She-Wolf of London (1946)

For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956).  Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever.  Today, you may be fooled by She-Wolf of London.

Spoiler Alert: The following contains revelation of key plot elements, which may ruin the movie's surprises.

When I wrote about Werewolf of London, I mentioned pictures of Henry Hull in full makeup that appeared in monster magazines and books when I was a child.  As I began watching She-Wolf of London (1946), I realized I didn't recall any pictures of June Lockhart in similar makeup.  Little did I realize that it was because there is no wolf, she or otherwise, in the movie at all.  Yes, it's a direct sequel; however, it's a crime mystery rather than a typical Universal Monsters horror movie.

For a good portion of the movie, you don't realize there's no werewolf.  In its opening moments, a title card reminds us of the Allenby legend and a Scotland Yard inspector attributes a brutal murder in the park to a werewolf.  It does seem to make more sense than the stray dog theory, and Phyllis Allenby (Lockhart) is portrayed as the sole inheritor of not only her family's fortune, but also its curse.

When the suspected murderer leaves the house walking upright and wearing a hood, I began to suspect something different was happening.  Sure enough, Phyllis is being set up and her own belief in the curse may be driving her crazy.  It's a clever twist, but one I can't decide if audiences were thrilled by or disappointed by.  Once my suspicions were raised, I was pretty sure I knew the identity of the villain, but the movie is reluctant to say for sure.

It actually could be one of two women, if the evidence gathered is accurate about indicating the perpetrator's gender.  Both Martha Winthrop (Sara Haden), Phyllis's stern aunt, and Carol Winthrop (Jan Wiley), her cousin, act suspicious at various times.  Martha would be the more obvious choice, but Carol would be a more shocking choice.  How far will a 1946 movie really go?

While She-Wolf of London may be atypical in many ways, its melodramatic climax is nothing but typical.  The real killer reveals herself and is overheard, initiating a chase through the house that provides the real lessons of the movie: don't run in a long dress and don't run with a knife in your hand.  Just as the police arrive, drugged Phyllis murmurs, "She's going to kill me," to which she's replied, "No, dear… she'll never kill anyone else."  Music swells, credits roll…

Tomorrow: The Brute Man!

Werewolf of London (1935)

For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956).  Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever.  Today, one that never quite took off... Werewolf of London!

It’s no wonder 1935’s Werewolf of London didn’t kick off a franchise similar to Universal’s Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy or Invisible Man.  It’s an odd version of the familiar werewolf story with elements of which I’m not aware of appearing in any other subsequent movies.

Specifically, the story revolves around… botany.  The flower isn’t wolfbane that blooms when the autumn moon is bright; it’s something called “mariphasa” that produces an antidote for “werewolfery.”  Yeah, I’ve never heard the term “werewolfery” in any other movie, either.

Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull) is the botanist who brings home the flower after a trip to Tibet, a trip where he happens to be bitten by a werewolf.  There are some interesting touches in the movie, such as when his bloody arm phases to a scarred arm to indicate a passage of time and his return to London.

Directed by Stuart Walker, whose career spanned 12 movies in only four years, Werewolf of London unfolds at an even pace for most of its 75-minute running time.  However, near the finale, it speeds up with one of the earliest examples I know of the fast intercutting of short scenes with different people talking on the telephone.

Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) follows Glendon home from Tibet in pursuit of the flower.  There’s an interesting plot twist late in the movie, even if you figure it out much earlier than it’s revealed.  With the familiar pattern of Universal horror movies, there is not only a love triangle, but also another villain to make the monster more sympathetic.

Early during his return, Glendon neglects his wife, Lisa (Valerie Hobson), telling her that as soon as he finishes his experiment he’ll be more human.  Little does he know that as the mariphasa buds bloom, hair begins to grow on his hands.  Luckily, he can poke the flower to make it stop.

It becomes more difficult for him later, though, when the flower is stolen by Yogami and he “instinctively seeks to kill the thing it loves best,” Lisa.  He must kill one human being each night of the full moon or remain forever afflicted.  Hence, there begins a series of “mysterious Goose Lane murders.”  When given the likely explanation, an inspector says, “This is Scotland Yard, not Grimm’s Fairy Tales.”

Glendon’s transformations are creatively filmed.  As he walks through a set, each time he emerges from behind an obstacle, he’s advanced a little further.  His werewolf, though, is more man than wolf, walking upright and even putting on clothes rather than ripping out of them.  However, it is described as, “Neither man nor wolf, but a satanic creature with the worst of both.”

Growing up, I remember seeing pictures from Werewolf of London in Famous Monsters and books about classic horror movies.  Hull always looked so good made up as the werewolf.  The moving image of him, though, does not quite live up to those pictures (and those memories).  This is one of the reasons the movie is a little disappointing and is not one of my favorites.