Obscure Lugosi and a brief look at Asian actors in early film

 Bela Lugosi is a curious case as far as actors go. He, arguably, had a more profound impact on the horror genre than almost any other actor, and defined so many of the tropes of the genre...but his film output is not all that stellar. I mean... sure, he literally defined Dracula in the 1931 film.... and while many of his other films are respected by fans of the genre (such as White Zombie or Son of Frankenstein), most of his films are obscure, and often get lost in the mess of low budget outputs and program fillers. Its frankly hard to sit through something like Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) or Vampire Over London (1952). Its even hard to sit through something like The Return of Chandu (1934) and that has a far better story than many of his later films.

So its really nice to find something a little obscure that is engaging and actually showcases Lugosi as an actor, and not a horror icon. I discovered, on YouTube, the oldest surviving Charlie Chan film, The Black Camel (1931) which includes not only Lugosi, but an uncredited Dwight Frye... both acting mere months after the release of the mega-hit Dracula (1931). While Dracula received a general release on Feb 14, 1931, The Black Camel was released on June 21, 1931. 

The Black Camel was the second of the Charlie Chan films starring Warner Oland as the detective. It is the earliest surviving of Oland's version, with something like 5 of the other earliest having been destroyed in fires over the years. It is also notable for a couple other reasons... First off it is actually one of the rare films in the series which is based on one of Earl Derr Biggers original Charlie Chan novels. So many of these films were made that they ran out of novel material pretty quickly. Secondly, this was actually filmed in Honolulu, Hawaii and many of the locations, including Waikiki Beach and The Royal Hawaiian Hotel are included, and give a genuine sense of the exotic. This is not an early soundstage bound production. It is one of the earliest depictions of Hawaii that I am aware of on film. Hawaii itself would not even be a state until 1959.

And finally, there are Lugosi and Frye. Frye gets an uncredited bit part with only a couple lines, as a Butler. He isn't given much to do, but his voice is unmistakable, and he still talks in the slow, stilted manner he did as Renfield. Lugosi though... Lugosi is actually really impressive here, and this has shot up to near the top of my favorite performances by him. He's very natural as Tarneverro, a sort of psychic advisor who eshews the usual trappings of the soothsayer you would see him in in later roles. He's quite casual here, and looking at ease in a business suit, and right from the first scene he has with Warner Oland, you get the impression that he is easily the equal of Charlie Chan, and is not so much a psychic as extremely observant. 

Thats actually a wonderful scene. Lugosi is having breakfast at the Royal Hawaiian hotel with friends when he is informed that a 'Chinese Businessman' has arrived to speak with him. He is puzzled but curious, and goes to meet the man in the lobby, who turns out to be Charlie Chan, posing as a businessman to get information from him. This deception lasts about a second, as Lugosi immediately points out that Chan is no businessman but a police officer. Chan is amused and also guesses that Tarneverro has noticed the holes in his waistcoat from where he removed his badge. This establishes so much between these two... a mutual respect for each others intelligence, a slightly tense curiosity about one another, and the fact that they actually like each other, even if they suspect one another. Its a great scene.

And the other thing you get from this is Lugosi playing against type. Sure, he's set up as a potential suspect, but then literally everyone else is as well. He never seems a particularly CREDIBLE suspect, and there are times when Chan actually shares clues with him. As it turns out, he DOES have a connection to the murder case, but as it turns out, he is NOT the murderer... so its a rare instance in which Lugosi does NOT play either a villain or a victim. In fact, he really showcases his charm as a leading man here, and its a great glimpse of what might have been had he not been typecast and become such a victim to his own addictions and demons. This is the sort of role that Boris Karloff would occasionally get which really enabled him to rise above being a 'mere horror star'. 

Now... as for the film itself....

This is really a tricky film to examine. 

On the one had, this film shows a lot of problems that were common in early Hollywood where race was concerned. There should have been no reason to cast a white man as Chan, other than the inherent racism of the time. Warner Oland seems to be a fine actor, but why they cast him as a Chinese man is beyond me. This seems to be simply what was done at the time, and we see this over and over and over again, with Charlie Chan being played by Warner Oland, Sydney Toler, Roland Winters, and even Peter Ustinov playing him in film, while Ross Martin and J. Carroll Naish played him on television... to say nothing of both Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi playing the Chinese detective Mr Wong in various films, Peter Lorre playing the Japanese spy Mr Moto, and the likes of Karloff, Christopher Lee, and even Peter Sellers playing Fu Manchu. 

