Werewolf Wednesday: The Wolf Man Makeup Process

Previously on this date: Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, Frankenstein, and Macabre Monster Nails!

Today we'll be looking at various photos of Lon Chaney Jr. enduring the long makeup process that transformed him into the Wolf Man again and again over the years, mostly at the hands of Jack Pierce. Enjoy!

Werewolf Wednesday: The Evolution of Lon Chaney Jr's Wolf Man

Previously on this date: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Frightening Frankenstein Figures!

The Wolf Man is one of the great monsters of the classic Universal canon, no doubt about it. Unique among the classic movie monsters, the hirsute horror was portrayed throughout his existence by a single actor: Lon Chaney Jr. Chaney Jr. is generally held in lesser regard than many of his peers, but I maintain that, while he was not as versatile as Karloff, Lugosi, or his own father, he was a good deal better than he is normally given credit for. today we're taking a look at a selection of photos and film stills to demonstrate how the look of the Wolf Man changed over the years.

Naturally, 1941's The Wolf Man is the place to begin.

His look was basically unchanged for several years, as this shot from 1944's House of Frankenstein shows.

However, once master makeup artist Jack Pierce was replaced with Bud Westmore, the makeup process was altered in several ways to make it quicker and easier. This was the result, seen in 1948's Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

These photos of Chaney's appearance as the Wolf Man on the 1960s TV series Route 66 display the importance of someone like Pierce or Westmore, not to mention an adequate makeup budget.

As a bonus, here's a nice shot of The Wolf Man co-star Evelyn Ankers pitching in.

Creep on back tomorrow for more classic horror goodness!

Mummy Monday: A Master at Work

Previously on this date: Tombstones and Dracula's Daughter!

Today, enjoy a few photos of makeup master Jack Pierce working on the mask and costume Lon Chaney Jr. wore for the Mummy sequels in which he starred. The sequels to the original (and excellent) The Mummy are infamous for their lack of quality relative to most of Universal's classic horror output, but Chaney made for an imposing monster all the same!

Son of Dracula (1943)

I'm back to help you through hump day with a look at Universal's 1943 Lon Chaney Jr. vehicle Son of Dracula!

 By 1943, Universal had clearly positioned Chaney as the heir to his famous father's role as the "Master Character Creator, and their top horror star. Having already originated the role of the Wolf Man, and subsequently tackling the roles of the Frankenstein Monster and the Mummy, it was perhaps inevitable that he would don the black cape of the vampire king Count Dracula.

The mysterious Count Alucard journeys to New Orleans at the invitation of Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton). Colonel Caldwell (George Irving), Katherine's father, dies soon after Alucard's arrival, leaving his plantation to Katherine, while her sister Claire(Evelyn Ankers) inherits his fortune. Katherine soon spurns her boyfriend Frank Stanley(Robert Paige), marrying Alucard. During a confrontation, Frank tries to shoot Alucard, but the bullets pass through the Count and hit Katherine. Mortified, Frank runs away.

 

 Frank goes to his friend Dr. Brewster(Frank Craven) for help. When Brewster pays a visit to the couple, he finds Katherine seemingly alive and well. Alucard and Katherine inform the doctor that their days are consumed with their new scientific research; thus, they will only accept visitors at night. With the arrival of Professor Lazlo(J. Edward Bromberg), the vampiric nature of Alucard is revealed, and the three of them realize that Katherine has become a vampire as well. Ominously, Lazlo realizes what name is revealed when "Alucard" is spelled backward...

 Son of Dracula is not a particularly well-liked film. Most viewers take issue with Chaney's casting as Dracula, feeling that the burly, thoroughly American actor is not suited for the role. Honestly, it's tough to disagree. However, the film takes on a new dimension, and Chaney seems less miscast, if you consider the possibility that his character is an imposter. He claims to be Dracula, but there's no evidence presented to substantiate this claim. There is a very real possibility that Alucard is simply a vampire who has usurped the dreaded name of Count Dracula to boost his reputation. I find that the film is more enjoyable if viewed with this in mind. The script does call Alucard's true identity into question, so it's not coming completely out of left field. Many of the problems people have with the film, and the characterization of Alucard in particular, disappear when watching it from this point of view.

The cast is good overall, but the standout is easily Louise Allbritton's Katherine. She ranges from  feigned innocence to seductive persuasion to coldly manipulative with ease, becoming the films most interesting character. As the film nears its conclusion, she has usurped Alucard as the most dangerous threat to the other characters in the film.

Tightly scripted by The Wolf Man scribe Curt Siodmak, and ably directed by his brother Robert Siodmak, Son of Dracula is an atmospheric thriller that ranks among the best horror films of the 1940s despite its flaws. The New Orleans setting lends it a unique quality among the classic horror films, and the Universal horrors in particular. The film notably features the first time a vampire transforms into a bat onscreen, an effect achieved by Academy Award-winning visual effects guru John P. Fulton. Ultimately, Son of Dracula may be only a minor classic in the Universal canon, but this often-overlooked film is a gem that is well worth spending 80 minutes with.

