reappearing in DRACULA (1931), WHITE ZOMBIE (1932), THE RETURN OF CHANDU (1934), THE DARK EYES OF LONDON (aka THE HUMAN MON- STER, 1939) and several other films, but never was the technique used to bet- ter effect than in this mo- ment when Mirakle is lambasting the entirety of the cinema-going audi- ence of the 1930s for their reluctance to accept the Theory of Evolution. In a series of quick cuts, the camera focuses on various audience mem- bers as Mirakle continues to insist on their “kinship with the ape.” Each of the faces, even the prettiest ones, have a dour and bestial look to them, re- sembling the extras in a Fellini movie from 40 years later moreso than the traditional background faces in a major Hollywood
In one of the film’s most frightening scenes, Mirakle pays an unannounced late evening call to Camille’s apartment.
production. These quick cuts underscore the underlying truth in Mirakle’s heretical claims. As with many of the best and most subversive horror films of the 1930s, the supposed “villain” was the one character allowed to speak the inner thoughts of the filmmakers. Only a villain can get away with uttering such heresies. After all, the “bad guys” in a popular medium like film couldn’t pos- sibly be speaking the truth. Just as James Whale would use the character of Dr. Septimus Pretorious (Ernest Thesiger) as his mouthpiece to challenge the religious strictures of his day in THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), Florey uses Dr. Mirakle to assault the movie-going public with statements that would, if uttered by the hero of a film such as this, have caused some of the more fanatically evangelical segments of the audience to burn down the theater.
At one point during this unorthodox sideshow performance, Erik grabs Camille’s bonnet, and almost strangles Pierre. Mirakle offers to buy Camille a new bonnet merely as a ploy to dis- cover Camille’s address. Pierre prevents Camille from doing this and takes her away from Mirakle’s tent. Frustrated by the tantalizing vision
of Camille being wrenched from his grasp, Mirakle instead takes Janos on a coach ride to prowl along the waterfront and find an appropriate mate for Erik in order to continue his “research.” Mirakle’s core dilemma is no doubt a twisted, psychological one. He professes to have only the noblest scientific intentions, yet his essential quest is that of fulfilling his own thwarted sexual desires via Erik. Erik is his proxy. Lugosi’s contorted, la- bored mannerisms hint at the possibility that Mirakle is a tortured man, perhaps suffering from a great deal of sexual frustration that can only be fulfilled through his “great experiment.” Mirakle’s quest is an impossible one. From what occurs later, we know he’s searching for a woman who looks like a whore on the surface, but nonethe- less is “pure” inside. This is made evident by his actions after the tempting visage of Camille is es- corted away from him by Pierre, a younger and more virile rival.
Mirakle later spots a “female in distress” in the thick fog that plagues the Parisian waterfront. Two potential johns are apparently fighting over the street walker (portrayed by a teenage Arlene Francis in her screen debut). The streetwalker
21
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