It become especially curious when you see the later films with capable Asian-American actors playing his family and sidekicks, most notably Keye Luke (who I discovered, along with Boris Karloff, was a founding member of the Screen Actors Guild). The simple fact is, sadly, I doubt that America in the 1930s would even have been willing to go to a film fronted by an Asian actor. They experimented with it on occasion, with one very interesting and notable example being to curious mystery When Were You Born (1938) starring the lovely and talented Anna Mae Wong. Keye Luke was given the chance to play James Lee Wong in Phantom of Chinatown in 1940 (previously the role had been played by Karloff). But that was about it. Merle Oberon was a popular leading lady in British film, but had to conceal the Indian and Maori heritage she had and used skin lightening makeup. According to film historian Robert Ito, apparently there were "protections" built in to the Hollywood system to protect white actors, guaranteeing that if a character was a lead, and an Asian, he would likely be a white actor cast in 'yellowface'. 

The character of Charlie Chan has drawn some criticism, some of which is justified, and some which may not be. Earl Derr Biggers created the character as a reaction to the 'Yellow Peril' style of portrayal of Asians, which he despised. He wanted a heroic and law-abiding Asian character, and was inspired by meeting real life Honolulu Detective Chang Apana in 1920. Apana was quite a colorful character, whose adventures included being tossed out a window on the second story of a house by drug addicts (only to land on his feet), and single handedly arresting 40 people involved in illegal gambling, while armed only with a bullwhip. However, the character of Charlie Chan is often criticized for his constant overuse of 'fortune cookie' wisdom, and broken English speech patterns, as well as the aforementioned Yellowface. 

On the other hand, Keye Luke, when asked if he felt that Charlie Chan was demeaning, responded with ""Demeaning to the race? My God! You've got a Chinese hero!". It should also be noted that the Charlie Chan films were the most popular American films in China during the 1930s, and there were even a number of Chinese films made of the character during that time. I am reminded somewhat of the controversy surrounding the Looney Tunes character of Speedy Gonzales, which was pulled for being racially offensive, while simultaneously being extremely popular among the people he was supposed to be offensive to. 

The yellowface is absolutely problematic... but the portrayal maybe less so. Chan DOES spout proverbs and fortune cookie wisdom... but as one reviewer pointed out, they aren't always wisdom. Many time they are cutting insults or subtle jabs at the other characters. His 'broken' English speech patterns and polite, gentle manner make his opponents constantly underestimate him. He is shown to be a loving family man, and even, at times, more professional than his colleagues in the police. 

Treated respectfully, and given to a good actual Chinese (or at least Asian) actor, its possible, I think, to modernize and redeem the character of Charlie Chan.

This is NOT a horror film, but it is horror adjacent since it has both Lugosi and Frye in it. Its a pretty good mystery too. I recommend this for fans of Lugosi especially.

Welcome Gruesome Magazine and Decades of Horror Podcast

 To my shock and surprise, a long and rambling email I sent in to the Decades of Horror podcast was read on air... in not just one but TWO of their shows. They even were kind enough to post a link to this blog, which shocks me as well.

This is incredibly kind of them, of course,

And... nerve wracking to me. I mean.... no one has ever actually LOOKED at this blog before. 

Anyway, Decades of Horror has been my podcast of choice to listen to, in addition to Evolution of Horror. Its not quite as academic as Evolution of Horror, but thats not a bad thing. Its really the sort of podcast I would like to do, if I ever did a podcast. 

One thing it has done though, is get me thinking about the various eras of Horror cinema. If we look at their series, they have it divided roughly by decade. The Classic Era is everything 1969 and before, the 70s is another, the 80s is on its own, and the 90s is what wraps it up. I suppose there could be a modern era too.... but as far as I know, they don't have that as a podcast series.

