RARE WEREWOLF OF LONDON TEST MAKEUP?

I've had this image in my files for years and use it off and on for my "Headline News!" sidebar. I don't think I ever knew where the gag originated, but I suspect it was the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS.

However, it wasn't until I was recently researching an article on WEREWOLF OF LONDON for CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN (due to be published this year) that it dawned on me where the photo actually came from: it's been batted about the Internet for a long time as purporting to be Jack Pierce's first test makeup on a subject (presumably Henry Hull) for WEREWOLF OF LONDON.

The whole infamous drama between Pierce and Hull regarding this earliest of werewolf makeups has yielded only one photo which has been verified as a result of the same image being used in the popular syndicated "Seein' Stars" comic strip by cartoonist Feg Murray.

It doesn't take much to see that one is a month of full moons different from the other. I haven't been able to dig up enough information on the WWN image to conclusively verify if its authentic. If anybody has anything to add, I'd love to hear it.

And, hey -- don't laugh; when it comes to monster minutiae, leave no Mariphasa lupina lumina petal unturned, I say!

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN BALLYHOO

A month after shooting began on THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (January 2, 1935) this two-page ballyhoo was published in the February 9th issue of Universal's house magazine UNIVERSAL WEEKLY. The article lists the actors and describes the sets and other details that were being put into the production. One photo shows Jack Pierce applying makeup to Boris Karloff as the monster. Whoever wrote the piece was a few years off on the time table as he mentions the original makeup was done "last year".

NOTE: The image for the two-page spread is skewed due to the age of the document and its condition.

THE (1943) PHANTOM OF THE OPERA

Let me begin by saying that the 1943 version of Universal's THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is not one of my favorite horror films. My opinion is shared by any number of horror film critics as well, so I'm not standing on my own on a desert island.

One sheet poster - Style C.

Boasting "a cast of thousands", it premiered on August 12, 1943. First announced in November 1941, production didn't begin until January 21, 1942, Universal originally wanted to cast the popular Deanna Durbin in the role of Christine, but she declined. Director Henry Koster followed suit. Finally, U signed the 18 year-old Susanna Foster who would play opposite leading man Nelson Eddy.

Directed by the very competent Arthur Lubin, it is shot in technicolor and is visually sumptuous. As a result, if you're looking for a decent romantic musical this could be your cup of tea. As a horror film, it can be called barely that. Universal had planned to remake Lon Chaney's film as far back as the 1930's but the idea was shelved when the Laemmle's sold the company in 1936.

Fresh off filming Casablanca, Claude Rains (who was quite difficult on the set according to Lubin) is woefully miscast. U had been after Charles Laughton to play the role and when he backed out they even considered handing it to Broderick Crawford (!). The original Phantom's son, Lon Chaney Jr. was not in the running; the best he could do was visit the set while it was being filmed (see photos below).

One sheet poster - Style D.

Rains was billed third below Eddy and Foster and it only reinforces U's idea to sell it as a romantic musical rather than a horror picture.

The 1925 opera house set was appropriated and re-dressed to better exploit the Technicolor film stock. The original chandelier was also brought out of mothballs; it had been damaged in the first film, so fine Czech crystal was brought in to repair it. During the scene where Raines' Phantom cuts the chandelier so it will fall on top of the audience, the shot was cut away and the chandelier was placed on the floor with the crystals detached so that it appeared to have shattered.

Makeup man Jack Pierce had to resort to a minimal makeup job on Rains who, much like Henry Hull in his role as the Werewolf of London, felt he was too self-important to have his famous face made up into a monster.

Despite the disappointment of this remake not even coming close to Chaney's version, it did quite well at the box office, even garnering five Oscar nominations, winning Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Color.

LOBBY CARDS

PHOTOS

Fritz Leiber Sr. showing the famous chandelier.

Caricatures by popular Hollywood cartoonist, Kroll.

FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND #10 (JANUARY 1961). REPRINTED IN #47 (NOVEMBER 1967):

TRAILER:

JUST THE ARTIFACTS, MA'AM!

Jeez, it came to me that it's been a decade since I was published in the UK's WE BELONG DEAD issue #12, which included my article, "Jack P. Pierce: Making the World's Most Famous Monsters". So what, you say? Well, there's an interesting story behind that . . .

Sometime before that happened, I visited the Margaret Herrick Library in Beverly Hills, CA to conduct research on Mr. Pierce. For those who aren't aware, this is one of the most prestigious libraries of cinema history on the planet. They are also also a part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -- you know, the outfit that runs the Oscars. This description from their website explains:

The Margaret Herrick Library is one of the world’s preeminent research facilities dedicated to preserving the artform and industry of motion pictures. Its holdings, amassed since 1928, include books, photographs, scripts, posters, production records, costume design drawings, and so much more. Located in Beverly Hills, the library is open to the public by appointment and used year-round by students, scholars, historians and industry professionals.

Sadly, the file they had on who I consider to be the greatest monster makeup artist from the Golden Age of Horror had just a scant few clippings about him -- so slim I thought the folder was empty! The librarian seemed to be a little apologetic, too, and told me that the library relies to an extent on donations of material for their holdings.

Armed with that knowledge, I decided to rectify the situation and promised myself that I would write an article on his career and see if I could at least add a little more substance to Pierce's file. At that time, I was in the early stages of collecting material on Pierce for the book that my co-author and I had begun (don't look for it yet -- we're still working on it!), and we already had a fair amount of biographical information.

But, first, I had to find a publisher to actually print my article! After flying back home, I wrote it a wave of inspiration and luckily found a publisher with --of all 'zines -- Eric McNaughton's recently resurrected WE BELONG DEAD. Shortly after receiving my contributor's copy I made good on my promise and sent a copy of the article to the Margaret Herrick Library.

A few weeks later, I received the following letter in the mail (redacted for the reasons of privacy):

It was only then when it hit me that something I'd written had been accepted as a library research document. Needless to say, I was thrilled and so far, it's been one of the highlights of my writing career. And most of all, Jack Pierce deserves it, don't you think?

Visit the WE BELONG DEAD website HERE.

Buy issue #12 HERE.

A CLASSIC MUMMY MOMENT

In Universal's mummy movie cycle, nothing can top the 1932 original, THE MUMMY, starring Boris Karloff and featuring Jack Pierce's makeup masterpiece, if only on screen for a few short moments. Often unfairly compared to this horror film classic is the second in Universal's Mummy movie "cycle", THE MUMMY'S HAND (1940), mainly because it oftentimes is referred to as a sort of sequel, which it isn't; it's an entirely different story and character (from Karloff's Im-ho-tep to Tom Tyler's Kharis) and the beginning of a new series with three true sequels. Another reason that it sometimes gets panned is the humor interspersed throughout the picture. Whenever I watch it, I enjoy the comedic interplay between the actors and -- color me silly -- but I see a precursor to the Indiana Jones movies here.

But let's not forget that Universal played for creeps. And, yes, there were a few genuinely creepy scenes in this movie. One of the most effective was removing the eyes of the mummy from the film stock, so in the closeups it looked like he had nothing but dark, empty holes. Another one came early in the movie, when Professor Andoheb (played by George Zucco) visited the mummy's secret temple where he was bestowed the honor of High Priest of Karnak by the outgoing priest (Eduardo Ciannelli) -- and I do mean outgoing because he dies just moments later!

In FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND #31 (1964), this riveting scene is relived through the actual dialogue used in the film. Remember, no more than three Tana leaves!

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN CHARACTER PHOTOS

Universal's legendary makeup man Jack Pierce created the images of some of the most famous monsters in cinema history. But Pierce was not limited to the monstrous; he was also adept at character makeup and these production photographs from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) are examples of this type of superlative work.

Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorious and Una O'Connor as Minnie.

Dwight Frye as Karl.

O.P. Heggie as The Hermit.

Neil Fitzgerald as Rudy.