James Whale

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

James Whale

#1 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:04 pm

Image
James Whale (1889-1957)


on Frankenstein:
"At first I thought it was a gag."


Filmography

Hello Out There (1949)
They Dare Not Love (1941)
Green Hell (1940)
The Man in the Iron Mask (1939), Video Treasures VHS
Port of Seven Seas (1938)
Wives Under Suspicion (1938), R1 Alpha budget dvd
Sinners in Paradise (1938), R1 ??dvd
The Great Garrick (1937)
The Road Back (1937)
Show Boat (1936)
... aka Edna Ferber's Show Boat (USA: complete title) R1 MGM VHS
Remember Last Night? (1935)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935) R1 Universal Single Title (1999 release), also available in Universal Frankenstein Legacy Collection w all sequels
One More River (1934)
... aka Over the River
By Candlelight (1933)
The Invisible Man (1933), R1 Universal Legacy Collection w sequels
The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933)
The Old Dark House (1932)R1 Kino DVD
Impatient Maiden (1932)
Frankenstein (1931), R1 Legacy Collection with Sequels DVD, Updated, HD sourced "75th Anniversary Legacy Edition (both Universal)
Waterloo Bridge (1931) (R1, TCM Forbidden Hollywood Collection)
Hell's Angels (1930) (uncredited--dialog director), R1 Universal DVD
Journey's End (1930)


Forum Discussion

TCM Forbidden Hollywood (Waterloo Bridge)

Universal Legacy Series (Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man)

The Complete Show Boat

The Old Dark House: New 35mm Print on Tour!


Web Resources

IMDB Whale page

Variety Monograph

Picture Showman monograph

Senses of Cinema

James Whale Nexus

Filmreference Whale Page

Frankensteinia (!) Whale page


In Print

Books:

James Whale; A New World of Gods & Monsters by James Curtis

James Whale; A Biography by Mark Gatiss

A Journey Into Darkness; The Art of James Whale's Horror Films. by Ellis Reed

Father of Frankenstein by Christopher Bram (fictionalization of Whale's last days, and inspiration for the film Gods & Monsters[url]

Articles:

Obituary, in the New York Times, 30 May 1957.

Edwards, Roy, "Movie Gothick: A Tribute to James Whale," in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1957.

Durgnat, Raymond, "The Subconscious: From Pleasure Castle to Libido Motel," in Films and Filming (London), January 1962.

Fink, Robert, and William Thomaier, "James Whale," in Films in Review (New York), May 1962.

Jensen, Paul, "James Whale," in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1971.

Milne, Tom, "One Man Crazy: James Whale," in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1973.

Evans, Walter, "Monster Movies: A Sexual Theory," in Journal of Popular Film (Bowling Green, Ohio), Fall 1973.

Evans, Walter, "Monster Movies and Rites of Initiation," in Journal of Popular Film (Bowling Green, Ohio), Spring 1975.

White, D.L., "The Poetics of Horror: More than Meets the Eye," in Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, edited by Barry Grant, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1977.

Clarens, Carlos, and Mary Corliss, "Designed for Film: The Hollywood Art Director," in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1978.

Taylor, John Russell, "Tales of the Hollywood Raj," in Films and Filming (London), June 1983.

Mank, G., "Mae Clarke Remembers James Whale," in Films in Review (New York), May 1985.

(Source for "articles"; filmreference.com Whale page)

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#2 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:43 pm

Completed.

If any director's canon is ripe for re-evaluation, and if any director is shamefully underepresented on the medium of home video-- despite the undisputable fact of the immeasurable influence of his work upon the whole of world cinema-- it's Whale.

Although it can perhaps be said that other directors influenced the world cinema as much as Whale (and there are few), certainly none influenced it more. Perhaps the obviousness of the size of the influence creates a lack of a sense of "unearthing the obscure", but there is so much undiscovered country in this man's canon out there for exploration, it's a sin in my opinion to consider his reputation-- and the undestanding of the nature of his cinema-- as a 'finished project'. There is still so much to be seen.

User avatar
HypnoHelioStaticStasis
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: New York

#3 Post by HypnoHelioStaticStasis » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:05 pm

Thanks for the link to that Senses of Cinema article! I feel like I know more about Whale as a person than as an artist, probably due to the lack of availability of his non-franchise films. It really is unconscionable.

Just wondering, Shreck; have you (or anyone else here) seen The Road Back? This ditty is a bitch to find, and I've been hoping Universal might have put it out with All Quiet on the Western Front or in some war film box, or maybe in their cinema classics line. This was supposed to be Whale's masterwork, gutted by the studio, but apparently is still worth seeking out.

I love this line from Gods and Monsters:

"I wanted to show the world what the war was really like. They can't get it right in the movies; they can never get... the smell."

That had me intrigued immediately.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#4 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:39 pm

Can't think of anything interesting to say about the first director I was ever aware of as being a director, and who I esteemed along with Karloff and Lugosi and Chaney jr. But I figure I should say something, so, rather than going on about how I indentified strongly with the Frankenstein monster (not unusual I would think), I'll say instead that the Invisible Man is a hysterical movie. Even when I was about seven or so and saw it for the first time, tho' I liked it greatly (more fun than the book, I recall), I never thought of it as a favourite horror movie because it seemed like a comedy (and I wasn't even much into comedies back then).

My favourite scene from the movie is a riot: some ugly peasant woman screams and runs down the street, followed by a pair of disembodied pants skipping along to a disembodied voice, singing: "here we go gathering nuts in may, nuts in may, nuts in may." And what kills me is right before the dissolve, the pants give a little skip. What a thing to put into a sci-fi horror movie.

Schreck, thoughts on Gods and Monsters?

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#5 Post by Via_Chicago » Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:52 pm

James Whale is, as Schreck aptly notes, a director in dire need of reevaluation. Unfortunately for the average cinephile, very few of his films are available on DVD, and even more harrowing, very few cinemas out there are interested in an all-out retrospective (impossible now that the Universal prints all burned down - unless, that is, they strike new prints of Remember Last Night? and Green Hell (to name just two) from the negatives, but somehow I doubt that). To that end, I'm endlessly grateful for having seen eleven of his films, and two of those that I have not seen (The Old Dark House and Waterloo Bridge) are available on DVD in R1.

Whale's cinema is unique in my eyes for its combination of personal filmmaking, its mastery of tone, mood, and pacing, and a special kind of "cinematic theatricality" (for lack of a better word). All of these elements can be found in films as diverse as Frankenstein (horror), By Candlelight (true screwball comedy), and One More River (melodrama). Often enough, Whale juggled all three of these genre types intermittently, Bride of Frankenstein being the example par excellence. It's fascinating to me that we hail Howard Hawks today for his wonderful ability to combine genres as well as work across them, no attention has been paid to Whale's similar work in the 1930s.

To get back to those elements I noted above, Whale's films, moreso than those of contemporary Hollywood filmmakers of the period (with a few notable exceptions such as John Ford and Frank Borzage), feel remarkably personal. I do wonder whether such a reading is inspired by Whale's own personal biography, particularly his life as a gay man. However, the best of Whale's films are always those that seem to have the most affinity with the man's own beliefs and feelings. Invisible Man is the film that most strongly begs for a gay reading. In that film, Rains' character (the titular "invisible man" of the title) tries to live a life of seclusion and secrecy after discovering the ability to become invisible. However, after society consistently evades his seclusion and begins calling him a "freak" and a "monster," he goes mad, attacking friends and acquaintances, and indeed, society itself. Lines like: "All right, you fools. You've brought it on yourselves! Everything would have come right if you'd only left me alone. You've driven me near madness with your peering through the keyholes and gaping through the curtains. And now you'll suffer for it!" and "Even the moon is frightened of me, the whole world is frightened of me, frightened to death!", especially when delivered by such a wonderful and capable performer as Rains, feel haunting, and achingly tragic in a way that only a director as sympathetic as Whale could have delivered.

But Whale was more than just a director begging for a personal reading, but a supremely talented craftsmen. While one could write at length about the moods and tones of his astounding horror films, wonderful examples can be drawn from his other films as well. The Great Garrick, One More River, and The Kiss Before the Mirror are all noteworthy for their ability to alternate between light and darkness, comedy and melodrama. In other words, these films always teeter precariously on the edge of excess, but Whale always manages to strike a supreme balance between these sudden shifts in tone and mood. I'm reminded of a scene in The Kiss Before the Mirror in which Frank Morgan's defense attorney reenacts his client's murder with increasing passion and fury. Whale's camera draws steadily closer to Morgan's beady brow as shafts of chiaroscuro light dance around his head. Finally, his friend explodes in a passionate plea to stop, and Morgan, astonished with his own sudden exuberance, settles back in silence. Whale's ability to throw this frightening scene in amidst what is generally a fairly routine, occasionally quite humorous melodrama is symptomatic of his cinema from this period.

Finally, there is what I call a "cinematic theatricality." By this I mean that Whale worked well within the conventions of the theatre, using quite obvious sets, familiar theatrical tropes and acting, and traditional blocking elements, but he constantly inverts or alters these in such a way that the integrity of the films as cinema remains. His famous lateral tracking shots are a great example of this. Not only do they operate on a narrative level, allowing Whale to concentrate the viewer's attention on an event in one continuous, unbroken shot, but they also establish the spatial dimensions of the space within which the characters are acting. This is why a familiar lateral tracking shot in Green Hell feels so gratuitous and out-of-place. There is no such "space" to explore - there is only jungle, that is, endless space, but on a kind of two-dimensional flat plane. But beyond these tracking shots there is an inherent love of the theatre that Whale was never afraid to teasingly mock, as he did in Bride of Frankenstein and most obviously, in The Great Garrick. But beyond this, he also had a remarkable ability to bring out the inherent cinema in a piece of theatre, as he did in the most wonderful moment in Show Boat, Paul Robeson's show-stopping rendition of "Ol' Man River." Not only does Whale bring energy to this scene through rapid editing; but he also creates an almost expressionistic, dream-like atmosphere through exaggerated sets (the prison) and lighting, and through his nearly 360 degree circle around Robeson.

