Most of the script by Crane Wilbur, based on a play by Charles Belden (which also served as the basis for 1933's Mystery of the Wax Museum, of course), is deliciously flagitious-degenerate in a more over the top manner than was usual for the period. De Toth is excellent at building atmosphere, especially in the "external" shots, which frequently feel more like we're watching a version of the Jack the Ripper story set in London. Price has an unusual role here in that he plays a good portion of the film with disfigurement makeup, half-limping, hunched over, covered in bulky black cloaks in a manner that somewhat prefigures John Hurt's turn as John Merrick in The Elephant Man (1980). For me, that adds to the charm of the film. Viewed now, in simple 2D on a television screen, the obligatory 3D shots of House of Wax play as quirky, campy curios. This shows part of the difficulty of 3D-it's difficult to reconcile the most impressive effects from the audience's perspective with narrative needs. We linger on him much longer than we normally would so that he can bounce the ball into our face. The most prominent example here is a huckster who stands in front of the revamped House of Wax doing tricks with three paddleballs. Like many 3D films, there are a few shots in House of Wax that might otherwise be inexplicable. But it certainly didn't negatively affect the performances or De Toth's direction, which are both outstanding despite a couple strangely truncated bits of exposition. Shooting in sequence is unusual and can make the on-set crew's job much more difficult. So Warner demanded just that, despite De Toth's protests. Fehr said they could get it done even quicker if director Andre De Toth would shoot the film in sequence. Studio head Jack Warner told Fehr that he would have five weeks to edit the film after shooting was done. In order to lure the audiences back to the theaters, Warner's came out with 3D." While this wasn't the first commercial 3D film-1952's Bwana Devil holds that honor, this was certainly one of the more popular ones. According to film editor Rudi Fehr, "The House of Wax was made because the theaters were empty, people were staying home to watch television. They were looking to do things that television couldn't do. Film studios and movie theaters were looking for gimmicks that would make films seem more special. In the early 1950s, movie theater box office receipts were down because of television. House of Wax was made as a 3D film-a fact made more than obvious from the film's opening credits, which are presented in a font made to look like it is bursting forth from the screen. The debate that Jarrod and Burke have in the opening scene of this remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) is particularly ironic in light of the film's history. However, when a mysterious, disfigured stranger shows up, the resolution may not be so simple. Jarrod supposedly dies in the fire, leaving Burke to collect. When Jarrod refuses, Burke torches the museum anyway, and the two fight. He suggests torching the place and collecting the insurance money. Jarrod tries to interest a new investor, but when the prospect says he can't make a decision for a few months, Burke says he can't wait. When his partner, Matthew Burke (Roy Robert)-really his primary investor-balks at Jarrod's receipts and tries to talk him into moving in a more commercial direction, perhaps with a "Chamber of Horrors", Jarrod protests that he's creating meticulous works of art, not cheap sensationalism. He's living in New York City in the late 19th Century, and he's displaying his handiwork in a wax museum. "Professor" Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) is a sculptor who works in wax.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |