Drive-In Mud Offs: The Mud & Magic of Hammer’s THE MUMMY (1959)

By the late Fifties, England’s Hammer Movies was a inventive and business juggernaut and their newfound bread and butter was horror. The Curse of Frankenstein (‘57) and Horror of Dracula (‘58) had been enormous hits, and Common inspired Hammer to rummage by means of their kitchen for extra profitable edibles. The Mummy (‘59) was the end result–a colourful and creepy tackle the mythos with the third terrific pairing of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. 

This model isn’t a direct remake of the 1932 Boris Karloff automobile, however moderately takes components from a few Common’s sequels (The Mummy’s Hand, The Mummy’s Tomb, The Mummy’s Zaddy) and weaves them right into a quite simple but efficient story. As such: It’s 1895, and all of the hip archeologists of the day–Stephen Banning (Felix Aylmer), his son John (Peter Cushing), and John’s uncle Joe (Raymond Huntley)–are gathered within the Egyptian desert (or a British film backlot; tomay-to, tomah-to). Whereas John lay unwell with a damaged leg, Stephen and Joe find the tomb of Excessive Priestess Ananka (Yvonne Furneaux), who as soon as dominated below the god Karnak. An try and cease them from getting into by native Egyptian Mehemet Bey (George Pastell), who warns them of the hazards of desecration, fails they usually discover Ananka’s sarcophagus together with a secret scroll for resurrection. When Joe heads again to camp to inform John, a scream is heard from the tomb and racing again, Joe finds Stephen slumped over the sarcophagus catatonic and maybe in want of some relaxation.

Three years later we’re again in England at a complicated psychological facility, and Stephen shakes off his catatonia and asks for John. He tells him that studying the Scroll of Life introduced again Ananka’s mummified guardian Kharis (Lee) to life, to hunt vengeance on the desecrators of the tomb. 

One after the other the muddy and bandaged Kharis enacts his revenge; when he sees that John’s spouse Isobel (Furneaux once more) is the spitting picture of Ananka, he units his sights on reclaiming his queen… will any of London’s movie tons be protected from the wrath of The Mummy? 

It seems like we’ve all the time had mummy motion pictures all through the historical past of horror; as a little bit child within the ‘70s, I’d examine and see black-and-white footage of Boris Karloff, his make-up a chilling roadway of darkish rutted traces beneath an immaculate black fez. We all the time had mummies stumbling round in children’ fare like Scooby-Doo, with unraveling bandages displaying the utter disregard for mentioned monster. 

It’s the best way it’s all the time been although, the mum relegated to the basement with varied supernatural creatures from lagoons and swamps mixing with laboratory rejects from all walks of life. The decrease caste within the horror world, not forgotten, however not as cherished as your vampires and huge stitched-together males. 

I believe the fault lies with the idea: Who needs to beat up a burn affected person? Not me, and I’d hope you’d really feel the identical. The wrapping and the gradual lurch are the 2 primary traits of the mum, and till Common’s wildly profitable reboot with Brendan Fraser as one thing nearer to Indiana Jones, the mum appearances had been sporadic. 

This iteration of The Mummy is my favourite for a number of causes: First, a course correction for the mum’s look. After a swamp dump, Kharis turns into a grungy, mud-caked avenger, with Lee’s wild and expressive eyes conveying all of his targeted rage. His stature is modified as properly; no extra foot drags as Kharis now walks upright and leads along with his shoulders, giving him a a lot wanted depth–an urgency–that earlier mummies have lacked. Kharis strikes with a stopless willpower not terribly faraway from our modern-day slasher anti-heroes. 

Second, the attractive cinematography by Jack Asher, the (principally) lean screenplay by Jimmy Sangster, and the assured path of Terence Fisher are all in place identical to the primary two options with their stars, Lee and Cushing. That is the lushest of the three, main colours bursting, particularly within the flashback scenes of Ananka’s dying and Kharis’ try and resurrect her, resulting in his curse of retribution. (Yeah I’m unsure how a few of these guidelines are meted out myself.) That’s the solely weak spot in Sangster’s script and the movie; it crawls when it turns into a, albeit attention-grabbing, historical past lesson. Fisher makes the many of the restricted killings, creating suspense by means of the swift and single-minded hatred of Kharis and the urgency that Cushing’s John Banning brings to discovering him. 

Third is the dance of its stars Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, as soon as extra twisting within the cinematic sky for our pleasure and certainly theirs. They’ve little interplay right here (arduous to put in writing conversations when one in every of your characters has no tongue, I’ve been advised) however once they do, it reminds you of that cost they’ve on the display, particular to them. 

What’s that chemistry, anyway? It’s a mixture of Cushing’s resolve, with anger all the time effervescent below, and particularly right here, Lee’s blinding, livid flurry of retribution, which supplies the movie a jolt no matter their shared display time. 

However let’s speak monsters, and Lee, for a second. All three of his Hammer/Common monsters (this and the 2 earlier than) are splendidly distinctive in thought and look, and his mummy, although silent, feels deadlier by means of the majesty of Lee’s actions than all those that bandaged up earlier than. The sharp distinction between the fiery whites of Kharis’ eyes and the darkish impurity of his costume helps give The Mummy its juice. It’s actually sufficient to name it up from the basement.

The Mummy is out there on Blu-ray from Warner Bros.

Subsequent: Learn Earlier Installments of This Collection!