Universal Horror, part V: Regrettable parody with an actual high point

Our last group is kind of a dichotomy, in that it's the introduction of the last monster that makes up the classic Universal set, but also the total degradation of the original foundation of the series. The Creature from the Black Lagoon ends up being a totem of the era in which it was created (the 1950s) in many ways through the three films which it stars in. The other half of this group, unfortunately, are spoofs of the Universal horror milieu, with famed comedy team Bud Abbott and Lou Costello dragging everything into the realm of camp and entirely departing from the atmosphere first laid down in the 1930s. The pair had already been a burlesque and radio act before their first film in 1940, eight years before their first film in the Universal horror genre which meant 21(!) films had been made in which they were doing the same routine that they'd been doing since 1935, which definitely colored their performances, even more than their growing personal distaste for each other.

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)- This film at least opened in the same vein as its "House of" predecessors, in that despite only the Monster's name being in the title, it also includes both Dracula and the Wolf Man. Glenn Strange continues as the Monster, but both Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney, Jr. return to their most notable roles, with Larry Talbot still looking for a way out of his curse and the Count still doing his vampiric thing, which was key to his signing the contract in the first place, since he felt like his legacy would be "unblemished", despite it being a comedy. He also hadn't worked in two years at that point and Chaney had been dropped by Universal during its recent contraction after new ownership came in, while Strange had had only limited opportunities since House of Dracula. So this was a good deal for all of them while, in contrast, both Abbott and Costello had to be convinced by large bonuses. So the comedians didn't want to do the comedy, but the horror actors were fine with it. The original script had also called for Kharis, the Invisible Man (who makes a last second "appearance" as the voice of Vincent Price at the end), and Count Alucard(?) but they eventually cut it down to what was still a Monster Mash before filming started. Director Charles Barton would later say that all three monster actors were impeccable professionals, while the real monsters were the two comics, who hated every minute on set and didn't hide it. That shows up on camera, too, in which Costello's skittish character spares no moment to shriek in terror at every opportunity, which is more grating than funny. I remember seeing this as a kid on Sundays and loving the presence of the monsters but being completely ambivalent about Bud and Lou. That feeling has not changed. Likewise, Chaney reviled the film, saying it had drained the life from previous pictures with genuine emotion. Karloff was paid to promote it by standing outside the Criterion Theatre in New York and agreed to do it "as long as I don't have to see the film." All of that said, it was the most successful film, financially, in the Frankenstein series since Frankenstein, so...

Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man (1951)- Despite that success, it was three years before another entry in the Universal "horror" series. This time it was Arthur Franz playing Tommy Nelson, a middleweight boxer who has been accused of murdering his manager. He convinces his fiancé, Helen (Nancy Guild) to get her uncle, Dr. Philip Gray (Gavin Muir) to inject him with the serum that will turn him invisible so he can try to prove that he wasn't the murderer. Meanwhile, Abbott and Costello are two PIs investigating that same murder. That, of course, is not the plot of a horror film, any more than any of the other sequels in the Invisible Man series have been. At the very least, when a photo is shown of the invisibility serum's inventor, that photo is of Claude Rains, so there is at least some acknowledgement of the history at hand. But the rest of the film is just your standard adventure with Costello doing all kinds of limp gags to hide the presence of the invisible person that they've now come to trust in the process of trying to figure out the mystery of the murder. It's an Abbott and Costello film, not even an "Abbott and Costello spoof of a horror film." One minor trivia point is that the SFX were done by Stanley Horsley, who also did them for The Invisible Man Returns, Invisible Woman, and Invisible Agent, so he'd had a lot of practice, but it also meant that really none of it was new, just like the act of the two stars.

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)- And now we finally come to the last entry on our list of monsters. From a storytelling standpoint, this is easily the best film since the early days of the genre and the fact that it's an original creation (i.e. not based on a novel or folklore) tends to give it even more weight in the pantheon of the (sigh) "Dark Universe." Producer William Alland was told a story about half-fish, half-human creatures that supposedly lived on the Amazon in 1941. He jotted down a couple notes and then, a decade later, turned it into a treatment which eventually became the film. The design for the creature was originally done by Milicent Patrick, a Disney animator, but her role was downplayed by makeup artist, Bud Westmore, who was long credited as the sole visual creator of the Creature. The thing that most prominently sticks out about this story, though, isn't the technical achievements but rather the hostile buffoonery of not only the local geological workers who first see the Creature, panic, and attack it, resulting in their deaths, but also the supposedly educated scientists who come to the forest after said attack and continue to hound it until it again retaliates in self-defense. This is very much a "misunderstood monster" story in the vein of Frankenstein, but almost no one even wants to voice the possible sympathetic angle. This miraculous discovery, often cited during the film as an example of evolution, highlighting the changed general attitudes toward science in contrast to earlier decades, is once again treated as some kind of crime against nature in complete defiance of the philosophical language employed about it. In that respect, it's again just like Mary Shelley's original question: "Who is the real monster here?"

