Creighton’s Creature: THE WOLF-MAN and Lon Jr.

  

Following the departure of the Laemmles from Universal Studios in the mid-1930’s, Standard Capital, which was headed by J. Cheever Cowdin and was the studio’s new owners, made a conscious decision to avoid Horror films, hoping to become known for a more “upscale” product.  They failed, as would a so-far unbroken line of their successors, to give the studio’s iconic Monsters the respect they were due, and fans of the Monsters credit for knowing what they wanted.

By 1939 however, the studio was dealing with both a lack of mainstream success and a hurting bottom line.  The continued popularity of both DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN in Los Angeles-area theaters convinced the studio that maybe Horror Films weren’t such bad ideas after all, and before the year was out, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, starring Karloff, Lugosi, Rathbone, and Atwill marked the return of Horror to Universal.  That, and the debut in 1940 of the studio’s other great cash cow, the comedy duo of Abbott & Costello, insured that the Monsters would find gainful employment for some time to come.

But they needed fresh material to work with, not just sequels to existing properties.  They needed a new Monster.  And a script by Curt Siodmak gave them a great one:  Larry Talbot, aka—the Wolf-Man.

The first article to carry the Unimonster’s byline said this about Siodmak’s creation, “One of Universal’s most popular movies, THE WOLF-MAN came on the scene just as the second half of Horror’s Golden Age was beginning to take off.  The war in Europe, increasing economic prosperity, and changing tastes were going to put the monsters out of business, according to the critics.  Instead, they were entering the period of their greatest popularity, due primarily to Universal’s first truly sympathetic monster [Larry Talbot].  [C]ursed by the bite of a werewolf to an eternal, nightmarish existence, more beast than man … it provided a fresh perspective on the monsters; one from the monster’s point of view” [The Universal Monsters:  How Universal Studios Created the Horror Film, 6 February, 2010].  The werewolf make-up would be designed and executed by Jack P. Pierce, Universal Studios master craftsman of Monster-Making, based upon designs he created for 1935’s THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON.  And to play Talbot, the studio cast the son of the first icon of the Horror Film—Lon Chaney, Jr.

Born Creighton Chaney in 1906, the younger man was estranged from his father and raised by his mother, whom Lon had abandoned.  Creighton had no intention of following in his father’s Horror footsteps; indeed, his breakthrough came in the role of Lenny in Lewis Milestone’s 1939 version of John Steinbeck’s OF MICE AND MEN, for which he won critical acclaim.  However, pressure from studio executives meant an end to his dreams of a straight dramatic career, and to his public identity as separate from his father.  He had occasionally been billed as “Lon Chaney, Jr.” since 1935, and in 1940, Creighton appeared in ONE MILLION, B.C. under that name.  Creighton Chaney, at least as far as the movie-going public was concerned, ceased to exist.

Though in retrospect this outright manipulation of an actor’s career may seem callous and overbearing, in the context of the times it was accepted practice for studios to make decisions such as this.  The Hollywood “Studio System” completely dominated the film industry—it was the closest thing this country’s ever had to a tyrannical despotism—and if you desired to work in Hollywood, then you paid obeisance to the system.  The studio had a legitimate need, and no one felt any qualms about using Creighton to fill that need.

For along with Universal’s requirement for fresh material with which to work, they also needed a new star, a Horror icon to replace both Karloff and Lugosi, who had faded to supporting roles.  Who better to fill the void than the son of the “Man of a Thousand Faces?”

Lon Jr.’s Horror debut came on 28 March 1941, in MAN-MADE MONSTER, a B-grade programmer, directed by George Waggner.  Co-starring Lionel Atwill, Anne Nagel, and Samuel B. Hinds, the plot concerned a sideshow performer (Chaney, Jr.) with an unusual immunity to electrical shocks.  He agrees to be studied by a pair of scientists:  One benevolent, played by Hinds, and one evil, played to perfection by Atwill.  Unbeknownst to everyone, Atwill begins treating “Dynamo” Dan with increasingly powerful electrical impulses, transforming him into a mindless automaton with a deadly touch.  The movie was well-received, if a little ahead of it’s time.  A mere decade-and-a-half later, it would have fit perfectly on a Drive-In Double-bill with THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN or MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS.  In fact, it probably did, as it was reissued in 1953 under the title THE ATOMIC MONSTER.

Later that same year would come the film that would strengthen Lon Jr.’s status as a Horror star, and it, like MAN-MADE MONSTER, was to be directed by Waggner.  THE WOLF-MAN, released five days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, would become one of Universal’s most beloved Monster movies, and one of it’s most successful.

Scripted by Siodmak, and starring Claude Rains, Ralph Bellamy, Bela Lugosi, Evelyn Ankers, and Maria Ouspenskaya, THE WOLF-MAN gave Universal its first truly original monster, and the star that would carry Universal’s Monster franchise through to it’s end.  From 1941 to 1945, Lon Jr. appeared in all of Universal’s first-class Horror Films, and a large number of their second-class Horrors, such as the series of Inner Sanctum pictures that began in 1943.  He would play every one of Universal’s “Fab Four” of Monsterdom—Frankenstein’s Monster, in GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN; Dracula, in SON OF DRACULA; the Mummy Kharis, beginning with THE MUMMY’S TOMB; and of course Larry Talbot, the Wolf-Man.

After the success of THE WOLF-MAN, Universal wanted a sequel, and a chance remark by Siodmak, intended as a joke, became 1943’s FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF-MAN.  The studio had found the formula for Horror success in the ‘40’s—Multiple Monsters, formulaic plots, a beautiful girl or two to menace, some knock-down, drag-out Monster fighting, and a happy ending.  A simple prescription, true—but it kept theaters packed.

Lon Jr. would play Talbot three more times:  1944’s HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, 1945’s HOUSE OF DRACULA, and the 1948 pairing of the Monsters with Universal’s other moneymaking property of the ‘40’s, Abbott & Costello, in ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN.  That film would mark the beginning of the end of the Classic Monsters of Universal, relegated to the status of comedic props.  It would also mark the end of Lon Jr.’s association with the studio that had made him an icon, and which he, in turn, carried on his furry shoulders throughout the war years.

The end of the war meant the return of millions of GI’s to the Home Front, as well as revelation of the true suffering visited upon the tens of millions of victims of totalitarianism and fascism throughout Europe, Asia, and the Pacific Rim.  True horrors, revealed and remembered, left little room in the minds of moviegoers for the Monsters of fantasy and fiction.  Universal Studios, ten years removed from the days when Carl Laemmle, Sr. ran the show as a ‘family’ business, where the head of the make-up department could be hired on a handshake, fired Lon Jr. in 1948.  Nor did they stop there.  Jack Pierce, the same make-up artist who had created the image of every one of the studio’s iconic Monsters, from Dracula, to Frankenstein’s Monster, to the Mummy, to the Wolf-Man, the head of the make-up department who had been hired on the basis of a handshake, without a contract, was just as unceremoniously canned.

Recently however, the titular descendants of the men who so callously sacked Lon Jr., Jack, and others found a renewed attraction in the Monsters of Universal; an interest that had never waned among their devoted fans.  Beginning with 1999’s THE MUMMY, directed by Stephen Sommers, Universal has resurrected most of the studio’s great Monsters of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s.  So far, there’s been little interest in revisiting the Invisible Man, first realized by James Whale and Claude Rains in the 1933 classic.  And plans for a remake of the studio’s greatest Horror Film of the 1950’s, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, have been up in the air for years now.

But this month will see the return of Larry Talbot to theaters nationwide, as Universal unveils THE WOLFMAN, directed by Joe Johnston and starring Benicio Del Toro as Talbot, Anthony Hopkins as his father, Sir John Talbot, and Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe.  A big budget reimagining of the original story, the trailers promise a movie that looks beautifully filmed and exquisitely designed, with the requisite amount of dazzlingly spectacular special effects.  It remains to be seen whether or not it has managed to capture the spirit, the essence of what made the original film one of Universal’s most loved Monster movies.  One thing it has most certainly done is render invalid one of Lon Jr.’s proudest claims.  As he once told an interviewer, he had played all the Monsters—from Dracula to the Mummy.  But he—Creighton Tull Chaney—was the only actor to ever play the Wolf-Man.  No longer is that true.

Lon Jr. would continue to play monsters, maniacs, and murderers for another 25 years, until his death in 1973.  He would play many memorable characters in his later years, most notably Bruno the caretaker, from Jack Hill’s SPIDER BABY or, THE MADDEST STORY EVER TOLD.  But he was destined to be forever defined by his greatest role—that of a Welshman cursed to become a snarling, murderous beast, driven to bloodlust by the brightness of an autumn moon.

DVD Review: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON—Two-Disc “Full Moon” Edition

Title:  AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON—Two-Disc “Full Moon” Edition

Year of Release—Film:  1981

Year of Release—DVD:  2009

DVD Label:  Universal Studios Home Entertainment

One of the most popular Horror Films of the early ‘80’s, and one of the greatest Werewolf films ever made, John Landis’ AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON redefined that genre of horror as thoroughly as Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD did Zombie movies.  With Academy Award-winning Make-up effects by Rick Baker, a terrific script from Landis, and a trio of incredible performances from David Naughton, Griffin Dunne, and Jenny Agutter, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF… stands head and furry shoulders above it’s lycanthropic competition of 1981, Joe Dante’s THE HOWLING and Michael Wadleigh’s WOLFEN.

