A Reintroduction, and a Rededication

The Unimonster

Let me introduce myself.  My name is John Stevenson, but for the past decade or so I've written on the world of Horror, Sci-Fi, and Exploitation Film as your friendly neighborhood Unimonster.  Seven years ago, I started this site, the Unimonster’s Crypt, as a way to bring you, the reader, my thoughts on these genres that we love; a sort of op-ed on horror film.  Other sites exist to bring you the latest news, and believe me, they are much better at it than I could be.  One thing I can do that is unique is share my opinion on matters that touch upon genre film.  In the past, that has included such diverse topics as Universal’s often cavalier treatment of the Monsters, the joys of dollar-store DVDs, and the Halloween memories of a child of the ‘70s.

However, this page has been dormant for nearly two years now, for a number of reasons.  Too little time, and too many demands upon that time.  The demands of writing a book, which tends to monopolize what time I can spend at the keyboard.  The lack of an internet connection for much of that time.  However, the foremost reason I was absent from here was simpler than that, yet harder to overcome.  For some time, I felt that I had run out of things to say.

I’ll go into more detail on that in the first article below [Next Generation, Next Steps], but suffice it to say that that is no longer true.  I’m still working on the book, I still have too little time, but I do have things to say and to share with those who love genre film.  For those who were readers of this page before the hiatus, welcome back and thank you for trying us again.  There have been some changes, but hopefully we've managed to hold on to the things that make the Crypt unique and enjoyable.  Senior correspondent Bobbie is still here, though she may be scaling back her writing to just when her muse insists, and S. J. is back, and will be expanding her role to include more than her MST3K reviews.  There will also be more surprises coming in the months ahead, things that we hope will keep the Crypt fresh and new.

For those of you new to the Unimonster’s Crypt, welcome!  Please make yourself at home, and feel free to let us know how you like what we have to offer.  As you’ll soon discover, while we cover all aspects of horror and science-fiction here, we tend to gravitate towards the classic end of the spectrum … and by classic, we don’t mean something from 2002.  Classic here means pre-1990 at a minimum, and usually much older.  There’s a reason my nom du horreur is the Unimonster … it’s my way to recognize the great Universal monsters, the creatures and killers that first fired my love of Horror more than forty-five years ago.  You’ll see that they still figure prominently in my love of genre movies, and in my writings on the subject.  I hope that you will come to appreciate them as I do, if you don’t already.

And for everyone who visits us here in the Crypt, please enjoy … and Stay Scary!

Tribute to Dennis Hopper (1936-2010)

Tribute to Dennis Hopper (1936-2010)

Dennis Hopper was the epitome of the 1960's rebel with a cause. During a decade of an unpopular war in Vietnam and the hey-day of the hippies and the drug culture, he brought to life the angst of living outside the box. When moviegoers think of the bad boy of the 60's free-style thinking, his name easily pops to mind.

Dennis Lee Hopper was born in Dodge City, Kansas, and at the age of 13, moved with his family to San Diego, CA where he discovered an interest in acting while in high school. He studied at the Old Globe Theater in San Diego and the Actors Studio in New York City. While in New York, he struck up a friendship with actor Vincent Price whose passion for the art greatly influenced Hopper.

Hopper made his film debut in James Dean's film, REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955) and also appeared with Dean in the actor’s last movie, GIANT (1956). Hopper claims Dean was the finest actor he had ever worked with and Dean's 1955 death in an auto accident deeply moved Hopper. During shooting for FROM HELL TO TEXAS, he fought with veteran director Henry Hathaway with Hopper refusing shooting directions for the next several days, gaining the reputation of being a difficult actor with whom to work. Studios shied away from hiring him and he found himself playing mostly one-shot TV shows for the next several years.

Moved by Hopper's claim to be Margaret Sullivan's son-in-law, John Wayne helped Hopper get hired for the role of Dave Hastings in 1965 SONS OF KATIE ELDER. In a 1994 interview on the Charlie Rose Show, Hopper credits John Wayne with saving his career and acknowledges that his insolent behavior made it difficult for him to find work for several years. However, Hopper was mostly confined to westerns usually playing the villain.

Hopper's next big break came in 1967 when he was cast with Peter Fonda and Susan Strasberg as the LSD-pushing Max in THE TRIP (1967). Contrary to the roles Fonda and Hopper would play in EASY RIDER (1969), it's Fonda who plays the role up-tight while Hopper is calm and under self-control. This would be Hopper's introduction to American International Pictures (AIP) and director Roger Corman. The film was to be one of America's first peeks at the hippie counter-culture of body painting, black lights and premarital and extra-marital sex. The film was wildly profitable and, made on a budget of $450,000, has made $10 million (Jan. 1970) at the box office and $5 million on rentals to date. The phenomenal success of EASY RIDER caused studios to jump on the counter-culture bandwagon with movies about hippies, drugs, draft dodgers and motorcycle gangs.

COOL HAND LUKE (1967) was next on Hopper's agenda, playing egg-eating contest bet-taker Babalugats. However, it would be later that year that Hopper would make the movie that made him an American icon... EASY RIDER. Hopper again teamed up with Peter Fonda and with Terry Southern and Jack Nicholson. With EASY RIDER, Hopper won critical acclaim for his directorial debut. However, Hopper's behavior alienated co-stars Fonda and Nicholson and Hopper's increasing drug use, his refusal to leave the writer's desk and his divorce from Brooke Hayward caused delay after delay in the shooting schedule. Hopper began experimenting heavily with drugs and alcohol both on an off the set. The final Hopper-edited version of EASY RIDER ran nearly three hours. The film was nominated for two Academy Awards. (A bit of trivia—Rip Torn was originally chosen for Jack Nicholson's role of George Hanson. However, before shooting began, Hopper pulled a knife on Torn. Hopper later claimed Torn pulled the knife on him. Rip Torn later sued for defamation and won.)

His bad-boy reputation preceding him, Hopper found it more and more difficult to find work. Limping from one small role in mostly European films to the next, his drug and alcohol problems increased and began to affect the quality of his work. He also married and divorced four times during this period, including an eight-day marriage to Mamas and Papas singer, Michelle Phillips. After staging a 'suicide attempt' in a coffin with 17 sticks of dynamite, Hopper disappeared into the Mexican desert. However, after several extravagant drug and alcohol benders, his career in tatters, he checked into a rehab center in 1983.

The Eighties saw a resurgence of interest in Hopper who by then had exorcized his demons of alcohol and drug abuse. His talent once again able to shine, he returned to the thought-provoking roles and stellar performances for which he was once known. He turned in a memorable performance as the pot-smoking photographer in Coppola's APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) and was superb in RUMBLE FISH (1983).

Hopper returned to directing with the controversial gang film COLORS (1988). However, acting was his first love and he once again returned to the front of the camera in SUPER MARIO BROTHERS (1993), SPEED (1994) and WATERWORLD (1995). In the new century, Hopper also returned to the small screen with on-going roles in FLATLAND, 24, E-RING and, at the time of his death from prostate cancer at age 74, was starring in CRASH.

During his career, he was a life-long fixture in Hollywood and his resume included some of the best and well-remembered roles of the five decades. He is recognized as one of the true enfant terribles of Hollywood. He fought with, and overcame, his own personal demons both in private and in public. With his death drawing nearer, Hollywood honored him on May 26, 2010 with a Walk of Fame star. His old friends Peter Fonda and Jack Nicholson were at his side to honor him. Three days later, Dennis Hopper was dead. Rest in peace, Easy Rider. You earned it.

Bobbie

Mombie's Musings: For the Love of a Horror-Host

It has become painfully apparent to me that I am getting older. My children are growing and the world is changing… MY world is changing. As I go through this painful lack of control, I find myself more nostalgic every day. I also find myself losing patience with overused words or phrases as well. This impatience I completely blame on my retail career which spanned nearly two decades. Catchphrases such as “new and improved,” “rollout,” and “ramp-up” made my head cringe, and I would go out of my way to substitute ANY word or phrase just so I didn’t have to hear them again. Since leaving the retail world to concentrate on raising my boys, I have become more cognizant of what is going on socially and politically… and well… I don’t have to tell anyone that politicians can overuse a phrase more than Carter has little pills. Oh, did that lose some of you? Okay… let’s try another… politicians can overuse a phrase more than Nintendo has Pokémon characters. There is one phrase… one I wish they would FOREVER cease to use, and that is “Fearmonger,” because to me… there was only one Fearmonger, and he invaded our home on Saturday nights in the early 1970’s. It is to him I owe a deep gratitude for the love of classic horror movies that I still have today.

In 1971, the Louisville TV market boasted only three channels (not counting the PBS channels, which you could always get in). My boys always find this amusing that we only had THREE channels to choose from, and when there was “nothing” on… well… Today, we have hundreds of channels to choose from, and STILL there is NOTHING on. In February of that year, an upstart “Independent” channel came into town, WDRB-TV 41 (now Fox). You would have thought the heavens had opened up. Finally, WE had a clown show (Presto was his name), and we would get treated to a myriad of syndicated shows like Ultraman, The Patty Duke Show, and The Munsters. Then, a beautiful thing happened in March—Fright Night premiered at 7 p.m. on Saturday nights! This was especially great for someone my age at the time (I was 10 and my three younger siblings stair-stepped down in years from me). Fright Night typically ran a double-feature, so it would fill the time slot until 10 p.m. Now, Fright Night was the Shock Theater package of films primarily containing some of the Universal and MGM classic movies that had great movie runs, and some that had B- and perhaps C-movie status. You would be treated to THEM! one week and a couple of weeks later have to contend with Ed Wood’s BRIDE OF THE MONSTER. The variety was fantastic….and to top it all off, we had a dry-humored, low-budget Horror Host to match this set-up.

Charles Kissinger was the Fearmonger. Using just a light on his face, and cracking some very...very…worn out jokes, the Fearmonger would introduce the movie and occasionally pop in-between commercial breaks. It was so low budget that we could even recreate the Fearmonger at home. Frankly…when I saw THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT….there seemed to be a bit of Fearmonger-ish camera work there. The humor was SO much appreciated too…I mean, BACK THEN…THOSE MOVIES WERE SCARY!!! I’ll never forget the torture after one showing of THE LAST MAN ON EARTH, for YEARS my brothers saw fit to torture my sister and me by pounding on our bedroom door at night and yelling, “MORGAN! COME OUT! COME OUT!! MORGAN!!” I’m not sure how many years went by before I could actually watch that movie alone, but I have recovered from that psychological sibling beat down. In fact, LMOE is one of my favorite movies and I watch it now several times a year. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Vincent Price is in it either.

Fright Night ran until September 6, 1975, and it is sad that none of the tapes of the shows exist anymore. Oh maybe perhaps SOMEONE out there recorded something…and has it buried in their barn… All I know is I have no memory of the theme song. I have a faint recollection of the Fearmonger’s voice (seemingly a cross between Karloff and Barnabas Collins). I only have a deep-appreciated love for those old movies…and this love I have passed down to my boys as well. It is difficult to believe that nearly 40 years have gone by now, and I have seen several different horror host. Many of them are much splashier with bigger budgets… Many of them injecting their own “brand” of humor into their characters and all of them with the same goal in mind—DO NOT LET THESE CLASSIC MOVIES FADE AWAY.

For me, I will always remember Saturday nights as Fright Night, and Charles Kissinger’s portrayal as the Fearmonger saying, “Good evening, Fright Night fans…”

Shhhhh….I hear pounding on my door…
I’d like to thank the following website for its information and dedication to Charles Kissinger: The Fearmonger's Chambers

Sheila “Mombie” Fiene

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!]

Special Correspondence--Sexes in the Cinema: A Guy, a Gal, a Gill Man

When CreatureScape.com celebrated the 52nd anniversary of the CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in the spring of 2006, Elizabeth Haney and John “The Unimonster” Stevenson took a closer look at this landmark film, from their unique perspectives across the aisle. Here’s that conversation, reprinted with gratitude to Elizabeth.

UNI: When you call yourself “Unimonster,” it’s just expected that you have an abiding love of all things Universal, especially one of their greatest creations. CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON certainly qualifies as one of their best. One of Universal’s “Big Five”, it has long been one of the most popular of the Universal Franchises. To me, personally, “Creech” has always been the best of a great decade. Though many great horror and sci-fi films came out in the 1950’s, CFTBL was unique. It was a movie that never failed to entertain me as a child, and still entertains me now as a grizzled aging Monsterkid.

EH: Creature from the Black Lagoon ranks as one of my all-time favorite monster movies in part because it's one of my earliest monster movie memories from back in the days when I would sneak back out of bed to watch late-night horror movies on television. The Creature made a tremendous impression on me back then, and my affection for him keeps growing through the years; I feel like every time I watch the movie, I get to know him a little better. And to know a Gill Man is to love him.

One thing that really sets the Gill Man apart from some other monsters is how sympathetic a character he is; you really feel sorry for the guy as you watch what he goes through. This is classic Jack Arnold (the director); he was a master at creating circumstances so we see the events through the eyes of the “monster” and sympathize with that character.

UNI: Well, something that Universal did better than anyone else was to create characters that, while qualifying as “Monsters”, are nonetheless sympathetic, solid, three-dimensional beings. Often evil, always dangerous, but still, they had depth. They had, for want of a better term, soul. Anyone who doubts that needs to re-examine Karloff’s portrayal of Frankenstein’s Monster in the original FRANKENSTEIN. The Creature stood apart from the common, ‘50’s B-Monster herd by giving us, not an atomically-mutated insect or invading alien, but a natural beast, at home in his element, posing no threat to anyone who did not threaten him. We transported ourselves into his world; we entered his home; we were, in essence, the invading aliens. He reacted no differently than would we in a similar situation, by fighting back with whatever weapons were at his disposal.

EH: As with other Universal monsters, it’s the look of the Gill Man himself that is a big part of why the movie is so outstanding. The artists who worked on the concept of the Creature and then created such a wonderful costume, along with the work of the actors who portrayed the Creature, help to make us forget there is a human under there. However, the setting makes it very special as well. As a kid I was mesmerized by this small group of people trapped on a boat in an exotic jungle world. This was no rambling Gothic castle or ruined watchtower: these people were stuck on a tiny boat in a hostile jungle on a very big river until they wrangled themselves out of the situation. This was also the first time I saw a woman in an active role in a horror film. Even though it's pretty limited by today's standards, as a little girl it was pretty heady stuff having a character I could project myself into. Kay was there as a researcher, part of the team; she had a reason to be there, and wasn't tagging along as a fiancée or wife.

UNI: The location shooting (at Florida’s Wakulla Springs State Park, as well as the Universal backlot…) also set this movie apart. It was easy as a young boy to see myself on the Rita, cruising far up the headwaters of the Amazon. While Universal never turned out a totally bad looking piece of film, some photographer’s work was better than others, and William Snyder’s work was some of their best in the ‘50’s. As to Julie Adams’ unusually strong characterization of Kay… though I can now see how groundbreaking the role was, when I first saw her on the screen that was the furthest thing from my mind.

EH: I really envied Kay for her chance to have such an exciting adventure! And even though the Creature was a little scary to me when I was a little (and made a gal think twice about going for a swim), I think on some level I understood that this was a monster who was not going to bother you unless you bothered him. Now, as a grown woman, I get uncomfortable with some of the interpretations of the sexual subtext in the movie. Some people see the story merely as the male creature wanting to possess the female human, the creature being in competition with the human males, which can tweak the story into some kind of racist rape allegory. That is certainly not in keeping with what Jack Arnold strives for in his movies. Why would he create a sympathetic monster that you are supposed to relate to and then give it criminal or ugly motive?

The movie is a retelling of the Beauty and the Beast story. It draws on elements from King Kong, but I think a major difference is in the character of Kay. Kay feels sorry for the Creature and we see and hear her express that clearly, in ways that Ann Darrow never did (or one might argue couldn’t). Kay even defends the Creature to the others and suggests they just leave him alone, and I really admired Kay for that!

To me, the more predatory battle for Kay is between the two human scientists, David and Mark. Their reactions seem so overblown and macho when they are pushed into competing for Kay, either between themselves or with the Creature.
Of course, there are two things that Mark wants and loves more than Kay. One is money and the other is that harpoon of his. And boy, does he love his harpoon. It's quite impressive in 3-D, and the corresponding dialogue when he describes the “positive weapon” is almost funny.
I see the Creature attracted to Kay not just for her beauty but because he sees someone with whom he relates. When David and Mark go diving in the water, it's very bold, and the sexual subtext is clearly there. The men prepare by putting on their scuba gear with grim determination. They penetrate the water, plunge, probe and generally intrude, bringing knives and harpoons no less.

Kay's approach to the water is completely different. She just smiles and slips into the water; no gear, no knives and harpoons, just Kay and her white bathing suit. Kay does not intrude in the Creature's world but flows into it. Kay delights in the beauty of the lagoon, appreciates the feel of the water on her body and her swimming says she is totally comfortable and at home. Small wonder the Creature feels he may have found a kindred spirit here. The Gill Man swims under her and matches her directions and strokes and when curiosity overcomes him he approaches her cautiously, gently, shyly and finally nervously touches her foot. It's almost a water ballet.
Even when the Gill Man pursues Kay in later scenes, I never get the impression he intends to harm her, which Kay also asserts in dialogue. This poor guy is lonely; whether he's been alone since the Devonian age or lost his mate or who knows what, Kay appears to be the first other being he's laid eyes on who understands and appreciates the beauty of his Black Lagoon. And she's not packing a harpoon.

UNI: While I might agree there is some sexual subtext, if not outright suggestiveness, in CFTBL, I don’t think I can agree with you on ALL of your points, Elizabeth. I mean seriously, even Freud might have a problem seeing a sexual context in the simple act of diving into the lagoon. I’ll admit you might have a point (no pun intended…) about Mark’s spear-gun… but sometimes a harpoon is just a harpoon!

Also, I do think there’s a certain sexual side to the Creature’s interest in Kay, just as I do think Kong had more than platonic feelings for Ann. It is a scientific fact that animals are attracted to menstruating women; animals such as chimps, orangutans, and dolphins have become aggressive in their interest for human women at that time. It’s not too hard to see that Creech could have such instinctive reactions. That hardly makes those impulses “criminal”; he is, after all, an animal. His actions, whether violence directed at the males of the expedition, or his interest in Kay, cannot, by definition, be criminal.

But I can’t agree with you enough on your description of how the Creature perceives Kay as she swims in the lagoon. In fact, I don’t think I could describe the scene any better than you did. It’s obvious that the Creature is captivated by Kay, perhaps to the point of obsession. As I watch the movie now, I can recognize the point at which the Creature’s motivation ceases to be the desire to eliminate a threat, to his growing curiosity and fascination with the woman.

Of course, none of this mattered, or even occurred to a nine year-old boy watching this movie for the first time while sitting three feet away from the TV late one Saturday night. I just wanted to see what all the monster-mags stacked in the corner of my bedroom were calling such a great classic. To me, classic meant Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, The Mummy… maybe the Wolf-Man. Anything with so hokey a name as CREATURE in the title was usually relegated to the “Good, but not great…” pile in my mind. I’m happy to say that the magazines were right, and the Creature did, indeed, exceed my expectations.

EH: During that famous swim scene where the Creature sees Kay in his lagoon, I’ve often wondered about the wonderful white bathing suit and how much of the costuming choice there was deliberate and how much was just good fortune in terms of the effect it created. It’s white, and I’ve wondered if that was to emphasize the purity of Kay’s character, or if it was to create the wonderful image of just her shapely figure when backlit from above and filmed underneath, or perhaps a little of both, which creates some tension for the viewer. Julie Adams said that at the time the suit was almost a little racy, with the higher cut leg openings. My mother, who was a teen and worked in a movie theater when the movie came out, said seeing “Creature” inspired her to go shopping for a white bathing suit that year.

UNI: Kay’s pure white swimsuit is one of the iconic images that you carry with you from this film, and one that serves to illustrate just how powerful and effective Black & White photography could be. The stark contrast between her shimmering figure and the black and gray tones of the lagoon as she swam couldn’t have been just a fortuitous accident; it’s the job of the cinematographer to make such shots happen, and Snyder did that to perfection.

EH: Another scene that always impressed me, even way back, is when the Gill Man observes Kay toss a cigarette overboard. Growing up, my folks emphasized the importance of not littering and with a father who was an avid fisherman I spent a lot of time peering off the sides of boats. The camera captures such a powerful image there, the cigarette butt floating down in the water and the Creature observing this in a very bemused fashion. It seems like that little shot is intended to emphasize what was slowly happening in the lagoon. For me, a shift seems to occur at that point, it ups the ante a bit and his actions (even towards Kay) become more urgent and aggressive. Perhaps the Creature, who thought Kay saw his world the way he did, was disappointed to see her tossing junk in his water.

UNI: While my jerking knee is telling me that that’s a case of overanalyzing the scene, there’s enough documentation to establish that the environmental aspects of it were emphasized, as if the complicated shot set-ups weren’t proof that it was meant to be of some significance. I’m not sure that I see the change in attitude that you refer to, though. While the audience would grasp the significance of Kay’s polluting the pristine lagoon, however symbolically, I would argue that the Creature has no inkling that the item she tosses overboard was anything more than these strange creatures’ waste matter… certainly I would deny that Creech was “anti-smoking.”

EH: It’s fun to revisit this movie and celebrate the special people and circumstances that worked together to create not only a great monster movie, but to give birth to an iconic monster figure. How fortunate we are that “Captain” Jack Arnold and crew sailed down the Amazon and gave us the opportunity to discover, meet and love the Gill Man, and how fortunate we are to have him still with us today!

UNI: I agree completely with that, Elizabeth. You know, it’s been over thirty years since I first saw this film, and since then, I’ve probably sat through a hundred or so viewings of it. I’ve never been bored by it, and frankly, that’s a lot more than I can say for some of today’s films.

Special Correspondence: Articles and Interviews by Guest Contributors

ELIAS MERHIGE and
THE MAKING OF BEGOTTEN
By Scott Essman

Elias Merhige, born in 1964, grew up in Brooklyn, and went to school in Tenafly, New Jersey before attending film school at State University of New York at Purchase where he received a bachelor's degree in 1987. This exclusive interview concerns the making of his controversial non-dialogue feature film, BEGOTTEN, a combination of surreal horror, religion, and the origins of mankind. The interview was conducted for DIRECTED BY Magazine at the time of the release of SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE, Merhige’s first feature after popularizing BEGOTTEN.

SCOTT: What was the earliest genesis of "Begotten"?
E.M.: With "Begotten", I was working with a lot of actors and artists at the time, and I had a small theatre company in New York. And we were doing a lot of experimental theatre. And it was the sort of thing where I had envisioned "Begotten"--I mean, a lot of my influences at the time were Antony Narto's theories on theatre and art. You know, I mean like the theatre and its double; theatre as play: all of these very luminal essays about aesthetics and what theatre needed to be in the 20th century. And one of the things that was really important, I thought, was that I had never really seen any of Barto's ideas or any of these very powerful ideas on aesthetics that Nietzsche had about plays and early Greek drama, and I hadn't seen any of it on film. I mean really to its fullest extent. And so it was the kind of thing where at the time--I wrote the script when I was 20. And I originally thought of it as a dance theatre with live music piece that we would do at Lincoln Center. I was making it up as I was going along. But then I found out what it would cost to get the theatre space, what it would cost.... And it would actually cost me, at the time, a quarter of a million dollars to produce the show. And so I thought, "It's weird. There’s got to be a better way to do this." Then the challenge became, really, creating the world. Because "Begotten" really is a world more than anything. It's a world. And so that got me into shifting my whole focus into making a film.
SCOTT: Now how long of a period, from when you wrote the script to when you said, "Okay. I want to do this as a film."?
E.M.: About six months.
SCOTT: And you were in your early 20s at the time?
E.M.: Yeah. And I finished the film when I was.... It took me three and a half years to make the film. That was not because of money. It was because--I built the optical printer that I did all the special effects on. I did all of the cinematography, all of the special effects, everything. And it was really a very powerful experience. It changed the lives of every single person involved with the film. It was really one of these transformative, ritualistic experiences, where the experience itself became what it was about, and the film was just ancillary to the experience. And--sort of like the experience was the flame--and the work itself, the film, sort of became like the vapor, the light coming off the flame. But that was a very powerful experience. But one of the challenges with that film was that it got me into the whole investigative process of "All right, if you want to create something that you haven't seen before, how do you do it?" And so I would just talk to everybody. I would call people up. I would call my new cinematographers and sit down with them for hours and talk to them. I would go to--I went to every laboratory in New York City, sat down with their timers, with their developers, and asked them how they--what is it about developing film, and if you develop it higher than the normal mean or lower than the normal mean in terms of the temperature of the developer bath, what does it do to the film? And they would do these experiments for me, and I would actually look at this stuff. You know, people are really helpful. And then I got ahold of a 16mm Aeroflex camera that was borrowed to me, and I started doing every experiment in the world, sort of developing my own film. I started doing just every conceivable thing from in a darkroom on rewinds running the unshot negative through sandpaper, you know, to scratch the negative before I shot on it. And I still wasn't getting the results that I thought I really needed. And then one day, in the conversation, somebody told me about the kind of control that you have with an optical printer. And when it came time to try and make a deal to get an optical printer, it turned out that it would have cost me millions of dollars to have an optical printer for the amount of time that I needed it. And to buy an optical printer would cost me, at the time, since that was what they used to do special effects at the time--there was no CGI -- the cost of an optical printer at the time was more than--you know, between a quarter and a half million dollars.
SCOTT: This is late 80s or so?
E.M.: Yeah. Late 80s. Mid- to late 80s. So I built one. And I went around getting parts from different camera places, different special effects houses, and they would each say, "Hey, we're not using this old..." I mean, I had an old 1936 Mitchell camera, like number 13. It was just this horse. This workhorse. And then I had a friend of mine that was an electronics engineer out at Brown. And I drove him crazy. I don't think he talked to me for years after helping me with the electronics on it. And then I used an Italian projection gate from the 1940s.
SCOTT: How did you get these parts? Were they paid for, or did you get them--did people loan...?
E.M.: They were things that no one was using, and they just had it. It was like just part of their inventory. And they said, "No one on earth is ever going to use this. You can have this." And I would give them like a laundry list of things that I needed, and they would say, "Well, we don't have exactly that, but we have this." And then what I would do is say, "Okay, if I modify this, if I machine it in a slightly different way--can I do that?" And they would say, "Yeah. Sure." When I needed money, I just went to these guys and said, "I'll do some special effects for you. If you guys ever get overloaded with work, I'll do it for you for like half of what any of your other cameramen would do it for." And that was still a lot of money. That's how I paid for the sound mix for "Begotten", doing all that stuff.
SCOTT: For various different people? Small little jobs?
E.M.: Various different people. Yeah. There was like Disney jobs--there were just various different things they farmed out to me. There was this one rotoscope job that was like six seconds of this old man looking up at a spire and there was blue screen in the back, and they wanted mountains in the background. They wanted the sun to go down, the stars to come up and the moon to rise over one of the mountains. So a friend of mine, Michelle, rotoscoped the whole thing. Airbrushed the stars in, animated the whole thing, and it looked fantastic. It was actually cool doing it. I forgot that it was for a movie or anything--it was just like my own little six-second world.
SCOTT: You optically printed it off the film yourself?
E.M.: Yeah. Everything was done on film. Everything was done very physical. There were no CGI or no computer elements. "Begotten" was shot in 16mm.
SCOTT: So the optical printer could be used for either?
E.M.: Yup. All you got to do is just take a different camera--you know, I had a 16 camera mount. I used to take that off, put a 35 on. Which in hindsight, I mean, that's what I should have done. I could have just blown up the film myself instead of.... But that's something I plan on doing. I do plan on blowing up "Begotten" to 35. Not that it needs to be blown up--I just feel like doing it. Then I did the sound. And the amazing thing, and the parallel between that film and "Shadow of the Vampire" is that there was a very Zen-like incredible experience in directing "Begotten". Because I am looking through the camera, operating the camera, speaking to the actors; and I'm seeing an idea that's coming out of my imagination becoming flesh and blood in the characters and friends that I'm working with. Then that's being reflected back into the camera and recorded onto the film. And it's like this process where it's moving out of my brain into flesh and blood and back into the lens onto film. It was just an extraordinary thing to be able to speak, and--well--"Begotten" is a silent, obviously.
SCOTT: Non-dialogue. Was there ever a point in which you thought, "It's my first film. I'm already directing it. I've already written it." Was it an artistic choice to say, "I should also operate the camera. I should also star in all the stuff myself." Did you ever feel like you wanted another point of view?
E.M.: No. It felt very natural. There was a great deal of innocence to making "Begotten". It just felt like--well, I was so curious about all the different things that needed to [be done].... And it was such a homemade, handmade, handcrafted piece of work that it just made sense that [I crew everything myself].... Because I'm sort of neurotic anyway, when it comes to doing things. I have to just know that something is done, and when it's done, that it's done properly.
SCOTT: Where was "Begotten" photographed?
E.M.: There were three or four different locations, but the main one was a construction site right on the border of New York State and New Jersey, just at the northern part of New Jersey. And they were constructing this corporate park. They were making this huge corporate park. And it--and they just had devastated the landscape. So I had talked to the engineer, the main engineer that was engineering all the groundwork there, and told them what I was doing. And they actually--they thought I was crazy at first, but when I explained to them how I was doing it and what I was doing.... I don't know. It was the sort of thing where, I guess, they felt sorry for me, you know, and they just decided, "Yeah, you can shoot that movie here." And then, on top of it, as time went on, I told them, "You know, the composition is almost perfect." And I would have them look through the lens, you know? And I'd say, "If it just had a mountain right there, you know? If it just had a mountain of rock just right over there to the right, it would be perfect." And they would make one for me. They would bring in bulldozers and heavy dump trucks and they would just make a mountain. It was remarkable.
SCOTT: You didn't have to pay for the location at all?
E.M.: No.
SCOTT: How long were you there? How many days in the quarry?
E.M.: Would you believe it was just like 20 days. It was all weekends. My agreement was that I would shoot when they weren't working. And their agreement was to have all their equipment out so I could shoot. [20 days in the quarry for the last third of the film… earlier in the film was at a lake. The middle section was in a house.] A friend of mine was going to hook me up with some Indian friends of his down in Santa Fe or Albuquerque. And they were going to take me on this like fun ritual thing that they were doing in the mountains. Anyway, I never hooked up with them, for some reason--miscommunications. So I ended up going into the mountains myself anyway, and shooting some of those sunrises. I spent a couple of days just shooting time-lapse sunrises and sunsets. That's where you get that big flat expansive [view]. And with that film, you know, that was the idea that I didn't want you to be able to tell the difference between the moon and the sun. And whether it was day or night. It's just this idea: we have opposites just colliding and coming together. And then when I finished the film, it took me two years to get it out there. I mean, I would show it to distributors and people out there, and they would say, "Listen, if you can show this for free in some high school basement in the Bronx, you're lucky." And I know people that were really brutal, and I hated them. And I just had this sort of "Well, what do they know?" kind of attitude. And then the film went to the San Francisco International Film Festival. And it was there that Peter Scarlet and Tom Luddy showed the film to Susan Sontag, who then called me up. And I projected the film in her living room for like 21 of her closest friends, and it was remarkable. Because she brought it to the Berlin Film Festival, and said just wonderful things about the film, that.... She used the word "masterpiece". I hate to use that word, but she really loved the film and thought it was just a profoundly original piece of work. And then Werner Herzog had seen the film at just about the same time. And he, also, was very supportive. He was very supportive of the film.
SCOTT: Did Sontag get the film to Nicolas Cage somehow? How did Nicolas end up seeing it?
E.M.: Crispin Glover had given Nick a copy of "Begotten" as either a birthday present or just as a gift. And Nick, just out of his own volition, saw the film and said, "You know, I'm moved by this piece of work." And then when he opened a production company, Saturn Films, he gave the videotape of "Begotten" to his partner at the time, Jeff Levant. And said, "We need to find this guy, 'cause I'd like to work with him." And that's the way it evolved from there. And then we met, and a 45-minute meeting turned into a three-hour meeting, and we realized that we all liked each other very much as people. And three days later, they sent me the script to "Shadow of the Vampire". And when I first read that script--you know all that stylistic stuff, with going from color to black-and-white and black-and-white to color? That was stuff that I saw from the first reading of the script. I knew exactly how to do it. And that's what I loved so much about the script is that it was this great balance between technical innovation and great story-telling. And for me, I knew that I could make something really terrific out of this.
SCOTT: How long did you spend in post on "Begotten"?
E.M.: That was what took all the time.
SCOTT: That was three years?
E.M.: Yes. It took me eight months to build the optical printer.
SCOTT: That's with film in the can?
E.M.: Yes. That just drove me up the wall. 'Cause if it's just a hair off, it's off. That's all. It doesn't work. And it just looks stupid. And it's wrong. Everything has to be very exact.
SCOTT: How long on the sound mix? ...the whole movie--about 88 minutes of sound effects.
E.M.: Got to tell you--that soundtrack--that was something that Evan Album--he's a guy that a friend of mine at the time, (he was the assistant director on "Begotten", Tim McCann), had a friend of his who was painting people's houses--not doing frescoes, just painting the houses. And I met this guy, and I was talking to him and I was just having regular conversation with him 'cause we were both waiting for Tim. And it was, "Well, what do you do besides painting houses?" And "I compose music." I go "Really?" "Yeah." I go, "On what? What instrument's your instrument of choice?" He says, "On the bass guitar." I said, "Really? You compose music for the bass guitar. I've never heard music composed just for the bass guitar." I said, "I'd like to listen to it." So he gave me a tape. And there was nothing in this tape, in this recording that sounded remotely like a bass guitar. This guy was functioning on a totally, completely different plane of existence. And it was at that moment that I thought, "This guy is the kind of person....," 'Cause when you talk to composers, they're all like, "Hey! This is the happy--this is my happy stuff. Oh, this is my scary stuff. Oh!" And with this guy, it was not like that at all. And that soundtrack took a year to do, because--this is going to sound a bit odd, but--we recorded the sound of feet walking on gravel in the winter, feet walking on gravel in the spring, feet walking on gravel in the summer, and feet walking on gravel in the autumn. And used all of them at different points in the film and orchestrated all of that in this careful kind of like mosaic within the film. That's how obsessively detailed that film was. I spent every frame--I mean, I was looking through the camera every single frame.... Just remember, there's 24 frames in a second. And 24 frames in a second, it would take me about 10 hours of time to get about a minute's worth of screen time, of film. When you think about that ratio of labor, it's very intense.
SCOTT: At first, did you let many people see it?
E.M.: And in the beginning, when I finished it, I was very protective of it. 'Cause there were people that hated the film and just didn't care whether it got out there or didn't get out there. So I was very protective of it. And there was never a moment that I didn't totally believe in the film. I always believed in the film. And it's that sort of thing where, when Susan Sontag saw it, it was a major epiphany and pinnacle in my own consciousness. Because it was like, "Okay. Now somebody who I've always revered and respected believes in my work. And believes that it's great." And I knew it was great, but when you have it mirrored off of someone who is great, like Susan Sontag, it enables you to suffer all the crap that you have to go through to get a film off the ground, get something out of development hell and into reality.
SCOTT: You were able to get it out there somehow?
E.M.: The film was distributed on VHS. So people could buy it from Virgin Megastore. It wasn't just myself that had to give them a copy of the tape. Rocket Video had the film. Jerry's Video over in Hillhurst that has the film as well. The thing, for me, in making a film, is I that have to just be 300% in love with what it is that I'm doing. I'm not going to spend two or three years of my life on something that I'm half-hearted about, you know?
SCOTT: My take on “Begotten” is pretty clearly that this divine being, in the beginning, is almost sacrificing himself for the birth of the next generation, which becomes Mother Earth.... Actually, in the film, Mother Earth comes from behind him. And...
E.M.: She's sort of born from him in a very theatrical way.
SCOTT: Yeah. Born out of him, and he's dead. And then ejaculates him....
E.M.: Yeah. Inseminates herself.
SCOTT: And then from that comes....
E.M.: Comes this new world order.
SCOTT: Who's, hey, got a tough life. Almost an oppressive kind of way....
E.M.: Well, it's interesting, 'cause you have this, like, the patriarchal world, sacrificing itself, giving birth to this matriarchal world, that then gives birth to this new kind of, like, child, who's a balance between the masculine and the feminine, the earth and the sky, and then is ultimately sort of sacrificed....
SCOTT: But then begets greenery and the earth as we know it. Which was a neat effect. I'm sure you did that on your optical printer.
E.M.: Yeah. I did a lot of that with time lapse, too. In a terrarium, I had little things growing.
SCOTT: A small terrarium?
E.M.: No, a large terrarium. And--but it's the kind of thing where--with "Begotten", I always felt that, having been a big Nietzsche fan at the time, this idea of circularity of time, the idea of the eternal return, the idea that everything is a circle or a sphere.... And certainly Einstein's theory of relativity, you know, that if you go in two opposite directions, you're eventually going to meet again. 'Cause the world through Einsteinian physics is spherical--the universe is spherical. So, it's the idea that--imagine that we had a culture, like 4,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago, that had the technology with cinema, to make movies. And that you're looking into a sort of archaeological discovery of this world, that is now extinct, and was sort of a pre--predecessor to the world that we live in today.
SCOTT: When the earth was really new.
E.M.: Yeah, exactly.
SCOTT: And I took the band of quote, kind of "lepers" or whoever, just to be sort of the outcast, the marginalized and the decrepit of the earth, who don't know what they're doing. Almost--I'm not specifically a religious person--but I almost read it as a Christian metaphor of sorts, where Jesus was born to a world that didn't appreciate him, and he died for the sins of all the others. In that this new being died for their sins, even though they didn't know what they were doing. Here they have this naked thing, who's been born of Mother Earth and God, and they....
E.M.: And they don't even realize it.
SCOTT: And they don't realize it and they beat him and kill him. And he begets the rest.
E.M.: I think that's very beautiful what you just said. And I don't think that's off the mark. But the thing is, you go not just to the mythology of Jesus, but also to Isis and Osiris, and you go back to Attus and Adonis, and it goes way back to be the pre-Christian ideas and, then certainly with the idea of creation as it exists in the Hebraic sense, in the Old Testament. It's just these themes of sacrifice and resurrection are in every culture and every age. And they're important themes. And I love art that is charged with both pathos and mythos. And you see it in Arnold Bachland's paintings. You see it in a lot of expressionist and symbolist paintings. And you certainly see it in the romantic paintings, and in the Romantic poets like Byron and Shelley. And in Goethe, the German poet. All these voices from the past definitely have influenced me to a very profound degree. And I feel like--that being inspired by these minds and by these works of art from hundreds of years ago, I imbue it into my own blood and invigorate it with a new life and put it out into a new--in a new way, through film and--through the films that I'm making.
SCOTT: Also the elements in both of your films--regarding themes of sacrifice and all that--there's also sort of a haunting feeling throughout both of the films. I think that what's happening in "Begotten" isn't entirely pleasant. It's interesting. It's always sort of fascinating, but it's also upsetting.
E.M.: No. Absolutely.
SCOTT: Much in the way that any martyr, who has to suffer for others' sins or whatever--it's not the most pleasant thing ever. And same with "Shadow of the Vampire", too. It's always super-interesting, and a reflection on things you said about current filmmaking. But it's also kind of haunting. These people are disappearing, and is Schreck really killing them? And then you start to think, "He really is a vampire. Or at least he thinks he is. And that's enough."
E.M.: I can't tell you how much I appreciate you seeing "Begotten", and having an appreciation of that film. 'Cause I love that film, really. I never thought about, "Oh, I'm going to go to Hollywood with "Begotten" and I'm going to be a big movie director." It was the kind of thing where I made "Begotten" just purely like a fever. It was like a fever that hit me, and then, when the film was done, the fever broke, and it passed. It was somewhat of an obsession and a great, profound love, making that film. And I learn something new from that film every time that I see it. I don't feel like its maker. I feel like it's got its own life force, and every time I see the film, I'm learning something new from it.

Special DVD copies of BEGOTTEN are now being made available as a not-for-profit item by DIRECTED BY Magazine for a short time only.

To order a BEGOTTEN DVD, send $12 postpaid via PayPal to: scott91966@yahoo.com
You may also send a check/money order to: Scott Essman, P.O. Box 1722, Glendora, CA 91740.