I've rambled on long enough. Whale is, to put it bluntly, one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers of the 1930s. While I have absolutely no faith that Universal (and Warners as well) will ever put out DVDs of these pictures, they are without a doubt real treasures of American cinema. That audiences will perhaps never get to enjoy the sublime pleasures of By Candlelight (an amazingly funny film that obliterates the conventional wisdom that It Happened One Night was the first screwball comedy), One More River, or The Great Garrick is an absolute crime.
Just wondering, Shreck; have you (or anyone else here) seen The Road Back? This ditty is a bitch to find, and I've been hoping Universal might have put it out with All Quiet on the Western Front or in some war film box, or maybe in their cinema classics line. This was supposed to be Whale's masterwork, gutted by the studio, but apparently is still worth seeking out.
I unfortunately haven't seen this one. I'll look into this, but from what I remember, there have been some problems with the rights to the Remarque novel, or some such silly reason.

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

#6 Post by Jonathan S » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:19 am

Whale had to deal with the double-whammy (especially if you're English) of being gay and from a working-class background. Even though I was born a couple of generations after him, I can identify with the particular kind of homophobia he would have endured from many of his class (perhaps exemplified in my lifetime by the Labour ex-PM James Callaghan's view in 1987 that homosexuality is a "problem" of interest mainly to "middle-class intellectual dinner tables"!) - and the class prejudice from at least some of the artier gay (and non-gay) circles. It's interesting that although Whale never seemed to feel the need to play straight he did masquerade quite elaborately as the English gentleman. I suspect this class issue informs Whale's "outsider" protagonists and life-as-theatre theme as much as his sexuality.

In the 1980s when Whale fan Leslie Halliwell was buying films for the new Channel 4, we in the UK got to see most of the more obscure films - and I still cherish By Candelight and The Great Garrick in particular. As far as I know, The Road Back was never televised here and in his Film Guide Halliwell states, "No 35mm negative now exists, as it reverted to Remarque and was lost," which suggests the Remarque estate have rights to the film.

User avatar
HypnoHelioStaticStasis
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: New York

#7 Post by HypnoHelioStaticStasis » Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:54 pm

Jonathan S wrote: As far as I know, The Road Back was never televised here and in his Film Guide Halliwell states, "No 35mm negative now exists, as it reverted to Remarque and was lost," which suggests the Remarque estate have rights to the film.
Well, that's just great. Could someone please start a petition to strike a new print? A friend of a friend claims to have seen an old television broadcast in the early 1960s and said it was a very moving film. I doubt Remarque's estate would be all that interested in restoring it.

Also, I wanted to briefly mention that I recently viewed Bride of Frankenstein at Bryant Park's summer long movie season in the square. It was an audience of hundreds, packed to the gills, and nearly everyone around me was crying when the old man in the cabin and Frankenstein's Monster make their peace and become "friends." Then, cracking up hysterically, as they should have been, during their bonding later. Such a testament to Whale's mastery of tone.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#8 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:34 pm

Indeed. It's Whale's tour de force skills as a filmmaker, the utter seamless fluidity that he balanced so many different tones and cinematic manners that interest me most. It's these skills as a filmmaker, his cinematic craftmanship, what it is he is actually doing in each film... that it is that makes a Whale fil a Whale Film, that I'm interested in exploring most.

What an amazing ability to balance multiple stylistic ingredients and elements of tone, both simultaneously as well as ne after another... the sense of germanic gloom and gothic atmosphere; the incredible ability to distill a work down to it's most entertaining elements paring down all inessential elements without losing an iota of sophistication ir mystery; the aforementioned simplicity and user friendly tone, the sinful watchability of his monster films that hauled expressionist silents out of the silent era and into the sound/Hollywood era to create something so distinctly American, so incredibly watchable and iconic, that Universal and every other maker of horror/fantastic film have been following this formula of "Horror For All" ever since. Universal always came closest to duplicating that magic watchability, even with their cheezoid sequels (minus the sense of High Art, of course).

He reminds me a touch of John Ford in that his films are so iconic and inrcedibly influential, and his style is so smooth...

EDIT I got cut off while writing this.

I find it curious, only in that it's become so incredibly distracting to a serious discussion of his filmmaking merits, that discussion of Whale's filmmaking legacy cannot be sketched-- or that historical act of sketching by other scholars cannot be assessed-- without lapsing away from the mans actual technique as a filmmaker into predictable accounts of his out lifestyle in Hollywood, his homosexuality tied into every facet of subtext..

His sexual disposition in this case becomes an incredible distraction for reasons that escape me-- not only is it almost impossible to read a critical survey of his work without his sexuality nearly overwhelming a study of his mise en scene.. but it's nearly impossible to run into a discussion about the discussion of Whale without his gayness overriding the man's incredible vocation: his prediliction is ascribed as the reason that auteurists' scholarship has passed him over.

Since I'm a hetero I hope nobody takes this the wrong way-- so many of the men whom defined and steered the direction of my life, and served as guideposts for me.. from William Burroughs, to FW Murnau, Arthur Rimbaud, just to name a very few were gay men. These are the gods of my life without whom my world would have turned out completely different. But I have never seen a man's sexuality so completely overwhelm a clear eyed analysis of the nature of his technical and artistic achievement as Whale's gayness-- and this in the scholarship appearing after his death.. in an age more modern and blase than the one through which he moved. Why it is I'm not completely sure.

Whale's gift was enormous.. he was one of the most amazingly universal of personal artists... that is, his work bore an immense sense of his personality-- and yet there are few artists so iconoclastic and inventive whose work so perfectly fits into the receptors of anyone and everyone, gay or straight, man and bestial, young and old, boy and girl, continental, american, oriental, near-eastern... he automatically and seemingly with ease, fulfilled the dreams of two camps usually forever at odds: 1) those of the front office aching for a crowd pleasing product that will sell sell sell and go on selling and appeal to the widest possible audience in the largest number of markets and increase the prestige and visibility of the studio (Whales contribution along with Jack Pierce to Universal pictures simply cannot be overestimated... not to mention the look & feel of depression-era filmmaking which required an escapist product taking place off in someplace Not Here, with its squalid poverty and misery, with narratives that could soothe the suffering audience-- while taking its last few pennies-- with tales of men and women worse off than they were, but told in such an unreal fashion that they didnt strike anywhere near too close to home), and 2) those of the artist within as well as the artistic community looking for something beyond front office fluff... Whale's film talent was just so astronomical in that everything is just so right, his films have such an eternal sense, such effortless mise en scene laid alongside such absurdity and self-reflexivity, it's almost a magic act.

I think his films have been passed over by auteurists and general manufacturers of The Canon going back to Sarris, not because of his gayness, but for the simple fact that everybody loves his best known films. There's no difficulty, nothing ponderous, no sense of being part of a hi-toned, private obscurity understood by intellectuals in empty arthouses via shabby 16mm prints, nothing for the critic to explain and reveal that most haven't already caught on to and known full well about his films in terms of their pleasures. Critics don't enjoy getting deeply esoteric over the aesthetics of films that have produced ever-popular Halloween costumes, comics, toys... which is a shame and a massive oversight. Because it is in terms of Whales technique (and undiscovered melodramas) that there is a trove of mystery, the ease of John Ford with a Germanic stylishness and sense of the supernatural-- and versatitlity in style and tone and manner-- that Ford couldn't come near with a 20 foot pole!

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#9 Post by Via_Chicago » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:10 pm

I think his films have been passed over by auteurists and general manufacturers of The Canon going back to Sarris, not because of his gayness, but for the simple fact that everybody loves his best known films. There's no difficulty, nothing ponderous, no sense of being part of a hi-toned, private obscurity understood by intellectuals in empty arthouses via shabby 16mm prints, nothing for the critic to explain and reveal that most haven't already caught on to and known full well about his films in terms of their pleasures. Critics don't enjoy getting deeply esoteric over the aesthetics of films that have produced ever-popular Halloween costumes, comics, toys... which is a shame and a massive oversight. Because it is in terms of Whales technique (and undiscovered melodramas) that there is a trove of mystery, the ease of John Ford with a Germanic stylishness and sense of the supernatural-- and versatitlity in style and tone and manner-- that Ford couldn't come near with a 20 foot pole!
I think that's only partially true Schreck. While the popularity of his horror films has inexplicably caused critics to pass over the rest of Whale's output, I think it has less to do with Ivory Tower sensibilities then it does with the simple fact that Whale has accrued a reputation as a horror filmmaker. And, horror of horrors, that means he is, in the eyes of most critics anyway, a genre filmmaker exclusively. This is patently untrue as any passing glance at his filmmography reveals. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable disinterest among the critical community to seriously evaluate his films. And even when people do see and analyze his other films (particularly his melodramas), they do so while still applying gay readings to the text, often overlooking the rich cinematic layers that just pop off of the surface of the screen.

After my first few Whales, which were exclusively limited to his horror films, I could not resist reading in a gay subtext (as my comments on Invisible Man above [meant only as a possible interpretation of that text] demonstrate). However, after seeing more and more of his films, week after week during a recent retrospective (pre Universal-fire obviously ---> actually, I saw Green Hell, the final film in that retrospective, only about a week before the "archive," and thus also that film, burned down), these readings began to fade away and all I was left with was the text of the film itself. This made reading the film for its various cinematic merits much, much easier.

And his style is, as you mentioned, so brilliantly consistent, yet also so consistently elusive. There's almost a luminous glow to the qualities of his images - a bright and shiny surface layer that hides deeper, darker motivations beneath. Look again at the "Ol' Man River" sequence from Show Boat (see here). To my eyes, there's a kind of glossy showmanship to Whale's presentation of this material. But look deeper. Look at the horrifying expressionism of the prison cell, the resigned anguish in Robeson's eyes, the sweaty, heavy brows of his fellow workers and singers. When I first saw the scene I was, of course, blown away. But my subsequent viewing brought me to tears. Why? Partly because of Robeson's unequaled performance, but also because of the shifting visual surfaces of the scene itself. It is as powerful, if not moreso, than anything in Eisenstein, von Sternberg, Borzage, Ford, or other masters of the era.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#10 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:30 pm

Via_Chicago wrote:[I think it has less to do with Ivory Tower sensibilities then it does with the simple fact that Whale has accrued a reputation as a horror filmmaker. .
Well, first I'd say that's basically what I meant when I said
Critics don't enjoy getting deeply esoteric over the aesthetics of films that have produced ever-popular Halloween costumes, comics, toys...
.. and essentially I believe this is Ivory Tower sensibility, that genre work is somehow beneath the work of an auteur. This sniffing down at this work is what kept a masterpiece like Les yeux sans visage from critical appreciation for quite a time.

But I don't even fully believe that this is true, either: film critics & historians have no problem with genre filmmakers... see Anthony Mann, see John Ford, Douglas Sirk, Val Lewton/Jacques Tourneur, Ulmer, hell Dassin, hell even Hitchcock was a genre filmmaker... so long as they quote unquote "transcend the genre" and turn the genre grindwork into something sublime, personal, elevated, eternal, not cheap.

They know full well that Whale did this. No, the problem I believe they have with Whale is that his greatness is just fully, completely and totally out there in the open and hugely beloved by all including many, many children. There's this feeling I get that Whale's signature films are just too obvious and popular. 'Serious' film critics don't like spending a lot of time joining hands with teenagers and children-- hell, almost everybody in the world!

User avatar
HypnoHelioStaticStasis
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: New York

#11 Post by HypnoHelioStaticStasis » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:35 pm

Via_Chicago wrote:And his style is, as you mentioned, so brilliantly consistent, yet also so consistently elusive. There's almost a luminous glow to the qualities of his images - a bright and shiny surface layer that hides deeper, darker motivations beneath. Look again at the "Ol' Man River" sequence from Show Boat (see here). To my eyes, there's a kind of glossy showmanship to Whale's presentation of this material. But look deeper. Look at the horrifying expressionism of the prison cell, the resigned anguish in Robeson's eyes, the sweaty, heavy brows of his fellow workers and singers. When I first saw the scene I was, of course, blown away. But my subsequent viewing brought me to tears. Why? Partly because of Robeson's unequaled performance, but also because of the shifting visual surfaces of the scene itself. It is as powerful, if not moreso, than anything in Eisenstein, von Sternberg, Borzage, Ford, or other masters of the era.
I completely agree. Show Boat is a phenomenal piece in terms of its editing prowess, the mise-en-scene so perfectly captures a rhythm of... loping maybe? Its something one can only feel on a hot late July sunday afternoon, outside, maybe doing yard work, maybe walking the dog, maybe just doing nothing. Whale encapsulates a kind of haziness to complement the theatricality of some of the actors (NOT Robeson, who is nothing short of magnificent in the film).

-I'd like to note right hear that in terms of Whale I am restricted to home video availability. Otherwise, I've seen squat-

Outside of the horror genre, Show Boat is his most evocative and dare I say magical film.

ViaChicago, your comment reminded me of one of the most iconic movie moments, one that has stayed with me and many viewers: the scene in the original Frankenstein where the villager carries his drowned daughter through the town square, mind and eyes fogged over with fear and sorrow. It's a stunning tracking shot, one of the few in the film I think. And the look in the man's eyes is amazing. I can only imagine what Whale had to tell him to get that, or what the actor had to bring up inside of him to capture that on his face.

One thing that struck me while watching was how more alive Whale's direction seems in exterior spaces as opposed to the drawing room scenes between the doctor and his bride-to-be. Whale, maybe because of his lack of experience at this time, seems a little restricted by the staginess of the scene, but is it possible that Whale was trying to make some kind of social comment with the staging of these scenes?

I only mention this because it struck me as being intentional when I last saw it. Everything with the monster once he escapes his true tormentors feels so alive.

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#12 Post by Via_Chicago » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:53 pm

Scheck: Thanks for the clarification, I suppose I just horribly misunderstood your point. I think we essentially agree. But I sense more than simply a dismissal of Whale, but a complete unwillingness to examine his other films as cinema. Which is frankly bizarre, and your guess as to why is as good (and certainly perhaps better) as mine.
I completely agree. Show Boat is a phenomenal piece in terms of its editing prowess, the mise-en-scene so perfectly captures a rhythm of... loping maybe? Its something one can only feel on a hot late July sunday afternoon, outside, maybe doing yard work, maybe walking the dog, maybe just doing nothing. Whale encapsulates a kind of haziness to complement the theatricality of some of the actors (NOT Robeson, who is nothing short of magnificent in the film).
Show Boat is an interesting movie, since it's really a mixed bag. The first half of the film, with the Robeson song, the miscegenation subplot, and the Show Boat itself is quite wonderful, and your description nails the tone and pace dead-on. The second half though is something else. It's almost as if Whale just became completely disinterested with the story and more or less stopped trying. The two halves of the film are really like night and day. It's remarkable.