I lean to the Classic Era. That is my comfort zone. I love the old black and white films of that era. Maybe its the historian in me, seeing a cinematic vision of the past. Not always, mind you. But sometimes you can see a glimpse of the world as it was, for better or worse. Just last night, for example, I got a chance to see, for the first time, The Black Camel (1931). This was one something like the second Charlie Chan film made, and the only surviving one of the first 5 Warner Oland led Chan films. It also stars Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye (note that this was released the same year as Universal's Dracula). It suffers from some poorly aged racist stereotypes, but also show Honolulu in the early 30s, which is AMAZING. It even had several scenes shot on location at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel... one scene looking remarkably like it was even the same table I sat at once when I was in college and got to visit with my then-girlfriend, now-wife's family. The film itself had some clever dialogue though, and it gives a wonderful look at the kind of star Lugosi might have been if he hadn't been typecast by his role in Dracula. And I keep thinking about the fact that Hawaii in 1931 seems INCREDIBLY different than it later became. Thats the power of films and history I guess.

But, circling back to the Decades... the 70s is where I start to lose interest. Not entirely, and I probably didn't think of it like this at the time. I can watch almost any genre film of the 60s and before and enjoy it, with a few exceptions. But moving into the 70s, there are suddenly a LOT that annoy me. To be honest, I have discovered I don't really like most American cinema of the 70s. There is a 'same-ness' to the look of it that annoys me. Its the same colors, its the same bleak scenery, and its often the same bleak, downbeat endings. There is a similarity in the look to films like.... The Devil's Rain, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dual, Messiah of Evil, and Kingdom of the Spiders which just sort of annoys me. It looks hot, dusty, and sparse. I'm not sure how to describe it really... it needs someone more eloquent than me I guess. Its utilitarian, I suppose. But I compare it to the films coming out of Europe and Mexico and Asia as the same time? There is no comparison. The incredible colors you find in the films of Argento or Bava give a deeper dimension to those films. The wild use of colors enhanced the spectacles coming out of Japan in films like Hausu or the Godzilla series. Even films that have a similar visual style, like the Paul Naschy werewolf films from Spain, still seem to sparkle more than a lot of their American counterparts. Part of this may have to do with the subject matter... Once the Exorcist hit in the US, there seemed to be a lot of religious based horror unleashed, which doesn't do much for me. Sure, the Exorcist or The Omen are fine films, but... they don't really scare me, or offer me much to think about. 

Well... except for Zombie films. Zombie films always freak me out.

But moving into the 80s... The 80s is a prettier decade for films, and there are some fantastic films in the 80s. But... there is also a lot of very shallow things. I like a bit of depth, and I start missing depth in a lot of the 80s films. The 80s is the age of the endless sequel... where we see the same ideas trotted out over and over again with the slightest variations. Its the age when serial killers overtook the old style monsters, and I felt that loss. There are gems to be found, to be sure... but for every The Thing, Re-Animator, Near Dark, or Videodrome, there are a dozen Friday the 13th Part 5, or whatever slasher variant there was this time around.

I guess... I like monsters. I like the supernatural. I don't care for serial killers or religious horror. I like there to be something in a film to make me think, or I want it to be so obviously playful that it doesn't NEED me to think.

Geez, I'm such a picky old man, aren't I? *shakes my fist at the weather*

And if that hasn't scared folks off from this blog... welcome to my place to rant about things I hate and gush about the stupid things that apparently only I care about.

A newer recommendation and review.

 I know...

I generally try to keep this blog about older films, since I love them, and people today tend to ignore them. But this one is special. 

I would direct you now to Edgar Wright's Last Night in Soho (2021).

There WILL be spoilers, and I will put the poster here... if you don't want the spoilers, don't scroll below the poster. Ok?

Let's start off with the amazing cast, shall we? 

Thomasin McKenzie is the cast member I'm least familiar with, but she does an amazing job here as our protagonist Eloise. Anya Taylor-Joy (The Witch, Queen's Gambit, The New Mutants, and others)  is ALWAYS amazing, and here plays the mysterious 'Sandie' who's life in 60's Soho  Eloise bears witness to. Matt Smith, from In Bruges and Doctor Who, plays Jack, Sandie's charming but scheming boyfriend, and finally AMAZING supporting performances by veteran actors Diana Rigg and Terence Stamp. 

Someone asked me what genre this film is... and its honestly not easy to categorize. It starts as a sort of fantasy piece, but shifts to thriller and then outright horror by the end of it. The style shifts wonderfully, and bleeds together in unexpected ways. 

