The Monster Movies Of Universal Studios By James L. Neibaur

There are a few typos in the text which suggest that another proofreading was in order; however, the book will be sure to entertain and enlighten fans of the classic monsters. I recommend it.

Review: Monsters of a Universal kind

THE MOVIE MONSTERS OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, by James L. Neibaur. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017, 213 pages. $38 (hardcover), $36 (e-book).

While the field of book-length studies of the iconic monster films produced by Universal Pictures between the 1930s and ’50s is a crowded one, James L. Neibaur proves there’s always room for one more with a fresh viewpoint and solid observations about what makes those flicks great and what doesn’t. THE MONSTER MOVIES OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS is written with the assurance of a devotee, but one who can view them dispassionately and be unafraid of calling them out on their defects — not there are that many, in this reviewer’s humble opinion.

“The monster movies … have extended beyond the context of the era of their release and have lived on over time and generations,” Neibaur rightly contends in explaining the book’s thesis when it comes to the Universal classics. “The iconic characters and enduring stories continue to resonate.”

The book begins as expected with the studio’s first sound foray into monster territory, 1931’s DRACULA, but extends its overview beyond ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) — where many studies end or fail to include — to the Creature from the Black Lagoon movies that represented Universal’s last gasp at creating a new monster to serve audiences in an era where science fiction supplanted gothic horror. That is, until later in the ’50s when Great Britain’s Hammer Films once more made Dracula and Frankenstein all the rage.

It is the inclusion of the Creature films of 1954-1956 that make the book unique, with the author working hard and successfully at convincing his readers that they were as much fright films with a distinctive type of monster as they were SF thrillers. More often, the Creature movies have been treated as a special case by historians, while classic monsters’ appearances in the Abbott & Costello comedies …MEET THE INVISIBLE MAN (1951) and …MEET THE MUMMY (1955) are dismissed because these cinematic bogeymen were included in burlesques to bolster the career of the longtime comic team. These movies are included in THE MOVIE MONSTERS OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS because they were extensions of the classic beings created in the ’30s, Neibaur maintains while providing each the full treatment in plot outline and critical discussion.

One can be expected to disagree with Neibaur on some points because each fan has their own likes and dislikes. Case in point, his analysis of WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) as a misfire in light of THE WOLF MAN, which hit screens six years later. THE WOLF MAN remains a great movie for many reasons, but was very much a product of the “new” Universal that replaced the regime of studio founder Carl Laemmle Sr. and his son, production chief Carl Jr., in the mid-’30s. THE WOLF MAN, like other Universal product of its time, is fast and compact, a mixture of mood and action. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is more representative of the Laemmle days, heavy on atmosphere if slow in pacing, but unforgettable once seen. But to each his own.

In fact, the only quibble to be had with THE MONSTER MOVIES OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS is that it needed a good proofreader (and who doesn’t?) before going into print. But Neibaur, a film historian with a number of books to his credit (with one forthcoming on the Charlie Chan movies of the 1930s and ’40s), is to be forgiven as he informed Facebook friends of difficulties encountered in completing the volume that may have prevented a thorough once-over before publication. Still, don’t allow any of that to deter you from enjoyment of the book and Neibaur’s informed commentary on the films built around Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Wolf Man and the Creature.

As advertised in its title, Neibaur’s work does not discuss other famous Universals as THE BLACK CAT (1934) or THE RAVEN (1935) because its “monsters” were all too human, not a product of the supernatural, scientific error or a throwback to ancient times. Perhaps a look at thrillers such as Bela Lugosi’s MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1932) or one-offs like MAN-MADE MONSTER (1941) with Lon Chaney Jr., not to mention the studio’s early ’50s attempts at gothic terror in THE STRANGE DOOR and THE BLACK CASTLE, is in the works. If produced, such a piece of scholarship would be just as welcome as Neibaur’s page-turner of a study as we now possess. — Kevin Kelly.
https://matineememories.blogspot.com/

Although their characters have become iconic, the now classic fantasy monster films of Universal Studios have suffered a reputation of creakiness, cheap thrills, poor characterization and logic gaps. While the images of Bela Lugosi’s Dracula, Boris Karloff’s Frankenstein Monster, and Elsa Lanchester’s Bride of Frankenstein dominate magazine covers, notebooks, posters, mugs and other collectibles, the series of movies that introduced these characters seems to get very little respect from film historians. A step in the right direction to correct this is the excellent new book The Monster Movies of Universal Studios by James L. Neibaur, published by Rowman and Littlefield. In this fascinating new study, the author puts Universal’s horror series into proper historical context. Unlike other books on the subject, Neibaur has limited his focus to films that feature one or more of Universal’s line up of monsters. This book focuses on the classic era, with the range of focus highlighting movies from 1931 through 1956. Any movie made by Universal Studios during this period with Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, The Wolf Man and The Creature From The Black Lagoon is discussed in depth with a chapter devoted to each feature, twenty nine movies in all. These include all of the sequels and films that blended fantasy and comedy elements when Universal paired up their monsters with their house comedy duo Abbott and Costello. The book is an impressive work of film scholarship and shines a spotlight on classic Hollywood studio moviemaking by looking at one of the longest film series at a major studio.
Readers disappointed that Neibaur didn’t discuss such mystery and horror offerings from Universal during this period such as The Old Dark House and Murders in the Rue Morgue (both 1932) shouldn’t be. The focus on the monsters makes the book a one of a kind study devoted to characters that seem to always be taken for granted. While Edgar G. Ulmer’s The Black Cat (1934) is celebrated for it’s daring, unconventional storyline, the films that feature the monsters seem to get lumped in with low budget movies from a later era. In fact, movies such as The Invisible Man (1933), The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and Dracula’s Daughter (1936) share more in common with The Black Cat then just being made at the same studio. The author restores these films to their proper place as valuable works of cinematic art.
This isn’t to say that when there are jumps in narrative logic, especially evident in the later movies, Neibaur doesn’t point them out. However, even these assembly line B films are given more respect in this book then in previous studies of the Universal genre catalog. The usual pattern of writers discussing movies made during The Great Depression and World War II is to highlight the escapism and lighthearted nature that many of those films exhibit. Examples that prove this pattern include the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers cycle at RKO, the Topper films, etc. In this work Neibaur presents a different argument- that the monster series presented something very real to fight against, a threat that personified the evils of economic crisis and foreign fascism. Given this argument, it is somewhat less hard to believe that the horror series at Universal would decline in popularity after the war ended.
Each chapter is full of behind the scenes information and welcome analysis into the filmmaking process. It’s clear that Neibaur has studied the screenplays for these films, as he points out in The Wolf Man (1941) chapter that the script written by Curt Siodmak never mentions Larry Talbot turning into a werewolf. Another example is the chapter on Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) where the author points out that the exchange banter between Lou Costello and the character of McDougal wasn’t originally in the screenplay. He also details the director’s choices and how that affects each film. Things like shot construction, use of negative space and lighting are discussed and are welcome additions to movies that are sometimes seen as just assembly line end products. Many of the chapters contain rare trade ads, which give insight into how Universal marketed these films to theater owners. In addition to contemporary reviews of each movie, some of the chapters reference a series in the Motion Picture Herald called “What The Picture Did For Me,” in which theater exhibitors wrote in to the Herald and discussed how well certain films did at their theaters. This is a viewpoint of film history that sometimes gets ignored and it is to the credit of the author’s research that he has included these very welcome additions in certain chapters.