Why this isn't as respected as the other Universal classics - The Mummy (1932) Discussion

[–] jpaulgagen 16 years ago

Well for one it does not have the iconic imagery of Dracula, Frankenstein or The Wolfman.

You show anybody an Image of Lugosi's Dracula or Karloff's monster and they'll recognise the image, even if thy don't know the origin of it. Lon Chaney Jr's Wolfman is getting close to a similar iconography, but not to the same degree. Part of the attraction of watching the other movies is seeing these icons that have permeated modern culture at work.

Also Zita Johann is getting around in what amounts to see through neglige for half the movie, which would limit TV showings.

reply

[–] OgreVI 16 years ago

Actually, I think the Mummy does have that sort of iconic image; show someone a photo and they'll recognize it, whether they've seen the movie or not. But it's the shambling bandage-clad Kharis that's the image, not Karloff as Imhotep. Which is what I'm saying; the image is the inferior, Tom Tyler/Chaney Jr. Mummy, and Karloff's villain gets tarred with that brush. If the film had been called King of the Dead, maybe that association wouldn't be there, and this film would get its due.

Ah, Zita...easily the coolest (and sexiest) of the Universal heroines of this period.

Death is...whimsical today.

reply

[–] jpaulgagen 16 years ago

The stumbling mummy image isn't really part of this film's imagery, and I suspect that if there was more of it in this film it would be held in higher regard. It's funny but I consider [i]The Mummy[i] to be the best of the Universal Horror features.

Hmm, Zita Johann and Fay Wray [drool]. Those pre-Hays code producers in the '30s certainly knew how to pick girls with real sex appeal to be the heroine.

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 13 years ago

Fay Wray: Yes, yes and yes again.

Zita Johann: No, God no. And God no again. I'm kind of creeped out by her, myself. I can't quite put my finger on it... Eyes too far apart? I'm really not sure.

---
Morning sun, vanquish me!

reply

[–] gayspiritwarrior 13 years ago

Zita Johann's exoticism is part of her appeal, a truly sexy, beautiful woman in the absolute right role at the right time.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 13 years ago

Let's combine our opinions and we have:

Her ugliness is a part of her attractiveness.

---
I hear his theme music, he's around here somewhere...

reply

[–] gayspiritwarrior 13 years ago

That's your opinion, not mine.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 13 years ago

I say she's unattractive and I try to explain why. Then you respond, and in your reponse, you basically say it's what makes her appealing; you say her "exoticism is part of her appeal", as if calling what I pointed out as ugliness, "exotic".

Either way, I said "let's combine"! Your response seemed to do just that and I pointed it out in an, apparently, subtle way.

---
I hear his theme music, he's around here somewhere...

reply

[–] gayspiritwarrior 13 years ago

Exotic does not mean the same as ugly. There's ugly exoticism, which you apparently ascribe to Johann, and there's attractive or even beautiful exoticism, which is what my original post conveyed, perhaps too subtly. We don't agree at all, and somehow trying to find an average we can both accept isn't going to work as long as your definition and mine differ.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 13 years ago

No, no. You misunderstand me! I did not mean to say that "exotic" = "ugly"; I said that you called "exotic" what I called "ugly". Of course your perspective merely differs and my minuses are your pluses, but you replied to me using "exotic" in a manner suggesting that it was interchangeable with my use of "ugly", as if saying -- yes -- that her ugliness is a part of her appeal.

What we have here is seriously just an arguement concerning semantics, though, and I'm okay with letting it go. I'm fine with the disagreement, really! Judging by comments here I'm in a minority thinking she's unattractive. I accept that. Also, my initial reply to your... reply was done tongue-in-cheek, FYI.

---
I hear his theme music, he's around here somewhere...

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 13 years ago

Okay,

1) I don't think it's fair to say it's less popular because it "lacks iconic imagery"; imagery becomes iconic through its exposure to people. I'm not sure if it works the other way. But I guess I know what you're saying. Nothing stands out as much as the Wolf Man.

