Cast:
Peter Lorre (Dr. Gogol), Frances Drake (Yvonne Orlac), Colin Clive (Stephen Orlac), Ted Healy (Reagan), Sara Haden (Marie), Edward Brophy (Rollo the Knife Thrower), Henry Kolker (Prefect Rosset), Keye Luke (Dr. Wong), and May Beatty (Françoise) Directed by Karl Freund (#622 - The Mummy)
Review:
There is something that appeals well to my being for films that got a bit of a bad rap in contemporary times, especially with a useful actor or director at the helm. You may remember that there was already an adaptation of the novel Les Mains d'Orlac (as written by Maurice Renard) with The Hands of Orlac in 1924. This was not only the first American film appearance for Peter Lorre but also the last film directed by Karl Freund. Freund was born in Bohemia (modern-day Czech Republic), and his interest in film began as an apprentice projectionist in the early 20th century. He would work as a newsreel cameraman before he became a cinematographer, which he would do for many films in Germany, most notably with films such as The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920) and Metropolis (1927); the unchained camera, one that involved a camera without a tripod, was his invention. He moved to the United States in 1929 and continued his work on the camera, even winning an Academy Award for The Good Earth (1937). He had directed one film with The Sensational Trial (1923) in Germany before his move, but the majority of his ten features as director came in America, with The Mummy (1932) and Mad Love (1935) being the most known. With Lorre, he was born in Austria-Hungary to Jewish parents, and he had begun acting in stage since the 1920s in Vienna before moving onto Germany for films. M (1931) made him a noted face with audiences, as it was his first major role as an actor. Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) only made him more noted. He left Germany for America when Hitler came to power, and this was his first American production. Over the next couple of years, he would do a handful of features as either the menacing heavy or in B-movie fare before his death in 1964. The film was released by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (as part of a deal with Columbia Pictures that had him do the film there in exchange for him getting to do Crime and Punishment), which apparently did not want the film to show a trainwreck of any scenes of...handsy play with statues.
Florence Crewe-Jones was behind a translation of the Renard story while also doing an adaptation with Guy Endore. John L. Balderston and P.J. Wolfson did the screenplay while there were a handful of contributions done by other writers such as Gladys von Ettinghausen, Leon Gordon, Leon Wolfson, and Edgar Allan Woolf. The film was not a considerable success, making less than $400,000 with audiences. Oddly, it became a strange point of contention with a film essay involving Citizen Kane decades later. See, Mad Love and Citizen Kane had the same cinematographer in Karl Freund (brought in to do additional filming after Chester A. Lyons had been the sole cinematographer) and film critic Pauline Kael accused the director as copying the visual style of the earlier film for his feature. In short, let us close out this diversion by calling the essay a sloppy and incorrect piece of junk and move on. The movie, unlike the previous Austrian production, focuses more on the doctor character rather than the character with transplanted hands. Of course, it is hard to top Conrad Veidt in terms of lead dominating performance, so going with Lorre in a different way does make things seem a bit fresher. This results in a curious movie that only runs at 68 minutes that rewards viewers who like Lorre and his endearing presence of creeps more than anybody else in the film. For one, his character is a tragic one, a guy who happens to like weird horror plays in the time not spent curing sick kids...well, that, and the obsession with an actress to the point where he buys a wax figure of her. It is the descent of the doctor rather than the descent of someone with new hands that is the focus here, going from savior to mastermind. He proves quite creepy when it comes to be a master manipulator, one who oozes on an efficient scale that makes the movie entirely his to control in disturbing obsession. You know who liked him in this? Charlie Chaplin, because he called him "The Greatest Living Actor" when he saw this film. Well, it doesn't mean the other actors are bad, it just means they get a bit overshadowed by such fun, most of being on Clive, who makes for quite a mild breakdown, although Drake (known mostly for her work as a terrified heroine on numerous works in the 1930s) does make a quality presence that Lorre can match up with in offbeat mannerisms, which is certainly odd when it goes up against the relief done by Healy, Beatty, and Brophy. At any rate, it is a movie about the outsider in a time where people wanted something a little more escapist that has certainly aged well despite its limitations. The pacing hasn't improved from the last one, and it certainly makes a shaky leap to get to its ultimate end goal, but as a whole it makes for a solid deranged cult classic that probably ranks a bit higher than The Hands of Orlac in the long run when it comes to efficient and off-putting horror.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