While I like Show Boat, I really wish a lot of his other pictures were available. If you liked SB was magical, you'd be absolutely entranced by the drug-like qualities of By Candlelight, One More River, and The Great Garrick to name a few of my favorites. His other pictures that I've seen have problems here and there, but all have moments of greatness (witness the scene from Remember Last Night? in which several characters drink champagne from straws out of a giant bowl! :shock:) except the relative dud that is Green Hell (although even that has one has a few good moments).
One thing that struck me while watching was how more alive Whale's direction seems in exterior spaces as opposed to the drawing room scenes between the doctor and his bride-to-be. Whale, maybe because of his lack of experience at this time, seems a little restricted by the staginess of the scene, but is it possible that Whale was trying to make some kind of social comment with the staging of these scenes?
That's really interesting, since I've never really thought of Whale as a particularly great director of exteriors, but this really makes me want to go back and watch Frankenstein again. It's been too long.

That said, when I think of Whale, I, like most people, think of those famous lateral tracking shots. Was he doing this already in Frankenstein. I know for sure he does it in his follow-up picture The Impatient Maiden (original title: The Impatient Virgin! :shock:), and of course there are several, extremely sublime, examples of these in Invisible Man. But I don't remember any in Frankenstein. Like I said, it's been too long.

User avatar
HypnoHelioStaticStasis
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: New York

#13 Post by HypnoHelioStaticStasis » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:39 pm

Chicago, the shot I mentioned from Frankenstein is definitely one of those famous lateral tracking shots, albeit only briefly (maybe his first?). It sticks out very specifically in my mind, its haunting. There also may be one at the beginning of the infamous pond scene, not sure why I think that.

Just another little word on Show Boat: I do think you're right about the two halves not congealing so well, the second half is definitely the weaker for being more plotty, but I honestly don't mind so much. He was, after all, working for a studio: he's gotta have some kind of structure! I do think its engrossing just the same. The photography is still sublime, and he brought out the best in some normally wooden actors (Allan Jones, namely, and I'm not a huge Irene Dunne fan either).

In terms of some of the unavailable films you've seen, what is the best to seek out/watch for? I have heard Garrick is great, and the descriptions of By Candlelight get my mouth watering (the REAL original screwball comedy?).

User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

#14 Post by lubitsch » Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:28 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:They know full well that Whale did this. No, the problem I believe they have with Whale is that his greatness is just fully, completely and totally out there in the open and hugely beloved by all including many, many children. There's this feeling I get that Whale's signature films are just too obvious and popular. 'Serious' film critics don't like spending a lot of time joining hands with teenagers and children-- hell, almost everybody in the world!
I think first and foremost it's a problem of availability. the four horror films are popular and highly recognized, but try to lay a hand on his other output. For a new print of our book with ca. 200 portraits of famous filmmakers my prof decided to include Whale whom he greatly appreciates. Just try to get in Germany anything beyond the 5 widely available DVD releases of Whale's films and from what I read here, it's not that easy to see them in USA, too. You can't lionize a filmmaker if 75% of his films are hard to get. Eventually I managed to get all of his 21 films, but availability determines the place of film makers in film history think e.g. of Yevgeni Bauer.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#15 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:17 pm

I think the lack of his earlier 'critical canonization' has led, at least partly, to his nonexistence on dvd.

Certainly critics have ways to access & see films thru their own back channels unavailable to even the hardest core amateur and student. DVDs and home video has nothing to do with the period in which Whale's passing over took place... i e the 60's thru the 80's, when certain critical texts and re-asessments of many directors took place.

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#16 Post by Via_Chicago » Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:00 pm

In terms of some of the unavailable films you've seen, what is the best to seek out/watch for? I have heard Garrick is great, and the descriptions of By Candlelight get my mouth watering (the REAL original screwball comedy?)
Masterpieces

By Candlelight (1933) - This film really is the first true screwball comedy. All of the elements are there - role reversal, misunderstandings of identity, and that amorphous quality of any great screwball whereby characters are left in a lurch on more than one occasion. The story essentially revolves around the butler to a high class aristocratic who learns how to woo a lady by copying his boss and carrying around a copy of Casanova's autobiography. He meets his match in the maid of one of his boss's love interests. However, both assume that the other is in fact the aristocrat dude/lady, and thus complications ensue. The plot sounds formulaic enough, but Whale imbues the film with a very conscience understanding of class differences, and the film playfully dances from one scene to the next, never letting up for a minute to moralize or to neatly tie together its plot. It's a lovely film, perfectly paced and crafted, and beautifully lit. It's wonderful.

One More River (1934) - OMR is, at least for me, the most moving complete picture that Whale made outside of his horror films. Diana Wynyard (who was this lady? she was hardly in any other films, but she's absolutely stunning in this - her performance feels like something straight out of P & P) plays Claire Corven, a young woman who leaves her nasty, violent husband (Colin Clive!) behind in Burma and begins a loving, but chaste, relationship with Frank Lawton's Tony Croom. Naturally, this being England of the 1920s (or 30s), Claire's behavior is completely out of the question, as is a divorce. The divorce proceedings in this film may feel very technical, but they all the more shattering because of it. The circumstances of Tony and Claire's relationship are indeed quite dubious, and English law stands firmly with the "cuckolded" husband - in this case, Clive's Sir Gerald. Whale's work here is astonishing, bringing strong performances from his entire cast, and amplifying the film's central tragedy - the life, death, and rebirth of an aristocratic woman. Wynyward is, as I mentioned above, quite remarkable in this, and Whale makes sure that she has our sympathy throughout.

The Great Garrick (1937) - This film is a wonder, in part because it's really the culmination of Whale's cinematic examination and appreciation of the stage, but also because it's such a masterfully acted, paced, and photographed film. And, like many of Whale's greatest pictures, this one too easily transitions between comedy, melodrama, and romance - occasionally at the same time! Brian Aherne does wonderful work as David Garrick, the great English ham actor of the eighteenth century, who is on his way to a performance with Comedie Francaise when the CF decides to turn the tables on him. Garrick quickly realizes their plot, but in the spirit of the theatre (and for our humorous benefit), decides to play along with their gag. That a film so funny (and occasionally cruel) could just as easily draw our sympathy to the wonderful romance between Aherne and a very-young Havilland is a testament, once again, to Whale's tremendous dramatic strengths. Likewise, Garrick is as well-photographed and filmed as any of his earlier pictures. Sadly, this seems to have marked the beginning of the end for Whale's career, but what a way to go!

Also Very Good

The Impatient Maiden (1932)
The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933)
Remember Last Night? (1935)

Not Good But Worth Catching on TCM

Green Hell (1940) - Just an aside: this movie has maybe the most surprising and totally comical suicide in cinema history!

If you'd like to hear more about some of the other films mentioned above, let me know. I hope that I've been able to express some of my love for these films, since it feels to me like the above was just a whole lot of rambling.

GTO
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY

#17 Post by GTO » Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:50 am

Via_Chicago wrote:The Impatient Maiden (1932)
The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933)
Remember Last Night? (1935)

If you'd like to hear more about some of the other films mentioned above, let me know. I hope that I've been able to express some of my love for these films, since it feels to me like the above was just a whole lot of rambling.
If that's rambling, then ramble on. I would like very much to hear more about the three movies above, or any other Whale movies besides Frankenstein, Bride of same, Invisible Man or The Old Dark House (the only ones I've seen). I wish I had something new to add in regards to those, but I'm just a fannish boy w/r/t Whale.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#18 Post by tryavna » Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:06 pm

Via_Chicago wrote:Diana Wynyard (who was this lady? she was hardly in any other films, but she's absolutely stunning in this - her performance feels like something straight out of P & P)

[...] Wynyward is, as I mentioned above, quite remarkable in this, and Whale makes sure that she has our sympathy throughout.
Minor tangent here: Wynyard is indeed a really interesting actress who made too few films. (Like a lot of British actors/actresses of her generation, she preferred the stage.) But she is wonderful in the (superior) British 1940 version of Gaslight -- much rawer and less glamorous than Bergman four years later. She doesn't make much of an impression in either Rasputin and the Empress or Cavalcade, but I'm not really much of a fan of either of those films. Wynyard is, however, probably the best thing about Korda's 1947 adaptation of An Ideal Husband. Her filmography is pretty small, as you say, but there are some real high points there.

User avatar
myrnaloyisdope
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:41 pm
Contact:

#19 Post by myrnaloyisdope » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:50 pm

All this James Whale talk and no one has mentioned Waterloo Bridge?? I am aghast.

It's among the best films of the pre-code era, and it might just be my absolute favorite melodrama. Mae Clarke gives an astonishing and very modern performance as the lead. She's very naturalistic in her approach, and Whale's direction absolutely enhances her work. The pacing, the framing of shots, and the fluid camera movements of Whale really lift to what essentially was a minor picture to that of forgotten classic.

It's reputation would be much greater if it weren't stuck in rights limbo for most of it's existance and if it weren't remade in 1940. Also the pre-code element prohibited it from being re-released as well.

As far as I'm concerned it's absolutely essential, and thankfully available on DVD.

User avatar
Via_Chicago
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm

#20 Post by Via_Chicago » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:31 pm

GTO wrote:
Via_Chicago wrote:The Impatient Maiden (1932)
The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933)
Remember Last Night? (1935)