2) I would, however, argue that it does have some: http://www.digitallard.com/Images/DVD%20Review/Content859/mummy-2.jpg

I don't think that there stare is something you forget about in the first place. It seems to be the perfect definition of "badass".

---
Morning sun, vanquish me!

reply

[–] trivial_matt 16 years ago

I agree. Most people think that Mummy movies are all with a guy with bandages walking around and killing people. In my opinion, the Mummy is one of the most fascinating monsters. He is not some sort of stupid walking dead, he is a sacerdot from old Egypt that is re-born in moderns times, a creepy and manipulative man that do anything to get wath he wants.

This movie should be more respected, it´s a precious Universal Monster movie.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Squonkamatic 16 years ago

This is the only one of the four Universal films without any literary precedents, there's no "The Mummy" novel or tradition of folklore behind the monster, which was pretty much created ad-hoc based on the popularity of all things exotic & other worldly during the Victorian & Edwardian eras. People we always fascinated by Egyptology but the Egyptians themselves had no "monster" implications for mummies. All that was created by writers after the turn of the century, and as such this movie and those that came after it are sort of based on a flimsy xenophobic device or contrivance rather than some rich history of storytelling.

It's still a fantastic movie, mind you, it just doesn't have the social resonance of something like Dracula or Frankenstein, which were more universal creations based upon literary traditions that proceeded their original source material by centuries.

reply

[–] Hyman_Flomax 16 years ago

The Mummy was written by John Balderston who also penned Dracula, and the plotting is virtually identical, obviously a template that he consciously recreated for commercial reasons. Though this is a better film than Dracula at least, less stagey and more expressive than Frankenstein even. The reason this one works as well as it does is due mostly to Karl Freund and his cinematographer, and as Pauline Kael noted, no other horror film of that period achieved so many emotional effects purely from lighting - it's moody and poetic in ways that aren't matched by its contemporaries.

Throw out your gold teeth and see how they roll.

reply

[–] donofthedial 16 years ago

The problem is that it is a rather dry film. (ha)

PS- They are running the film right now on channel 56 in Anaheim, CA. They broke for a commercial immediately after the credits and the first title card. I turned it off.

reply

[–] snickz 16 years ago

I think the other three monsters just have more appeal. The first time I saw this movie I was expecting to see more of the mummy walking around in bandages and terrorizing people. I wasn't too crazy about it. After seeing it the second time, I appreciated it more, and now after numerous viewings, I love it. It's one of those movies that has some depth to it, and not everyone can appreciate it.

reply

[–] ebailey140 16 years ago

The Mummy was written by John Balderston who also penned Dracula, and the plotting is virtually identical, obviously a template that he consciously recreated for commercial reasons. Though this is a better film than Dracula at least, less stagey and more expressive than Frankenstein even. The reason this one works as well as it does is due mostly to Karl Freund and his cinematographer, and as Pauline Kael noted, no other horror film of that period achieved so many emotional effects purely from lighting - it's moody and poetic in ways that aren't matched by its contemporaries.

And don't forget Karloff's performance. Karloff is so underrated as an actor. How great he was at getting the humanity of these characters across is overlooked because of the genre he worked in. He made the audience sympathize with both Frankenstein's Monster and In-Ho-Tep. He could get so much across with his eyes, alone. The 1999 "remake" missed everything that made the original great. The Mummy in that was just pure eeeevil, and nothing else.

Ironically, Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, which was no more faithful to Stoker's novel than the other Dracula films, seemed to be based more on this film than that 1999 movie that claimed to be was. I thought, at the time, "It's not really Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it's a very nice remake of The Mummy. :)

reply

[–] hbenthow 13 years ago

The 1999 "remake" missed everything that made the original great. The Mummy in that was just pure eeeevil, and nothing else.

How long has it been since you have seen the 1999 version? In that one, Imhotep is very sympathetic. Sure, he will do anything and kill anyone to get his way, but he's that was in this one as well. Also, you must remember that some of the things he does in the 1999 version are not of his own free will, but because of the curse put on him.

Ironically, Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, which was no more faithful to Stoker's novel than the other Dracula films, seemed to be based more on this film than that 1999 movie that claimed to be was. I thought, at the time, "It's not really Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it's a very nice remake of The Mummy. :)

You're right that the 1999 version is not anything like the original, but that's exactly why I like it. When a remake is heavily based on the original, I usually wind up liking one and disliking the other. But the 1932, 1959, and 1999 versions are so different that I like them all. They are all excellent in their own different ways.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

reply

[–] jriddle73 16 years ago

The Mummy was written by John Balderston who also penned Dracula, and the plotting is virtually identical, obviously a template that he consciously recreated for commercial reasons.

An oft-repeated assertion, but simply not born out by the finished product. Aside from certain cast and crew members, the two films had very little in common. THE MUMMY is better than DRACULA, but that isn't the perfecting of a formula. It's a solid film in its own right, not as a superior remake.

The reason this one works as well as it does is due mostly to Karl Freund and his cinematographer, and as Pauline Kael noted, no other horror film of that period achieved so many emotional effects purely from lighting - it's moody and poetic in ways that aren't matched by its contemporaries.

Kael's comments are proof positive that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

reply

[–] zaraath 11 years ago

This is the only one of the four Universal films without any literary precedents, there's no "The Mummy" novel.

Bram Stoker did write "The Jewel of Seven Stars", a novel about a reincarnated Egyptian princess (which reminded me a bit of le Fanu's Carmilla, if I recall correctly after not reading either one for decades). But that isn't really the genesis of this movie, the principals may not even have heard of it. It was made into a 1980 movie "The Awakening", which I haven't seen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080402/

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also wrote several stories about mummies, "The Ring of Thoth" and "Lot No. 249".

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bradjanet 16 years ago

It's not based on a literary model like Dracula and Frankenstein, but I think it is very well respected ... the lighting , sets and costuming are wonderful, as is Karloff's performance ... the film's use of the Swan lake score, while not entirely appropriate, adds to the films's atmosphere of dreamy romanticism. I seem to remember that one of the sequels was quite effective too, and scarier.

But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TorontoJediMaster 15 years ago

I agree that the 1940's B-grade Mummy films caused Karloff's classic to suffer in comparison.

In the argument that it's a remake of Dracula, there are some valid points. Some plot elements were the same, as were certain cast and crew members. But, this film was essentially a different animal. For starters, Im-Ho-Tep was solely driven by love -although it caused him to do evil things. Dracula, on the other hand, had purely evil intentions.

As well, the 1931 Dracula was simply a filmed version of the stage play. This film, however, had movement and energy. It was a pure cinematic effort.

However, in watching this, it does make me wonder what Dracula would have been like with Karl Freund as director, rather than Tod Browning. Freund was able to do wonderful camerawork, as well as get good performances from his cast -as compared to the static feel of Browning's film and the very wooden performances.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

Personally I find the movie incredibly boring. It starts off great with the genuinely frightening sequence with the guy going mad when he sees the mummy come to life. Then it comes to a screeching halt and just has endless sequences of people talking...and talking...and talking ENDLESSLY! "Dracula" was also very talky but it had Bela Lugosi's iconic performance in it. This movie has Karloff (a wonderful actor) giving one of his worst performances. He never moves a muscle on his face and speaks in a monotone. Maybe it fits the character but it makes it a chore to watch. I've seen this multiple times trying to find out why people love it so much but I can't figure it out. The sequels WERE crap too but they weren't deadly dull like this.

reply

[–] slarivee 15 years ago

I love this movie, and for some of the reasons you mention. So many movies today rely on special effects and constant action that you wonder what the story is. The movie seems to be a series of stunts only loosely connected. This movie has a story. There is not a lot of action in it. The charm of the story is the mood, atmosphere, superb performance by Karloff, and the love story that develops. I never, ever, found this movie deadly dull. I first saw this movie on TV in the mid-1950s and never miss an opportunity to revisit it when it is on TV.

I wonder if there is an "age thing" involved here. My guess is that many younger viewers might find it dull because there is a lot of dialogue and not much action

reply

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

Hi. OK--it's not the lack of action. For instance, one of my favorite films of all time is Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" and that's ALL talk and no action at all! I just find "The Mummy" slow and painfully obvious. Also I'm 47 so I'm obviously not a young kid:) But you'rte right about young kids today--they don't like older horror movies. I found out that most them think "Halloween" (the 1978 version) is boring but I remember it scaring me silly back then--and it STILL works today!

reply

[–] Michaelnlori 15 years ago

I never liked this film much when i was a boy-I considered it alot of talk and very little "horror". I wanted to see the Mummy walking around scaring people and was disappointed. I'm 56 and have seen it countless times since then and now it's one of my favorite Universal horror films. I find it so creepy it gets under your skin and the opening shot of the British explorer going mad stays with you for the entire film. I also love the flashback scenes to ancient Egypt-as one poster stated, Karloff could do so much acting with just his eyes and in those scenes you can really feel his terror. A classic film!!

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 14 years ago

Maybe because it isn't as good as the others? It's atmosperic and has decent FX, but it doesn't reach the level of Dracula or the Frankenstein movies IMO.

reply

[–] SVU14_1 14 years ago

I don't know if this has already been mentioned before but I personally think that one of if not the reason this movie is not as popular as Dracula or the Wolf-Man is because of the lack of "true horror"/"action".

The Mummy is more or less a romance movie with some supernatural/horror elements. It's a romance/thriller movie. You only see the Mummy in his mummy-form for the first part of the movie and then he transforms into a human. There is one scary scene where the Mummy magically kills one of the British dudes and there's the ending when the female star becomes or appeals to the goddess Isis and defeats the movie. There isn't enough "action".

All the other Mummy movies like the 1959 version and of course the 1999 version feature the Mummy as a bandaged zombie-monster going around killing people. The original Mummy is much more sophisticated than that.

reply

[–] moundshroud 14 years ago

All the other Mummy movies like the 1959 version and of course the 1999 version feature the Mummy as a bandaged zombie-monster going around killing people.

Don't overlook Universal's own reboot of their Mummy franchise in the 1940s with the mummy Kharis. That's where the stereotypical "shuffling mummy" really got popularized.

reply

[–] hbenthow 13 years ago

The Mummy is more or less a romance movie with some supernatural/horror elements. It's a romance/thriller movie. You only see the Mummy in his mummy-form for the first part of the movie and then he transforms into a human.

That's not quite true. Yes, he's only wrapped in bandages for a minute, but after he is unwrapped, he's still a dried-up, shriveled mummy for the whole movie.

All the other Mummy movies like the 1959 version and of course the 1999 version feature the Mummy as a bandaged zombie-monster going around killing people. The original Mummy is much more sophisticated than that.

Although you're description fits the 1959 version, in the 1999 version, we only see Imhotep wrapped in bandages for actually less time than the original, and he is not a zombie, but has his own free will, and is motivated by love as in the original.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 10 years ago

Personally I find the movie incredibly boring. It starts off great with the genuinely frightening sequence with the guy going mad when he sees the mummy come to life. Then it comes to a screeching halt and just has endless sequences of people talking...and talking...and talking ENDLESSLY!

Agreed...

Maybe it fits the character but it makes it a chore to watch. I've seen this multiple times trying to find out why people love it so much but I can't figure it out.

...Not so much here.

Passenger side, lighting the sky
Always the first star that I find
You're my satellite...

reply

[–] jcaraway3 14 years ago

I would say it's because a mummy is just a mummy to must people. If you show someone a picture of the mummy, they'll think it's just a mummy, because there are tons of movies about evil mummies. But they recognize Dracula or Frankenstein because there is only one Dracula and only one Frankenstein. But a mummy is just a mummy.

reply