31 Days of Halloween: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

It's Werewolf Wednesday, and today's film features not only the Wolf Man, but Count Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, and the truly terrifying Abbott and Costello!

By 1948, Universals' horror cycle had pretty much run out of steam. After 1945's rather lackluster House of Dracula, it seemed as if we may have seen the last of those classic monsters. Fortunately, someone hit upon the marvelous idea to give the classic monsters a sendoff with the screen's top comedy team, Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. The result is a truly hilarious comedy that is surprisingly respectful of its monster characters.

Baggage handlers Chick(Abbott) and Wilbur(Costello) receive large crates that have been imported by McDougal(Frank Ferguson) for his house of horrors. Skeptical of McDougal's claims that the crates contain the real Dracula(Bela Lugosi) and Frankenstein Monster(Glenn Strange), the duo agrees to deliver them in person so that they can be inspected by an insurance agent. Dracula rises from his coffin, hypnotizes Wilbur, and leaves with the Monster, and Chick and Wilbur find themselves in jail for theft!

Wilbur quickly becomes a pawn in Dracula's scheme to give the Monster a new brain, while Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr.), in hot pursuit of the vampire, tries to stop him. Wilbur also has to deal with the advances of Dr. Sandra Mornay(Lenore Aubert) and Joan Raymond(Jane Randolph), each of whom have their own motives. On top of everything else, there's a wonderful cameo by the great Vincent Price at the end!

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein--titled The Brain of Frankenstein during pre-production-- is a very satisfying film. The filmmakers made the wise decision to play the monsters straight, treating them with respect, rather than lampooning them. This careful balance makes the film a more fitting sendoff for the three featured monsters than the straightly-played House of Dracula. The film also features some terrific Dracula transformations provided by animator and Woody Woodpecker creator Walter Lantz.

The cast does a very good job with the material. Abbott and Costello are wonderful, as usual, and even the monsters get a rare opportunity to display their comedic skills here and there(and be sure to watch for Glenn Strange cracking up during the scene in which Costello accidentally sits in his lap!). It's particularly wonderful to see Bela as Dracula one last time, still bringing every ounce of regal menace to the role that is expected. Unfortunately, this would be Bela's final role in a film at a larger studio; it was zero-budget quickie affairs from here on out. Thankfully, this film provides him a suitable swansong for his most famous role.

Despite its status as a comedy, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is every bit as satisfying for horror buffs as it is for viewers who are in it strictly for the comedic value. There is never a dull moment, and despite a few lapses in logic(a gigantic castle in Florida???!?!), the script is more than adequate, and always respectful of its monsters. It's a far cry from the Gothic horror masterpieces that originated the series nearly two decades earlier, but the film is a pretty good finale for them nevertheless. This one is highly recommended.

31 Days of Halloween Two-fer: House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula

It's two for one today, as I've decided to group both of these mid-'40s Universal Monster Rallies together! As Universal monster movies go, House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula are not among the more popular entries in the cycle. Is the stigma attached to these two movies justified? Keep reading!

House of Frankenstein, alternately titled Chamber of Horrors and The Devil's Brood at various stages of production, was the natural evolution of the idea of pairing up the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. It is rumored that an early draft of the screenplay featured even more monsters from Universal's stable, such as the Invisible Man, the Mummy, and even the Mad Ghoul! The final film still boasts quite a roster; aside from the returning Frankenstein Monster and Wolf Man, we also have Dracula, a hunchback, and a mad scientist!

Dr. Niemann(Boris Karloff) and his assistant, the hunchbacked Daniel(J. Carrol Naish), escape from prison and quickly hijack the traveling carnival of Professor Lampini(George Zucco). Among Lampini's attractions is the skeleton of Count Dracula(John Carradine). Removing the stake which had rendered the vampire helpless, Niemann convinces Dracula to aid him in seeking revenge on the men responisble for his imprisonment. Daniel befriends an abused gypsy dancer, Ilonka(Elena Verdugo), and she joins the motley crew. While searching for the records of Dr. Frankenstein, Niemann and Daniel discover the Wolf Man(Lon Chaney Jr.) and the Frankenstein Monster(Glenn Strange) frozen in ice! Niemann bamboozles Talbot into helping him revive the monster, promising that he can cure Talbot's lycanthropy. The whole situation comes to a head once the group arrives in Niemann's old laboratory, arousing the ire of the surly villagers.

