Dr. Renault's Secret (1942)

Dr. Renault's Secret is one of those extremely economical 1940s b-movies that, produced with leftover sets and unused character actors, magically spins a moving tale filled with murder mysteries, mad scientists, crime plots, and romance in a mere 58 minutes. The final film of Charlie Chan director Harry Lachman, its economy is achieved through a series of interesting angles and deep focus shots. The sum creates an atypical apeman film of considerable emotional depth and compelling visuals.

Enter Larry, an American scientist come to the home of Dr. Renault in order to collect his fiancee, Mademoiselle Madelon Renault. A dangerous thing to do, as it turns out. From the moment he arrives at the hotel, where he must stay until the bridge is repaired, someone--or perhaps several people--starts trying to kill him. Could it be Noel, the melancholic, simian servant sent by Dr. Renault to bring him to the mansion? Could it be Rogell, the convict gardener Renault employs? Or could it be Renault himself? They all have motives and none of their motives explains every attempt.

1. Noel, an outsider from, he says, the island of Java, has only one friend in the world, lovely Madelon, whom he would do anything not to lose. He confesses as much to Dr. Renault. 2. Rogell cares only about money and spotted Larry's stuffed wallet. 3. Dr. Renault finds Larry's keen mind digging, question by question, dangerously close to his secret.

One particular murder attempt seems completely inexplicable. As Larry sits in the library reading a text on anthropology, a blade-wielding hand creeps toward him from a hidden panel. Rogell would be the first suspect, so it would be foolish for him to make such a brazen attempt. Noel never wields a weapon anywhere in the film, preferring his bare hands. And Renault has no reason to make an attempt on his future nephew-in-law's life over a few harmless questions. There are no answers provided in the film; it's just there to keep the mystery plot's momentum alive.

The point is that the murder mystery aspects of the film don't really matter. They're hopelessly muddled because the writers didn't care about them. They're a framework with which to explore the essential question of what distinguishes a human from an animal, or, more exactly, what makes a [i]person[/i]. Immanuel Kant was one of the first philosophers to separate the concept of personhood from humanity. For Kant, a person is a being capable of moral reason, rational thought. Any human without powers of moral reasoning isn't even a person; and should a dog be found to reason morally, that dog, Kant would have to admit, is a person. We might say, in colloquial speech, that the moral dog shows more human qualities than the brutish human.

Dr. Renault's titular secret, which isn't much of a secret from the moment we lay eyes on Noel, is Renault's efforts to make a person. Noel's clearly simian appearance, and a later reveal, lets us know he is indeed an ape. After several intensive surgeries involving the brain and nervous system, plastic surgery of the face, and extensive education by Madelon, Noel was 'born'. But it's clear from the secrecy and Noel's persistent melancholy that he is deemed a failure by his own 'father', Dr. Renault.

What makes Noel such a fascinating character, however, is just how much of a success he is. The character of Rogell is primarily in the film as a contrast to Noel. They are similar in that both of them are hampered from flourishing by their genetic and environmental backgrounds. Noel, of course, is genetically an ape. Rogell, we're told, comes from a long line of criminals. And as many children of criminals, he too turned to crime. Who knows what his upbringing was like? Of course, there's no 'criminal gene.' Rogell, despite his background, is not [i]determined[/i] to be a criminal; he can choose a righteous path. Noel, despite even more difficult handicaps, does strive to walk a righteous path. Genetically he is determined to be incapable of moral reasoning. However, the work of Dr. Renault gives him the ability to learn and adapt; and an environment of kindness and friendship provided by Madelon helps him become a person.

Despite committing murders in the film, Noel's sensitivity and humanity leaves him as much a sympathetic character as Karloff's monster in Frankenstein (doubtless an inspiration for the character). When we meet Noel, he is sullen and distant, seemingly lost in thought. He is, of course, thinking over how he is losing Madelon when Larry takes her away. And when Noel intuits the presence of a dog along the road, he sharply stops the car in order to save it. He's also very easily hurt, any ridicule or offense deeply troubling him. This, too, is a very human trait. One touching close-up, where Noel turns to Madelon and we see tears in his eyes, occurs after Dr. Renault suggests the animal mind is no different from the criminal mind. In short, Renault sees Noel as a failed person, hopelessly failed, no better than Rogell. But this is patently false.

What helps make Noel's murders a little more forgivable is what he seems to want to achieve by them. The two main murders Noel commits are against those who, through humiliations, make him feel different, Other. Many of the group scenes in which Noel participates are framed so that Noel is far in the background, emphasizing his outsider status. He feels left out of society, as though he doesn't belong. A few scenes where he's treated with dignity are touching: a lady takes him to dance, Larry and Madelon take him to the fair where he wins her a prize and takes a swan figurine for himself. Some men, jealous of being bested in the fair, say he dances like an ape. Reminded of his otherness, his difference, he murders them. As though murdering them would effectively murder the difference itself. Similarly, Noel's first kill, of a dog that bit him, is not out of revenge or anger over physical pain, but because the dog rejected him for no good reason. What he really longs for is to have friends, to be treated with respect. Unfortunately, murder, a deeply immoral act, all but confirms Dr. Renault's view that Noel is a failure, as it completely severs him from the moral community.

J. Carrol Naish's performance shares considerable credit for making Noel such a strongly sympathetic character. Like Karloff, Naish is able to express a depth of woundedness and loneliness through the make-up and general oddness of the character that is genuinely touching. His quiet manner of speaking and childlike cadence also gives him an innocent quality that makes one very much pity his circumstances. It also, on the other hand, makes his utterance to Dr. Renault, "I could kill you," all the more disturbing.

It is true that Noel is an animal and commits some awful crimes. However, he, in his anxieties, sensitivity, and sorrow, is perhaps the most human character in the film. Madelon is just too angelic, Larry too cardboard, Renault too egomaniacal; but Noel captures all the vulnerability and nobility we expect in a human person. The character of Noel is the film's greatest strength: once one meets him, one will never forget him.

The Wolf Man (1941)

This review contains spoilers. It's recommended you watch the film first.

Having just watched Werewolf of London earlier this week, I have werewolves on the brain. Of all the classic monsters in horror movies, I don't think any is so tragic as the werewolf. For one, the werewolf is almost always the protagonist. Two, the werewolf is the victim of a curse: whatever he does as a werewolf is not something he can control. Three, the werewolf tends to end up dead at the end of the film. I noticed something else about werewolf stories. The protagonist is usually a somehow ostracized individual, someone who is insecure, not belonging. In Werewolf of London, Glendon is simply an unsocial man with a younger wife.

With The Wolf Man, it is a bit more incisive. Let's take a look. Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.), a youngish man, is returning from America to his modern-day nobleman father's (Claude Rains) Welsh country estate to take the reins (no pun intended). He and his father have not had an easy relationship, but the death of the elder brother has occasioned a truce and they both promise to show one another more affection. Now he has to get to know the villagers in order to fit into his new position. At the same time gypsies, about as emblematic of outsider-dom as it gets, show up with the werewolf curse. Talbot contracts the curse from Bela (Lugosi). From there he is persecuted by the villagers with increasing ferocity until he's killed by his own father in a particularly brutal instance of infanticide.

So the anxiety for young Talbot to fit in is high. First of all he must fit in with his father, who had evidently been grooming the elder son to take over the estate. While Claude Rains plays Talbot Sr. for a kind, thoughtful man, his relationship with his son is still a bit uneasy; they're discovering new emotional vistas together. Talbot Sr. is an astronomer whose libraries and observatory attest to an erudite mind. Talbot Jr. on the other hand only works with his hands; he becomes increasingly frustrated with the werewolf legend because of his inability to find concrete application for it. He understands things hands-on; he's a physical person. This puts more of a gulf between he and his father. Talbot Jr. is clearly eager for his father's acceptance and while I think he more or less has it, he doesn't realize he does. He feels like a monster before his father. An early title for the film was Destiny; and in some sense infanticide feels like destiny here.