Now Universal Studios Home Entertainment is releasing a brand-new two-disc “Full Moon” edition of this horror classic, hitting the stores this Tuesday, 15 September.  In addition to a spectacular assortment of special features is a new, feature-length documentary, written and directed by Paul Davis, entitled Beware the Moon.

Two American youths, David Kessler (Naughton), and Jack Goodman (Dunne) are backpacking through England, and stop at a pub in the village of East Proctor, a pub with the ominous name “The Slaughtered Lamb.”  Though the villagers are distant and cool towards the pair, the boys get along ok, until Jack asks the locals why they have a pentagram—a five-pointed star that legend holds is the mark of the werewolf—inscribed on the wall.

The innocent inquiry gets the pair banished from the pub, and they resume their hike with warnings to “… beware the moon …” and “… keep off the moors …” both of which are quickly ignored.  They soon find themselves lost, and being stalked by… something.  The pair is attacked; Jack dies, and just before David loses consciousness, the townsfolk of East Proctor, who followed the boys from the pub, shoot and kill their attacker.

Weeks later, David awakes in a London hospital to discover that his best friend is dead; officially, the two were attacked by an escaped lunatic.  However, that doesn’t fit with David’s recollection of events.  He saw the—thing—that attacked them, and it wasn’t human.  Something that his friend Jack—his dead friend Jack—soon confirms, when he pays David a visit in his hospital room.  They were attacked by a werewolf, and Jack is now condemned to exist as one of the undead until the werewolf’s bloodline is extinguished.  A bloodline that now continues in David.

With this movie Landis, who had made his reputation as a director of comedies such as ANIMAL HOUSE, THE KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE, and THE BLUES BROTHERS, demonstrated that he was equally adept at Horror Films.  He skillfully blended both genres into a seamless whole, where the horror of David’s realization that he is a werewolf, and has viciously killed six people, can happen as he sits chatting with the corpses of his best friend and his victims in a pornographic theater.  The bizarre dichotomy of the situation is perfectly balanced, and the viewer is never made to wonder whether they are watching a funny horror, or a scary comedy.  It is what it is, and that is a terrific movie.

New to this release is Beware the Moon, a feature-length documentary by Paul Davis.  Exhaustively examining the history and lore of the film, Davis visits many of the locations used in the production, as well as interviewing virtually every major figure involved in bringing the movie to the screen.  Though most of the film’s background is well known to it’s fans, it has never before been presented in such depth and detail.  If this is an example of Davis’ work, then I have a list of a good dozen films I’d love for him to examine in the same manner.

This is without a doubt one of my favorite films, and one of the three greatest Werewolf movies ever produced (along with 1941’s THE WOLF-MAN and 2002’s DOG SOLDIERS).  Of course, the previous DVD release of this film resides in the Crypt’s library, but that doesn’t mean I’m not thrilled to have this release.  For those who love this movie, the Beware the Moon feature alone is worth the purchase price; for those who have yet to experience this classic, I cannot think of a better way to do so.

DVD Review: THE WOLF-MAN Legacy Special Edition Two-Disc Box Set

Title: THE WOLF-MAN Legacy Special Edition Two-Disc Box Set

Year of Release—Film: 1941

Year of Release—DVD: 2010

DVD Label: Universal Studios Home Entertainment


For the past decade, Universal has been actively involved in reinventing their classic Horror icons—Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Mummy, the Wolf-Man, and the Gill-Man—of the 1930’s through the 1950’s. Stephen Sommers began this resurgence of interest in the classic Monsters with his excellent remake of THE MUMMY in 1999, and with the equally entertaining sequel THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001). In advance of the 2005 theatrical release of Sommers’ ultimately disappointing VAN HELSING, Universal Studios Home Entertainment opened the studio’s vaults, releasing the Legacy Collections DVD Box Sets of their classic horror titles. That largesse has continued unabated ever since, with a Bela Lugosi Collection, two superb box sets of the 1950’s Sci-Fi Horrors, a collection of their b-Horrors from the 1940’s, even the Inner Sanctum mysteries of the mid-‘40’s.

Virtually every Universal property of the Golden Age of Horror (with the exception of 1933’s ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, which is in desperate need of a DVD release) has become available in the past six years. Several films have been chosen for special treatment in connection to significant anniversaries, such as DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, and THE MUMMY, all of which celebrated 75th Anniversaries within the last five years. The latest film to receive this Legacy Special Edition treatment is their most popular Monster-movie of the ‘40’s, 1941’s THE WOLF-MAN. While this is obviously motivated by the studio’s desire to support the big screen release of the Joe Johnston-helmed remake, (in theaters now and reviewed below—ed.) it’s nonetheless appreciated by those of us who are devoted fans of the Universal Horrors.

I first reviewed THE WOLF-MAN six years ago, revisited it last month, [“DVD Box Set Review: THE WOLF-MAN Legacy Collection (2004),” 6 February 2010] and those words still hold true.

One of Universal’s most enduring classics, as well as starring one of it’s most beloved Monsters, this film came as the Universal Horror Films transitioned from the landmark classics of the 1930’s to the assembly-line productions of the
1940’s. While not as fine an example of great filmmaking as James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN, George Waggner’s able direction transformed Lon Chaney’s portrayal of the tortured Larry Talbot into one of the most sympathetic Monsters
of the genre, perhaps second only to King Kong. The rest of the cast (including Bela Lugosi in a brief, but important, role) performs well above expectations, particularly Claude Rains (as Larry’s father, Sir John Talbot) and the beautiful Evelyn Ankers.

When called upon to review a movie with which virtually every horror fan is familiar, one’s task is not so much to tell them why they need to have this film in their collections, but why they should own this release of it, if the reviewer feels that they should. And to be honest, if you have the 2004 Legacy collection, and don’t consider yourself an especially devoted fan of THE WOLF-MAN, Lon Chaney, Jr., or the Universal Horrors, then my advice would be to pass on this offering.

However, if, like the Unimonster, you’re a devoted fan of all three, then this DVD is a definite Must-Have. In addition to the movie itself, the viewer is treated to a handful of documentary features, a mix of previously released material and newly produced documentaries. The old includes Monster by Moonlight, hosted by John Landis, director of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, and directed by film historian and Universal Horror expert David J. Skal. This documentary, first released on the 2004 WOLF-MAN Legacy Collection, is a loving tribute to Chaney, Pierce, Siodmak, and all those responsible for bringing one of Universal’s greatest Monsters to life.

Also included is a documentary by Constantine Nasr, first released in the 2008 Legacy Special Edition of THE MUMMY. He Who Made Monsters—the Life and Art of Jack Pierce, pays long-overdue tribute to the man responsible for creating the Monsters that have frightened and captivated fans for nearly eighty years. It’s not near to being recognition enough for Pierce’s contributions, but it is a step in the right direction.

By far the best of the older material, however, is the feature-length documentary UNIVERSAL HORROR, released in 1998. Narrated by Kenneth Branagh, this documentary is a virtual love letter to the monsters, from generations of devoted fans. Exploring the history of Universal Horror Films from the silent era to the end of the Golden age, this is an invaluable reference to those interested in the original “House of Horror,” and a treat for those who love classic Horror Films.

There are also two new productions by Nasr: The Wolf-Man—From Ancient Curse to Modern Myth; and Pure in Heart—The Life and Legacy of Lon Chaney, Jr.

The first of these, The Wolf-Man—From Ancient Curse to Modern Myth, is an exploration of the werewolf mythos, and how it was largely the creation of one man, screenwriter Curt Siodmak. From the now-famous line, “Even a man who is pure in heart, and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright,” to the necessity of a silver weapon, wielded by one who loves him, to kill a werewolf, the legends of lycanthropy that fueled forty years of genre films were made up from whole cloth by Siodmak. Not until 1981 brought a new vision of werewolves, two competing yet similar reinventions of the sub-genre, was there a significant divergence from Siodmak’s winning formula. Though this featurette is too short to do adequate justice to Siodmak’s contributions to Horror history, it is entertaining, and fans of classic Horror Films will enjoy it.

The second new documentary, Pure in Heart—The Life and Legacy of Lon Chaney, Jr., is the more informative, and more interesting of the two. This is a loving yet honest look at the life of Creighton Tull Chaney, from his childhood as the estranged son of the great actor, to his death at the age of 67, ironically from the same disease that claimed his father in 1930. It examines the complicated relationship Creighton had with Lon, including how Lon had led Creighton to believe that his mother Cleva had died when the boy was still an infant; in reality, she had been committed to an asylum. It also explores the difficulty Creighton had in becoming an actor, a career choice so opposed by his father that he enrolled Creighton in a vocational school for plumbers.

Fans of Lon Jr. will appreciate the honesty and forthright approach the filmmakers brought to this documentary, as well as the attitude that despite the flaws inherent in the man, and the demons that plagued him, he was a good, kind-hearted, gentle man, one who simply wanted to act. He was the only actor to portray all four of Universal’s great Monsters of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s, and for more than 68 years, he alone could claim the role of Lawrence Talbot—the Wolf-Man.

This DVD may not be a must-have for the casual Horror fan, or even the fan of classic horror who already owns the 2004 Legacy Collection. But for those of us who have a special affinity for the great Horror Films of Universal Studios, it’s yet another gift from the vaults.

Unimonster's Screening Room: THE WOLFMAN (2010)

Title: THE WOLFMAN

Date of Theatrical Release: 12 February 2010

MPAA Rating: R


[Ed. Note: There’s a new feature here at the Crypt, The Screening Room, wherein I’ll periodically review first-run films currently in theaters. It will work no different than my DVD Reviews—I understand that your entertainment dollars are as hard to come by as mine, and if I tell you to spend a goodly chunk of those dollars to see a movie, you’d better believe I was blown away by it. Also, there will be a rating system to help you decide just how much a movie impressed me, based on the number of skulls, 1-5, I award it. So read on and enjoy!]

Since 1999, Universal Studios has been on a quest to reinvent it’s most beloved properties, the Classic Monsters of the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Beginning with Stephen Sommers fantastic redux of THE MUMMY, continuing through his misinterpretation of the Monsters in VAN HELSING, and helped along the way by a flood of DVD releases from Universal’s vaults, the studio has reenergized Classic Horror fans both young and old. Their latest offering to those whose notions of Monsters predate the TWILIGHT Saga is Joe Johnston’s THE WOLFMAN, in theaters now.

Titularly a remake of 1941’s THE WOLF-MAN, the resemblance to its predecessor begins and ends with the character names. The setting is shifted slightly, from the Welsh town of Llanwelly to a more nondescript town in the English countryside, and from a roughly contemporary (to 1941) period to 1891. The characters of Lawrence Talbot and Sir John, his father, are more richly drawn than in the original, with Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins exploring complexities in the father-son relationship only hinted at by Lon Chaney, Jr. and Claude Rains. As written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, there are layers to this bond that the viewer will find surprising.

Lawrence Talbot, (Del Toro) an actor and the expatriate son of Sir John Talbot, (a superb job by Hopkins) receives an urgent summons to return home following the disappearance of his brother Ben. The message, from Ben’s fiancée Gwen Conliffe, (an underwhelming performance by Emily Blunt) reaches Lawrence on the London stage, where the Americanized actor is playing the lead role in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. He returns to Talbot Hall to be greeted at the door by his estranged father, shotgun in hand. Ben’s body has been found, horribly mutilated. What’s more, two others have died under similar circumstances in recent weeks, and the locals are convinced that a group of gypsies, encamped just outside the town’s environs, is to blame.

Lawrence, having promised Gwen he would find out what had happened to his brother, visits the Gypsy camp hoping to find answers. During his visit, however, the camp is attacked by something—something large, something powerful, something unseen. Lawrence catches a glimpse of it as it runs off in pursuit of a young boy, and gives chase. He becomes the hunted, however, and is attacked by the creature before it can be driven off by gunfire from its pursuers. Lawrence is taken home, wounded and near death.

He wavers in and out of consciousness for the next month, but as the moon waxes towards full, so does his strength. By the eve of the next full moon, he is feeling better than ever, and the jagged scar left by his wound has completely healed. And as the full moon rises over Talbot Hall, the beast runs loose again.

The scope of this film is much broader and grander than the original, taking full advantage of the vast differences in budget, technology, and creative freedom enjoyed by modern filmmakers. The production design is superb, creating the atmosphere so vital to recapturing the essence of the great Universal Horrors, an element that VAN HELSING sadly lacked. The photography, by Shelly Johnson, beautifully presents that atmosphere to the viewer, from the crumbling edifice of Talbot Hall to the gas-lit streets of London to dark, fog-shrouded woods of the English countryside.

But we are talking about THE WOLFMAN, and there would be nothing worth photographing if the look of the creature itself had not been ‘right’. Thankfully, Universal realized there was but one artist capable of doing justice to that originally created by Jack Pierce, and that is Rick Baker. Baker, who, along with John Landis redefined the Werewolf movie with 1981’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, now brings the “Man” portion of the Wolf-Man equation back to the fore, after thirty years of increasingly canine-like lycanthropes. The make-up is terrific, resembling what Pierce created while remaining state-of-the-art.

While this is director Joe Johnston’s first shot at a Horror Film, he has managed to build-up a rather impressive genre resume so far. Beginning with 1989’s HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS and 1991’s THE ROCKETEER, to 2001’s JURASSIC PARK III, Johnston is no stranger to genre audiences. He also has notable credentials in the visual effects world, having worked on the original STAR WARS trilogy and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Though this is his first venture into the world of classic Horror, he handles it with style, creating a fitting homage to the movie that launched the Horror career of Lon Chaney, Jr. and gave us the creature that would carry the studio throughout the first half of the 1940’s.

I saw this on the opening weekend, accompanied by the 12-year-old Uni-Nephew. Both of us loved the film, daresay for different reasons. It was his first real exposure to the classic monsters, to the great Horror Films that his uncle so dearly loves, and I’m overjoyed that I could share that with him. For me, it was as if watching something reappear that I thought had long since vanished beneath an avalanche of metrosexually androgynous vampires and testosterone-juiced lycanthropes who resemble a cross between Lassie and Rambo. It was the rebirth of classic Horror, and it is just as welcome now as when it was reborn in 1958 with Hammer’s HORROR OF DRACULA. If you consider yourself a fan of the classic Monsters, you have to see this movie. Don’t wait for the DVD, this film should be seen on the big screen. Four out of five skulls, with an extra jawbone thrown in for good measure.

DVD Review: SPIDER BABY Director’s Cut

Title: SPIDER BABY Director’s Cut

Year of Release—Film: 1968

Year of Release—DVD: 2007

DVD Label: Dark Sky Entertainment/MPI Entertainment



Jack Hill’s quirky masterpiece is definitely one of the oddest films you’re likely to see, but it’s also one of the most entertaining, too. Shot in 1964 but held in limbo until four years later, SPIDER BABY or, THE MADDEST STORY EVER TOLD to use its proper title, stars Lon Chaney Jr. and Carol Ohmart amidst a cast of lesser-known actors, including a very young Sid “Captain Spaulding” Haig. The story revolves around the Merrye family, the descendants of which develop an incurable mental regression as they enter puberty. This regression causes them to become mentally deranged, psychotic, and cannibalistic. This is one of Chaney’s best performances from late in life, and his job as Bruno is matched by several equally impressive performances from the rest of the cast. Chief among these are the aforementioned Haig, as Ralph, the oldest of the Merrye children; the gorgeous Jill Banner as his sister, Virginia; and Quinn Redeker as their distant relative.

This film, which came so close to being lost forever, has become a cult favorite since the advent of home video. Finally, after twenty plus years of fading VHS tapes and poor quality bootleg DVD-R’s, Dark Sky Entertainment/MPI Entertainment, working directly with Hill, has put out the definitive SPIDER BABY disc.

For those who’ve not had the pleasure of watching this movie yet, there’s very little I can say to describe it without revealing too much of the plot. Suffice it to say that it is a unique film for it’s period, both in subject matter and in quality, especially in view of the limited resources available to Hill. It’s very reminiscent of Mario Bava’s early work, particularly when comparing Hill’s skillful use of camera angles to cover-up the obvious shortfalls in the available location, the subject of one of the many special features. This is one of my favorite films of the ‘60’s, and I’m glad that it’s finally getting the attention it’s long deserved.

While Dark Sky Entertainment/MPI Entertainment does a credible job on this disc, the packaging leaves something to be desired. This company’s efforts usually come off looking bargain-basement, though I’ve always found the quality to be superior. This disc is no exception… to either rule.
Both the audio and video quality is far superior to the worn-out VHS in my collection, and the addition of subtitles, as always, is greatly appreciated. While I wish that Dark Sky invested a little more effort into the package design, I sure as hell can’t fault the product inside.

And as befits this long-awaited disc, Dark Sky has loaded it down with special features, the best of which is the documentary THE HATCHING OF SPIDER BABY, a look at the making of this movie. The genesis of this film, and the difficult path it took to it’s ultimate recognition as such a terrific little movie, is a fascinating story, especially when told by those most intimately involved with it. Who better to tell it than Jack Hill himself, along with the surviving cast members?

Also included is SPIDER STRAVINSKY: THE CINEMA SOUNDS OF RONALD STEIN. One of this great composer’s many scores was the unique music of SPIDER BABY, and this biographical piece is informative and interesting. The third documentary included is THE MERRYE HOUSE REVISITED, a trip back to the house used for location shooting of the film. Contrary to appearances, the house was far from isolated; instead it is located in a busy residential neighborhood of Los Angeles. Hill’s direction, and the beautiful camera work by Alfred Taylor, combined to photographically isolate the house from it’s surroundings.

Add in the excellent commentary track, featuring both Jack Hill and Sid Haig, an extended and alternate scene section, and a still gallery, and you have a truly superb collection of features for an equally superior DVD.
While this is not a cheap disc, the SPIDER BABY Director’s Cut nonetheless earns a definite Buy recommendation from me… in fact, it came within a tarantula hair of beating out THE MONSTER SQUAD for my DVD Release of the Year award. If having a pristine print of one of my favorite films wasn’t enough to guarantee that, then the wealth of behind the scenes information on the film’s production certainly does.

This is the type of DVD release that fans want to see for the films they love, and Dark Sky did not disappoint us. At a list price of $29.99, it’s well outside the range of what I consider impulse buying… that’s ok, though. This is one you should plan to add to your collection—and soon.

The Crypt-ic Correspondent: Bobbie Culbertson's Interview with Constantine Nasr

[CORRECTION: Due to an error on our part, author Greg Mank's name was misspelled when this was posted. That mistake is now corrected, with apologies to all concerned. Ed.]

[Editor’s Note: Recently, Bobbie Culbertson, someone who has grown increasingly familiar to the Crypt’s readership, had the opportunity to interview filmmaker Constantine Nasr. Nasr, who has amassed quite an impressive filmography according to www.IMDb.com, is familiar to fans of Universal Horrors as the creator of documentaries examining the lives and careers of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, and has now done the same for Lon Chaney, Jr. Bobbie spoke to him regarding that documentary, which will be on the upcoming Universal Legacy Series THE WOLF-MAN Special Edition DVD, and is sharing that conversation with The Unimonster’s Crypt.]

Bobbie Culbertson: Will this documentary be about just THE WOLF-MAN movie or will it be about Lon Chaney, Jr's entire life?

Constantine Nasr: Umm. Well. We made two new documentaries for the release. The first and really the foremost documentary was a biography of Chaney, Jr. And that's something I have been wanting to do for quite some time and it's always good to know that the studio would actually back that. Um, as they had done with some documentaries I had done on Karloff and Lugosi. And, prior to that, Jack Pierce.

BC: Yes. I've seen all three of those.

CN: Oh. Good, well I hope you liked them. I actually think Chaney might be the best of all to be honest with you. Um, just because I think, well, although Jack Pierce was very special because no one had really tackled that subject. But I think that people know Chaney, Jr and they just have never given him the break even in the one or two documentaries there have been about his life. So I kind of wanted to rectify that if that was possible. And, try to, you know, in other people's words—because it's the people that are talking—help prove that Chaney was a better actor than he really got credit for.

BC: I totally agree with you. I mean, he was in an Oscar-nominated movie, OF MICE AND MEN. And I think in a lot of ways he reprised his role through everything he did after that. You know, that vulnerable kind of...

CN: He... he, yah. He definitely had a type of performance and a persona that I think even if he was... You know, I mean sometimes when he was playing Dracula, Lenny didn't... didn't come through. But then again, when he played Dracula he had a different slant on that character too that I think is... is something that's noted in the documentary. Something that's...empowering. Physically empowering. And I think that's one thing that you definitely get whenever you see Chaney. Is a physically empowering...you know, gentleman. (laughter)

BC: Yes. That's true.

CN: So, I mean. I would have loved to have met him. I didn't meet him, but, I'm sure he would have been. You know. They talk about the big bear hugs that Lon used to give. and I think he probably meant that with ... Those bear hugs were representative of the big gentle giant within, let's say.

BC: About his relationship with Jack Pierce. I've read articles that indicate he and Jack pierce had a rather acrimonious relationship on the set of THE WOLF-MAN and Lon Jr accused Jack Pierce of purposefully burning him with a curling iron several times. And I was wondering of there was any truth. Did you find out if there's any truth behind that?

CN: Well, it's very hard to find out what is truth and what is sort of legendary hearsay that sort of becomes... becomes true. And that's hard enough when you read biographies written by people who never met him. Who were never there. You know. In my documentary only a few people that I met. Actually, I did interview some people that worked with Jack...worked with Lon Chaney, including director Jack Hill, actor Sid Haig, Bob Burns, and Janet Anne Gallow who was a little girl in Ghost of Frankenstein. She was like six or seven when she worked with him, but she had memories.

With regard to what you're saying, I guess when it comes down to it. That...it. It's most likely a fact that sitting in that chair for hour after hour with people playing with your face really got on Lon's nerves. And it was probably especially later on. I mean, after he was hoping that after THE WOLF-MAN he would probably have some bigger success. But all they kept bringing him back was for mummy movies and things, so... my feeling is that there is truth and that he gave Jack a hard time and Jack, who was the master of his domain, you know possibly singed Lon (laughter) to prove... you know, look. You just sit in that chair and do what you're being told to do. I mean, these were two guys who were probably appreciated each other's work when the day was done. And probably when they both would go and have a drink together? If that was ever possible? But during the tension of 8 hours in the make up chair putting on the hair... you know, you can't blame Chaney for probably getting mad at Jack for his meticulous attitude and nature.

BC: And the man was definitely meticulous. There's never been anyone else like him.

CN: Yah. And I think that, you know, that's part of Jack's downfall, but that's part of his genius. And so, I'm sure that Lon would have loved to just put on a mask like he did for The Mummy. (laughter) But instead, you know, even in HOUSE OF DRACULA. Fourth time in a row. He was like, do I have to do this again? You know, I'm sure that was Chaney's attitude. BUT. He loved his character and you know, at the end of the day I really don't think he gave a bad performance as THE WOLF-MAN. So...

BC: Oh no. It's his one stand out performance other than OF MICE AND MEN. That's what he's remembered for is THE WOLF-MAN.

CN: Yah. Yah. Yah. Even, even, even when he came back, you know, to do FACE OF THE SCREAMING WEREWOLF in Mexico. I think even then there was like some attempt to bring Lon Chaney's pedigree to the table. But that movie is very sketchy. (laughter) I don't know if you've seen that one.

BC: Yes. I have actually.

CN: So, anyway.

BC: Do you think that Lon Chaney, like Bela Lugosi, was both blessed and cursed with his role? Bela in Dracula and Chaney in THE WOLF-MAN?

CN: Well, that's a good question. I think that both actors were stars for a reason. They had a persona. And that... you know, I think Lugosi's struggles were almost... I don't want to say rather unfair. Both of them had issues. Both of them had. I think Lugosi had a... let's put it this way. Both had greater talents than people appreciate them for now, outside of their cult fan base. And, I mean, that's I think evident if you really explore the work of Lugosi and if you really explore the work of Chaney. And in the documentary we tried to show. We showed a clip of this TV film called the GOLDEN JUNK MAN, in which Chaney Jr gives a really stand out performance. and makes you wish that he had given... that he had opportunities that gave him more character roles like this. Both men grew into, they grew in older age, reliable character actors. But they really wanted to be stars. I think definitely Lugosi, more so that Chaney. But, I think that's kind of what happens when you define something. When you become so associated with a character. It is somewhat a blessing or a curse. And, somehow, Karloff escaped it, but Chaney, Jr didn't. But frankly, I mean, you could say Karloff was much more versatile. Even more versatile than Lugosi. You can say that. I don't necessarily agree with these things.

BC: No, no. I think, by and large, Lon had a... a broader talent base because he did a lot of other memorable roles. He was in ALLIGATOR PEOPLE, admittedly a very cheesy movie. And speaking of Jack Hill, SPIDER BABY.

CN: Oh, SPIDER BABY is fantastic. In fact, we do show some of Lon's best work in SPIDER BABY in the documentary. So, whenever I do these things, and it's very, very hard because fans want to see everything. They often don't understand the, uh, not simply the creative but the budgetary and production time limitations, the legal limitations that we're given. You know, what films are in public domain may not be in public domain to other companies. You know, every studio respects the ownership rights of other studios. So things don't, might be in public domain, you know, to Universal, they are not going to like go out there and steal some other films. We have to do all of this very carefully. So, fortunately, in the documentary we were able to license some clips from OF MICE AND MEN and from SPIDER BABY and show some other images and clips from other of Lon's work. Some good, some not so good. But, the great thing when you're doing, when you're doing a project like this for Universal, is that you have practically free access to their library. So, and most of Lon's, the work that everyone loves Lon for, for the most part, is his work in the 1940s. And so we really tried to show some moments from the INNER SANCTUM movies or even tiny little clips from NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE. Stuff like that. But, um, I'm sorry. Your question was regarding... Oh. SPIDER BABY.

I just want to go back to the issue with Chaney as an actor who was typecast. You know, it's easy to blame... There's a lot of easy outs with Chaney's life that you could say, well, it was his father or it was his alcohol, or it was his family. All these things, but I think, at this point, it would probably be best to focus on the things we do have. And see what he did offer to the world. And that's like the movies he did leave us. And it's very clear when you watch these films that there's an appeal in these movies when he's on screen. That, even when he's in, even when he's the Mummy, I mean, I know that's not his best role, but, there are things that he's doing that at least allow you to see that he's trying to make the performance better. A lot of people knock his performance of the Frankenstein Monster on Tales of Tomorrow for whatever reason.
Whether he was imbued at the time or he thought it was a rehearsal. But the truth is, in my opinion, if you watch that, he's performing the monster role as a newly birthed child, which is exactly what, you know, that's what the script calls for. So if he thought it was a rehearsal. But I think if you just watch it, you know, it's not an Oscar winning performance, but it's certainly something that is different and something that... I mean, different in a way where you see he didn't want to do Karloff. He wanted to do something that was his own. He tried doing Karloff's, you know acting in GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, and I think he did an admirable job. You know, who else could have done that? I think that was an important role, GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN. But I think, you know, Chaney wanted to do something different. And I think if people viewed it that way and appreciated what is his role supposed to be and what is the role he delivered. I don't think that was a bad performance.

Anyway, I kind of went off on that, but I do believe that Chaney... It's easy to knock performances like that because "Oh, he was drunk" or "He wasn't reading the script. Someone had to tell him his lines.” Come on. We know now that there are actors that don't even memorize their lines. And they don't get knocked for that. But Chaney was a professional. He showed up every day. That's the truth. I mean, that was actually said in the documentary by his producer friend A. C. Lyles that Lon was a complete professional. He always showed up on time. That's what Jack Hill said and these were people who worked with Lon Chaney. You can read books about people written by people who have absolutely no idea about what the guy was like on the set back in the 1950s. Or you can talk to people that actually produced movies with him and said "Yah. I made 10 films with Lon. He was there every day, on time, gave great performances, and was there to support the team.” So, anyway, that's kind of my, my gist of Lon's, you know. How do you feel sorry for him? I just think we should appreciate what we have.

BC: Definitely. I agree entirely. There was one other thing that I wanted to ask you. He's quoted as saying, "I am most proud of the name Lon Chaney. I am not proud of Lon Chaney, Jr because they had to starve me to make me take this name.” There are two theories behind that. That Lon... that Creighton took Lon Chaney, Jr in order to get more roles because he'd been playing stagehands and everything else up to then. Or, that he was kind of frozen out of the system until he agreed to change his name. Um, so, it once again depends on who you read.

CN: Yah, um, so are you asking me what is my opinion? Why did he take the name?

BC: Yes. Your opinion of why he took the name.

CN: Um, well, again, I wish I could have asked Lon that myself. And I think I'm going to defer to what Lon himself said. Because I guess the facts are all pretty much there. Yes, he was doing bit parts and yes, he really wasn't making it a success. But the thing is that, when he chose to be an actor, he didn't take the name of Lon Chaney, Jr. at all - when he could have. Because when he became an actor (after) his dad was dead. It's not like he was going to offend his dad or if he really cared that much. But he tried to stick it out as Creighton Chaney and the other fact is that by the time, you know, let's say that the horror film boom was being resurrected with SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. That was not something that Karloff wanted to be a part of. And that was not something that I think Hollywood wanted Lugosi to be a part of. I mean, that's the irony of this. That, that it was like forced upon him. Because, you know, when you look at it, you know, Lugosi became the star because Chaney died. And then Karloff became the star because Lugosi didn't want, you know, everyone became a star because.

And then when Karloff didn't want this and they didn't want Lugosi. Oh, well, we need some movie star. And, I mean, they tried him out. He wouldn't have been a star if he didn't work in MAN-MADE MONSTER. And they wouldn't have given him the break if he wasn't so good in OF MICE AND MEN. So, I just think that it became something that Hollywood pretty much thrust on him. I'll have to defer to Lon Jr because, like, based on the facts, it's like he could have done this for ten years, the whole decade of the '30s. And he didn't do it. And, you know, whatever his name was, I mean, he still was the one performing and turning in something as good as OF MICE AND MEN. That was all Lon...Creighton...Chaney's work.

BC: Well, I have to admit, even in his later years when, when he had been relegated to B movie status and was being used mostly for his name he still put in the performance. You could still feel the magic when he was on screen.

CN: Oh yah. And, I think that's what is... that's what fantastic about all of these stars. I mean... like, when you see Peter Lorre when, in later years. Or, uh, I mean, Lugosi. I can still sit there and appreciate something like BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA. The worst, you know, the worst movie that Peter Cushing is in, but when you've got a good actor in there, that knows how to at least make at their performances worthwhile. I'm not saying it's going to raise the whole film up, but, you know, DRACULA vs. FRANKENSTEIN really can't be elevated because of Chaney's performances. But for the most part, I mean, he does make you want to keep watching what's on screen. I mean, I...I think to some degree you have to be a fan of his to begin with to watch some of these later films. But when he's in THE DEFIANT ONES or when he's in HIGH NOON or, you know, even like THE ALLIGATOR PEOPLE, fine films. You know, not the greatest, but, you know, for what it is.

BC: His performance in it was amazing. It's the best part of the movie.

CN: Oh yah. When he comes on screen even though he's not the lead star, you know, you sit up. Because he was a star. You know. So there's a quality about him that certainly... We remember him for a reason. His, performances in any of these films were at least worthy of taking a look at. Even the worst of them. And when it was, you know, some of the best performances - they're worth talking about.

BC: When Lon Chaney attacks Beverly Garland in THE ALLIGATOR PEOPLE, I mean, it really felt very real. It felt like he was flinging her around the room and I thought that was an outstanding scene. And in DRACULA vs. FRANKENSTEIN, his last movie, I almost cried to see him in that performance. I mean, he... he was still... he still was projecting star quality, but it was just a sad thing to see. He...

CN: Yah. I think that... at least in the documentary that we made, we tried to... Let me rewind here. When we did the DRACULA or the Karloff and Lugosi documentaries, we didn't, unfortunately, have the budget to be able to include things we wanted to show. We talked about TARGETS as far as Karloff's career. And Karloff had an unbelievable career. That thing is worth studying over and over again. But, um, you know, it is too bad that Lugosi didn't have something like TARGETS, but Chaney did and that's SPIDER BABY. I mean, we kind of end on SPIDER BABY. We mention to some degree the other roles that Chaney did, but it was, it was a sad end those last few years. But SPIDER BABY is a great one to end on. And what I think we all learn is that he, could do, you know, comedy, if you [sic] just had better opportunities. And it, is too bad that he didn't have...uh.. I mean, his health took him out early and he had his own battles throughout his life. But, there are still plenty enough gems that, you know, you look at James Dean and he had, what, a handful of films?

BC: (Chuckle) Yes.

CN: And, then there are other actors that, as one of our commentators, Kim Noonan, says, they're people at the time who were major stars that nobody cares about now. Or, you know, there are even smaller cults. I mean, like, how many people were talking about Broderick Crawford, you know? And,, without Broderick Crawford we wouldn't have had OF MICE AND MEN—at least the situation that put Chaney where he was. And, you know, I don't know how many hundreds of people are talking about who Broderick Crawford is compared to the thousands of Chaney fans across the globe. Or tens of thousand or even a hundred thousand Chaney fans. You know.

BC: I read that when they were both doing the stage play OF MICE AND MEN that they would quite often get drunk and beat each other up.(Laughter) So...

CN: Yah. There's a picture we found of, I can't remember what... actually... my book is not here... what movie set it is from. They did something in the mid-'40s and they, uh, there's a picture of the two of them brawling. I guess as a publicity still.

BC: That would have been something worth seeing as they were both very large, powerful men.

CN: Oh yah.

BC: Well, I thank you for your time today. And...

CN: Sure.

BC: ...I'm looking forward to THE WOLF-MAN. And I feel somewhat reassured that you will treat him as kindly as you did in the Lugosi documentary.

CN: Well, thank you. I... I think...It could have been very easy, like I said, to have gone into other areas. And my intention was not to do that because to be, to be honest with you, it had already been done. People already know those things. Or they think they know the things. We tried to just... you know, we didn't brush over them. Okay? I mean, that... they, they are discussed, but almost in a way in which it may help you understand the performances he was giving. And I didn't want to say that in this interview. And I want the documentary to kind of speak itself. Or speak to, to that. And the thing is, you know, Chaney is just very, very complicated. As a lot of these actors are. I don't know if you've read... One of my friends is a writer, Greg Mank. I'm sure you know his work. Have you read his work?

BC: I believe so. Yes.

CN: He just did an excellent revised edition of Karloff and Lugosi. This gigantic, 1000-page tome of their life. And you kind of come away, really walking away from that book, now I'm promoting his book, where you get almost a really humanized portrait of both men. More on Lugosi. Karloff you're wondering, wow. This guy, he truly lived for acting. That was his...almost his curse. You know? But what I discovered with Jr was that I think he really... he's... as complicated as his relationship was with his father, he really wanted to see the Chaney name continue. I think he... once he became Lon Chaney, Jr, as opposed to Creighton, I think he bore the responsibility. You know, he like, put that on his shoulders himself. And, I mean, he didn't ask for these roles. I've not read anywhere where it's like Lon Chaney fought for the role of Dracula and kicked out Lugosi. (Laughter) It was none of that. You know, he just, he was saddled with this and then tried to do his very best.

BC: Well, I know in '41 he was promised the role in THE INVISIBLE MAN and it went to Claude Rains. And then the very next year he does THE WOLF-MAN with Claude Rains and I don't remember reading about any acrimonious relationship developing there so I think he must have been very forgiving.

CN: Oh, wait. Um, I'm sorry. You've got me confused. THE INVISIBLE MAN. Claude Rains. That was '33. So you mean THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS?

BC: Yes.

CN: Oh. OK. No. I mean, I don't think. No. The only people who seem to have not gotten along with Chaney, Jr was, you know, he'd complain about Evelyn Ankers being too heavy. I mean that it was a joking nature rather than, really animosity. Uh, I mean, I think he joked and teased Lugosi for being older than him. But the truth is, I mean, he seemed like a very, very good, warm person. Very complicated. Probably needed a lot of love that he probably didn't get all the time. Whether it was from his co-workers or studios. I'm sure from his wife. But he also, you know, I think he... it's that troubled childhood. I don't think you can escape that. You know, I think that he cared about his dad quite a bit. But I think it was very, very complicated. And it's very easy to just sort of accuse it. It's just too complicated to really understand. And the one thing I would love to see is this Chaney book—A Century of Chaneys—, which Jr was trying to finish back in the '70s. He died in the middle of writing it. And, for 40 year now, it has been talked about like they're going to put it and publish it and finish it and it's never been done. And, um...

BC: I think his grandson, Ron Chaney, is working on it. That's the last I heard.

CN: Yah. I hope it happens because it's been going on for 20 years that it's going to be finished. And the truth is, if the next generation doesn't understand or know who Chaney is, we can lose the importance of these people very quickly. You know? I mean, that's, that's the sad thing about. Each generation passes and they're going to take their love of their stars with them.

BC: I don't think that's possible with Lon Chaney, Jr. Not after he did THE WOLF-MAN. He will always live on. If in nothing else, then as THE WOLF-MAN. And the re-release next month... I know I and my friends are very excited about this.

CN: I agree with you. But, it... um, it's fantastic that you're willing to publicize this and help support the release, believe me. That's the fantastic thing. I want more people to do that. I've struggled very long and hard, as you do, to keep the memory of these classic films alive. And all I can say is that when young people today, who are five or six years old, that grow up watching television have no idea who Bugs Bunny is... How are they going to know (laughter) I mean, I'm just saying, you know, it's not in the consciousness as it was. You know, I grew up with... I grew up with Starlog and Fangoria. My very last issue.. The only, the only issue I ever bought on the newsstand of Famous Monsters was the last issue. But all that said, I was very fortunate to at least know Forry Ackerman and actually be part of that whole... You know, I mean, that's why I'm getting people like John Landis and Joe Dante and these filmmakers that love these movies to come forward and say it. But the point is, at the end of the day, I don't think you'll ever replace Lon Chaney Jr's WOLF-MAN with any other werewolf character, bar none. As much as there are werewolf films, and there's going to be this new remake, which I think looks fantastic. But it's going to be Lon Chaney Jr when it comes to werewolf movies.

BC: Yes.

CN: You gotta share that with the next generation. You've gotta keep it in the public consciousness. And that is extremely hard today when it's an old movie and black and white, and... believe me. I love silent films and it's hard to keep Chaplin important. You know?

BC: This is true. I mean, it's rather sad that if you mention something that you know for a fact is a re-release that's coming out or a redo and the younger generation will go "Oh, that's so unique and refreshing.” And you actually have to point out that that was done 30 years ago. It's a redo. (laughter). So, it is kind of sad. but...

CN: No, I know. I know. But that's why, you know, it's like THE LORD OF THE RINGS. If people love it. Or even the original FRANKENSTEIN, that book's public domain had been out of the... no one is making real profit on that book right now. No individual, so it's not like there's a reason to, you know, for any major publisher to be putting out Frankenstein. But if you don't keep putting it out, it becomes a relic. It's like "Oh, that thing. Oh yah, Frankenstein.". But, it's like THE WOLF-MAN. If you don't keep putting it out, or these classic movies, or Charlie Chaplin, whatever it might be. Then the fans keep complaining about the reissue. "Why are they re-releasing it? I've bought it four times now.” But if you don't keep putting it out there, then the person who has never seen THE WOLF-MAN will never see it. I hate to say it, but these disks that are coming out, they have a certain amount of shelf life. They only print so many. So, even though you've had, say, three versions of THE WOLF-MAN, that first version that came out in 1999, that's out of print. So if you don't keep putting it out there it's not going to be there anymore. And that's what I think sometimes the fans are missing. And I understand the complaint, but if you really want to help keep THE WOLF-MAN alive... I've just said, I just posted on the classic horror film board a couple of weeks ago, buy this copy and give it to someone for their birthday. Or tell somebody about it. Or just be happy that, hey, THE WOLF-MAN is coming out again. I won't buy it, but hey. Tell someone else about it.

BC: Oh, trust me. We do. (laughter)

CN: I know. I know. So, I'm not trying to be a salesman for this particular release. I'm trying to let people know that if they don't support these things... classic movies, I mean, they're shutting the doors on these catalog films like you wouldn't believe. And I've produced a lot of them. And it's bad. I used to do, I used to do like 20 audio commentaries a year. I haven't done anything in a year.

BC: You have a very impressive filmography on IMDb though.

CN: Oh. Thank you. There's, a lot of other things that I just haven't done that I... I was telling someone that I did the commentary for WAGON MASTER, which just came out, and we had the great fortune of having Harry Carey, Jr and Peter Bogdanovich come and we did the commentary and we got some of John Ford's original audio into this, hearing John Ford talk about WAGON MASTER. No one will ever know I did that except for, like, I'm telling you now.

BC: Except me. (laughter)

CN: Yah, yah. (laughter) Except the people who know I did it. One day I'll put that on IMDB. But, I haven't done any... That was like a year and a half ago. And WAGON MASTER sat on the shelf for about a year. It finally came out. And there are so many great films that have yet to be released. By major stars and major studios. And you know, maybe this article will... Who knows. If you type "Hey, Universal. Put out ISLAND OF LOST SOULS next in your Legacy series.” Believe me.

BC: Oh, I would agree. ISLAND OF LOST SOULS is a marvelous movie!

CN: I've been trying for... seven years now? ... to promote getting out a Paramount horror collection. Or thriller. Or... you start naming anything that's not already been out there. It's very, very hard. And sometimes I've been able to get things out there just because the studio doesn't know and I inform them that, this is just my opinion, hey, you've got a movie like The Undying Monster or let's do a John Brahm collection for Fox. And, you know what, they listen. And we, did a box set on John Brahm movies. I'm like, how did that happen? You know?

BC: Well, please, from all the fans of these movies everywhere, I'm speaking for all of them, please keep talking to these people. Because we need to have these movies released.

CN: Oh, I will do my very best. And, what you're doing is excellent because the more people will, not only go to your Web site, but if the studio even takes a look at what you've written, like "Oh. You know what. Maybe there's a reason to put out ISLAND OF LOST SOULS now." or "Let's do a 75th edition of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN."

BC: Oh please!

CN: Well, that's what I want. Honestly. I want THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and I want to do a James Whale a documentary, so, you know, there's a lot to be done. And we'll see how it goes.

BC: THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is, I think, superior to even to the movie FRANKENSTEIN. I mean, it's a perfect movie.

CN: Yah. You know it! . Let's just hope. You know. And uh, if there's anything else that I can ever do. Or if you want to talk about other horror films. Or you have friends that... I'll do... It's not like I really want to do interviews just to do them but if I can, if I can help get a public voice out there to... You know, if there's a reason for someone to write an article about a classic monster movie that needs to come out, then I, believe me, the studios will listen.

If there's enough of a hubbub that goes on for a film that you really want, and there's some press about it, or there's, I don't know, some talk about Island of Lost Souls, then they might listen. But what the fans will need to do is go and support WOLF-MAN because if WOLF-MAN doesn't get support, they're not going to do this again. I haven't seen a Legacy series release... this is the last one that I know of for quite some time. So if the fans come out and support it, then, you know, there might be. So maybe in your article you could say, "Hey. ISLAND OF LOST SOULS could be next.” Or whatever you want. (laughter)

BC: Or THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

CN: Or yah. THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. It is the 75th anniversary and, um, you know. But, all that said, I was very grateful to Universal. There's also another little documentary on Curt Siodmak and his werewolf-WOLF-MAN mythology on the DVD, So I hope you take the time to look at that as well.

BC: Thank you. I will.

CN: And, that was my little giving some love to Curt. And uh, yah, when you see it, please let me know. I'll give you my email address. I would be happy to do that if you would like. I would just love to know what you think of the doc. Even if you like it, hate it. I wish you had shown this clip. Uh. that's fine with me. I'll take notes for the sequel.

BC: Thanks!

CN: And I'm a producer, senior producer and filmmaker over at New Wave Entertainment. We're out of Burbank. And you've obviously seen my other horror movie stuff.

BC: And I thought they were wonderful too.

CN: Thank you. Thank you very much. I do it for fans like you. I do try to keep you all in mind. Even though I don't know you, I'm one of you so...

BC: Well, trust me. I'm one of the least rabid of all the fans I know. So when the word gets out you will get supported.

CN: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. And if there's anything I can do for you in the future, please do not hesitate to call or email me. OK?

BC: Thank you very much.

[Author’s Note: I want to urge readers of the Unimonster’s Crypt to please encourage family, friends and fellow-fans to write to: Evan Fong c/o Universal Studios at 100 Universal City Plaza, Universal Studios, CA. 91608 and request a Legacy Series re-release of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and ISLAND OF LOST SOULS. Thank you!]

The Universal Monsters: How Universal Studios Created the Horror Film

[Ed. Note: This is it—the first article I wrote for Sean Kotz at Creaturescape.com, and the first article I wrote as the Unimonster. It’s rough; though it’s not been a drastic improvement, my writing has gotten somewhat better in the nearly six years since I wrote it. I hope you overlook the flaws and enjoy the look back into the Unimonster’s past.]

How Universal Studios created the Horror film.

A pretty bold thesis, considering there were no shortage of such films from other studios in the years following the end of the First World War. THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (released in 1920), NOSFERATU (1922), and METROPOLIS (1927) are all considered seminal works in the genre, and rightly so. As early as 1910, Thomas Edison’s motion picture studio produced a version of Mary Shelley’s classic novel, FRANKENSTEIN. By 1918, no fewer than 3 movies featuring mummies had been made, and between 1908 and 1920, at least ten versions of Robert Louis Stevenson’s DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE were produced, including the superior Barrymore version of 1920. So how, you may be asking in righteous indignation, can I claim that Universal Studios created the horror film?

Simple… Universal took a nascent genre, one that, while having drawn its first breath was still in its infancy, and in the space of fifteen to twenty short years, transformed it into a staple of the movie-goer’s diet. Carl Laemmle’s Universal created horror films the same way that Ray Kroc’s McDonald’s created fast food: with the franchise.

Universal’s rise to horror prominence didn’t occur overnight, and it certainly wasn’t accomplished without resistance. In the early 1920’s, Universal was considered a minor player in Hollywood, nowhere near an equal to studios such as M-G-M or Warner Brothers. The studio made low budget films, primarily westerns, with poorly paid contract actors and actresses.

Then, following the success of 1923’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, Laemmle was persuaded to finance the studio’s first big budget film: Rupert Julian’s THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925). Starring arguably the best actor of his time, Lon Chaney, this adaptation of the classic Gaston Leroux novel opened to huge critical and financial success, and went a long way towards convincing Hollywood that horror just might have a place in motion pictures. Many hold that, had the Academy Awards existed in 1925, Chaney would have walked away with the Best Actor award, and the film would have undoubtedly been Best Picture.

That success was due in part to fantastic marketing on the part of Universal, whose executives knew the value of publicity, especially the free kind. No photographs were allowed of Chaney in make-up, except for some production stills that were circulated with the Phantom’s face redacted out (very similar marketing methods were used six years later, during the production of FRANKENSTEIN).

The popularity enjoyed by THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA inspired Universal to look for other horror properties that would be suitable for filming, and their attention turned, quite naturally, to the two most popular genre novels of their time, Mary Shelley’s FRANKENSTEIN, and Bram Stoker’s DRACULA.

While F. W. Murnau’s 1922 masterpiece, NOSFERATU, had been based (without permission) directly on Stoker’s novel, Universal, now under the control of Carl Laemmle, Jr., who had received the studio for his twenty-first birthday, wanted to produce the version made famous as a stage play; this version featured a more romantic, less ghoulish interpretation of the infamous count. With Tod Browning slated to direct, it was widely assumed (indeed, ‘Papa’ Laemmle practically demanded,) that the star of the film would be Lon Chaney, who had worked with the director in several films.

However, Chaney’s death in 1930 meant that someone else would get the job. After an extensive search for a replacement, it was decided to give a screen test to the Hungarian actor who had had great success with the Broadway release of the play. Though he was no one’s first choice for the role, his willingness to take the part at a quarter of the salary he could’ve gotten clinched the deal. It would become the role of a lifetime for a forty-nine year old, unknown actor named Bela Lugosi.

DRACULA, released in February of 1931, catapulted Lugosi to stardom, and helped give Universal Studios it’s only profitable year during the Depression, though Laemmle, Sr.’s financial bad habits continued to insure that Universal would not be in fiscally sound health. Though the critics weren’t quite as kind to it as they had been to THE PHANTOM, the public loved it, and flocked to the theaters to see the supernatural mystery and sensual, subtle eroticism of the vampire. Lugosi so captivated the imaginations fans that from that moment on, vampires have been set in a mold for which he is the model. Until recently, it was rare to see any portrayal of a vampire that differed significantly from what I would call the ‘High Society’ version that Lugosi, for all intents, patented.

DRACULA set Universal apart as a producer of the horror film, and made the studio a major force in Hollywood. But the year was still young, and, in November, the film would be released that would forever cement the studio’s place in the history of the genre.

James Whale’s FRANKENSTEIN has been hailed as perhaps the greatest horror film ever; certainly the best of the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Though Whale’s direction is impeccable and the story is excellent, it is the performance of a forty-four year old English-born Canadian named Boris Karloff that elevates this film to such lofty heights, and establishes Universal as the premier player in the genre. A long-time veteran of silent films, Karloff was able, even from under Jack Pierce’s heavy make-up, to convey more emotion and pathos with a glance and a growl than most actors can with a ten-minute soliloquy.

Once again, Universal’s marketing department went into high gear promoting the film, with rumors circulated about that Karloff’s appearance was so frightening that sensitive cast and crew members fainted at the sight of him, and that Mae Clark, who played Henry Frankenstein’s bride Elizabeth, refused to work with him. The secrecy associated with THE PHANTOM returned for this film; as Karloff wasn’t listed in the credits, the actor who portrayed the Monster simply being identified as “?”.

Having enjoyed a phenomenal 1931, the studio needed little encouragement to return to the horror well. John Balderson, a reporter who had been present at the opening of King Tut’s tomb (and who had written the play on which DRACULA had been based), supplied a story involving the discovery of a cursed tomb, an undead mummy, and his eternal love for an Egyptian princess. 1932’s THE MUMMY, directed by Karl Freund, was another showcase for Karloff's talents, and while the story was little more than a rehashing of the plot from DRACULA, (indeed, in what would become one of the studio’s trademarks, many of the cast of DRACULA appeared in THE MUMMY) Karloff’s performance as Ardath Bey carried the film, and made it more than successful, if less than original.

This was followed by films such as THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933), THE BLACK CAT (released in 1934, it was the first of six on-screen pairings of Karloff and Lugosi), THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) and DRACULA’S DAUGHTER, (1936). But it was James Whale’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, released in 1935, that truly gave birth to the horror franchise. Considered by some to be even better than FRANKENSTEIN, this film gave the Monster a voice as well as a (reluctant) bride. But public opinion, as expressed by politicians and newspapers, was turning against horror films. Images and themes that to modern viewers seem mild and inoffensive shocked and outraged many critics in the 1930’s. Following outcries by media and religious groups over 1935’s THE RAVEN, starring Karloff and Lugosi, among other films, the first half of Horror’s Golden Age came to an end.

By the late 1930’s, Universal, no longer the property of the Laemmles, had fallen on hard times; and, in what would become a pattern that continues to this day, fell back on the monsters to regain financial health and well-being. Though they had decried horror films, claiming they wouldn’t make another one, the continuing popularity of DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN convinced the new ownership that new horror films could be financially viable, and a continuation of the Frankenstein saga was quickly produced. SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) was Karloff’s last appearance as the Monster, and featured Basil Rathbone as the son of his late creator, as well as Bela Lugosi as Ygor, his second-most famous role.

Universal then saw the wisdom of further Monster pictures, and quickly developed the horror film into a commodity that could be mass-produced, much like Henry Ford’s Model T. And just as the Model T made automobiles affordable for the common man, Universal’s Horror Factory insured that the public received a steady diet of the monsters they had grown to love. From 1939 to 1945, more than a dozen films were released featuring Universal’s growing stable of monsters. Many good: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942); THE MUMMY’S TOMB (1942); SON OF DRACULA (1943); HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944). Some not so good: THE INVISIBLE MAN’S REVENGE (1944); THE MUMMY’S GHOST (1944); HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945). A few just plain bad: INVISIBLE WOMAN (1940); THE MUMMY’S CURSE (1944).
And one unforgettable classic: THE WOLF-MAN (1941).

One of Universal’s most popular movies, THE WOLF-MAN came on the scene just as the second half of Horror’s Golden Age was beginning to take off. The war in Europe, increasing economic prosperity, and changing tastes were going to put the monsters out of business, according to the critics. Instead, they were entering the period of their greatest popularity, due primarily to Universal’s first truly sympathetic monster. Audiences loved Lon Chaney, Jr. as Larry Talbot, cursed by the bite of a werewolf to an eternal, nightmarish existence, more beast than man. Directed by George Waggoner, it provided a fresh perspective on the monsters; one from the monster’s point of view. Within five years, Chaney, Jr. would become Universal’s biggest star, having portrayed every major monster in their stable.

And, reasoned the Universal executives, if one monster was a success, what would happen with two? A chance remark by Curt Siodmak, the screenwriter of THE WOLF-MAN, provided the spark, and thus was born FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF-MAN (1942). Now, there was a rivalry, and the two biggest stars of Universal’s line-up would do battle twice more before the end of World War II, in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944); and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945). By now, the Universal Horror film was a set formula, almost a patented recipe. It didn’t matter who directed what film, or who played which monster, or even that the script be good. If the formula was followed, then the fans would continue to come. Horror films had completed the transition from hand-crafted works of art for the few, to mass-produced, assembly-line manufactured goods for everyone. Sixty years later, things haven’t changed all that much, have they? Movie franchises such as FRIDAY THE 13TH, HALLOWEEN, and NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST. continue to demonstrate the truth of that.

Did Universal make the very first horror film? No, of course not. Henry Ford didn’t build the first car. McDonald’s didn’t make the first hamburger. But Universal did do what they did . . . moreover, they did it better than anyone, made it available to everyone, and transformed it from something rare and exotic, to something that we all could enjoy. And in so doing, they’ve inspired generations of fans who will never forget the simple joy of being scared.

Creighton’s Creature: THE WOLF-MAN and Lon Jr.

Following the departure of the Laemmles from Universal Studios in the mid-1930’s, Standard Capital, which was headed by J. Cheever Cowdin and was the studio’s new owners, made a conscious decision to avoid Horror films, hoping to become known for a more “upscale” product. They failed, as would a so-far unbroken line of their successors, to give the studio’s iconic Monsters the respect they were due, and fans of the Monsters credit for knowing what they wanted.

By 1939 however, the studio was dealing with both a lack of mainstream success and a hurting bottom line. The continued popularity of both DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN in Los Angeles-area theaters convinced the studio that maybe Horror Films weren’t such bad ideas after all, and before the year was out, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, starring Karloff, Lugosi, Rathbone, and Atwill marked the return of Horror to Universal. That, and the debut in 1940 of the studio’s other great cash cow, the comedy duo of Abbott & Costello, insured that the Monsters would find gainful employment for some time to come.

But they needed fresh material to work with, not just sequels to existing properties. They needed a new Monster. And a script by Curt Siodmak gave them a great one: Larry Talbot, aka—the Wolf-Man.

The first article to carry the Unimonster’s byline said this about Siodmak’s creation, “One of Universal’s most popular movies, THE WOLF-MAN came on the scene just as the second half of Horror’s Golden Age was beginning to take off. The war in Europe, increasing economic prosperity, and changing tastes were going to put the monsters out of business, according to the critics. Instead, they were entering the period of their greatest popularity, due primarily to Universal’s first truly sympathetic monster [Larry Talbot]. [C]ursed by the bite of a werewolf to an eternal, nightmarish existence, more beast than man … it provided a fresh perspective on the monsters; one from the monster’s point of view” [The Universal Monsters: How Universal Studios Created the Horror Film, 6 February, 2010]. The werewolf make-up would be designed and executed by Jack P. Pierce, Universal Studios master craftsman of Monster-Making, based upon designs he created for 1935’s THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON. And to play Talbot, the studio cast the son of the first icon of the Horror Film—Lon Chaney, Jr.

Born Creighton Chaney in 1906, the younger man was estranged from his father and raised by his mother, whom Lon had abandoned. Creighton had no intention of following in his father’s Horror footsteps; indeed, his breakthrough came in the role of Lenny in Lewis Milestone’s 1939 version of John Steinbeck’s OF MICE AND MEN, for which he won critical acclaim. However, pressure from studio executives meant an end to his dreams of a straight dramatic career, and to his public identity as separate from his father. He had occasionally been billed as “Lon Chaney, Jr.” since 1935, and in 1940, Creighton appeared in ONE MILLION, B.C. under that name. Creighton Chaney, at least as far as the movie-going public was concerned, ceased to exist.

Though in retrospect this outright manipulation of an actor’s career may seem callous and overbearing, in the context of the times it was accepted practice for studios to make decisions such as this. The Hollywood “Studio System” completely dominated the film industry—it was the closest thing this country’s ever had to a tyrannical despotism—and if you desired to work in Hollywood, then you paid obeisance to the system. The studio had a legitimate need, and no one felt any qualms about using Creighton to fill that need.

For along with Universal’s requirement for fresh material with which to work, they also needed a new star, a Horror icon to replace both Karloff and Lugosi, who had faded to supporting roles. Who better to fill the void than the son of the “Man of a Thousand Faces?”

Lon Jr.’s Horror debut came on 28 March 1941, in MAN-MADE MONSTER, a B-grade programmer, directed by George Waggner. Co-starring Lionel Atwill, Anne Nagel, and Samuel B. Hinds, the plot concerned a sideshow performer (Chaney, Jr.) with an unusual immunity to electrical shocks. He agrees to be studied by a pair of scientists: One benevolent, played by Hinds, and one evil, played to perfection by Atwill. Unbeknownst to everyone, Atwill begins treating “Dynamo” Dan with increasingly powerful electrical impulses, transforming him into a mindless automaton with a deadly touch. The movie was well-received, if a little ahead of it’s time. A mere decade-and-a-half later, it would have fit perfectly on a Drive-In Double-bill with THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN or MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS. In fact, it probably did, as it was reissued in 1953 under the title THE ATOMIC MONSTER.

Later that same year would come the film that would strengthen Lon Jr.’s status as a Horror star, and it, like MAN-MADE MONSTER, was to be directed by Waggner. THE WOLF-MAN, released five days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, would become one of Universal’s most beloved Monster movies, and one of it’s most successful.

Scripted by Siodmak, and starring Claude Rains, Ralph Bellamy, Bela Lugosi, Evelyn Ankers, and Maria Ouspenskaya, THE WOLF-MAN gave Universal its first truly original monster, and the star that would carry Universal’s Monster franchise through to it’s end. From 1941 to 1945, Lon Jr. appeared in all of Universal’s first-class Horror Films, and a large number of their second-class Horrors, such as the series of Inner Sanctum pictures that began in 1943. He would play every one of Universal’s “Fab Four” of Monsterdom—Frankenstein’s Monster, in GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN; Dracula, in SON OF DRACULA; the Mummy Kharis, beginning with THE MUMMY’S TOMB; and of course Larry Talbot, the Wolf-Man.

After the success of THE WOLF-MAN, Universal wanted a sequel, and a chance remark by Siodmak, intended as a joke, became 1943’s FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF-MAN. The studio had found the formula for Horror success in the ‘40’s—Multiple Monsters, formulaic plots, a beautiful girl or two to menace, some knock-down, drag-out Monster fighting, and a happy ending. A simple prescription, true—but it kept theaters packed.

Lon Jr. would play Talbot three more times: 1944’s HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, 1945’s HOUSE OF DRACULA, and the 1948 pairing of the Monsters with Universal’s other moneymaking property of the ‘40’s, Abbott & Costello, in ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. That film would mark the beginning of the end of the Classic Monsters of Universal, relegated to the status of comedic props. It would also mark the end of Lon Jr.’s association with the studio that had made him an icon, and which he, in turn, carried on his furry shoulders throughout the war years.

The end of the war meant the return of millions of GI’s to the Home Front, as well as revelation of the true suffering visited upon the tens of millions of victims of totalitarianism and fascism throughout Europe, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. True horrors, revealed and remembered, left little room in the minds of moviegoers for the Monsters of fantasy and fiction. Universal Studios, ten years removed from the days when Carl Laemmle, Sr. ran the show as a ‘family’ business, where the head of the make-up department could be hired on a handshake, fired Lon Jr. in 1948. Nor did they stop there. Jack Pierce, the same make-up artist who had created the image of every one of the studio’s iconic Monsters, from Dracula, to Frankenstein’s Monster, to the Mummy, to the Wolf-Man, the head of the make-up department who had been hired on the basis of a handshake, without a contract, was just as unceremoniously canned.

Recently however, the titular descendants of the men who so callously sacked Lon Jr., Jack, and others found a renewed attraction in the Monsters of Universal; an interest that had never waned among their devoted fans. Beginning with 1999’s THE MUMMY, directed by Stephen Sommers, Universal has resurrected most of the studio’s great Monsters of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s. So far, there’s been little interest in revisiting the Invisible Man, first realized by James Whale and Claude Rains in the 1933 classic. And plans for a remake of the studio’s greatest Horror Film of the 1950’s, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, have been up in the air for years now.

But this month will see the return of Larry Talbot to theaters nationwide, as Universal unveils THE WOLFMAN, directed by Joe Johnston and starring Benicio Del Toro as Talbot, Anthony Hopkins as his father, Sir John Talbot, and Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe. A big budget reimagining of the original story, the trailers promise a movie that looks beautifully filmed and exquisitely designed, with the requisite amount of dazzlingly spectacular special effects. It remains to be seen whether or not it has managed to capture the spirit, the essence of what made the original film one of Universal’s most loved Monster movies. One thing it has most certainly done is render invalid one of Lon Jr.’s proudest claims. As he once told an interviewer, he had played all the Monsters—from Dracula to the Mummy. But he—Creighton Tull Chaney—was the only actor to ever play the Wolf-Man. No longer is that true.

Lon Jr. would continue to play monsters, maniacs, and murderers for another 25 years, until his death in 1973. He would play many memorable characters in his later years, most notably Bruno the caretaker, from Jack Hill’s SPIDER BABY or, THE MADDEST STORY EVER TOLD. But he was destined to be forever defined by his greatest role—that of a Welshman cursed to become a snarling, murderous beast, driven to bloodlust by the brightness of an autumn moon.