Podcast appearances and mentions of todd browning

Overview No, this isn't one of our public domain side dish – though it kinda looks like it. This is another movie by the esteemed Todd Browning from Freaks. Which one is better? Guess it depends. Are they both good? Guess it depends. There are some great effects going on in this one. They really […] The post Season 05 Episode 12 – Devil Doll appeared first on Horror Lasagna.

Catch Freddie and Jon as they dive into the classic 2000 horror film 'Final Destination' in this episode. They kick off with a recap of the plot, where Alex, a high school student, experiences a premonition about a plane crash and saves his classmates, only to find death relentlessly pursuing them. The duo shares personal anecdotes, including Freddie's interactions with some of the cast members, and provides insightful commentary on the film's opening sequence, foreshadowing, and notable scenes. They also explore horror trivia and references embedded within the movie, from nods to horror filmmaker Todd Browning to the eerie shout-out to John Denver. Tune in as they analyze character arcs, the impact of the film on the horror genre, and much more on this nostalgic thriller.Get your merch at:shop.thatwasprettyscary.comFollow the pod:https://instagram.com/thatwasprettyscaryhttps://tiktok.com/@thatwasprettyscaryhttps://www.youtube.com/geggheadFollow Jon & Freddie:https://www.instagram.com/jonleebrody/https://www.instagram.com/realfreddieprinze/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

MOVIE DISCUSSION: Marissa & Aaron Burt: At Home with the Lectionary Podcast / Marissa Burt Instagram & SubstackMarissa Burt & Kelsey McGinnis upcoming book: The Myth of Good Christian Parenting: How False Promises Betrayed a Generation of Evangelical FamiliesMarissa & Aaron Burt of the At Home with the Lectionary Podcast join Melvin to discuss The Unknown, a silent-era flick from classic horror director Todd Browning! This film has got it all: profound characters, incredible drama, twists and surprises, and so much more! Tune in now!Topics:(FREE PATREON EXCLUSIVE) 30-minutes discussing how Christian celebrity may differ from secular celebrity, the use-cases for Christian celebrity both for the individual and the masses, and the responsibility thrust upon celebrities in general. (FREE PATREON EXCLUSIVE)Marissa & Aaron Burt share about their podcast At Home with the Lectionary, where their inspiration came from, and then Marissa shares about her past fiction books and upcoming nonfiction book.Don't be fooled by The Unknown being a silent film: this film is disturbingly dense! So… why is it titled The Unknown?Todd Browning cleverly utilizes everything at his disposal to tell a complex, layered story about possession, power, and gender.The whole gang agrees: these characters are deeply resonant.Talking about arms, because we literally must!Ranting and raving about the brilliant twists and turns this story unveils.Discussing and interpreting the ending statement.Recommendations:Fantasy Island (TV-Series) (1977-1984)Invaders from Mars (Movie) (1986)Lark Rise to Candleford (TV-Series) (2008-2011)Luther (Movie) (2003)Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 (Video Game) (2024)MAILBAG: Send questions with your first name and we'll answer them in future episodes! Support the showSupport on Patreon for Unique Perks! Early access to uncut episodes Vote on a movie/show we review One-time reward of two Cinematic Doctrine Stickers & Pins Social Links: Threads Website Instagram Facebook Group

Send us a Text Message.A gang of podcast punks, led by a producer named Wolfie; have been terrorizing the ears of listeners around the world for twelve years with their brand of film “discussion” cruelties. An enforcer named Arkham Josh tries to enlighten these punks with his unmatched cinematic knowledge. On Episode 626 of Trick or Treat Radio we celebrate our 12 Year Anniversary! On this milestone episode, our buddy Arkham Josh joins us to discuss the recent release of Vinegar Syndrome's 4K transfer of the Punksploitation film Intrepidos Punks! We also list our twelve favorite moments over the course of the show and we answer some tough questions from our listeners! So grab your favorite studded leather outfit, cut your hair into a reverse mohawk, and strap on for the world's most dangerous podcast!Stuff we talk about: Universal Monsters, monster kids, NECA, Crypt Club, horror toys at fast food restaurants, Intrepidos Punks, film reviews that were a long time coming, Brain Damage, 12 year anniversary celebration, The Columbus, Euro-Horror, House by the Cemetery, City of the Living Dead, The Beyond, Man From Deep River, Mike Baronas, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, the heat from a projection room, Umberto Lenzi, the Arkham Copter, Michael Winslow, Terror Vision, Return of the Living Dead 2, Frankie Freako, Steven Kostanski, The Coolidge Corner Theater, Zacherle, Chiller, Holy Mountain, The Devil's Rejects, Taxidermia, Signal to Noise, Jarret Blinkhorn, Septic, Brian Paulin, They're Closing In, craft services spread, Cookie O'Puss, epic soundtracks to mundane actions, Kurando Mitsutake, Outside the Cinema, Cult of Muscle, Mill Creeps, Survival of the Film Freaks, opening for Bruce Campbell, Scare-A-Con, Kevin Crook, Cassandra Peterson, Grimbro, Michael Neel, Rock and Shock, listener interaction, Drive Jacket Mark, MZ Passing Out, Dudes, memorable film reviews, Dear God No, The Ghastly Love of Johnny X, Contracted, Neon Maniacs, Stephen Scarlata, Miami Connection, Howard Stern, Ernie Hudson, Ravenshadow got the table, the wallet, the action sack, Vinegar Syndrome, Dee Snider, A Clockwork Orange, Street Trash, Buttcrack, Todd Browning, Freaks, Stand By Me, The Thing, Kurt Russell, the many perversions of MonsterZero, inbred monarchs, cigarette budgets, compromised email gimmicks, The Coffee Table, The Devil's Bath, Creepy Girl's Patreon Takeover, Nose Candy and Stimulants, and going from Beast to Chic.Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/trickortreatradioJoin our Discord Community: discord.trickortreatradio.comSend Email/Voicemail: mailto:podcast@trickortreatradio.comVisit our website: http://trickortreatradio.comStart your own podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=386Use our Amazon link: http://amzn.to/2CTdZzKFB Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/trickortreatradioTwitter: http://twitter.com/TrickTreatRadioFacebook: http://facebook.com/TrickOrTreatRadioYouTube: http://youtube.com/TrickOrTreatRadioInstagram: http://instagram.com/TrickorTreatRadioSupport the Show.

