search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Robert Florey’s MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE, in a famous twist of Hol- lywood irony, came about because of James Whale’s film adaptation of FRAN- KENSTEIN (1931). Florey had been the first director assigned the task of bringing Mary Shelley’s Gothic novel to the screen with Bela Lugosi— who had portrayed Dracula in the suc- cessful Universal ad- aptation only a few months earlier—fea- tured in the star role as the Monster. Lugosi was reluctant to take the assignment be- cause, among other reasons, he did not wish to play a non- speaking role at that


Lugosi with Noble Johnson, an African-American actor made-up in whiteface to play “Janos—the Dark One.” Johnson subsequently played the native chief of Skull Island in KING KONG.


point in his career. (According to Florey, the di- rector first approached Lugosi with the opportu- nity to play Dr. Frankenstein, but the studio heads reversed that decision and insisted Lugosi play the Monster.) Lugosi refused the role, at which point the studio removed both Florey and Lugosi from the project and assigned them to MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE, while Whale and Boris Karloff went on to make cinematic history with FRANKENSTEIN.


Doubtless disappointed that such a plumb assignment had been torn from his grasp, Florey did everything he could to make up for it with his expressionistic take on 1845 Paris in his con- solation prize. An in-depth analysis of Florey’s film can only be beneficial, as it’s a telling touch- stone that reveals the attitudes towards the Theory of Evolution at a time in the United States when the subject was still in wide dispute and capable of enflaming great debate among both religious and scientific figures alike. That Florey attempted to address the issue within a semi- fictional framework, within a popular medium like film, was daring in 1932 and therefore wor- thy of deeper study now, when the topic of evo- lution is still capable of stirring anger and controversy in certain quarters.


18


We begin our story at a carnival where we see exotic dancers from the Middle East (or at least their Hollywood stand-ins) entertaining our pro- tagonists: Pierre (Leon Waycoff, who later became Leon Ames), Pierre’s girlfriend Camille (Sidney Fox), Pierre’s friend Paul (Bert Roach) and Paul’s girlfriend Mignette (Edna Marion). A carnival barker directs our attention toward the dancers, advertis- ing them as “the adorable Arab angels.” Special emphasis is placed on the males in the crowd ogling the exotic dancers. Some older, respect- able looking gentlemen exchange suggestive jokes about the dancers, and the leering expressions on their faces make their desire obvious. First Gentleman (referring to the dancers): “Do


w they bite?” pay extra for that!”


Second Gentleman: “Oh, yes! But you have to Camille says to her boyfriend, “See, Pierre, how


brown they are. Is that their real color, do you suppose, or have they painted themselves?” Pierre says, smiling, “Shall I find out for you?” “Don’t you dare!” admonishes Camille. Paul asks his girlfriend if she would, for him, learn to dance like the “Arab angels.” When she appears offended and says no, Paul replies, “I guess I’ll have to join the show!”

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84