Horror Film Review: The Ghoul (dir by T. Hayes Hunter)


Some actors can make just about anything worth watching.  That’s certainly the case with Boris Karloff and 1933’s The Ghoul.

In The Ghoul, Karloff plays Prof. Henry Moriant.  The professor is an Egyptologist, a world-renowned expert on the dead.  Moriant is now facing death himself, sick in bed and ranting about how he wants to be treated after he passes.  Nigel Hartley (Ralph Richardson) stops by the mansion while pretending to be a vicar and offers to comfort Prof. Moriant in his last moments.  The butler, Laing (Ernest Thesiger), explains that Moriant has never had much use for traditional religion.  Instead, Moriant believes in the Gods of Egypt.

In death, Moriant wants to be buried with an Egyptian jewel in his hands.  He believes that, after he dies, he will exchange the jewel with the Egyptian God Anubis and he will be reborn with amazing powers.  However, when Moriant passes, Laing keeps the jewel for himself and attempts to hide it from the countess number of people who show up at the mansion, all seeking either the jewel or just information about Moriant’s estate.  Moriant may not have been loved in life but everyone clearly loves his money.

Boris Karloff is not actually in that much of The Ghoul.  He dominates the start of the film, ranting from his deathbed.  And then, towards the end of the film, he rises from the dead and attacks those who he thinks have betrayed him and stolen the jewel.  He’s only onscreen for a few minutes but he dominates those minutes.  Karloff’s screen presence is undeniable.  When he’s in a scene, he’s the only person that you watch.  When he’s not in a scene, you find yourself wondering how long it’s going to take for Karloff to return.

That’s not to say that the other actors in The Ghoul aren’t good.  The cast is full of distinguished names.  Along with Richardson and Thesiger, Cedric Hardwicke, Anthony Bushnell, Dorothy Hyson, and Kathleen Harrison all wander through the mansion and try to avoid getting caught up in Karloff’s vengeance.  Harrison provides the film’s comic relief and I actually enjoyed her flighty performance.  The film itself is so darkly lit and full of so many greedy characters that it was nice to have someone on a totally different wavelength thrown into the mix.  That said, the majority of the actors are stuck with paper-thin characters and aren’t really allowed the time to make much of an impression.  This is Karloff’s film, from the beginning to end.  And while the film itself is definitely a bit creaky, Karloff is always enjoyable to watch.

The Ghoul was made at a time when Karloff, having become a star with Frankenstein, was frustrated with the roles that he was being offered in America.  He returned to his native UK and promptly discovered that he was just as typecast over there as he was in the United States.  For a long time, The Ghoul was believed to be a lost film.  However, in 1968, a copy was discovered in Egypt of all places.  It’s unfortunate that the film itself isn’t better but there’s no denying the power of Karloff the performer.

 

Lisa Watches An Oscar Winner: Ben-Hur (dir by William Wyler)


Ben-Hur

I’m actually kind of upset with myself because, at one point, I was planning on spending all of February watching TCM’s 31 Days of Oscars and reviewing all of the best picture nominees that showed up on the channel.  Unfortunately, I ended up getting busy with other things (like Shattered Politics, for instance) and it was only tonight that I finally got a chance to sit down and watch TCM.  Oh well, maybe next year! But for now, I’m just going to watch and review as much as I can before the month ends.

With that in mind, I just spent four hours watching the 1959 best picture winner Ben-Hur.

In many ways, Ben-Hur feels like a prototypical best picture winner.  It’s a big epic film that obviously cost a lot to produce and which features a larger-than-life star surrounded by a bunch of a memorable character actors.  It features two spectacular set pieces and some human drama that’s effective without being particularly challenging.  It’s a film that deals with big themes but does so in a rather safe way.  Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s a film that, today, is often dismissed as being old-fashioned and simplistic and yet it’s still a lot of fun to watch.

Opening with no less of an event than the birth of Jesus, Ben-Hur tells the story of Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston), a wealthy Jewish aristocrat who, as a young man, was best friends with a Roman named Messala (Stephen Boyd).  When Messala is named as the new commander of the local Roman garrison, he is upset to discover that Ben-Hur is more loyal to his religion than to the Roman Empire.  Feeling personally rejected by his best friend (and perhaps more, as there are a lot of theories about the subtext of their relationship), Massala frames Ben-Hur for the attempted assassination of Judea’s governor.

Over the next 220 minutes, we watch as Ben-Hur goes from being a prisoner to a galley slave to the adopted son of a Roman general (Jack Hawkins) and finally one of the best chariot racers in ancient Rome.  Throughout it all, he remembers a mysterious man who once attempted to give him a sip of water.  Meanwhile, Ben-Hur’s family has been imprisoned and afflicted with leprosy.  Appropriately, for a film that opened with the Nativity, it ends with the Crucifixion, during which Ben-Hur’s struggle to save his family also comes to a climax.

Ben-Hur is undoubtedly flawed film.  (Among the film that were nominated for best picture of 1959, my favorite remains Anatomy of Murder.)  The film runs about an hour too long, some of the supporting actors give performances that are a bit too over-the-top, and the entire film is so reverential that in can be difficult for modern audiences, especially in this age of nonstop irony, to take it seriously.  In the lead role, Charlton Heston is always watchable and has a strong physical presence but you never quite believe that he’s the thinker that the script insists that he is.  There’s nothing subtle about Heston’s performance but, then again, there’s nothing subtle about the film itself.

And yet, if the film struggles to connect on a human level, Ben-Hur still works as a spectacle.  The gigantic sets and the ornate costumes are still impressive to look at.  The film’s two big action sequences — a shipwreck and the chariot race — are still exciting and thrilling to watch.  Ben-Hur may be dated but you can still watch it and understand why it was so popular with audiences in 1959 and, though I may not agree with a lot of the decisions, I can see why the Academy honored Ben-Hur with a record 11 Oscars.  It’s the type of spectacle that, in 1959, could only have been found on the big screen.  By honoring Ben-Hur, the Academy was honoring the relevance of the Hollywood establishment.

In the end, Ben-Hur may not hold up as well as some best picture winners but it’s still worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enfWkWJZZ5U