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with the writer of a great new book, “London After Midnight: The Lost Film,” a book about the classic lost Lon Chaney film.LINKS A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Daniel's Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/p/London-After-Midnight-The-Lost-Film-100075993768254/Buy the Book “London After Midnight: The Lost Film”: https://www.amazon.com/London-After-Midnight-Lost-Film/dp/1399939890Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastTRANSCRIPTJohn: So, Daniel, when did you first become aware of London After Midnight? Daniel: I was about seven years old when I first stumbled into Lon Chaney through my love of all things Universal horror, and just that whole plethora of characters and actors that you just knew by name, but hadn't necessarily seen away from the many still photographs of Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And the Phantom was the one to really spark my interest. But this was prior to eBay. I couldn't see the film of Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera for a year. So, I kind of had the ultimate build to books and documentaries, just teasing me, teasing me all the time. And when I eventually did watch a few documentaries, the one thing that they all had in common was the name Lon Chaney. I just thought I need to learn more about this character Lon Chaney, because he just found someone of superhuman proportions just who have done all of these crazy diverse characters. And, that's where London After Midnight eventually peeked out at me and, occupied a separate interest as all the Chaney characterizations do.John: So how did you get into the Universal films? Were you watching them on VHS? Were they on tv? Did the DVDs happen by then?Daniel: I was still in the VHS days. My dad is a real big fan of all this as well. So he first saw Bela Lugosi's Dracula, on TV when he was a kid. And prior to me being born he had amassed a huge VHS collection and a lot of those had Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Henry Hull, Claude Rains, Vincent Price, what have you.And a lot of them were dedicated to Universal horrors. And as a young curious kid, my eyes eventually crossed these beautiful cases and I really wanted to watch them. I think my first one I ever watched was The Mummy's Tomb or Curse of the Mummy. And it's just grown ever since, really.John: You're starting at the lesser end of the Universal monsters. It's like someone's starting the Marx Brothers at The Big Store and going, "oh, these are great. I wonder if there's anything better?" Jim: Well, I kinda like the fact that you have come by this fascination, honestly, as my father would say. You sort of inherited the family business, if you will. The book is great. The book is just great. And I'll be honest, I had no, except for recording the novel that John wrote, I really had no frame of reference for London after Midnight.John: Well, Jim, were you a monster guy? Were you a Universal Monster kid?Jim: Oh yeah. I mean, I had all the models. I love all of that, and certainly knew about Lon Chaney as the Phantom of the Opera, as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I knew he was the man with a thousand faces. I knew he, when he died, he wrote JR. on his makeup kit and gave it to his kid. So, I knew stuff. But London after Midnight I didn't know at all, except for the sort of iconic makeup and that image, which I was familiar with. What was the inspiration for you in terms of writing this book?Daniel: Like you say, I really had no immediate go-to reference for London after Midnight, away from one or two images in a book. Really clearly they were very impactful images of Chaney, skulking around the old haunted mansion with Edna Tichenor by his side with the lantern, the eyes, the teeth, the cloak, the top hat, the webs, everything. Pretty much everything that embodies a good atmospheric horror movie, but obviously we couldn't see it.So that is all its fangs had deepened itself into my bloodstream at that point, just like, why is it lost? Why can't I see it? And again, the term lost film was an alien concept to me at a young age. I've always been a very curious child. Anything that I don't know or understand that much, even things I do understand that well, I always have to try to find out more, 'cause I just can't accept that it's like a bookend process. It begins and then it ends. And that was the thing with London after Midnight. Everything I found in books or in little interviews, they were just all a bit too brief. And I just thought there has to be a deeper history here, as there are with many of the greatest movies of all time. But same with the movies that are more obscure. There is a full history there somewhere because, 'cause a film takes months to a year to complete.It was definitely a good challenge for me. When we first had our first home computer, it was one of those very few early subjects I was typing in like crazy to try to find out everything that I could. And, that all incubated in my little filing cabinet, which I was able to call upon years later.Some things which were redundant, some things which I had the only links to that I had printed off in advance quite, sensibly so, but then there were certain things that just had lots of question marks to me. Like, what year did the film perish? How did it perish? The people who saw the film originally?And unlike a lot of Chaney films, which have been covered in immense detail, London after Midnight, considering it's the most famous of all lost films, still for me, had major holes in it that I just, really wanted to know the answers to. A lot of those answers, eventually, I found, even people who knew and institutions that knew information to key events like famous MGM Fire, they were hard pressed to connect anything up, in regards to the film. It was like a jigsaw puzzle. I had all these amazing facts. However, none of them kind of made sense with each other.My favorite thing is researching and finding the outcomes to these things. So that's originally what spiraled me into the storm of crafting this, initial dissertation that I set myself, which eventually became so large. I had to do it as a book despite, I'd always wanted to do a book as a kid.When you see people that you idolize for some reason, you just want to write a book on them. Despite, there had been several books on Lon Chaney. But I just always knew from my childhood that I always wanted to contribute a printed volume either on Chaney or a particular film, and London after Midnight seemed to present the opportunity to me.I really just didn't want it to be a rehash of everything that we had seen before or read before in other accounts or in the Famous Monsters of Filmland Magazine, but just with a new cover. So, I thought I would only do a book if I could really contribute a fresh new perspective on the subject, which I hope hopefully did.John: Oh, you absolutely did. And this is an exhaustive book and a little exhausting. There's a ton of stuff in here. You mentioned Famous Monster of the Filmland, which is where I first saw that image. There's at least one cover of the magazine that used that image. And Forrest Ackerman had some good photos and would use them whenever he could and also would compare them to Mark the Vampire, the remake, partially because I think Carol Borland was still alive and he could interview her. And he talked about that remake quite a bit. But that iconic image that he put on the cover and whenever he could in the magazine-- Jim and I were talking before you came on, Daniel, about in my mind when you think of Lon Chaney, there's three images that come to mind: Phantom of the Opera, Quasimoto, and this one. And I think this one, the Man in the Beaver hat probably is the most iconic of his makeups, because, 'cause it is, it's somehow it got adopted into the culture as this is what you go to when it's a creepy guy walking around. And that's the one that everyone remembers. Do you have any idea, specifically what his process was for making that look, because it, it is I think ultimately a fairly simple design. It's just really clever.Daniel: Yes, it probably does fall into the category of his more simplistic makeups. But, again, Chaney did a lot of things simplistic-- today --were never seen back then in say, 1927. Particularly in the Phantom of the Opera's case in 1925, in which a lot of that makeup today would be done through CG, in terms of trying to eliminate the nose or to make your lips move to express dialogue. Chaney was very fortunate to have lived in the pantomime era, where he didn't have to rely on how his voice would sound, trying to talk through those dentures, in which case the makeup would probably have to have been more tamed to allow audio recorded dialogue to properly come through.But with regards to the beaver hat makeup, he had thin wires that fitted around his eyes to give it a more hypnotic stare. The teeth, which he had constructed by a personal dentist, eventually had a wire attached to the very top that held the corners of his mouth, opening to a nice curved, fixated, almost joker like grin.You can imagine with the monocles around his eyes, he was thankful there probably wasn't that much wind on a closed set, because he probably couldn't have closed his eyes that many times. But a lot of these things become spoken about and detailed over time with mythic status. That he had to have his eyes operated on to achieve the constant widening of his eyelids. Or the teeth -- he could only wear the teeth for certain periods of time before accidentally biting his tongue or his lips, et cetera. But Chaney certainly wasn't a sadist, with himself, with his makeups. He was very professional. Although he did go through undoubtedly a lot of discomfort, especially probably the most, explicit case would be for the Hunchback of Notre Dame, in which his whole body is crooked down into a stooped position.But, with London After Midnight, I do highly suspect that the inspiration for that makeup in general came from the Dracula novel. And because MGM had not acquired the rights to the Dracula novel, unlike how Universal acquired the rights of the Hunchback or, more importantly, Phantom of the Opera, by which point Gaston Leroux was still alive.It was just a loose adaptation of Dracula. But nevertheless, when you read the description of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel, he does bear a similarity to Chaney's vampire, in which it's the long hair, a mouth full of sharp teeth, a ghastly pale palor and just dressed all in black and carries around a lantern.Whereas Bela Lugosi takes extraordinary leaps and turns away from the Stoker novel. But it must have definitely had an impact at the time, enough for MGM to over-market the image of Chaney's vampire, which only appears in the film for probably just under four minutes, compared to his detective disguise, which is the real main character of the film.Although the thing we all wanna see is Cheney moving about as the vampire and what facial expressions he pulled. It's just something that we just want to see because it's Lon Chaney.John: Right. And it makes you wonder if he had lived and had gotten to play Dracula, he kind of boxed himself into a corner, then if he'd already used the look from the book, you wonder what he would've come up with, if Lugosi hadn't done it, and if Chaney had had been our first Dracula.Jim: You know, the other thing that I think of strictly like through my actor filter is here's a guy who -- take Hunchback or Phantom or even this thing -- whatever process he went through to put that makeup on, you know, was hours of work, I'm sure. Hunchback several hours of work to get to that, that he did himself, and then they'd film all day.So, on top of, I mean, I just think that that's like, wow, when you think about today where somebody might go into a makeup chair and have two or three people working on them to get the look they want. Even if it took a few hours, that person is just sitting there getting the makeup done. He's doing all of this, and then turns in a full day, uh, in front of the cameras, which to me is like, wow, that's incredible.Daniel: Definitely, it's like two jobs in one. I imagine for an actor it must be really grueling in adapting to a makeup, especially if it's a heavy makeup where it covers the whole of your head or crushes down your nose, changes your lips, the fumes of chemicals going into your eyes.But then by the end of it, I imagine you are quite exhausted from just your head adapting to that. But then you have to go out and act as well. With Chaney, I suppose he could be more of a perfectionist than take as much time as he wanted within reason. And then once he came to the grueling end of it all, he's actually gotta go out and act countless takes. Probably repair a lot of the makeup as well after, after a couple of takes, certainly with things like the Hunchback or the Phantom of the Opera.John: And, you know, it's not only is he doing the makeup and acting, but in, you know, not so much in London After Midnight, but in Phantom of the Opera, he is quite athletic. When the phantom moves, he really moves. He's not stooped. He's got a lot of energy to him and he's got a makeup on that, unlike the Quasimoto makeup, what he's attempting to do with the phantom is, reductive. He's trying to take things away from his face.Daniel: Mm-hmm.John: And he's using all the tricks he knows and lighting to make that happen, but that means he's gotta hit particular marks for the light to hit it just right. And for you to see that his face is as, you know, skull-like as he made it. When you see him, you know, in London After Midnight as the professor inspector character, he has got a normal full man's face. It's a real face. Much like his son, he had a kind of a full face and what he was able to do with a phantom and take all that away, and be as physical as he was, is just phenomenal. I mean, he was a really, besides the makeup, he was a really good actor.Daniel: Oh, definitely. Jim: I agree with that completely. I kind of in what I watched, I wonder if he was the makeup artist, but not the actor and he did exactly the same makeup on somebody else. And so we had the same image. If those things would've resonated with us the way they do today. I think it had everything to do with who he was and his abilities in addition to the incredible makeup. He was just a tremendous performer.Daniel: Absolutely. He was a true multitasker. In his early days of theater, he was not only an actor, but he was a choreographer. He had a lot of jobs behind the scenes as well. Even when he had become a star in his own time, he would still help actors find the character within them. like Norma Sheera, et cetera. People who were kind of new to the movie making scene and the directors didn't really have that much patience with young actors or actresses. Whereas Chaney, because of his clout in the industry, no one really interfered with Chaney's authority on set. But he would really help actors find the character, find the emotion, 'cause it was just all about how well you translate it over for the audience, as opposed to the actor feeling a certain way that convinces themselves that they're the character. Chaney always tried to get the emotions across to the audience. Patsy Ruth Miller, who played Esemerelda in in the Hunchback, said that Chaney directed the film more than the director actually did.The director was actually even suggested by Chaney. So, Chaney really had his hands everywhere in the making of a film. And Patsy Ruth Miller said the thing that she learned from him was that it's the actress's job to make the audience feel how the character's meant to be feeling, and not necessarily the actor to feel what they should be feeling based on the script and the settings and everything.So I think, that's why Chaney in particular stands out, among all of the actors of his time.John: I think he would've transitioned really well into sound. I think, he had everything necessary to make that transition.Jim: There's one sound picture with him in it, isn't there, doesn't he? Doesn't he play a ventriloquist? John: I believe so.Daniel: Yes, it was a remake of The Unholy Three that he had made in 1925 as Echo the ventriloquist, and the gangster. And yes, by the time MGM had decided to pursue talkies -- also, funny enough, they were one of the last studios to transition to, just because they were the most, one, probably the most dominant studio in all of Hollywood, that they didn't feel the pressure to compete with the burgeoning talkie revolution.So they could afford to take their time, they could release a talkie, but then they could release several silent films and the revenue would still be amazing for the studio. Whereas other studios probably had to conform really quick just because they didn't have the star system, that MGM shamelessly flaunted. And several Chaney films had been transitioned to sound at this point with or without Chaney. But for Chaney himself, because he himself was the special effect, it was guaranteed to be a winner even if it had been an original story that isn't as remembered today strictly because people get to hear the thing that's been denied them for all this time, which is Chaney's voice. And he would've transitioned very easily to talkies is because he had a very rich, deep voice, which, coming from theater, he had to have had, in terms of doing dialogue. He wasn't someone like a lot of younger actors who had started out predominantly in feature films who could only pantomime lines. Chaney actually knew how to deliver dialogue, so it did feel natural and it didn't feel read off the page.And he does about five voices in The Unholy Three. So MGM was truly trying to market, his voice for everything that they could. As Mrs. O'Grady, his natural voice, he imitates a parrot and a girl. And yeah, he really would've flourished in the sound era. Jim: Yeah. John: Any surprises, as it sounds like you were researching this for virtually your whole life, but were there any surprises that you came across, as you really dug in about the film?Daniel: With regards to London after Midnight, the main surprise was undoubtedly the -- probably the star chapter of the whole thing -- which is the nitrate frames from an actual destroyed print of the film itself, which sounds crazy to even being able to say it. But, yeah the nitrate frames themselves presented a quandary of questions that just sent me into a whole nother research mode trying to find out where these impossible images came from, who they belonged to, why they even existed, why they specifically existed.Because, looking for something that, you know, you are told doesn't exist. And then to find it, you kind of think someone is watching over you, planting this stuff as though it's the ultimate tease. To find a foreign movie poster for London After Midnight would be one thing, but to find actual pieces of the lost film itself. It was certainly the most out of body experience I've ever had. Just to find something that I set out to find, but then you find it and you still can't believe that you've actually found it.John: How did you find it?Daniel: I had connections with a few foreign archives who would befriend me and took to my enthusiasm with the silent era, and specifically Chaney and all the stars connected to Chaney films.And, quite early on I was told that there were a few photo albums that had various snippets of silent films from Chaney. They didn't really go into what titles these were, 'cause they were just all a jumble. All I knew is that they came from (garbled) widow. And he had acquired prints of the whole films from various, I suppose, junk stores in Spain.But not being a projectionist, he just purely took them at the face value that he just taken the images and snipping them up and putting them in photo albums, like how you would just do with photographs. And then the rest of the material was sadly discarded by fire. So, all we were left with were these snipped relics, survivors almost to several Chaney lost films. Some of them not lost, but there were films like The Phantom of the Opera in there, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mockery, The Unknown. But then there were several lost films such as London After Midnight, the Big City, Thunder. And All the Brothers were Valiant, which are mainly other than Thunder are all totally complete lost films.So, to find this little treasure trove, it was just finding out what the images meant and connecting them up, trying to put them in some sort of chronological scholarly order. Grueling, but it was very fun at the same time. And because I had identified myself with all of these surviving production stills from the film -- a lot of them, which formed the basis of the 2002 reconstruction by Turner Classic Movies -- it didn't take me too long to identify what scenes these surviving nitrate frames were from. But there were several frames which had sets that I recognized and costumes that I recognized, but in the photographic stills, they don't occupy the same space at the same time. So, it's like the two separate elements had crossed over. So that left me with a scholarly, question of what I was looking at. I was able to go back and, sort of rectify certain wrongs that have been accepted throughout the sixties as being the original, say, opening to London after Midnight. So I've, been able to disprove a few things that have made the film, I suppose, a bit more puzzling to audiences. Some audiences didn't really get what the plot was to begin with. So, it was nice to actually put a bit more order to the madness finally.John: At what point did you come across the original treatment and the script?Daniel: The treatment and the script, they came from a private collector who had bought them at auction a number of years ago who I was able to thankfully contact, and they still had the two documents in question. I had learned through Philip J Riley's previous books on London after Midnight that he had the two latter drafts of the script, the second edition and the third draft edition.And, again, the question of why and where. I just always wondered where that first draft of the script was, hoping it would contain new scenes, and open new questions for me and to study. And once I've managed to find those two documents, they did present a lot of new, perspectives and material that added to the fuller plot of the original hypnotist scenario, as opposed to the shortened, time efficient London After Midnight film that was ultimately delivered to audiences. So again, it helped to put a little bit more order to the madness.Jim: You found an actual piece of the film that you were able to, somebody got images from it? And then you found the scripts? But the images are terrific and they're all in your book. They came from what exactly?Daniel: The just below 20 images of the film came from originally a distribution print, a Spanish distribution print, from about 1928. Originally, they were on 35 millimeter indicating that they were from the studio and as is with a lot of silent films that have been found in foreign archives.Normally when a film is done with its distribution, it would have to be returned to the original studio to be destroyed, except for the original negative and a studio print, because there is no reason why a studio would need to keep the thousands of prints when they have the pristine copy in their vault. But, in a lot of smaller theater cases, in order to save money on the postage of the shipping, they would just basically declare that they had destroyed the film on the studio's behalf. There was no record system with this stuff and that's how a lot of these films ended up in the basements of old theaters, which are eventually when they closed, the assets were sold off to collectors or traveling showmen. And eventually these films found their ways into archives or again, private collections. Some of which people know what they have.A lot of times they don't know what they have because they're more obsessed with, naturally, more dedicated to preserving the films of their own culture that was shown at the time, as opposed to a foreign American title, which they probably assume they already have a copy of. But it's how a lot of these films get found.And, with the London After Midnight, example, there were the images that I found spanned the entire seven reels, because they came from different points in the film. It wasn't a single strip of film, of a particular scene. Having thankfully the main source that we have for London After Midnight is the cutting continuity, which is the actual film edited down shot for shot, length for length.And it describes, briefly, although descriptive enough, what is actually in each and every single shot of the film. And comparing the single frame images from the film with this document, I was able to identify at what point these frames came from during the film, which again spanned the entire seven reels, indicating that a complete seven reel version of the film had gotten out under the studio system at one point.As is the case, I'm assuming, 'cause these came from the same collection, I'm assuming it was the same with the other lost Chaney films that again, sadly only survive in snippet form.John: It's like somebody was a collector and his wife said, "well, we don't have room for all this. Just take the frames you like and we'll get rid of the rest of it." So, you mentioned in passing the 2002 reconstruction that Turner Classic Movies did using the existing stills. I don't know if they were working from any of the scripts or not. That was the version I originally saw when I was working on writing, those portions of The Misers Dream that mentioned London After Midnight. Based on what you know now, how close is that reconstruction and where do you think they got it right and where'd they get it wrong?Daniel: The 2002, reconstruction, while a very commendable production, it does stray from the original edited film script. Again, the problem that they clearly faced on that production is that there were not enough photographed scenes to convey all the photographed scenes from the film. So what they eventually fell into the trap of doing was having to reuse the same photograph to sometimes convey two separate scenes, sometimes flipping the image to appear on the opposite side of the camera. And, because of the certain lack of stills in certain scenes cases, they had to rewrite them.And sometimes a visual scene had to have been replaced with an inter-title card, merely describing what had happened or describing a certain period in time, as opposed to showing a photograph of what we're meant to be seeing as opposed to just reading. So, they did the best with what they had.But since then, there have been several more images crop up in private collections or in the archives. So, unless a version of the film gets found, it's certainly an endeavor that could be revisited, I think, and either do a new visual reconstruction of sort, or attempt some sort remake of the film even.Jim: That's an idea. John: They certainly have the materials to do that. I've got an odd question. There's one famous image, a still image from the film, showing Chaney as Professor Burke, and he is reaching out to the man in the beaver hat whose back is to us. Is that a promo photo? Spoiler alert, Burke is playing the vampire in the movie. He admits that that's him. So, he never would've met the character. What is the story behind that photo?Daniel: There are actually three photographs depicting that, those characters that you described. There are the two photographs which show Chaney in the Balfor mansion seemingly directing a cloaked, top hatted figure with long hair, with its back towards us. And then there is another photograph of Chaney in the man in the beaver hat disguise with a seemingly twin right beside him outside of a door.Basically the scenes in the film in which Chaney appear to the Hamlin residents, the people who are being preyed upon by the alleged vampires, the scenes where Chaney and the vampire need to coexist in the same space or either appear to be in the same vicinity to affect other characters while at the same time interrogating others, Chaney's character of Burke employs a series of assistants to either dress up as vampires or at certain times dress up as his version of the vampire to parade around and pretend that they are the man in the beaver hat. Those particular shots, though, the vampire was always, photographed from behind rather than the front.The very famous scene, which was the scene that got first got me interested in London After Midnight, in which the maidm played by Polly Moran is in the chair shrieking at Chaney's winged self, hovering over her. It was unfortunate to me to realize that that was actually a flashback scene told from the maid's perspective.And by the end of the film, the maid is revealed to be an informant of Burke, a secret detective also. So, it's really a strong suspension of disbelief has to be employed because the whole scene of Chaney chasing the maid through the house and appearing under the door, that was clearly just the MGMs marketing at work just to show Chaney off in a bizarre makeup with a fantastic costume.Whereas he is predominantly the detective and the scenes where he's not needed to hypnotize a character in the full vampire makeup, he just employs an assistant who parades around in the house as him, all the times with his back turned so that the audience can't latch on as to who the character actually is, 'cause it must have posed quite a fun confusion that how can Chaney be a detective in this room where the maid has just ran from the Vampire, which is also Chaney?John: Yeah, and it doesn't help that the plot is fairly convoluted anyway, and then you add that layer. So, do you think we'll ever see a copy of it? Do you think it's in a basement somewhere?Daniel: I've always personally believed that the film does exist. Not personally out of just an unfounded fanboy wish, but just based on the evidence and examples of other films that have been found throughout time. Metropolis being probably the most prominent case. But, at one point there was nothing on London After Midnight and now there is just short of 20 frames for the film. So, if that can exist currently now in the year 2023, what makes us think that more footage can't be found by, say, 2030? I think with fans, there's such a high expectation that if it's not found in their own lifetime or in their own convenience space of time, it must not exist. There's still a lot of silent lost treasures that just have not been found at all that do exist though. So, with London After Midnight, from a purely realistic standpoint, I've always theorized myself that the film probably does exist in an archive somewhere, but it would probably be a very abridged, foreign condensed version, as opposed to a pristine 35-millimeter print that someone had ripped to safety stock because they knew in the future the film would become the most coveted of all lost films. So, I do believe it does exist. The whole theory of it existing in a private collection and someone's waiting to claim the newfound copyright on it, I think after December of last year, I think it's finally put that theory to rest. I don't think a collector consciously knows they have a copy of it. So, I think it's lost until found personally, but probably within an archive.Jim: Lost until found. That's a great title for a book. I like that a lot. What do you think of the remake, Mark of the Vampire and in your opinion, what does it tell us about, London After Midnight?Daniel: Well, Mark of the Vampire came about again, part of the Sound Revolution. It was one of those because it was Chaney and Todd Browning's most successful film for the studio. And Browning was currently, being held on a tight leash by MGM because of his shocking disaster film Freaks, I suppose they were a little bit nervous about giving him the reign to do what he wanted again. So, looking through their backlog of smash silent hits, London After Midnight seemed the most logical choice to remake, just simply because it was their most, successful collaboration. Had it have been The Unholy Three, I'm sure? Oh no, we already had The Unholy Three, but had it have been another Browning Chaney collaboration, it might have been The Unknown, otherwise. So, I suppose that's why London After Midnight was selected and eventually turned into Mark of the Vampire. The story does not stray too much from London After Midnight, although they seem to complicate it a little bit more by taking the Burke vampire character and turning it this time into three characters played by three different actors, all of which happened to be in cahoots with one another in trying to solve an old murder mystery.It's very atmospherical. You can definitely tell it's got Todd Browning signature on it. It's more pondering with this one why they just did not opt to make a legit, supernatural film, rather than go in the pseudo vampire arena that they pursued in 1927. Where audiences had by now become accustomed to the supernatural with Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931, which no longer relied on a detective trying to find out a certain mystery and has to disguise themselves as a monster.The monster was actually now a real thing in the movies. So I think if Bela Lugosi had been given the chance to have played a real Count Mora as a real vampire, I think it would've been slightly better received as opposed to a dated approach that was clearly now not the fashionable thing to do.I suppose again, because Browning was treading a very thin line with MGM, I suppose he couldn't really stray too far from the original source material. But I find it a very atmospherical film, although I think the story works better as a silent film than it does as a sound film, because there's a lot of silent scenes in that film, away from owls, hooting and armadillos scurrying about and winds. But I do think, based on things like The Cat and The Canary from 1927 and The Last Warning, I just think that detective sleuth with horror overtones serves better to the silent world than it does the sound world away from the legit, supernatural.John: So, if Chaney hadn't died, do you think he would have played Dracula? Do you think he would've been in Freaks? Would Freaks have been more normalized because it had a big name in it like that?Daniel: It would've been interesting if Chaney had played in Freaks. I think because Todd Browning used the kinds of individuals that he used for Freaks, maybe Chaney would've, for a change, had been the most outta place.John: Mm-hmm.Daniel: I do think he might have played Dracula. I think Universal would've had a hell of a time trying to get him over because he had just signed a new contract with MGM, whereas Todd Browning had transferred over to Universal by 1930 and really wanted to make Dracula for many years and probably discussed it with Chaney as far back as 1920.But certainly MGM would not have permitted Chaney to have gone over to Universal, even for a temporary period, without probably demanding a large piece of the action, in a financial sense, because Universal had acquired the rights to Dracula at this point. And, based on the stage play that had, come out on Broadway, it was probably assured that it was going to be a giant moneymaker, based on the success of the Dracula play.But because of Cheney's, status as a, I suppose retrospectively now, as a horror actor, he was probably the first person to be considered for that role by Carl Laemmle, senior and Junior for that matter. And Chaney gone by 1930, it did pose a puzzle as to who could take over these kinds of roles.Chaney was probably the only one to really successfully do it and make the monster an actual box office ingredient more than any other actor at that time, as he did with. Phantom, Blind Bargain and London After Midnight. So, I think to have pursued Chaney for a legit, supernatural film would've had enormous possibilities for Browning and Chaney himself.You can kind of see a trend, a trilogy forming, with Browning, from London After Midnight, in which he incorporates things he used in Dracula in London After Midnight. So, he kind of had this imagery quite early on. So, to go from – despite it's not in that order -- but to have London After Midnight, Mark of the Vampire, and he also did Dracula, he clearly was obsessed with the story. And I think Chaney was probably the, best actor for someone like Browning who complimented his way of thinking and approach to things like silence. As opposed to needing dialogue all the time, loud commotions. So, I think they dovetailed each other quite well, and that's why their ten year director actor relationship was as groundbreaking as it was.Jim: If the film does surface, if we find the film, what do you think people, how are they gonna react to the movie when they see it? What do you think? What's gonna be the reaction if it does surface?Daniel: Well, the lure of London After Midnight, the power in the film is its lost status rather than its widespread availability. I think it could never live up to the expectation that we've built up in our heads over the past 40 to 60 years. It was truly people, fans like Forrest J Ackerman that introduced and reignited the interest in Chaney's career by the late fifties and 1960s. That's when London After Midnight started to make the rounds in rumor, the rumors of a potential print existing, despite the film had not long been destroyed at that point. So, it was always a big mystery. There were always people who wanted to see the film, but with no access to home video, or et cetera, the only way you could probably see the film would've been at the studio who held everything. And, by the time the TV was coming out, a lot of silent films didn't make it to TV. So again, it has just germinated in people's heads probably in a better form than what they actually remembered. But, the true reality of London After Midnight is one more closer to the ground than it is in it's people are probably expecting to see something very supernatural on par with Dracula, whereas it's more so a Sherlock Holmes story with mild horrorish overtones to it that you can kind of see better examples of later on in Dracula in 1930 and in Mark of the Vampire.It's a film purely, I think for Lon Chaney fans. For myself, having read everything I can on the film, everything I've seen on the film, I personally love silent, detective stories, all with a touch of horror. So, I personally would know what I am going in to see. I'm not going in to see Chaney battling a Van Helsing like figure and turn to dust at the very end or turning to a bat. I'm going to see a detective melodrama that happens to have what looks like a vampire. So, it certainly couldn't live up to the expectations in people's minds and it's probably the only film to have had the greatest cheapest, marketing in history, I would think. It's one of those films, if it was discovered, you really would not have to do much marketing to promote it.It's one of those that in every fanzine, magazine, documentary referenced in pop. It has really marketed itself into becoming what I always call the mascot of the genre. There are other more important lost films that have been lost to us. The main one again, which has been found in its more complete form, was Metropolis, which is a better movie.But unlike Metropolis, London After Midnight has a lot more famous ingredients to it. It has a very famous director. It has a very famous actor whose process was legendary even during then. And it's actually the only film in which he actually has his make-up case make a cameo appearance by the very end. And it goes on the thing that everyone in every culture loves, which is the vampirism, the dark tales and folklore. So, when you say it, it just gets your imagination going. Whereas I think if you are watching it, it's probably you'll be looking over the projector to see if something even better is going to happen.The film had its mixed reactions when it originally came out. People liked it because it gave them that cheap thrill of being a very atmospherical, haunted house with the creepy figures of Chaney walking across those dusty hallways. But then the more important story is a murder mystery.It's not Dracula, but it has its own things going for it. I always kind of harken it back to the search for the Lochness Monster or Bigfoot. It has more power in your mind than it does in an aquarium or in a zoo. Hearing someone say that they think they saw something moving around in Lochness, but there's no photographic evidence, you just have the oral story, that is much more tangible in a way than actually seeing it in an aquarium where you can take it for granted. And it's the same with London After Midnight, and I think that's why a lot of hoaxster and pranksters tend to say that they have seen London After Midnight more than any other lost film.Jim: For a film that I would say the majority of the world does not have any frame of reference, and I'm using myself as the sort of blueprint for that, no frame of reference for this film. That image is iconic in a way that has been, I mean, it at first glance could be Jack the Ripper. I was talking to John before we started the podcast, once I locked in on that image, then I started to think, oh, the ghosts in Disney's Haunted Mansion, there's a couple of ghosts that have elements of that. I mean, it was so perfectly done, even though we don't, I bet you nine out ten people don't know the title London After Midnight, but I bet you seven outta ten people know this image.Daniel: Definitely, it has certainly made its mark on pop culture, again, I think because I think it's such a beautiful, simplistic design. Everything from the simplistically [garbled] to the bulging eyes and the very nice top hat as well, which is in itself today considered a very odd accessory for a grotesque, vampire character.But it's one of those things that has really carried over. It's influenced what the movies and artists. It was one of the influences for the Babadook creation for that particular monster. It was an influence on the Black Phone. It's just a perfect frame of reference for movie makers and sculptors and artists to keep taking from.John: Yep. It's, it'll live long beyond us. Daniel, one last question. I read somewhere or heard somewhere. You're next gonna tackle James Whale, is that correct? Daniel: James Whale is a subject, again, coming from, I happen to come from the exact same town that he was born and raised in, in Dudley, England. So, it's always been a subject close to home for me, which is quite convenient because I love his movies. So, I'm hoping to eventually, hopefully plan a documentary feature on him, based on a lot of family material in the surrounding areas that I was able to hunt down, and forgotten histories about him and just put it together in some form, hopefully in the future.John: That would be fantastic, and we'll have you back at that point.Jim: So, let's pretend for a minute that the audience is me, and they'd have absolutely no idea who James Whale is or what he's done. Just for a minute, let's pretend.John: Pretend that you don't know that?Jim: Yeah.Daniel: James Whale is the most known for his work for directing Frankenstein with Boris Karloff in 1931. But he also directed probably some of the most important horror films that have ever existed in the history of motion pictures. The Old Dark House, which can be cited with its very atmospherical, and black comedy tones, The Invisible Man with Claude Rains and Gloria Stewart in 1933. And, the most important one, which is probably the grand jewel in the whole of the Universal Monsters Empire, which is Bride of Frankenstein in 1935, which is the ultimate, example of everything that he had studied, everything that he'd learned with regards to cinema and comedy, life and death, and just making a very delicious cocktail of a movie in all of its black comedy, horrific, forms that we're still asking questions about today. One of his first films that he did was for Howard Hughes Hell's Angels, in which -- because he'd coming over from theater -- when again, films in America were taken off with the sound revolution. They all of a sudden needed British directors to translate English dialogue better than the actors could convey.So, James Whale was one of many to be taken over to America when he had a hit play called Journeys End, which became the most successful war play at that point. And he did his own film adaptation of Journeys End. He also did a really remarkable film called Showboat, which is another very iconic film.And again, someone with James Whale's horror credentials, you just think, how could someone who directed Frankenstein directed Showboat? But, clearly a very, very talented director who clearly could not be pigeonholed at the time as a strictly horror director, despite it is the horror films in which he is remembered for, understandably so, just because they contain his very individualistic wit and humor and his outlooks on life and politics. And being an openly gay director at the time, he really was a force unto himself. He was a very modern man even then.