Revenge of the Creature (1955)- That question is even more valid in this sequel, given that the Creature, having survived being shot multiple times, is pursued and captured by a couple big game hunters and then put on display in an aquarium in Florida. If you didn't feel some sympathy for its situation in the first film, you'd almost have to do so here, as the Creature is repeatedly put through rigors like trained seals and orcas so that it can perform for audiences, despite having demonstrated (and continuing to do so in this film) a level of intelligence that vastly exceeds either. (That isn't, of course, to justify the treatment of those animals in similar circumstances.) Of course, the training of seals and orcas doesn't involve shocking them with a cattle prod, so this situation is also far worse from an ethical perspective. Said perspective is borne out by both the title and the action of the second half of the film, where the tortured Creature attempts to not only escape but also capture Helen Dobson (Lori Nelson)... who is one of the scientists involved in its torture. I mean, this is bog-standard Beauty and the Beast stuff, but at least situations like King Kong have the latter in less of a conflict of circumstances (somehow desiring one of his torturers in some bizarre Stockholm syndrome.) I spent most of this film kind of recoiling from the subject matter and wishing that the Creature got an opportunity to eviscerate everyone around it.

Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy (1955)- This is both the last film in the Mummy franchise and that Abbott and Costello did for Universal entirely. In the latter respect, that might explain why their roles are written as Pete Patterson (Abbott) and Freddie Franklin (Lou) in the script, but they both use their regular names throughout the picture. Similarly, in contrast to the previous four films in the series, this time the mummy is referred to as "Klaris", instead of "Kharis" and the role is played by stuntman Eddie Parker, who had stood in for Lon Chaney, Jr. in the earlier films. Everything was clearly winding down here. But the plot ends up being kind of overcomplicated, in which two Americans stranded in Cairo get involved in a competition between treasure hunters and the followers of Klaris, led by Semu (Richard Deacon) to find the mummy's amulet, which supposedly leads to a hidden treasure but also contributes to the animation of Klaris. Hijinks ensue, not least of which is Abbott and Costello doing the "pass the poison" routine which results in the latter eating the solid gold amulet. Nothing was working here and no one involved was interested in anything but the paycheck, if that.

The Creature Walks Among Us (1956)- Our series finale returns to the question of who is "the real monster" here, but also engages in a bit of body horror towards the Creature, no less. Said real monster is Dr. William Barton, who not only is fanatically jealous about his wife, Marcia (Leigh Snowden) even talking to other men, but is abusive to her and obsessed with capturing the escaped Creature in the Everglades. In the process of doing the latter, the Creature is badly burned, such that three "scientists" led by Dr. Thomas Morgan (Rex Reason) end up bandaging it in a way that the Creature accelerates its evolution, growing human-like skin over its former scales. That skin results in the changed appearance seen above and a new dependence on lungs over its somehow shedded gills, which restricts it from being in the water that is its most customary habitat. Barton then kills one of the guys who did try to make a pass at his wife and tries to blame the Creature for it, who then goes on a rampage when it realizes this, killing everyone within reach (including Barton) and then walking into the sea. The water closes over its head the same way it does over this series of films. This is actually a more interesting story than many of the other Universal offerings, so it coming at the very end of the series' run is something of a rescue for a lot of what came before.

So, in the end, was it a worthy October? Kinda? I definitely don't regret having access to physical copies of the original classics. The front staircase scenes of Dracula are still among the visual moments that stick in my mind when I'm writing something with a horror atmosphere. But would I take the time again to watch a lot of the dreck that followed in the wake of those classics? Probably not. I thought perhaps about waiting a couple years and then doing a rewatch of the 30 of them from back to front, so that at least there'd be an upward trend in the quality of the films as I went along. But a lot of them like She-Wolf of London and the Abbott and Costello chapters are just not worth the time. At the very least, it was worth seeing some of them for the first time and being reminded that Revenge of the Creature was the subject of Mystery Science Theater one time. Will have to go look that one up...