Perhaps Talbot would have felt more accepted by his father if he'd felt more accepted by his father's villagers, whom he knows his father to value very highly. But he becomes inextricably bound up with the gypsies. They arrive at the same time he does. They are fortune tellers; Talbot jokes that he's psychic to his love-interest Gwen. After killing one of the gypsies in wolf form, he's questioned by the local authorities and the people begin to gossip about him. This is when he assumes wolf form himself. Here's an exchange he has with the sympathetic Dr. Lloyd: Lloyd says, "It might be a case of mental suggestion, by mass hypnotism." Talbot replies, "You mean by that, he could be influenced by the people about him?" This exchange occurs immediately after Talbot could not bring himself to enter the church for Sunday mass; he was stared at by the whole congregation until he retreated. A particularly vocal woman, the mother of Bela Lugosi's sole victim in the village, makes clear to him that they think he's a monster. Might these people have made their own monster?

As with Werewolf of London, there is a problem with communication. Where Glendon just kept his problems to himself, Talbot tries to tell people and nobody will listen. The most sympathetic to him is Dr. Lloyd, but Talbot Sr. interferes whenever the doctor tries to help. The doctor plainly suggests letting him leave town; Talbot Sr. will hear none of it. He prevails upon his father to bind him to a chair, but it is too little too late and he is bludgeoned to death by his father a short time later.

The Wolf Man is thus a tragic story of an outsider; the protagonist is a good person who is being afflicted, made a monster against his will. His downfall is no fault of his own. The spiritual center of the film, the gypsy Maleva, puts it thus: "The way you walked was thorny, through no fault of your own, but as the rain enters the soil, the river enters the sea, so tears run to a predestined end." And the oft-repeated rhyme, "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright," is almost tailored to Talbot, certainly a man who fits the 'pure in heart' bill. Chaney exudes that 'lovable oaf' quality, a man who's probably never had a dark thought in his life. He's an oversensitive man caught in a situation that destroys him.

I was gripped by The Wolf Man from beginning to end. It's a rare film that gives me a hankering to re-watch right after the first viewing, but I do want to re-watch it. Every character in this film is likable. That's an incredible feat. Even the domineering father has my sympathy; he loved his son very much, but simply couldn't believe the wolf and his son could be the same being. Chaney's engaging performance as an alternatively charming, jaunty man and tormented, depressed outcast draws a lot of sympathy, which is what such a sensitive screenplay required to work. It's startling to see his enthusiasm crushed so soon, his joyous entrance full of optimism turned into this pessimistic tragedy, "so tears run to a predestined end."

Two Animated Shorts

REVIEWS:
Who Killed Who? (1943)

With more visual inventiveness in under eight minutes than any David Lynch or Lucio Fulci picture has in an hour, all of Tex Avery's shorts are fantastic.

While ostensibly a murder mystery, Who Killed Who? plays as an old dark house picture. We begin with a long, slow pan into a window above the mansion's front door, all the while archetypal horror sound effects are played non-stop--gee, what's going on in there? Nothing. But it's spooky, isn't it?

As the detective arrives to solve the murder of the man we first find sitting a chair labeled 'Victim,' skeletons, ghosts, suspicious servants, and a hooded murderer pop out of the woodwork.

Oh yeah, and it's even got some cheesecake for the guys. Great fun. Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U89qW4-ht7w


Bold King Cole (1936)

Felix the Cat is too darned happy, so nature conspires to throw a thunderstorm at him in the midst of his banjo solo. Well, the only refuge for poor Felix is an old castle across the gorge, where dwelleth King Cole.

King Cole is a pear-shaped coward, but he boasts a lot. Enter Felix. Cole begins boasting to Felix in the hall of paintings, where the ghosts of previous kings--all with working-class Bostonian accents, oddly enough--conspire to teach the old windbag a lesson. And holy **** do they ever!

This little short actually traumatized its fair share of children when originally shown, or when placed on budget VHS cartoon compilations.

Now it's disturbing a brand new audience on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isbzfRh4za8

Check it out, enjoy the terrific score, and the general playfulness with image and sound--especially sound.

FACTS:
Who Killed Who?
Director - Tex Avery
Voices - Tex Avery, Billy Bletcher
1943
8 min

Bold King Cole
Director - Burt Gillett
Voices - ?
1936
8 min

WHERE TO GET THEM:
On Youtube.
Who Killed Who? is also a special feature on the DVD for Presenting Lily Mars.

TIDBITS:
In Hellraiser: Deader, a character is seen watching Bold King Cole.
Who Killed Who? is featured in Twelve Monkeys.