Bluebeard

John Carradine plays Blubeard--he paints women and then strangles them to death. He doesn't want to do it but is compelled to (we find out why at the end). Then he falls in love with beautiful Lucille (Jean Parker) and tries to fight his desire...

John Carradine said this was his best performance--he's right! He's dead on target in the title role. He shows that Bluebeard is not evil and driven by impulses beyond his control. He uses body language and facial expressions perfectly. Also director Edgar G. Ulmer directs this beautifully with strange camera angles and lots of shadows making this very atmospheric. Also there are some beautifully done background paintings.

But this was done over at PRC--a poverty row studio. Unfortunately it shows. The furnishings and costumes look pretty tacky and it just FEELS low budget. Also the biggest problem is constant background music. It's ALWAYS playing and very annoying. Half the time the music doesn't even match the mood of what's being acted! These prevent the film from becoming a true classic.

As it stands I'm giving it an 8 for Carradine and Ulmer. It should be seen just for them. Also this is one of the few films that prove what a good actor Carradine actually was.

John Carradine had always considered his role as Gaston Morrell in Bluebeard as his favorite and since it's one of his few starring ones it's easy to see why. Director Edgar G. Ulmer makes the most of the low budget he had working for poverty row studio PRC in making one of the most atmospheric horror films of the '40s. Most of the supporting cast also do well here especially Jean Parker as Lucille who Gaston falls head over heels for and Ludwig Stossel as Jean Lamarte. The woman who played Renee, Sonia Sorel, would later marry Carradine and bear kids Keith and Robert with him. Iris Adrian lends some humor in a brief court sequence. Well worth seeking for old movie horror fans.

This telling of French serial killer Bluebeard (why was he called Bluebeard?) is notable for two reasons - one is John Carradine's haunting yet believable portrayal of a madman's psyche, and the other is for Edgar G. Ulmer's ability to create mood and even grandeur on a tiny budget. While Carradine's acting skills have never been in question, his over-the-top scene stealing in many small roles would make one approach him with caution in a leading role. However, Carradine manages to restrain himself enough to never grow old or cumbersome in the role, while simultaneously delivering his lines memorably - leading to the excellent final crescendo. The plot never tires, the direction is masterful, the ensemble acting (especially the devious art dealer Lamarte) far better than expected, and the final feeling one of satisfaction. While all of this is unadulterated praise, the movie does appear a tad bit stagey (via budgetary concerns) at times, and also moves slowly at certain points. Despite this, Bluebeard is not merely an excellent time-waster, but a movie worthy of any viewer going out, renting, and popping in.

A PRC poverty row production that makes the most of its limited budget. A lot of credit should go to production designers Eugene Shufftan and Edgar Ulmer who collaborated on the movie's sumptuous look. Even when the middle part drags, the visuals remain arresting. Note too how the meagre exterior sets are stylized to make up for the limitations. Of course, cult director Ulmer was no stranger to transforming army surplus material into artistic effects. The overall result is an atmospheric recreation of 19th century Paris.

Making Carradine's Bluebeard a puppeteer is a novel and interesting wrinkle. Then too, I can't help thinking there is more plot potential in continuing with Bluebeard the puppet master than in shifting the story line over to Bluebeard the painter, as the screenplay does. Nonetheless, those early scenes in the park are good ones. However, the cadaverous actor who can be as florid and intense as anyone seems a little too understated here. While physically he looks the part of the grim reaper, Carradine is simply no good as a simpering lover, while too many of his scenes lack the menace the role calls for. Unfortunately, the result compares unfavorably, for example, with Laird Cregar's riveting Jack the Ripper in that Gothic thriller The Lodger of the same year. It appears Ulmer is much more the visual artist than the thespic coach.

Nonetheless, the movie remains an interesting curiosity. Consider the sheer wackiness of presenting Iris Adrian whose cheap Brooklyn accent can barely be disguised as a Parisian. Still, it does amount to an amusing turn. Also, note the off-angle camera staging of Carradine's flashback sequence, which is both effective in identifying the sequence and artfully composed. Such camera effects were hardly a Hollywood staple at a time when producers generally felt they would confuse the audience.

Of course, there's the question that always arises for fans of Ulmer. What would he have done with an A-budget and A-material in a career spent in the lower depths of Hollywood production. Hard to say-- perhaps he needed the challenge of PRC-type constraints. However, I think it's fair to say that none of his poverty row productions are without genuine points of interest and entertainment, and-- as is the case with Bluebeard-- may even rise at times to artistic levels.

I saw this on a cheap DVD copy, and the film may have lost a bit in translation, but time has not been kind to the soundtrack, the dialogue muffled, and the background music overbearing. Even so, this is clearly a very uneven production saved mainly by the two leads and the high notes of artistry within an overall muddy piece.

Carradine is fantastic. This is a great role for him, displaying diverse talents. He is unfortunately not directed with any subtlety, and it is clear that he is the villain from the beginning, so this becomes more a story of "will the villain be redeemed by love?" That makes this film more interesting than a standard thriller.

Jean Parker is really luminous and lovely, and is the only young female in the cast that captures the feeling of the time period. The actress playing her sister is arch and tart enough to be playing a film noir gun moll, and the other young actresses are just horrible, and horribly directed, and completely out of place in a period film... they must all have come from the local bar.

The movie has elements that make it interesting and artistic, the focus on painting style, the accomplished and beautiful puppet show. It becomes fairly clear that this movie should have been called The Puppetmaster... that kind of "just missed the mark" moment mars many elements of this film. It starts with the title BLUEBEARD, which is bandied about, but never followed up on, and continues. THE PUPPETMASTER would have been a great premise and title for this film that could have unified it.

Others have mentioned this being a poverty row film, and that does endear it to me... but being from 1944, this is not that early a film, and it is simply a grade B shocker - a precursor to Vincent Price's wonderful performances in many B thriller shockers. If this was an attempt to make a period film in film noir style, it was a mismarriage.

Still, I give it a 4 - slightly below average, because in the overview of film history, we have much higher budget films that are infinitely worse on all levels. A similar, earlier film, but much better on all levels, is John Barrymore's SVENGALI. If you liked this, you will LOVE that.