Pour finir l'année en beauté, nous vous proposons l'une des plus belles moustaches intermittentes du cinéma français de ces dernières années : Christophe Paou !Il est comédien sur les planches et pour les caméras. Il est connu pour son rôle sulfureux dans L'inconnu du lac d'Alain Guiraudie, et ces vingt dernières années, il a aussi joué pour quelques autres grands aventureux du cinéma français, des Frères Larrieu à Jean-Christophe Meurisse en passant par Lucie Borleteau.A cette occasion, Christophe Paou spectateur éclectique et enthousiaste nous a parlé de quelques comédiens qu'il admire, du moustachu Michel Serrault à Peter Sellers, en passant par le premier “monstre” du cinéma muet, Lon Chaney, acteur fétiche du cinéaste Todd Browning. Engagé, il a convoqué quelques films pour « rester vertical » (Eau Argentée, Rue Case-nègres) et quelques remèdes dans ce monde de brutes, de l'amour torride de « L'eau tiède sous un pont rouge » à l'humour burlesque de The Party. Inscrivez-vous à la newsletter en cliquant sur ce lien : https://forms.gle/HgDMoaPyLd6kxCS48 Pour nous soutenir, rendez-vous sur https://www.patreon.com/cinephilesdnt I. PORTRAIT - 3'29 Une moustache de cinéma : celle intermittente de Michel Serrault - 3'29 Des amours au cinéma : De l'eau tiède sous un pont rouge (Shōhei Imamura, 2001); Elephant Man (D. Lynch, 1980) - 6'37 Des paysages au cinéma : la jungle de Tropical Malady (A. Weerasethakul, 2004); l'Arctique d'Atanarjuat (Zacharias Kunuk, 2001); la ville futuriste de Blade Runner (R. Scott, 1982) - 10'29 CONDITIONS DE VISIONNAGE, MEMOIRE ET SOMMEIL - 15'42 Le plaisir d'être déstabilisé au cinéma selon Christophe Paou : Tamala 2010 (T.O.L, kuno, K., 2002) ; Big Man Japan (Hitoshi Matsumoto, 2007) - 15'59 Souvenirs télévisuels de Christophe Paou : Les mystères de l'Ouest; Les enfants du rock - 20'58 Comment l'esprit de certains comédiens accompagne Christophe : Alberto Sordi dans Une vie difficile (Dino Risi, 1961) - 24'53 Des films à voir en bord de lac : The Host (Bong Joon-ho, 2005); Comme un avion (Bruno Podalydès, 2015) CARTE BLANCHE - 32'27L'inconnu (Todd Browning, 1927) TRANSMISSION - 38'05Des films pour rester vertical : Eau argentée (Wiam Simav Bedirxan, Oussama Mohammad, 2014); Rue Cases-Nègres (Euzhan Palcy, 1983) - 38'05 REFUGES - 49'04The Party (Blake Edwards, 1968); Koyaanisqatsi (Godfrey Reggio, 1982) EXTRAITS Rachel's song, Vangelis (Blade Runner (Music From The Original Soundtrack) ℗ 1994 Warner Music UK Ltd The Wild Wild West TV Intro Une vie difficile (Dino Risi) - Les Acacias Eau Argentée (Wiam Simav Bedirxan, Oussama, Mohammad, 2014) - Meteore Film Nothing To Lose (The Party/Soundtrack Version) · Claudine Longet, Henry Mancini - ℗ 1968 A&M Records Koyaanisqatsi · Philip Glass - ℗ 1983 The Island Def Jam Music Group CRÉDITSMerci à Elodie Imbeau d'avoir rendu cet épisode possible.Patreons : un grand merci à Paul, Corentin, Irène, Dominique, Bernard et Clara pour leur soutien !Musique : Gabriel RénierGraphisme : Lucie AlvadoCréation & Animation : Phane Montet & Clément Coucoureux

Join us for a captivating  discussion of classic horror auteur Tod Browning with George Feltenstein of the Warner Archive, and esteemed film historians, Steve Haberman and Constantine Nasr. Their 20-year-long collaboration started with the DVD release of Mel Brooks' "Dracula: Dead and Loving It," and has now extended to creating an audio commentary for the upcoming horror/sci-fi film, "The Devil Doll" (1936).  That's the jumping-off point for our discussion and appreciation of four of Tod Browning's films released for the first time on Blu-ray in October.  This episode is also a testament to the importance of preserving and cherishing physical media, highlighted through the restoration of Browning's classic horror masterpiece, "Freaks" (1932), undertaken by the Criterion Collection in partnership with Warner Bros. You don't want to miss George Feltenstein's engaging story about the film master that was used in this restoration, and the fifty-year journey to return it to its rightful owner.  We also dissect the artistry behind Browning's 'The Mystic' (1925) and 'The Unknown' (1927), and the wonderful work Criterion did in restoring and presenting these silent films.Lastly, we revisit the profound themes present in Browning's films, showcasing the darker aspects of human nature and crime. This episode is a celebration of classic horror cinema and a tribute to the artistry of director Tod Browning.Purchase links:THE DEVIL DOLL (1936) Blu-rayTod Brownings Sideshow Shockers: FREAKS, THEY UNKNOWN, THE MYSTIC Blu-rayThe Sitcom StudyFinding the truth and wisdom amidst the tropes and clichésListen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify The Extras Facebook pageThe Extras Twitter Warner Archive & Warner Bros Catalog GroupOtaku Media produces podcasts, behind-the-scenes extras, and media that connect creatives with their fans and businesses with their consumers. Contact us today to see how we can work together to achieve your goals. www.otakumedia.tv

On this week's episode Ygraine chats with gamer Brittacular about Carnivals in horror movies. They discuss 2013's Texas Chainsaw 3D and Freaks from 1932 directed by Todd Browning. Theme: Afraid of Me by Cadaver Club

AP Strange returns to carefully tap-dance around the miraculous yet ethically questionable history of sideshows! Our idea was to discuss the 1932 Todd Browning movie "Freaks", emphasizing the amazing careers and inspirational life stories of its diverse cast, who came in all shapes and sizes. But as is the case when discussing the old timey sideshow circuit and its performers, we quickly ended up having to navigate through a minefield of controversy, exploitation, moral dilemmas, and a giant mirror reflecting back at ourselves! Nevertheless, we kept ourselves in the safety of the spotlight, sharing insight into the lives of these exceptional individuals, who overcame tremendous physical and societal challenges to master skills and talents which convey the magic and power of human will. ====================== Huge THANK YOU!!! to AP Strange for soothing our ears with his delightful voice! Hopefully he decides to narrate a few audiobooks and not get sued in the process ❤️ Follow him on Twitter @AProdigiosus or Instagram @apstrange23 Visit his website as well at www.apstrange.com (yes, he is semi-professional, and a nice guy too!) ====================== Send us suggestions and comments to tracingowlspodcast@gmail.com Follow us on Instagram @tracingowls or Twitter @TracingOwls Check our Linktree: linktr.ee/tracingowls Intro sampled from "Something strange lurks in the shadows" by Francisco Sánchez (@fanchisanchez) Sound effects obtained from https://www.zapsplat.com

Back in 2014, Universal Pictures wanted to reboot its Universal Monster properties as part of a shared universe they would call “The Dark Universe”.  The venture began with 2014s Dracula Untold, which flopped, and then they tried again with 2017s The Mummy, which despite being profitable, earning $410 million dollars against a $125 million dollar budget, wasn't well received by critics and prompted the studio to scrap the Dark Universe.Flash forward to 2019, Robert Kirkman pitched a 20 page script for a comedic horror Dracula story in the theme of 2014s What We Do In The Shadows.  2020s The Invisible Man was a commercial and critical hit that gave new hope for the Universal Monsters franchise.  Kirkman got the green light, signing up director Chris McKay and writer Ryan Ridley to develop a final vision that led to a quasi sequel to the first Universal Monster hit, Todd Browning's 1931 Dracula starring Bela Lugosi.If you want to know if Universal's latest Monster offering is going to sink or float the franchise, hangout with us as we discuss and review the latest homage to the Dracula franchise in Chris McKay's RENFIELD on The Brothers in Armchairs Podcast.Thanks for listening, and feel free to hit us up on any of our social media platforms!    Behind the Scenes on Renfield: https://youtu.be/xwz61IuD7vw Our media link:  https://linktr.ee/BiAPodcastTheme song "Loli'ana" was written and performed by award-winning musician Kamuela Kahoano.   Listen to more of Kamuela's music on iTunes and https://kamuelamusic.com/.  Also, "Loli'ana" performed live at The Ko'olau Banquet Hall can be seen here https://youtu.be/YDJ1NNJgEiA  Thanks for listening!  And please subscribe and review!

Margaret Wycherly (1881-1956) was an English stage actress who appeared in one silent film at the age of 38 (The Thirteenth Chair, 1929, dir. Todd Browning). 12 years later she reemerged as Ma York in Sgt. York opposite Gary Cooper, and was nominated for an Oscar. But in White Heat, as the conniving and murderous Ma Jarrett, mother to psychopathic killer Cody Jarrett, played by James Cagney, she positively electrifies the screen every moment she appears. The plot hinges on her throughout, and at the end Cody dies calling her name. This performance is for the ages!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_WycherlyMargaret Wycherly was born in London, England on October 26, 1881. She was predominately a stage actress, continuing stage work even after performing in films. Her first film role came when she appeared in The Fight (1915) at 34 years old. It was not until 1929 that audiences got another glimpse of her in The Thirteenth Chair (1929). Playing largely character roles, one of her finest performances was as Gary Cooper's mother in Sergeant York (1941). She later gave stellar performances in The Yearling(1946) and Forever Amber (1947). She appeared on the then-new medium of television on The Philco Television Playhouse (1948). After a small role in The President's Lady(1953), Margaret retired at age 72. Three years later, on June 6, 1956, she died at age 74.- IMDb Mini Biography By: Denny Jackson & MOThis British actress, born in 1881, is probably best remembered as the mother in her two best-known roles, Sergeant York (1941) opposite 'Gary Cooper' and White Heat (1949) opposite James Cagney who closes out the film screaming "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!" as he goes to a fiery death. Margaret spent her early acting days on stage touring across England, and later working with stock theatre companies in the US, before making the jump to Broadway. There she starred in two memorable plays, Tobacco Road, a successful commercial play, and The Thirteenth Chair which proved to be a critical success. Her performances caught the attention of the studios and she wound up reprising her role in the The Thirteenth Chair (1929) film adaptation opposite Bela Lugosi. Returning to the stage, she periodically returned to Hollywood, making the film Midnight(1934), followed by roles in 17 movie films. The most notable being Sergeant York (1941) for which she earned an Oscar nomination for best supporting actress.- IMDb Mini Biography By: Keith Burnage webmaster@sgt-york.co, & MO

Recordamos el estreno de "Existenz" de David Cronenberg. En homenajes repasamos la vida y obra de Agnes Varda. El mito de la filmación de "Apocalypse Now" y en películas de culto "Freaked", una ¿reinterpretación? de "Freaks" de Todd Browning.

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with Dawn Brodey and Brian Forrest, talking about the various film versions of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula.”Dawn gave me 4.5 films to revisit: The 1931 version of Frankenstein, Frankenweenie (the feature and the short), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Young Frankenstein.Meanwhile, Brian assigned me the original Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, Dracula in Istanbul and Bram Stoker's Dracula. LINKSDawn's podcast (HILF): http://dawnbrodey.com/ - showsBrian's Blog and Vlog, Toothpickings: https://toothpickings.medium.com/ A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Frankenstein (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/BN8K-4osNb0Frankenweenie Trailer: https://youtu.be/29vIJQohUWEMary Shelley's Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/GFaY7r73BIsYoung Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/mOPTriLG5cUNosferatu (Complete Film): https://youtu.be/dCT1YUtNOA8Dracula (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/VoaMw91MC9kAbbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/j6l8auIACycHorror of Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ZTbY0BgIRMkBram Stoker's Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/fgFPIh5mvNcDracula In Istanbul: https://youtu.be/G7tAWcm3EX0Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastDawn and Brian TRANSCRIPT John: [00:00:00] Before we dive into the assignment you gave me—which was to watch stuff I hadn't seen and also rewatch stuff I had seen to get a better idea of who's done a good job of adapting these books—let's just jump in and talk a little bit about your area of expertise and why you have it. So, I'm going to start with you, Brian. I was very surprised after working with you a while to find out that you had a whole vampire subset in your life. Brian: A problem, you can call it a problem. It's fine. John: Okay. What is the problem and where did it come from? Brian: I was just vaguely interested in vampires for a while. When I was in my screenwriting days, someone had encouraged me to do a feature length comedy about vampires, and that led me to do a lot of reading. And then I just kind of put it aside for a while. And then I was, I had just finished a documentary for Committee Films and they said, do you have any other pitches? And I thought, and I said, you know, there's still people who believe in vampires even today, that could be really interesting. And I put together a pitch package. Then, the guy in charge of development said, [00:01:00]this is what we need to be doing. And then it stalled out. Nothing ever happened with it. And I said, what the hell. I could do this on my own. I could fly around and interview these people. And I did, I spent a couple years interviewing academics and some writers. And along the way, I started finding all these very intriguing moments in the history of either vampire lore or fiction or even just people who consider themselves vampires today. And all these things would connect to each other. It was a lattice work of vampires going back hundreds of years. It didn't fit the documentary, unfortunately, but I found it way too interesting. And I said, I need some kind of outlet for this. And so I started writing about it on Tooth Pickings. And that eventually put me in touch with people who were more scholarly, and it opened up a lot more conversations. And now I can't get out. I'm trapped. John: Well, the first sign is recognizing there's a problem. [00:02:00] Okay. Now, Dawn, you had a different entryway into Frankenstein. Dawn: Yeah, well, I was a theater major and a history minor at the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers. And, this was in the late nineties, early two thousands, when there were still a lot of jobs for people who had degrees and things like this. Or at least there was a theory that this was a reasonable thing to get educated in. And then I graduated in 2001, which was months after 9/11, when all those jobs went away. And so, I had this education so specific and what was I gonna do? And gratefully the Twin Cities is a great place for finding that kind of stuff. And one of my very first jobs out of college was at the Bakkan museum. So, the Bakkan museum was founded by Earl Bakkan, who is the inventor of the battery-operated pacemaker. And he has always, since childhood, been obsessed with the Frankenstein movie that came out in 1931. And he attributes [00:03:00]his great scientific invention and many others to a science fiction in general. And to the spark of the idea that comes from sources like this. So, when he opened the museum, he insisted that there'd be a grand Frankenstein exhibit. And that means going back to the book, and that meant going back to the author, Mary Shelley, who wrote the novel Frankenstein, she started writing it when she was 16.And so, I was hired because—boom, look at me—my degree is suddenly colliding, right? So, I was hired by the Bakkan museum to create a one-woman show about the life of Mary Shelley, where I would play Mary Shelley and would perform it within the museum and elsewhere. And through the course of that research, I read the novel for the second time, but then I read it for my third, fourth, fifth onwards and upwards. Because the show was about 45 minutes long, I referenced, you know, the novel, the books, the popular culture, the science behind it. And the deep dive just never stopped. And so long after I was required to do the research and the show was done and up, I just kept reading. [00:04:00] And it gave me the opportunity to meet experts in this field and the peripheral field, as I would sort of travel with this show and be an ambassador for the museum and stuff like that. And, yeah, it still curls my toes. John: All right, so with that background. I'm going to just be honest right here and say, I've read Dracula once, I've read Frankenstein once. So that's where I'm coming from, and both a while ago. I remember Frankenstein was a little tougher to get through. Dracula had a bit more of an adventure feel to it, but something I don't think has really been captured particularly well in all the movies. But they both have lasted and lasted and lasted.Why do you think those books are still, those ideas are still as popular today? Dawn: I will say that I think Frankenstein, it depends on what you mean by the idea. Because on the surface, just the idea of bringing the dead to life, is, I mean, the Walking Dead franchise is right now one of the most popular franchises. I mean, I think we are really pivot on this idea. And I remember saying to a friend once that the part in [00:05:00]Revelation where the dead rise is like the only part of the Bible that I don't question. It's like, oh, the dead will get up. You know, we always just seem to be real sure that at some damned point, they're getting up. And so I think that that is part of why that it sticks in our brains. But then the story around Frankenstein—especially as it was written in 1818—has so many universal and timeless themes, like ambition and what is right and wrong. And the question that Jurassic Park posed in 1995 and continues to—1993 around there—and continues to pose, which is: just because science is capable of doing something, should it do something? And how do we define progress? Surely the very idea of being able to beat death and not die seems to be kind of the ultimate goal. And here is someone saying, okay, so let's just say, yeah. We beat death and everyone goes, oh shit, that'd be terrible. [00:06:00] You know? And then also, I always love the idea of the creature, the monster, Frankenstein's creature himself, who has a lot of characteristics with which people have identified throughout history. Some people say, for example, that Mary Shelley's whole purpose for writing Frankenstein was a question of: didn't God do this to us, make us these ugly creatures that are imperfect and bumbling around and horrifying? And then once he realized that we weren't perfect, he fled from us in fear or fled. He just keeps going and every generation has a new media that tells the story a little bit better, a little bit different, and yeah, there we are. John: I will say that for me, the most memorable part of the book was the section where the monster is the narrator and is learning. And I think with the exception of Kenneth Branagh's film, it it's something that isn't really touched on that much. There's a little bit in Bride of Frankenstein, of him going around and learning stuff. But the sort of moral questions that he [00:07:00] raises as he's learning—what it is to be human—are very interesting in the book. And I wish they were in more of the movies, but they're not. So, Brian on Dracula, again, we have dead coming to life. Why do we love that so much? Brian: Well, it's one of the questions that made me want to make a film about it myself: why has the vampire been so fascinating for hundreds of years? Why does it keep coming back? You know, it ebbs and flows in popularity, but it never leaves. And it keeps seeming to have Renaissance after Renaissance. Dracula specifically, I think one of the interesting things about that novel is how many different lenses you can look at it through and not be wrong.People have looked at it through the lens of, is this thing an imperialist story? Is it an anti-imperialist story? Is it a feminist story? Is it an anti-feminist story? And you can find support for any of those views reading Dracula. And I think that some of it might be accidental; there's times where Dracula is catching up to whatever the cultural zeitgeist [00:08:00] is right now. And we look at Dracula and we say, oh, he was thinking about this back then. Or maybe Bram Stoker was just very confused and he had a lot of different ideas. John: All right, let's explore that a little deeper. You each gave me an assignment of some movies to watch or to re-watch that you felt were worth talking about, in relation to your subject of Frankenstein or Dracula. I'm going to start with Frankenweenie, just because I had not seen it. And in going through it, I was reminded—of course, as one would be—of watching Frankenweenie, I was reminded of Love, Actually. Because I came to the realization after years of Love, Actually being around that it—Love, Actually—is not a romantic comedy. It is all romantic comedies, all put into one movie. And Frankenweenie is all horror films. Condensed, beautifully and cleverly into one very tasty souffle. [Frankenweenie Soundbite] John: I stopped at a certain point making note of the references to other horror films. Just because there are so many of them. But the idea that it references everything from Bride of Frankenstein to Gremlins. They do a rat transformation that's right out of American Werewolf in London. The fact that they have a science teacher played by Martin Landau doing the voice he did as Bela [00:10:00] Lugosi in Ed Wood. I mean, it's a really good story that they just layered and layered and layered and layered. What was it about that movie that so captivated you? Dawn: Well, so much of what you just said. And also it seems to me the epitome of the accessibility of the story of Frankenstein. The idea that if anyone can think of any moment in which if I could bring someone back to life. But what I love about it too, is that the novel Frankenstein that is not Victor Frankenstein's motivation. It generally tends to be the motivation of almost every character, including the Kenneth Branagh character--at some point, he, when Elizabeth dies, his wife dies for the second time, he says, yes, I'm going to try to bring her back. But it is so not the motivation of the scientist in the book. It is just ambition. He just wants to do something no one else has done. And lots of people die around him and he really never, ever says to himself at any point in the novel, I wish I could bring them back, I'm going to bring them back. That's never, that's never part of it. He just wants to be impressive. And so, I love [00:11:00] that it starts with that pure motivation of wanting to bring the dead to life; just wanting to bring your dog back, so that it's so accessible for everyone watching it. Who wouldn't wanna try this? But then, even in that scene with the teacher, when he shows the frog. And he's demonstrating that if you touch a dead frog with electricity, its legs shoot up, which give the kid the first idea of bringing his dog back. Which is like a deep cut in, in the sense that that's nothing -- Mary Shelley herself and her friends were watching experiments exactly like that before she wrote the book: galvanism and animal magnetism were these really popular public demonstrations happening in London and elsewhere where they would do just that. But because electricity itself was so new, I mean, it blew people's hair back you know, that these dead frogs were flopping around. It was the craziest thing. And a lot of them were thinking to themselves, surely it is only a matter of time before we can, we're gonna have our dead walking around all the time. So, it was so circulating and so forward. [00:12:00] So it's not just movie references and it's not just Frankenstein references. That movie really includes source deep source references for how Frankenstein came to be. And I just love it. John: Which brings me to Frankenstein, the 1931 version, in which Colin Clive has a similar point of view to what you were talking about from the book. He just wants, you know, he wants to be God. [Frankenstein soundbite] John: What I was most impressed with about that movie or a couple things was: it starts, it's like, boom. We're in it. First scene. There there's no preamble. There's no going to college. There's no talking about it, right? It's like, they're starting in the middle of act two. And I think a lot of what we think of when it comes to Frankenstein comes from that movie, [00:13:00] that the stuff that James Whale and his cinematographer came up with and the way they made things look, and that's sort of what people think of when they think of Frankenstein. Now, as you look back on that movie, what are your thoughts on the, what we'll call the original Frankenstein? Dawn: Yeah. Well, I love it. You'll find with me and Frankenstein that I'm not a purist. Like I love everything. Like I have no boundaries. I think this is great. One of the things that 1931 movie did was answer—because it had to, anytime you take a novel and make it a movie, you take a literary medium and make it a visual medium, there's obviously going to be things that you just have to interpret that the author left for you to make for yourself individual. And in this instance, that individual is the cinematographer. So, we're gonna get their take on this. And one of the real ambiguous things that Mary Shelley leaves for you in the novel is the spark of life. What is the spark of life? She does not in any [00:14:00]detail describe lightning or static or any of the recognizable or, or future developments of how electricity would've been. Brian: I was shocked when I first read that book and saw how little space was devoted to that, that lab scene. It's blink of an eye and it's over. Dawn: “I gathered the instruments of life around me that I may infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my.” Period. I just, what I love is what I love about film in general is that they went, oh, spark being all right, girl, it's a dark and stormy night and you know, and there's chains and there's bubblers and there's a thing. And the sky opens. I mean, God bless you, like way to just take that thought. Make it vivid, make it, build a set, make us believe it. And it's so, so pervasive that in Frankenweinie, you know, which of course is about Frankensein. [00:15:00] Like that is one that they do: he's got the white robe that ties in the back and the gloves. And in Young Frankenstein, it's the, you know, that lab scene. And so I love that. And the other thing that they had to do was describe the look of the creature, make the creature—Frankenstein's monster himself—look so like something. Because she, similarly in the novel, says that he is taller than a regular man, has dark hair and yellow watery eyes. That's all we know about what the Frankenstein looks like. And so, in 1931, Boris Karloff with the bolts. And it's black and white, remember, we don't think his skin is green. That he turned green at some point is kind of exciting, but of course he was just gray, but just dead flesh, you know, rotten, dead walking flesh is what's frightening. And, I just thought that the movie did that so well, John: I think the makeup was kind of a green/gray, and that when color photos came out of it, that's why someone went, oh, [00:16:00] it's green, but it wasn't green. Brian: I thought I saw a museum piece of, you know, an actual makeup bit that Jack Pierce did and I thought it was greenish. Dawn: Yeah. Greenish/gray. I think, yeah, the rots, just kind of trying to capture the sort of rotten flesh. Brian: It's just like the bride's hair was red. Dawn: That's right. That's right. My day job here in Los Angeles is as a street improviser at Universal Studios, Hollywood. And two of their most treasured characters of course are Frankenstein and Dracula. So, while most people might separate them, John, they are usually arm and arm where I work every day. And the bride has recently come back to the theme park as a walking character, and they gave her red hair. We don't mess around. John: That's excellent. But you mentioned Dracula, let's jump into the 1931 Dracula. There's a connection point between the two that I want to mention, which is the amazing Dwight Frye, who is Fritz, I believe in Frankenstein. And I'm not the first one to mention his naturalistic [00:17:00] acting kind of putting him above everybody else in that movie. Famously, when he's running up the stairs, stopping to pull his socks up at one point. He's just really, really good in that. And then you see him in Dracula as the, essentially the Harker character. I think he was called Harker -- Brian: Yeah. Well, he's Renfield in Dracula. They merged those two characters. I thought it was a smart move for a first attempt at the film. Yeah. And Dwight Frye, he's in a lot of other Universal horrors, too. Dwight Frye often doesn't get the credit. He somehow was not the leading man he should have been. John: I don't know why that is. He turns up again as an assistant in Bride of Frankenstein. He's a towns person in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. And then he tragically died on a bus ride to an auto parts job that he took because he wasn't getting any acting work, which was too bad. A really, really good actor. Brian: There is another intersection besides the fact that they were both produced by Junior. Lugosi was put into the [00:18:00] short, the trial film they shot for Frankenstein. I can't call it a short film, because it was never intended for release. But they shot a cinematic test reel and they had Lugosi play the monster, but he was under a sheet the whole time. I think he may have been able to pull the sheet off. It's a lost film. We don't know for sure. We just have kind of the recollections of a few crew people. John: I've never heard of that. I would love to see that. Brian: I would too. I think a lot of people would really love to see it, but it was as much a kind of a testing ground for Lugosi— whether they wanted him to be the monster—as it was for some of the techniques, the things they wanted to try in the film. And what I understand is the producer saw the test reel and they said, yes, we love this look, this is the look we want you to give us. And then it's whatever version of Lugosi not getting that part you want to believe: whether Lugosi turned it down or the producers didn't like him or something. But he ended up not taking that part. John: But he is of course always known as Dracula. So, what are your thoughts on their adaptation? Which [00:19:00]again is not the first adaptation but is the kind of first official? Brian: Yeah. The first to bear the name Dracula, although, well, I'll back up a second. Because some releases of Nosferatu called it Dracula. He would be named as Dracula in the subtitles, you know, because that's an easy thing to do in silent film, you can just swap that out however you want to. But yes, it's the first authorized official film adaptation. John: Well, let's back up to Nosferatu, just for a second. Am I wrong in remembering that the Bram Stoker estate—Mrs. Stoker—sued Nosferatu and asked that all prints be destroyed? And they were except one print remained somewhere? Brian: Close. That is the popular story that she sued Prana Films. She won the lawsuit. All films were set to be destroyed. Now there's a guy named Locke Heiss and a few others who've been doing some research on this. And they will tell you that there's no proof that a single print was ever destroyed. It's a more fun story to say that, you know, this one was snuck away and now we have the film. But there was no real enforcement mechanism for having all the theaters [00:20:00]destroy the film. Who was going to go around and check and see if they actually destroyed this film or not? Nobody, right? So maybe some people destroyed it. Maybe Prana Films destroyed their remaining copies. But the exhibitors kept all of theirs and there's different versions and different cuts that have been found. So, we know that some of these reels went out in different formats or with different subtitles or even different edits. And some of them have made their way back to us. John: There's some really iconic striking imagery in that movie. That haunts me still. Brian: What I always tell people is see the film with a good live accompaniment, because that still makes it hold up as a scary film. If you see a good orchestra playing something really intense when Orlok comes through that door. It feels scary. You can feel yourself being teleported back to 1922 and being one of those audience people seeing that and being struck by it. John: What do you think it would be like to have [00:21:00] seen that or Dawn to have seen the original Frankenstein? I can't really imagine, given all that we've seen in our lives. If you put yourself back into 1931, and Boris Karloff walks backwards into the lab. I would just love to know what that felt like the first time. Dawn: You know, what is so great is I was fortunate enough to know Earl Bakkan who saw the movie in the theater in Columbia Heights, Minnesota when he was 10 years old.And he went, he had to sneak in. People would run outta this, out of the theater, screaming. I mean, when they would do the close up of Frankenstein's Monster's face, you know, women would faint. And of course that was publicized and much circulated, but it was also true. People were freaking out. And for Earl Bakkan—this young kid—the fear was overwhelming, as you said. And also in this theater, I was lucky enough, I did my show in that theater for Earl and his friends on his 81st birthday. So, I got to hear a [00:22:00] lot of these stories. And they played the organ in the front of the curtain. Brian: Is this the Heights theater? Dawn: Yes, the Heights. Brian: Oh, that's an amazing space. Dawn: So, they played the organ in there and it was like, oh my God. And it was so overwhelming. So, I'm glad you asked that question because I was really fortunate to have a moment to be able to sort of immerse myself in that question: What would it have been like to be in this theater? And it was moving and it was scary, man. And yeah, to your point, Brian, the music and the score. I mean, it was overwhelming. Also, I think there's something that we still benefit from today, which is when people tell you going in this might be way too much for you, this might scare you to death. So just be super, super careful. And your heart's already, you know… John: And it does have that warning right at the beginning. Dawn: Yeah. Versus now when people sit you down, they're like, I'm not gonna be scared by this black and white movie from 1931. And then you find yourself shuffling out of the bathroom at top speed in the middle of the night. And you're like, well, look at that. It got me. Brian: That reminds me, there [00:23:00] was a deleted scene from the 1931 Dracula that was a holdover from the stage play. Van Helsing comes out and he breaks the fourth wall and he speaks directly to the audience. And he says something to the effect of—I'm very much paraphrasing—about how we hope you haven't been too frightened by what you've seen tonight, but just remember these things are real. And then black out. And they cut that because they were afraid that they were really going to freak out their audience. Dawn: It's like a war of the world's thing, man. It's oh, that's so great. I love that. [Dracula Soundbite] John: So, Brian, what is your assessment of the 1931 version? As a movie itself and as an adaptation of Stoker's work? Brian: The things they had to do to try to adapt it to film, which they borrowed a lot of that from the stage play. They used the stage play as their guide point, and I think they made the best choices they could have been expected to make. You know, there's a lot of things that get lost and that's unfortunate, but I think they did a decent job. I don't find the 1931 version scary. I like Bela Lugosi. I think he's a great Dracula. I think he set the standard. With the possible [00:25:00]exception of the scene where the brides are stalking Harker slash Renfield, I don't think the imagery is particularly frightening. The Spanish version, I think does a little bit better job. And you know the story with the Spanish version and the English version? Dawn: We actually talk about it on the back lot tour of Universal Studios. Because they shot on the same sets in some cases. Brian: Yeah. My understanding is that Dracula shot during the day, Spanish Dracula would shoot at night. So, they got to benefit maybe a little bit by seeing, okay, how is this gonna be shot? How did Todd Browning do it? Okay. We're gonna do it a little bit differently. It's a little bit of a cheat to say they move the camera. They do move the camera a lot more in the Spanish version, but the performances are a little bit different. I'm going to, I can't get her name out. The actress who plays the ingenue in the Spanish Dracula, I'm not going to try it, but you can see her kind of getting more and more crazed as time goes on and her head is more infected by Dracula. You see these push-ins that you don't see in the English version. There's blocking [00:26:00] that's different. I put together a short course where I was just talking about how they blocked the staircases scene. The welcome to my house, the walking through spider web. And how it's blocked very differently in the two versions. And what does that say? What are these two directors communicating differently to us? In one, Harker slash Renfield is next to Dracula. In one, he's trailing behind him. In one, we cut away from the spider web before he goes through. And in the other one, we see him wrestle with it. That's not really what you asked, John. Sorry, I got off on a tear there. John: I agree with you on all points on the differences between the two films. Although I do think that all the Transylvania stuff in the English version is terrific: With the coach and the brides. The Spanish version, the biggest problem I have is that their Dracula looks ridiculous. Brian: He's not Bela Lugosi. You're right. John: He looks like Steve Carell doing Dracula and there is no moment, literally no moment [00:27:00] where he is scary, whereas Lugosi is able to pull that off. Brian: There's a lot of people who have observed that the Spanish Dracula would be a superior film were it not for Bela Lugosi being such an amazing Dracula in the English version. John: He really, really nailed it. Brian: And since he learned his lines phonetically, he could have done the Spanish Dracula. Just write it out for him phonetically, because he didn't speak English very well. John: If we could just go back, you know, cause a lot of things in history we could change, but if we could just be at that meeting and go, Hey, why not have Bela do it? Okay. So then let's jump ahead, still in Dracula form, to Horror of Dracula. From 1958. With Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. [Soundbite from Horror of Dracula] Brian: For some people, Lee is the ultimate Dracula, and I think that's a generational thing. I think he's great. He's got the stage presence and I love Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I don't like the film as a whole. It feels like I'm watching a play with a camera set back. It doesn't work for me the way it works for other people. That is personal taste. Don't come after me. John: It does, however, have one of the greatest, ‘Hey, we're gonna kill Dracula' scenes ever, with Peter Cushing running down the table and jumping up and pulling down the drapes and the sun. Brian: Oh, right. Interesting. Because in Dracula, the book, the sun is not deadly, remotely really. But that's [00:29:00]the influence of Nosferatu being pasted onto the Dracula cannon, that the sunlight is deadly to Dracula. Dawn: I remember having this fight very enthusiastically in the nineties when Bram Stoker's/Winona Ryder's Dracula came out and I was already sort of a literary nerd. And they were like, hey, they have a scene with him walking around during the day. And I was like, yeah, nerds. That's right. That's cuz vampires can walk around during the day.I was very already, like, you don't know anything, go back to history. Brian: And there's a seventies version where he's out on a cloudy day, but he is not hurt either. There suggestions in the book that he's more powerful at night. Dawn: He's a creature of the night. I always understood he had to wear sunglasses. He was sort of like a wolf. Like they show him as a wolf during the day; it can happen, but it's not great. Brian: I like the way they did it in the Gary Oldman version. He's suited up. He's got the sunglasses on. There's not a whole lot of skin exposed. But he's not [00:30:00] going to turn into smoke. John: Well, okay. Let's talk about that version and Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein. Dawn: Ug. John: I'm not going to spoil anything here, when I say it doesn't sound like Dawn cared it. Dawn: You open this, you opened this can of worms. John, sit down for a second. Listen. He calls it: Mary Shelly's fucking Frankenstein. I inserted the fucking. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to say that. He calls it. He calls it. How dare you, Kenneth, Brannagh, call this Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. So that was A-number one. But I went into it all excited: It's Kenneth Brannagh. Love him. He calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and he starts with the ship captain out at sea, just like the book. And so I pull up my little, you know, security blanket and I'm like, oh, Kenneth Brannagh, do this to me, buddy. Do it to me buddy. Show me Mary Shelley Frankenstein as a movie. [00:31:00] And then he just fucks it up, John. And he doesn't actually do that at all. It's a total lie. He screws up every monologue. He makes up motivations and then heightens them. And it's dad. The acting is capital B, capital A, capital D across the board. Everybody sucks in this movie. It looks bad. The direction is bad, and it has nothing to do. He tries to bring Elizabeth back to life. This is a huge departure from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Brannagh, that's all I have to say for now. John: All right, I was fooled by the fact that he started at, at the north pole. Dawn: That's because he's tricking us, John. That's because it's the whole movie is a lie. John: Okay with that same mindset, what do we think of Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola? Dawn: I love that one. Brian: I'm afraid that I don't have, I can't match Dawn's intensity in either respect. Um, except I thought Robert DeNiro [00:32:00] was really good in Frankenstein. Dawn: But that's no, he's not. you're wrong. Your opinion is valid and wrong. Yeah, I'm kidding for listeners who don't know me. I am, I am kidding. Of course. Everybody's opinion is valid except for that one. Yeah. The movie, everything about that movie is bad. John: He is, I think, miscast. Dawn: And Helen Bonan Carter is one of the finest actresses of not just our generation, but of all time. And she sucks in this movie. John: Right. So. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Brian: Bram Stoker's Dracula. [Soundbite: Bram Stoker's Dracula] Brian: Also produced by Branagh. And I assume that is the connection, why they both start with the author's name. I always call it Coppola's Dracula because it gets too confusing to make that distinction. I thought it was a decent movie, but it didn't feel like Dracula. It felt like someone who had heard of Dracula and wrote a good script based on what they had heard. So many divergences that bothered me, although I think it's aged better than it felt the first time. I remember seeing it when it first came out in the nineties and not thinking much of it. And I think audiences agreed with me and it seems like it's been kinder, that audiences have been kinder to it as it's gotten older. John: Okay. Dawn, you love it. Dawn: I loved it. I loved it. It, you know what though? That was one of [00:34:00] those movies that unlike, unlike Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I can't look at with like an adult critical eye because I, what year did it come out? Was it like 90, 92? I'm like middle school getting into high school and like Winona Ryder was everything. Vampires are everything. I mean, Gary Oldman is the, is a great actor and it's so sexy, very sexy. The sex is Primo. And so I remember loving it, very moving. I don't remember comparing it as certainly not as viciously to the novel because I read Dracula after I had seen the movie. And so there's always that inherent casting where Nina is always going to be Winona Ryder. But I do remember really loving the Gothic convention of the letter and that the movie did seem to utilize and to great effect how letter writing can build suspense and give us different perspectives in a, in a unique cinematic way. Brian: [00:35:00] The two or three biggest stakes that film puts in the ground are not to be found in the book. So there's no love story in the book. There's no Vlad in the book. John: Can I interject there? Isn't that basically, didn't they just rip that off of Dark Shadows, The idea of my long lost love is reincarnated in this woman. I must connect with her. Brian: That is a good question, John. I'm glad you asked that because I call it the doppelganger love interest. Right? We first see that, the first time I know of it happening, I'm sure there's an earlier precedent, is in The Mummy, but then Dark Shadows does it. But that's not where Stoker, I mean, that's not where Coppola and a screenwriter claimed to have gotten the idea. They claimed to have gotten it from Dan Curtis's Dracula in 74. John: Dan Curtis, who produced Dark Shadows, with Barnabas Collins, falling in love with his reincarnated love. Brian: But Dan Curtis's Dracula comes out two years after Blacula. That has a reincarnated love interest. John: Not only does the Blaclua [00:36:00] have a reincarnated love interest, but if I'm remembering movie correctly at the end, when she says I don't want to go with you. He goes, okay. And he's ready to go home. It's like, sorry to bother you. Brian: No, uh, in Blacula, he commits suicide John: Oh, that's it? Yeah. He walks out into the sun. Brian: He goes home in a different way. John: Yes. He's one of my favorite Draculas, the very stately William Marshall. Brian: Yeah, absolutely. That is a favorite of mine. John: Anyway, you were saying stakes in the ground from Coppola's Dracula. Brian: Well, the, the love story, the equating Dracula with Vlad the Impaler. And I felt like they did Lucy really bad in that movie. They had her turn into a wanton harlot, which is not in keeping with the book. Some things are okay, but they really said these are the building blocks of our story and that bugged me. But Anthony Hopkins I liked, so, all right. Dawn: Alright, but see, this [00:37:00] the itch that still that still makes me wanna scratch though: why say Bram Stoker's Dracula? Why say Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I mean, because I think you heard the venom, obviously. If they took Mary Shelley's name off that thing, you can make Frankenweenie. And I will love, like, I love Frankenweenie. Do your Frankenstein homage all day, all the time. But when you call, when you say it's Bram Stoker's, I think that this is what has been frustrating historians like me and getting high school students Ds in English class ever since. Because it just creates the false perception that you've basically read the book. Right. Or that you, if you know the thing you know the book and it's just a cheap ploy. And I don't like it. Brian: I think, somebody correct me on this, that there, there had been a plan to do a reboot of the Universal monster franchise, and these two movies were supposed to be the reboot of it. [00:38:00] And then they would've then done HG Wells' Invisible Man. John: The Mummy killed it. They've tried to reboot it several times. And that was the first attempt. Brian: Yeah, I've heard that called the dark universe. They were trying to do their own MCU. Dawn: Yeah. Well, at Universal Studios, there is of course in, in LA, in general, there's the property wars, you know? What what's, who has what? And sometimes those get really blurred. Like why does Universal Studios have Harry Potter? When we can see Warner Brothers from the top of our wall/ And that's obviously, you know, those things happen. But when it comes to like the IP or intellectual property, those original monsters are so valuable and they always are at Halloween. And then it's like, sort of, how can we capitalize on this? And yeah. And it's cross generational. Brian: All they really own right now is the look right? They own Jack Pierce's makeup job from Frankenstein. Dawn: But I think that that's exactly the point; [00:39:00] the delusion of what is it that you own if you own, you know, Frankenstein, whatever. But yes, there was definitely an interest to sort of revamp all of the original Universal Monsters they call them and it's the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Invisible Man. John: It's everybody who shows up in Mad Monster Party. Dawn: Exactly. [Soundbite: Mad Monster Party] Dawn: But yeah, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise, was a tremendous flop. And I think that sort of took the wind out of everybody's sails. John: Let me ask you this, Dawn. If Mel Brooks had titled his movie, Mary Shelley's Young Frankenstein, instead of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, would you have a problem with that? Dawn: Yeah, no, but no, I would not have had a problem, because that would've been irony and juxtaposition. Not just a straight lie. John: So that brings us to some comedies. Young Frankenstein and Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, which I was very surprised and a little unnerved to [00:40:00] realize a few years back, Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein was made a mere 10 years before I was born. And I had always assumed it was way back then. And it's like, no, it wasn't all that way back then. It was pretty, pretty recently. Brian: That happened to me when I realized that Woodstock was only six years before my birth. And it always seemed like ancient history. John: Is that the common thing, Madame Historian? That people kind of forget how recent things were? Dawn: Oh yeah. Remember Roe V. Wade. Sorry, too soon. Brian: We're recording this on that day. Dawn: Yeah, absolutely. I think that it happens to everybody so much faster than you think it's going to. I remember looking around in the nineties feeling, well, surely the seventies was ancient history, you know, because they had That Seventies Show, which debuted as like a period piece. I am still very young and hip and happening and [00:41:00] they are in production for That Nineties Show right now. And I said to my husband, That Nineties Show. I was like, Jesus, I guess that's 20 years because I was in the nineties they did That Seventies Show. And he goes, no baby that's 30 years. And I was like, I'm sorry. I said, I'm sorry, what? He goes, the nineties was 30 years ago. And I just had to sit down and put my bunion corrector back on because these feet are killing me. John: All right. Well, let's just talk about these two comedies and then there's a couple other things I wanna quickly hit on. What are our thoughts on, let's start with Young Frankenstein? [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Dawn: I told you I'm not an idealist and we're not a purist about Frankenstein, but I am an enthusiast. So that is why I told you to watch Kenneth Branagh's movie, even though I hate it so much. And that is also why I love Young Frankenstein, because I think that it is often what brings people into the story. For many, many people, it introduces them to the creature. They may know literally nothing about Frankenstein except for Young Frankenstein. And that's actually fine with me because I'm a comedian myself. And I believe that parody is high honor. And often when you parody and satirize something, especially when you do it well, it's because you went to the heart of it. Because you got right in there into the nuggets and the creases of it. And there is something about Young [00:43:00] Frankenstein as ridiculous as it is that has some of that wildness and the hilarity and The Putting on the Ritz. I did find out from my Universal Studios movie history stuff, that that scene was very nearly cut out. Mel Brooks did not like it. And he just didn't like that they were doing it. And of course it's the one, I feel like I'm not the only one who still has to make sure that my beverage is not only out of my esophagus, but like aside, when they start doing it. [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Brian: And I understand they were about to throw away the sets from the 1931 Frankenstein when Mel Brooks or his production designer came up and said, Stop stop. We want to use these and they were able to get the original sets or at least the set pieces. John: I believe what it [00:44:00] was, was they got Kenneth Strickfaden's original machines. Ken Strickfaden created all that stuff for the 1931 version and had been used on and off, you know, through all the Frankenstein films. And it was all sitting in his garage and the production designer, Dale Hennessy went out to look at it because they were thinking they had to recreate it. And he said, I think it still works. And they plugged them in and they all still worked. Brian: Oh, wow. Dawn: Oh man. It's alive. John: Those are the original machines. Dawn: I didn't know that. That's fantastic. John: At the time when I was a young kid, I was one of the few kids in my neighborhood who knew the name Kenneth Strickfaden, which opened doors for me. Let me tell you when people find out, oh, you know of the guy who designed and built all those? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I know all that. One of my favorite stories from Young Frankenstein is when they sold the script. I forget which studio had said yes. And as they were walking out of the meeting, Mel Brooks turned back and said, oh, by the way, it's gonna be in black and white, and kept going. And they followed him down the hall and said, no, it can't be in black and white. And he said, no, it's not gonna work unless it's in [00:45:00] black and white. And they said, well, we're not gonna do it. And they had a deal, they were ready to go. And he said, no, it's gonna stay black and white. And he called up Alan Ladd Jr. that night, who was a friend of his, and said, they won't do it. And he said, I'll do it. And so it ended up going, I think, to Fox, who was more than happy to, to spend the money on that. And even though Mel didn't like Putting on the Ritz, it's weird, because he has almost always had musical numbers in his films. Virtually every movie he's done, he's either written a song for it, or there's a song in it. So, it's weird to me. I've heard Gene Wilder on YouTube talk about no, no, he didn't want that scene at all, which is so odd because it seems so-- Brian: I never thought about that, but you're right. I'm going in my head through all the Mel Brooks films I can remember. And there is at least a short musical interlude in all of them that I can think of. John: But let's talk then about what's considered one of the best mixes of horror and comedy, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein [00:46:00] [Soundbite: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein] Brian: As with comedies of that age, it, it starts off slow, but then it starts to get very funny as time goes on. And all the comedy is because of Abbot and Costello. They are the, [00:47:00] the chemistry they have on screen. I don't know how much of that was actually scripted and how much of it was just how they rolled with each other. But it works really well. Not much of the comedy is provided by the monsters or the supporting cast or even there's maybe a cute, a few sight gags. But wouldn't you say most of the comedy is just the dynamics between them? John: It is. The scary stuff is scary and it's balanced beautifully at the end where they're being chased through the castle. The monsters stayed pretty focused on being monsters and Abbot and Costello's reactions are what's funny. Dawn: If I may, as someone who has already admitted I haven't seen much of the movie, it's feels to me like it may be something like Shaun of the Dead, in the sense that you get genuinely scared if zombie movies scare, then you'll have that same adrenaline rush and the monsters stay scary. They don't have to get silly. Or be a part of the comedy for your two very opposing one's skinny, one's fat, you know, and the way that their friendship is both aligning and [00:48:00]coinciding is the humor. Brian: I believe there is one brief shot in there where you get to see Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Wolfman all in the same shot. And I think that might be the only time that ever happens in the Universal Franchise. During the lab scene, does that sound right John? John: I think you really only have Dracula and the Wolfman. I'll have to look it up because the monster is over on another table-- Brian: Isn't he underneath the blanket? John: Nope, that's Lou Costello, because it's his brain that they want. And so they're fighting over that table. And then just a little, I have nothing but stupid fun facts. There's a point in it, in that scene where the monster gets off the table and picks up someone and throws them through a window. And Glenn Strange, who was playing the monster at that point -- and who is one of my favorite portrayers of the monster, oddly enough -- had broken his ankle, I believe. And so Lon, Chaney, Jr. put the makeup on and did that one stunt for him, cuz he was there. Brian: He did that as Frankenstein's monster? John: Yes. Frankenstein. Brian: I didn't know that. Yes, I [00:49:00] did not know that. So he plays both of those roles in that movie? John: Yes. Let me just take a moment to defend Glenn Strange, who played the monster three times: House of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. In House of Frankenstein, he is following up the film before that, which was Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, in which, in this very convoluted universe, Lugosi is playing the monster, even though he didn't wanna do it in 31. Because his brain in Ghost of Frankenstein had been put into the Monster's body. So, in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, it is Lugosi as the Frankenstein monster. It is Lon Chaney Jr., who had played the monster in Ghost of Frankenstein, now back to playing Larry Talbot. So, it is Wolfman versus Frankenstein. And the premise of the script was he's got Ygor's brain and it's not connecting properly. He's gone blind. They shot that. They had tons of dialogue between the two characters of Larry Talbot pre-wolfman, and the monster, Bela Lugosi. And the executives thought it sounded silly. So they went in and they cut [00:50:00] out all of Lugosi's dialogue out of the movie. So now you have a blind monster stumbling around with his arms in front of him, but he doesn't talk. And if you look at the movie, you can see where he's supposed to be talking and they cut away quickly. And it's really convoluted. Glenn Strange who then has to play the monster next, looks at that and goes well, all right, I guess I'm still blind. I guess I'm still stumbling around with my arms in front of him. Which is the image most people have of the Frankenstein monster, which was never done by Boris in his three turns as the monster. So with, in that regard, I just think Glenn Strange did a great job of picking up what had come before him and making it work moving forward. Anyway, a couple other ones I wanna just hit on very quickly. Brian asked me to watch Dracula in Istanbul. Under the circumstances, a fairly straightforward retelling of the Dracula story. I would recommend it--it is on YouTube--for a couple of reasons. One, I believe it's the first time that Dracula has actual canine teeth. Brian: Yes. John: Which is important. But the other is there's the scene where he's talking to Harker about, I want [00:51:00] you to write three letters. And I want you to post date the letters. It's so convoluted, because he goes into explaining how the Turkish post office system works in such a way that the letters aren't gonna get there. It's just this long scene of explaining why he needs to write these three letters, and poor Harker's doing his best to keep up with that. That was the only reason I recommend it. Brian: That movie is based on a book called Kazıklı Voyvoda, which means The Warrior Prince and it was written in, I wanna say the 1920s or thirties, I wanna say thirties. It's the first book to equate Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, which I've come back to a couple times now, but that's significant because it was a Turkish book and the Turks got that right away. They immediately saw the name Dracula like, oh, we know who we're talking about. We're talking about that a-hole. It was not until the seventies, both the [00:52:00] fifties and the seventies, that Western critics and scholars started to equate the two. And then later when other scholars said, no, there, there's not really a connection there, but it's a fun story. And it's part of cannon now, so we can all play around with it. John: But that wasn't what Bram Stoker was thinking of? Is that what you're saying? Brian: No. No, he, he wasn't, he wasn't making Dracula into Vlad the Impaler. He got the name from Vlad the Impaler surely, but not the deeds. He wasn't supposed to be Vlad the Impaler brought back to life. John: All right. I'm going to ask you both to do one final thing and then we'll wrap it up for today. Although I could talk to you about monsters all day long, and the fact that I'd forgotten Dawn, that you were back on the Universal lot makes this even more perfect. If listeners are going to watch one Dracula movie and one Frankenstein movie, what do you recommend? Dawn, you go first. Dawn: They're only watching one, then it's gotta be the 1931 Frankenstein, with Boris. Karloff, of course. I think it has captured [00:53:00] the story of Frankenstein that keeps one toe sort of beautifully over the novel and the kind of original source material that I am so in love with, but also keeps the other foot firmly in a great film tradition. It is genuinely spooky and it holds so much of the imagery of any of the subsequent movies that you're only watching one, so that's the one you get. But if you do watch any more, you've got this fantastic foundation for what is this story and who is this creature? John: Got it. And Brian, for Dracula? Brian: I was tossing around in my head here, whether to recommend Nosferatu or the 1931 Dracula. And I think I'm going to have to agree with Dawn and say the 1931 for both of them, because it would help a viewer who was new to the monsters, understand where we got the archetypes we have. Now, why, when you type an emoji into your phone for Vampire, you get someone with a tuxedo in the slick back hair or, I think, is there a Frankenstein emoji? Dawn: There is, and he's green with bolts in his neck. [00:54:00] Brian: Yeah, it would. It will help you understand why we have that image permanently implanted in our heads, even though maybe that's not the source material. We now understand the origins of it. Dawn: And if I may too, there's, there's something about having the lore as founded in these movies is necessary, frankly, to almost understand what happens later. I mean, I get very frustrated in 2022, if there is a movie about vampires that takes any time at all to explain to me what a vampire is, unless you're breaking the rules of the vampire. For example, you know, like in Twilight the vampire sparkles, like a diamond when it's out in the sunshine and is the hottest thing ever. That's really great to know. I didn't know that about vampires. That wasn't necessarily true before, you know, but you don't need to take a lot of time. In fact, when you do read Dracula, one of the things for me that I found very frustrating was the suspense of what is it with this guy? They were like: He said we couldn't bring [00:55:00] garlic and they take all this time. And you're kind of as a modern reader being like, cuz he is a fucking vampire. Move on. Like we know this, we got this one. It's shorthand Brian: That's one snide thing I could say about the book is that there are times where Dracula's powers seem to be whatever his powers need to be to make this next scene creepy and move on to the next chapter. John: He was making it up as he went along. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Pat and Adam are getting a GOOBLE GOBBLE chant going as they watch and review Todd Browning's 1932 cult horror classic, Freaks! Is this exploitative or the highest form of inclusivity? Is pre-code Hollywood the greatest period in horror? Also, how exactly do you roll a cigarette with no arms or legs? Plus...The Good, The Bad, & The Questionable and a rundown of our awards.

This week's episode of Crestwood House brings our Vampire tryptic to a close with Todd Browning's remake of his infamous lost film London After Midnight, 1935's Mark of the Vampire. Join Michael, Paxton and Shawn as they take a look at Bela Lugosi's return to vampirism, and one of cinema's first big twist-ending features.

Yep you read that correctly, your hosts are reviewing not one but two classic Universal Monster films that turn the big 9-0 in 2021.  Melissa and Jarrad talk about their first time seeing Bela Lugosi in his legendary role of Count Dracula in Todd Browning's 1931 film.  They also ponder how sympathetic Boris Karloff portrayed Frankenstein's monster that came out the very same year.  Two iconic films in one convenient episode, if you call yourself a classic horror fan, this is one you don't want to miss! Special thanks to Robert Leininger of Pods and Monsters for providing the word of warning for this episode.  Find their show wherever you get your podcasts Facebook - Nerdnited Nations Podcast Instagram - @NerdnitedPod Twitter - @NerdnitedNationsPodcast email - nerdnitednationspodcast@gmail.com   Melissa Instagram - @missmelissan25                  - @scribblesofawannabedrawer Jarrad Twitter/Instagram - @QCA_Mista_J

Cartoonist Bill Griffith based his legendary character Zippy the Pinhead on Schlitzie, a real life sideshow 'pinhead' who appeared in Todd Browning's 1932 film Freaks. Early audiences were appalled by Browning's use of real sideshow characters to seek revenge on those who treated them cruelly. Griffith's graphic novel is his effort to understand Schlitzie and the sideshow family who cared for him. We talk to Griffith and a member of Schlitzie's sideshow family. Also this hour: the man who saved thousands of premature infants by exhibiting them in incubators at the Coney Island sideshow. GUESTS: Bill Griffith - Creator of the syndicated daily comic strip Zippy and author of two graphic memoirs, including, Nobody's Fool: The Life and Times of Schlitzie the Pinhead Wolf Krakowski - Yiddish singer whose CDs are on Tzadik Records; Wolf has videotaped testimonies of Holocaust survivors for the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation Claire Prentice - Freelance journalist, editor, and writer; She's the author of two non-fiction books, including Miracle at Coney Island: How a Sideshow Doctor Saved Thousands of Babies and Transformed American Medicine Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Colin McEnroe and Jonathan McNicol contributed to this show, which originally aired May 2, 2019.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This time, we cover the criminally underseen Alex Winter '90s cult classic, Freaked! Todd Browning’s Freaks/ Omnibus talk/ Hawkeye on Disney Plus/ shout out to Vinegar Syndrome/ Blood Games/ Megan Fox in Rogue/ You Cannot Kill David Arquette/ The Intruder/ Freaked/ Alex Winter, The Idiot Box, and the Bill and Ted franchise, ranked/ When MTV was cool/ The makeup and supporting cast of Freaked/ that ending

Merry Christmas everyone! It's Christmas Day, and we're jumping away for a second from our regular programming to discuss a modern classic, Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), a start-studded batshit masterpiece, one of the most faithful adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel, a fever dream of a gothic horror that has a timeless love story at its heart. I'm joined in this episode by two extraordinary guests: writer and actor Isaura Barbé-Brown and writer and podcaster Becky Darke for a jumbo-sized episode about this batshit masterpiece with off the charts levels of intensity in every single aspect, from the performances to the design.  This season is made possible with the support of Arrow Video. This week's pick from their vast catalogue is David Cronenberg's Crash, re-released just this year in a lucious 4K restoration. Produced and presented by Anna Bogutskaya. *** The Final Girls are a UK-based film collective exploring the intersections of horror film and feminism. Find out more about our projects here: thefinalgirls.co.uk Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Support us on Patreon. Subscribe to our newsletter for a weekly dose of curated horror treats. Follow Anna on @annabdemented and Olivia is on @livihowe 

Our first episode of our new series devoted to exploring the vampire in horror cinema is all about THE most famous vampire of them all: Count Dracula. Joining us is special guest and vampire expert Dr. Sorcha Ní Fhlainn to discuss the screen adaptations of Dracula, from the original Bela Lugosi Dracula (1931), via Sir Christopher Lee's iconic Horror of Dracula (1958) and finishing with gothic romance Dracula (1979) starring Frank Langella and his epic bouffant. Dracula (1931) from 00:09:55Horror of Dracula (1958) from 00:28:08Dracula (1979) from 00:47:35 If you want to explore the vampire more, we recommend Ní Fhlainn's books Postmodern Vampires and the short story collection Visions of the Vampire: Two Centuries of Immortal Tales. This season is made possible with the support of Arrow Video. Produced and presented by Anna Bogutskaya. *** The Final Girls are a UK-based film collective exploring the intersections of horror film and feminism. Find out more about our projects here: thefinalgirls.co.uk Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Support us on Patreon. Subscribe to our newsletter for new, original writing on horror. Follow Anna on @annabdemented and Olivia is on @livihowe 

Story: Ricky Coogan, geldgeiles Teenie-Idol und Mega-Star, soll für den Turbodünger NOXON eines Konzerns werben. Also fliegt er mit seinem chaotischen Kumpel Ernie nach Südamerika, in das tiefste Provinznest - dem einzigen Flecken Erde, auf dem der zellverändernde Powerdung noch nicht verboten ist. Die zwei verirren sich im Dschungel und landen plötzlich vor Prof. Skuggs "Mutanten-Warenhaus". Erst mal drin, machen sie eine grausige Entdeckung. Skuggs hat für das hochgiftige NOXON längst eine andere Verwendung gefunden. Er schüttet es auf ahnungslose Touristen und "produziert" so seine Monster, die "Freaks"! Ricky ist sein nächstes Opfer. Eine Körperhälfte Rickys hat sich bereits in ein richtig ekelerregendes, haariges Monster verwandelt, da geht Skruggs das NOXON aus... Aber das ist erst der Anfang der völlig durchgeknallten "Mutanten-Show" mit den haarsträubenden WURM, SOCKENKOPF, NASE, ROSIE STIFTENKOPF, BÄRTIGE DAME und JUAN, dem HUNDEMANN!

Story: Ricky Coogan, geldgeiles Teenie-Idol und Mega-Star, soll für den Turbodünger NOXON eines Konzerns werben. Also fliegt er mit seinem chaotischen Kumpel Ernie nach Südamerika, in das tiefste Provinznest - dem einzigen Flecken Erde, auf dem der zellverändernde Powerdung noch nicht verboten ist. Die zwei verirren sich im Dschungel und landen plötzlich vor Prof. Skuggs "Mutanten-Warenhaus". Erst mal drin, machen sie eine grausige Entdeckung. Skuggs hat für das hochgiftige NOXON längst eine andere Verwendung gefunden. Er schüttet es auf ahnungslose Touristen und "produziert" so seine Monster, die "Freaks"! Ricky ist sein nächstes Opfer. Eine Körperhälfte Rickys hat sich bereits in ein richtig ekelerregendes, haariges Monster verwandelt, da geht Skruggs das NOXON aus... Aber das ist erst der Anfang der völlig durchgeknallten "Mutanten-Show" mit den haarsträubenden WURM, SOCKENKOPF, NASE, ROSIE STIFTENKOPF, BÄRTIGE DAME und JUAN, dem HUNDEMANN!

His current employment, his deployment to Iraq and his thoughts on the future of self-driving vehicles are covered in this podcast edition. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/retired-roaders/message

On this episode of the Planet Shivers podcast Isaac and I discuss more astral projection, modern light pollution, and joined my Michael Strunk, we chat about the de-evolution of humanity with technology. Then, we all get into talking about the films ‘Trouble Every Day’ and ‘Enter the Void’. We also discuss exploitation in horror films and on Coney Island in the early days--ending with ‘Freaks’ and Todd Browning.

Horror Vein - The Pulse of Horror Episode #10 - This week Robert and Don talk about the Classic Monsters movie 'Dracula' starring Bela Lugosi and directed by Todd Browning. They explore the history of the film, the downfall of Bela Lugosi and interesting facts about the film. Robert and Don also talk about the upcoming film 'You Should Have Left' starring Kevin Bacon. If you love horror movies this is the podcast for you! Please be sure to rate us! Check out the Official Website athttps://horrorvein.com ( HorrorVein.com) Support this podcast

Premiere im #Horrorctober! Zum ersten Mal seit wir uns an der Reihe beteiligen, gehen wir an eine Besprechung ohne Gastunterstützung. Dafür aber mit einem sehr interessanten Film, nämlich Freaks von Todd Browning aus dem fernen Jahr 1932. Eigentlich als Konkurrenz seitens MGM zu den Universal Monsterfilmen gedacht, war es leider eher ein Schuss in den Ofen. Ein Drittel der Laufzeit musste gekürzt werden, die Karriere von Herrn Browning wurde vernichtet und es gab massenweise Indizierungen (die Teils heute noch gelten).   Ein spannendes Biest ist es dennoch allemal und wir versuchen, zur Abwechslung Mal in einer knackigen Episode von knapp 20 Minuten, zu erklären warum dem so ist.   Kritik, Lob, Wünsche und Feedback an bildnachwirkung@gmail.com   Links: Twitter (Bildnachwirkung): @Bildnachwirkung Twitter (Nenad): @nenaditacka Twitter (Juri): @realCutterknife Nenad bei Letterboxd: Nenad Todorović Juri bei Letterboxd: MrCutterknife

Originally Broadcast - April 17, 2015 The Human tornado of classic film trivia Kristen Lopez (Journeys In Classic Film / Walt Sent Me Podcast) joins me to look at two classic yet highly influential films from the list. Kicking things off with the film which gave us the jump scare, we have "Cat People" a film which might be deeper than its hokey shape shifter premise. Also on the show we look at the grand daddy of exploitation cinema "Freaks" which would serve to kill director Todd Browning's career only got it to be later be proclaimed a classic when it was rediscovered years later. All this plus Kristen shares her highlights of the TCM film festival, I argue the cultural significance of James Bond and we discuss the portrayal of disabilities in cinema and much more! *I also make the mistake of confusing Harold Lloyd (the star of "Safety Last") with Harold Ramis. Links For more of Elwood's movie rants check out - http://fromthedepthsofdvdhell.blogspot.co.uk/ http://channelsuperhero.com/ For more Kristen check out - http://journeysinclassicfilm.com/ Walt Sent Me Podcast - http://waltsentmepodcast.podomatic.com/ The list - http://www.letterboxd.com/elwood_jones/list/mad-bad-and-downright-strange-a-1001-cult/ Opening Theme: "Hyperfun" - Kevin Macleod (http://incompetech.com/) End Theme: "Out of Limits" - The Marketts

There's nothing like when the circus comes to town. The cotton candy. The lights. The rides. Not to mention the colorful characters we point at to entertain ourselves (or at least we used to). In this episode we tackle Todd Browning classic 'Freaks', and arguably one of Alex Winters and anyone's best portrayal of Richard the III's opening speech in 'Freaked'.

One of the most controversial of all the horror films of the 1930s, and in my eyes, one of the best. Todd Browning's FREAKS probably had the complex relationship with studios, director, writers, and audiences of all the films designed for frights, but it also sheds a very human light on people who were all too often dehumanized. ​

One of the most controversial of all the horror films of the 1930s, and in my eyes, one of the best. Todd Browning's FREAKS probably had the complex relationship with studios, director, writers, and audiences of all the films designed for frights, but it also sheds a very human light on people who were all too often dehumanized. ​

So this was supposed to be about Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), The Wolfman (1941), and The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) but the long standing curse on this episode hits again. You'll get the first 3 and the last 1 will come in a separate podcast.

Welcome children of the night!  This week, Brian, John, and Elaine regale us with the long and storied history of the vampire film and its place in horror cinema.  We will try to answer some of the big questions associated with vampire movies, like how in less than 100 years we can go from blood thirsty, sex obsessed, gothic romantics to  sparkly hipster vampires that simply "suck".  So grab your holy water and sharpen your wood stakes as we crack open the crypt on the history of vampire films. Movie News! Blumhouse Productions Releases Awesome Trailer for Jordan Peele's Get Out Vampire Movies Vampire History Most of the cinematic vampires can be traced back to Bram Stoker's Dracula. Dracula was based on an amalgamation of different vampire myths and legends dating back to the dark ages. Vlad the Impaler Countess Elizabeth Bathory Vampires are based on a misunderstanding of how death and decomposition works. Vampires are also symbols of our feelings of lust, the sacred nature of blood, fears of foreigners, fear of venlarial disease. Vampires at the Dawn of Cinema Nosferatu (1922) an unofficial production of Dracula is considered to be the first vampire film. Murnau's Count Orlock terrified audiences with rat like features and is far removed from the dashing count later introduced. Excellent example of German Expressionist filmmaking. Universal Monsters of the 30's & 40's Bela Lugosi's Dracula featured the first cinematic version of the dashing romantic count. Director, Todd Browning, based his film more on the broadway play rather than the Bram Stoker book. 1931's Dracula is more of a filmed version of the play.  There really isn't a lot of variation in the cinematography.  A lot of wide angles and not a whole lot of movement within the frame. Interesting fact, the Spanish language version of Dracula features more creativity in cinematography and visual effects for its time. Hammer Horror and the Rise of Blood and Sex In the 1950's, the UK's Hammer Studios releases Horror of Dracula, a Dracula film in color featuring a vampire that drinks blood on camera and is far more sexual than previous incarnations. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing become the archetypes for Count Dracula and Van Helsing respectively. Exploitation Vampires in the 70's  The 70's saw the rise of exploitation vampire films with movies like Blacula, Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula, George Romero's Martin, and Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot. Anne Rice Vampires are introduced.  The vampire now is more of a self reflective creature that contemplates their immortality rather than just being a bloodthirsty monster. Mixed Bag for The 80's  Vampires now had to compete with the popular slasher films of the decade. Goofy vampire movies became popular. Once Bitten Vampire's Kiss My Best Friend's a Vampire Vampire films reflected a more comedic tone due to the the association of blood and the AIDS epidemic. Vampires also took a much darker and bloodier turn, yet stayed away from the gothic horror roots, with movies like The Lost Boys and Near Dark. 1990's Buffy and the Return of Dracula The 90's brought a new twist of the vampire myth with Joss Whedon's Buffy The Vampire Slayer film and tv series. Notable for changing the role of a male vampire slayer into a female. Gothic horror returned to the screen in 1992 with Bram Stoker's Dracula- Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Notable for being the first major film to be digitally edited. The film saved Francis Ford Coppola's production company, American Zoetrope, from going out of business. All effects were done in camera, no digital effects. Led to a resurgence in gothic horror films with Frankens...

Returning to the Ryan Murphy roadshow of horror we arrive at season 4, Freakshow. We cover the series cast and their real-life counterparts, including many of the original cast of Freaks (1932). We study Todd Browning's cult classic film as the inspiration for this season of oddities.

We're celebrating a birthday on this episode of Galaxy Moonbeam Night Site. Who's birthday you ask? Why Frankenstein of course! Ian Rose reports on the 80th anniversary of the Frankenstein movies. Back in 1931, this long-running movie franchise began at Universal Studios. Through the 30's and 40's, a number of sequels were done with a variety of stars in them. Such stars as Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Glenn Strange were featured in the various movies. Smitty, Mike, and Ian follow on an interesting analysis of these movies tying in such other motion pictures as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", Todd Browning's "Freaks" as well as Gothic novels of the past. Mike continues to share his knowledge of vintage toys and he tells us about some of the great toy manufacturers of the 1950's and 60's and some of their best remembered toys of the past. Such things as Emenee Organs, Gilbert Erector Sets, Marx Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots are discussed. Mike reminds us of the collect-ability and value of some of these toys. Our Retro-Commercial is a great Hertz Rent-A-Car commercial from the 1960's. It's all here on Galaxy Moonbeam Night Site!

Les films de freaks. Nous célébrons aujourd'hui les grands déformés de l'histoire du cinéma, du FREAKS de Todd Browning au GUMMO de Harmony Korine. Quel est la place des handicapés au cinéma? Soyez des nôtres pour le savoir. One of us one of us...Gooble goble Gooble Goble!!!

Les films de freaks. Nous célébrons aujourd'hui les grands déformés de l'histoire du cinéma, du FREAKS de Todd Browning au GUMMO de Harmony Korine. Quel est la place des handicapés au cinéma? Soyez des nôtres pour le savoir. One of us one of us...Gooble goble Gooble Goble!!!

http://www.andystreasuretrove.com/andystreasuretrove.com/Media/Episode%2010%20-%20SF%20Silent%20Film%20Festival,%20Leonard%20Maltin,%20Guy%20Maddin,%20Theater%20Pipe%20Organ%20Wizzard%20Clark%20Wilson,%20and%20lots%20more....mp3 ()Episode 10 is dedicated to Andy's favorite film festival in San Francisco, the San Francisco Silent Film Festival. You'll hear his conversations with noted film critic and TV personality Leonard Maltin of Entertainment Tonight fame. There's a conversation with Suzanne Lloyd, the Granddaughter of cinematic genius Harold Lloyd. Andy chats and chews with Canadian director Guy Maddin, and talks to pipe organ wizards Edward Stout and Clark Wilson. You'll hear live performances of the musical scores from some of the films at the Festival, just as they were intended to be performed back in the late 1920's when the silent film era was at its zenith. You'll also hear lots of laughter from the 2,000 people at the festival. Add in a couple of impromptu lobby discussions with other festival-goers, and you've got a great podcast episode! Enjoy! Keywords and links for this episode: http://www.silentfilm.org/ (San Francisco Silent Film Festival), http://www.castrotheatre.com/ (Castro Theatre), silent films, live music, Wurlitzer theater pipe organs, Leonard Maltin, Suzanne Lloyd, Harold Lloyd, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0534665/ (Guy Maddin), Todd Browning, "The Unknown" , Edward Stout, Clark Wilson, musical scores, "The Kid Brother" , the http://www.mont-alto.com/ (Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra), prosthetic hand, 3-D photography, camera movement, movies on television, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, http://www.tcm.com/index.jsp (Turner Classic Movies (TCM)), David Packard, Counterculture Era, "Casablanca," , "The Unknown" , Lon Chaney Sr., Winnipeg, http://www.noircity.com/ (San Francisco NoirFest), melodrama, Joan Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr. , "La Roue" , "The Last Laugh" , Abel Gance, "Days of Heaven", ice cream, "Two Timid Souls" , Odile Lavaux, http://baguettequartette.org/ (The Baguette Quartette), Patrick Hoctel, Natalja Vekic, Cary Grant, Samuel Beckett, Vera Ellen, Edward Stout, Clark Wilson, "The Patsy" , George Wright, San Francisco Fox Theater, Oakland Paramount Theater, Golden Gate Theater, Grace Cathedral, Dick Taylor, Taylor Family, Mel Novikoff, Stanford Theater, California Theater, San Jose, Grand Lake Theater, cue sheet, lead lines, music cue, ranks of organ pipes, "The Man Who Laughs"

Madness. Terror. Murder. Join your horror hosts Kim & Jon as they close out their J-Horror double-bill Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure (1997). Coincidentally, another existential nightmare puzzle box! This one's a doozy, but also a brilliantly taught and complex thriller with a serial killer that has mysteriously orchestrated a series of brutal murders like a psychic puppetmaster. Join usssss…This episode is brought to you in part by our co-producer Dustin Lewis, whose generous support on Patreon ensures Nightmare on Film Street can create free, spooky content for the masses. Would you like to become a co-producer of NOFS? Check out our Putrid Producer tier on Patreon!This week's episode is also sponsored by Horror's newest creature feature Mind Leech, available for rent right now! Join Sheriff Benjamin Pailey Jr. and Deputy Terrika Johnson as they follow the trail of destruction left behind by an influential invertebrate. Come see what the fuss is about at MindLeech.com // SUPPORT THE SHOW //Nightmare on Film Street is a labor of love - and Terror! Support us on Patreon at www.nofspodcast.com/fiendclub to unlock frightfully good rewards; like bonus episodes, watch parties, exclusive merch, producer credits, and much more!This week, Fiend Club members have instant access to Universal Monster podcast series Graveyard Smash. Come celebrate the classic monsters (and their modern counterparts) that changed Horror forever, beginning with Todd Browning's Dracula (1931).// IMPORTANT LINKS //STREET TEAM: https://nofspodcast.com/nightmare-on-film-street-teamNEWSLETTER: https://nofspodcast.com/newsletterMERCH & HORROR TEES: https://store.nofspodcast.comFIEND CLUB: https://nofspodcast.com/fiendclub// GET SOCIAL //DISCORD: https://www.nofspodcast.com/discordTWITTER: https://www.twitter.com/nofspodcastINSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/nightmareonfilmstreetYOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@nightmareonfilmstreetFACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/nightmareonfilmstreetTIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@nightmareonfilmstreetAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Do you want to meet a ghost? Join your horror hosts Kim and Jon as they dip their toes into the dark waters of early 2000s J-Horror with Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Pulse (2001). We thought we were sitting down for a fun, spooky story about an evil website and what we got instead was a nightmare-fueled existential crisis filled with g-g-g-ghosts! Join usssss…This episode is brought to you in part by our co-producer Dustin Lewis, whose generous support on Patreon ensures Nightmare on Film Street can create free, spooky content for the masses. Would you like to become a co-producer of NOFS? Check out our Putrid Producer tier on Patreon!This week's episode is also sponsored by Horror's newest creature feature Mind Leech, available for rent right now! Join Sheriff Benjamin Pailey Jr. and Deputy Terrika Johnson as they follow the trail of destruction left behind by an influential invertebrate. Come see what the fuss is about at MindLeech.com // SUPPORT THE SHOW //Nightmare on Film Street is a labor of love - and Terror! Support us on Patreon at www.nofspodcast.com/fiendclub to unlock frightfully good rewards; like bonus episodes, watch parties, exclusive merch, producer credits, and much more!This week, Fiend Club members have instant access to Universal Monster podcast series Graveyard Smash. Come celebrate the classic monsters (and their modern counterparts) that changed Horror forever, beginning with Todd Browning's Dracula (1931). // IMPORTANT LINKS //STREET TEAM: https://nofspodcast.com/nightmare-on-film-street-teamNEWSLETTER: https://nofspodcast.com/newsletterMERCH & HORROR TEES: https://store.nofspodcast.comFIEND CLUB: https://nofspodcast.com/fiendclub// GET SOCIAL //DISCORD: https://www.nofspodcast.com/discordTWITTER: https://www.twitter.com/nofspodcastINSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/nightmareonfilmstreetYOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@nightmareonfilmstreetFACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/nightmareonfilmstreetTIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@nightmareonfilmstreetAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy