Lloyd, it would be second best film of his career.  For Chaplin, it would be his third or fourth best.  But coming from arguably the greatest filmmaker of his era, a genius on par with his contemporaries Griffith and Eisenstien, The Cameraman is a little disappointing.  But is it still worth seeing?  Most definitely.  

    The Cameraman (1928)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement