Bluebeard

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.

When not playing featured roles in classics like 'The Grapes of Wrath' John Carradine made a good living in stuff right at the bottom of the heap. These were the films in which he actually enjoyed top billing, so not surprisingly it was one of them that gave him his personal favourite of his roles; seldom off the screen and at his most dashing.

Garrulous but stylish, director Edgar G. Ulmer again makes bricks without straw; it's one drawback being Leo Erdody's unrelenting score, although it's fun to hear him constantly plunder Mussorgsky.

Bluebeard is probably most notable for the fact that its lead star, John Carradine, famously named his role here as his favourite across his lengthy list of film credits. It's easy to see why the man himself enjoyed playing this part so much too - Carradine's role in Bluebeard allows him to act at his most sinister, and the film really depends on him as this is very much a one-man story. Carradine has just the right look for this sort of role also, and all these elements combine nicely to ensure that Carradine's part in this film is a success. The base for the plot is one of cinema's most common and most prolific, but this film is notable for being one of the earlier films to use it. We follow a deranged madman who likes to paint girl's pictures before he strangles them to death. The man himself is famous for two completely different lives; in one, he is the notorious serial killer 'Bluebeard', who prays on beautiful young women - and in the other he's Gaston Morrell, a dapper up and coming young painter. This film's major problem is certainly not with the plot, stars, or style; it's with the plotting.

Bluebeard falls down primarily because it moves at snail pace. The plot is intriguing, but the way it presents itself is the opposite, and it's a shame because, if handled with care, this film could have been really good instead of just being good. Director Edgar G. Ulmer is most famous for his directing credit on classic film 'The Black Cat', and is lesser known for his set design on films such as Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen, M and Metropolis; as well as silent classics; Sunrise and Der Golem. Ulmer's previous experience helps him with Bluebeard, as the film is constantly atmospheric, and the director makes best use of his simple sets by way of his use of the camera and the murky black and white cinematography. The film is very bleak throughout, and this massively helps the plot as it gives the film just the right amount of foreboding. Plots like this have been turned into better films since the release of this film over sixty years ago; but Bluebeard is still well worth seeing. The film starts out slow, but it does pick up and not even an extremely overlong puppet sequence can fully degenerate the film into the realms of absolute boredom. It's not must see; but worth seeing if the chance presents itself.

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.

This is a decent little film but more importantly it's a chance for the star (John Carradine) to show he COULD be a leading man and not just a cheesy supporting actor. In fact, I was THRILLED to see this film because only a couple weeks ago, I saw Carradine's worst film (BILLY THE KID VERSUS Dracula). This film helped to wash away the foul stench of failure from my mind--at least temporarily.

The film is, not surprisingly, a low-budget movie. Carradine played in many of these type of films but this one is different because it is actually well written, acted and engaging. And while it is NOT going to change your life by watching it, it does deliver excellent B-movie thrills.