The basic story is that Eloise (McKenzie), a girl obsessed with 60s pop culture, moves to London to attend a prestigious Fashion Design school. She is not prepared for the city life, having been somewhat sheltered by her grandmother, after the death of her mother, and discovers that Dorm life is harsh... and seeking shelter from it, takes a room in Soho at a house owned by an older woman (Rigg). Almost immediately, Eloise begins having vivid dreams of Sandie (Taylor-Joy) who has come to 60s London to become a singer. Sandie gets involved with the charming Jack (Smith) who seems to be the answers to her prayers, and who promises to get her into 'the business' with his contacts among the nightclubs of Soho. 

But almost immediately what is dream and what is reality start to blur. Eloise wakes up inspired by these visions of this past version of Soho, but ... is also mysteriously sporting the same hickey Jack gave to Sandie in her dreams. 

Each night, Eloise returns to her dreams to watch as Sandie's life progresses, and begins to take a far more sinister turn, and we begin to see that Jack is a far less altruistic beau than he first appeared. And the darkness that Sandie finds herself in starts intruding on Eloise in her waking hours as well. 

The film presents two views of Soho. The present day Soho is a little drab, trendy, almost quaint, and populated by vacuous students and bitter old people. The Soho of the sixties, is, to quote Marillion, 'a neon wonderland', populated by elegant, stylish trendsetters where nothing is exactly what it seems. This dreamlike past is reinforced by mirrors, colored lights, and a sort of hazy atmosphere that is easy to get lost in. 

The very first scene set in this is astonishing in its setup, and remarkable in its execution. Eloise enters a club, and is greeted by a doorman who takes her coat. The full mirror on the wall shows not Eloise, but Sandie, and the two women face each other in the mirror, checking their makeup before going into the club proper. Its such a simple effect, little more than the old Marx Brothers mirror gag, but done expertly (using twin actors as the doorman) and for dramatic effect. It establishes that what Sandie experiences, Eloise does as well. 

Later, Sandie and Jack share a dance, and with a very simple camera trick, we see Eloise also dancing with Jack. Its all done practically, and in-camera. The dance and the camera are choreographed so that McKenzie and Taylor-Joy swap places seamlessly at various points, and its a gorgeous sequence.

Later still, we see Sandie running down the club's stairs, and Eloise pursuing in the mirrors.... again, ALL done practically on set, with only false reflection added later using CGI. 

The colors and the lighting are pure Dario Argento. Wright lights things in pink and red hazes, and highlights things with green lights, and the result is something visually stunning. I've heard a rumor that Suspiria (1977) is one of Wrights favorite films, and it shows. However, that is not the only influence here. The clothing often recalls the 60s James Bond Films, and one party sequence reflects Live and Let Die. When the crowds of ghosts begin to appear, I kept thinking of Carnival of Souls. One alleyway they run through I recognized from Peeping Tom (1960), there is a cinema marque advertising Thunderball (1965), several of Eloise's fellow students dress as the characters from The Craft (1996)... This is a film that draws from and page homage to all sorts of films that came before it.

One of my favorite moments in the film is where it transitions to something darker in the past. Eloise has arrived to Sandie's opening night at the club where Jack got her a job, expecting to see her headlining. She feels something is amiss, as she watches Jack laughing, smoking, and drinking with his friends at the bar, and when the show starts... its not Sandie who is headlining. Instead, its a rather sordid, risque little show with a clearly unhappy Sandie as one of the chorus. As Eloise, and the Audience follow her backstage after the performance, it initially looks like an energetic and happily chaotic scene... but then you start picking out whats really going on; Prostitution, Drug-use, blackmail, extortion... again, what we see initially is NOT what we find when we look deeper.

The only real misstep... and I'm not sure how much of a misstep it really is, and how much is just a mistake on Eloise's part... is her mistaking 'The older gentleman' (Terence Stamp) for an aged Jack. We saw what very much seemed to be a younger version of Stamp's character as one of Sandie's 'dates' and his personality seemed very different than Jack's as well. While I can understand Eloise's fixation and fear of Jack, linking him to 'The Older Gentleman' seemed a bit of a stretch... and particularly when Stamp's character seemed to know exactly what Eloise was talking about and have information about what really happened. 

I want to revisit this film again soon. I find myself thinking about it long after watching it.