If you'd like to hear more about some of the other films mentioned above, let me know. I hope that I've been able to express some of my love for these films, since it feels to me like the above was just a whole lot of rambling.
If that's rambling, then ramble on. I would like very much to hear more about the three movies above, or any other Whale movies besides Frankenstein, Bride of same, Invisible Man or The Old Dark House (the only ones I've seen). I wish I had something new to add in regards to those, but I'm just a fannish boy w/r/t Whale.
Impatient Maiden (1932) - Whale followed up Frankenstein with this film, which at first glance appears a totally unlikely project. Mae Clarke plays the titular character (originally an "impatient virgin," but there were some things you still couldn't get away with in 1932), a secretary for a divorce attorney who has seen more than her fair share of broken marriages, and, consequently, she swears never to marry. Her steely facade comes crumbling down though when she meets a sweet paramedic (Lew "Paul Baumer" Ayers). Things become complicated when he wants to get married and so Clarke takes up with her divorce attorney boss (as a kind of "kept" woman). Ultimately, this being Hollywood, things turn out all nice and tidy, but the moral implications of the characters' actions are indeed rather surprising. The film though is most notable for what may be one of the most remarkable of Whale's trademark lateral tracking shots. During an early scene, Clarke steps out of her apartment. When she returns, Whale follows her actions in a seamless lateral tracking shot outside (!) of her apartment. In other words, the set appears much like it would on the stage, with its walls totally cut away on one side. However, unlike the theatre, Whale here is capable of drawing our attention to its dimensions, its spacial geography. This simple camera movement has both a practical and a psychological effect, drawing us deeper into Clarke's world, phsyically and emotionally, while drawing us deeper as well into the world of cinema through Whale's seeming rejection of reality itself.

The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933) - I wrote a bit about this one in my first comments above, but Kiss Before the Mirror is a good, but not great early Whale effort. While the whole feels rather over-melodramatic, and a bit contrived, there is some serious visual poetry here, and Whale once again displays his considerable mastery of alternating tones, even if the pacing in this short film occasionally stumbles. The set design and lighting in Kiss though is rather incredible, and there are two striking examples of this. The first, I described in a post above - the reenactment scene between Morgan and Lukas. The other though is a visually stunning example of art deco design and light sensuality, as Whale depicts Lukas' imagining of the events of his wife's murder. We see a young Gloria Stewart from behind, bathed in expressionistic lighting, undressing in front of a mirror; we see a young Walter Pidgeon romancing her; finally, we see an enraged and hurt Lukas pumping Stewart full of bullets! It's an astounding bit of visual storytelling, as good as any in Whale's canon.

Remember Last Night? (1935) - This is the least of the three films I've denoted as "worth watching," but it is certainly not without its own charms. Remember is a film in the vein of The Thin Man, about a wealthy couple who turn detective, but with a twist: the couple, and all their friends, were so drunk (and now so hungover) that they can't remember who committed the film's central murder. The rest of the film is about their piecing together the events of the previous night in an attempt to solve the murder of their host. The mystery itself is only passably interesting and the humor is often dated. However, the opening of the film, the wild party that no one could apparently remember, has to be seen to be believed. This rivals only the candy party from DeMille's The Golden Bed in its absurd and relentless debauchery. Characters drink champagne out of straws from giant punch bowls, shoot cannons (!), dress up in black face (!!), and act like pirates on a giant ship (in the house!!!). Given Whale's middle-class background, it's hard not to imagine this as a bitter invective aimed at the excessive upper class. However, the rest of the film, with its more mild, humorous look at the upper classes belies this interpretation. Instead, we ought to simply look at the film as a mostly harmless lampoon of the American wealthy during the Depression years. The material could have very well led to a kind of American Rules of the Game (in its class conscious satire), and it almost seems to be going there. But after about the half-hour mark, Whale takes his foot off the accelerator and the film really suffers as a consequence.

User avatar
Forrest Taft
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Stavanger, Norway

#21 Post by Forrest Taft » Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:32 am

The Man In The Iron Mask on DVD. Anyone here familiar with Firecake Entertainment? I´ve never heard of them before, but let´s hope this is a good release.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#22 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:09 am

lmfao
Product Description
Fantastic swashbuckling entertainment as D'Artagnan and The Three Musketeers return for one final adventure in James (FRANKENSTEIN) Whales The Man In The Iron Mask.
The year is 1658 and King Louis XIV rules France with tyranny and profligacy. With his reputation diminishing and sovereignty in question, Louis fears being overthrown by his twin brother, Phillipe, the much respected heir. Snatched by the Kings guards, Phillipe is imprisoned deep within the walls of the Bastille. His head encased in a dreaded iron mask. Only the Four Musketeers stand between him and a living death as they must execute his daring rescue, for both Phillipe and the better of France, in Alexandre Dumas amazing and adventurous conclusion to the D'Artagnan chronicles. Digitally re-mastered from an all-new transfer and for the first time on DVD, The Man In The Iron Mask is presented here in two versions - its original 1.33:1 academy ratio plus a specially re-formatted 16:9 widescreen presentation, enhancing all the excitement and adventure from this legendary movie. Side A: The Man In The Iron Mask (4:3) / Side B: The Man In The Iron Mask (16:9).
It enhances all the excitement , furchrissakes!

User avatar
Forrest Taft
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Stavanger, Norway

#23 Post by Forrest Taft » Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:24 pm

Wow, a must have. Now all we need is 16:9 version of The Old Dark House.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#24 Post by Cold Bishop » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:52 pm

And so 16:9 becomes the new pan-and-scan... the irony.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: James Whale

#25 Post by tojoed » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:36 pm

Can someone tell me which is the best DVD edition of "The Old Dark House". The Kino or the Network. Thanks in advance.

Post Reply