The performances in HoF are rather good overall, with Karloff's Dr. Niemann a standout. He transitions from cordiality to icy menace flawlessly, whenever appropriate. Chaney could play Talbot in his sleep by this time, and the script gives him no opportunity to break any new ground with the character. Still, he does a good job in a role with which he was very familiar at this point.

Carradine's Dracula has long been the source of much debate. (My nephew always disliked him, referring to him as "that imposter Dracula!") While it's always tough not to miss Bela Lugosi when Dracula is called for, on the whole, I feel that Lugosi's Dracula simply would not have worked as well in this film as the character is written. For example, it's impossible for anyone I know to imagine Lugosi's Dracula coming up short in a battle of wills, as Carradine's Dracula does in this film! Carradine lacks the refined, magnetic charisma of Lugosi, but he still is adequate as Dracula in this film. The script doesn't give him a whole lot of room to develop the character, but he does have one standout scene in which he seduces Rita(Anne Gwynne), the daughter of one of Niemann's enemies.

The music and sets are mostly re-used from earlier films, but they all suit the film extremely well, and are not a detriment to the film. The bat transformations used for Dracula are quite nice, although the fake bat used is still laughable. (Also, keep an eye out for a scene in which Talbot transforms into the Wolf Man in front of a dresser. His hands remain bare, although they're furry again a few seconds later.)

All in all, I find House of Frankenstein to be an enjoyable film. Its episodic nature gives it a feel that is unique among the classic Universal horrors, and the script and cast are all entertaining. It's not on the same lofty level as all-time classics such as The Wolf Man and The Bride of Frankenstein, but it's a decent movie that is a good deal of fun when judged on its own merits.

House of Dracula, on the other hand, I find rather disappointing. The film opens as Dracula(Carradine again) transforms into human form(a much better fake bat is used in this film) and pays a visit to renowned Dr. Edelmann(Onslow Stevens). Dracula wants Edelmann to cure him of his vampirism, and Edelmann agrees, allowing the vampire to keep his coffin in his cellar. He deduces that the source of Dracula's vampirism is a strange blood disease, and sets about giving Dracula blood transfusions and an antibody he has concocted to counter it.

Meanwhile, Larry Talbot has arrived seeking Edelmann's help. Edelmann is busy with Dracula, so Talbot heads into town where he quickly flies into one of his patented "Aw, ya don't understand" rages and gets tossed in jail. Because of the Talbot's odd behavior, the constable(Lionel Atwill) calls Edelmann. After they witness Talbot's transformation within the confines of his prison cell, Edelmann takes Talbot back to his house for treatment.

Edelmann determines (brace yourself) that Talbot is not a werewolf at all, but suffers from self-hypnosis! Basically, he thinks he is supposed to turn into a werewolf, so his body makes it happen. (Maybe Talbot and Dracula should have checked this guy's credentials out before they went to him for help!)  Edelmann and Talbot soon discover the Frankenstein Monster in a quicksand deposit in a cave underneath the house, and Edelmann brings him into his lab.

Meanwhile, Dracula has reverted to his wicked ways, unable to deny his vampiric nature. He seduces Edelmann's asistant Miilza(Martha O'Driscoll) in a scene that is extremely similar to the seduction scene in House of Frankenstein, with nearly the exact same dialogue in places. When Edelmann wants to do another transfusion, Dracula hypnotizes Edelman and his other assistant Nina(Poni Adams, this film's hunchback) and infuses Edelman with some his tainted vampire blood! This brings about periodic Mr. Hyde-like transformations for Edelmann, who then sets about restoring the Monster's power.

The film is rather well-acted overall, particularly Onslow Stevens as Edelmann and Carradine as Dracula. Dracula is in this film far longer than its predecessor, and thus has more time to develop as a character. Dracula's (apparently) sincere desire to be free from his affliction and his tragic inability to resist his darker nature for long makes for some interesting viewing.

The film missteps in several key areas, however. No attempt whatsoever is made to explain how Dracula and Talbot recovered from their supposed deaths in the previous film. The audience is obviously in the mood to accept their return, but the film's lack of any explanation is just plain lazy. Edelmann's "scientific" explanations for vampirism and Talbot's transformation into a werewolf are ludicrous. It's easier to simply believe that werewolves exist than to buy into Edelmann's theory!

Glenn Strange makes his second of three film appearances as the Frankenstein Monster. The stiff walk originated by Bela Lugosi as the nearly-blind Monster in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man reaches its apotheosis in Strange's performances; he plays the Monster as very stiff, and rather dimwitted. He can hardly be blamed for that, however, as that's exactly how the character is scripted in these films. The Monster had become, as Karloff predicted years earlier, little more than a prop.

House of Dracula is really one of the low points in the Universal horror cycle. There is entertainment to be had from it, but it's not as plentiful as it should be, and it falls far short of the standards set by its predecessors. Ultimately, while I can recommend House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula is for completists only.