THE MUMMY
1932

The Mummy is the first of the films that deal with a a previously normal human transformed into something “unnatural”

Mummies of course are best known in Egypt where they were deliberately prepared (as opposed to accidentally made by having died in an very dry climate).

The West’s interest in Egypt is long standing and the three large pyramids on the Giza Plateau near Cairo were one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world (and are the only surviving one).

Egyptian material was not well known and the hieroglyphic writing system was lost. It was only through the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt when he found the Rosetta stone, which had the same message in three different forms. A brilliant linguist named Francois Champollion broke the system and as a result the enormous body of literature about ancient Egypt written by the Egyptians became available.

An Egyptologist, Howard Carter working for Lord Carnarvan, after searcging for years on 4 Nov, 1922 found the in tact tomb of a relatively unknown Pharaoh named King Tut. This discovery resonated throughout the Western world and much of it went “Egyptian happy” (sometimes called "Egyptomania")

In this film, the Mummy’s name is Imhotep and his lost love in Ankhesenamun. Imhotep is actually the name of the person who was the engineer for the pyraminds, while Ankhesenamun is the name of King Tut’s wife! In later universal films, the mummy’s name changes to Kharis and Ankhesenamun becomes Ananka which is close to the name of the Greek personification of unalterable necessity, Anake (called Fatum by the Romans)

While the opening of the tomb of King Tut is clearly involved in the mummy story, the curse associated with King Tut also plays a role.

The Mummy films made by Hammer Studios which we will discuss later this term, also called their Mummy Kharis and the princess Ananka

For Universal Studios this was the third of the big four monster movies to come out. It was preceded by Dracula and Frankenstein and would be followed by The Wolf Man (1941). There were other horror films coming out with creatures that might appear to be monsters in them (Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932), The invisible Man (1933) for example) but these did not produce the same reaction about the general public as did the earlier ones who failed to produce a sequence of films. It would be many years before Universal would latch onto another “popular” monster in the form of the Creature from the Black Lagoon for who a set of sequels would follow.

The Mummy stars Boris Karloff once again (after Frankenstein and Fu Manchu), and Zita Johann an actress of some repute from the Broadway stage. She made only 8 films, The Mummy being the third. Her experiences with The Mummy caused her to leave Hollywood and resume her stage career which she did with great success. She died close to 90 in Nyack NY

As bizarre as it may seem, the film started its life totally disconnected with mummies and ancient Egypt and was in fact a science fiction script which featured a kind of early television set. This set morphs into the pool in which the mummy shows her past lives, although only one past life appears in the released version of the film.

The story is interesting since it contains a number of Egyptian elements tied around a totally un-Egyptian idea – that a mummy would come back to life and cause murder and mayhem to the person or people who despoil its (or anyone else’s) tomb. Despite this, the film tends has a number of Egyptian references and Egyptian names which are accurate to a point. The screen writer had in fact covered the opening of King Tut’s tomb as a reporter and knew a good deal about what had happened and the layout of Cairo and so on.

In this original Mummy film, the mummy is not running around in his wrappings throughout the film as happens in later films. In this film the mummy that returns to life is that of Imhotep, who becomes the rather elderly looking Ardath Bey whose skin, thanks to some brilliant photography by Charles Sturner and remarkable make-up by Jack Pierce looks almost translucent, and on occasion and something akin to old papyrus. Imhotep is of course, a proper Egyptian name and it belongs to the architect of the pyramids, although it is unlikely that the mummy is actually supposed to represent him.

Imhotep/Ardath Bey is sufficiently “ancient Egyptian” that he correctly begins his prayer to Isis with the words “Nebet nebet”. Somebody did their research.

The name of the ancient Egyptian princess Anckesen-Amon, (reincarnated as Helen Grosvenor and beautifully played by Zita Johann) is also an actual Egyptian name, generally spelled Ankhsenamun (which is closer to what is actually said in the film). Ankhsenamun (changed from Ankhsenpaaten) is the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Ankhsenamun became the wife of King Tutankhamun (who had changed his name from Tutankhaten – the Egyptians seem to like to change names). By the Mummy’s Curse (1944) the Princess is now Anaka.

The mummy’s name is changed for some unknown reason for Imhotep in this film to Kharis in the films that follow. The result is that the cycle of mummy films which follow (The Mummy’s Hand (1940) (Tom Tylor), The Mummy’s Tomb (1942), the Mummy’s Curse (1944) The Mummy’s Ghost (1944) ) is often referred to as the Kharis cycle. It is not clear if this is the same mummy (having changed his name) or another mummy altogether. Kharis remains Kharis thereafter although the person inside varies between Tim Tyler, Lon Chaney Jr.. Ardeth Bey is a double joke. Karloff has a slight list and pronounces Boris, Borith. In pig Latin this becomes orith bey. The priest who keeps him alive (so to speak) is named Andoheb (possibly based on Imhotep).

Kharis and Anaka are not Egyptian names, but may come from ancient Greek. Kharis (χάρις) means “grace, favor or gratitude”. Ananke ( ανακε???) is the Greek personification of of necessity which can not be changed by Gods or people. Of course it is equally possible that Ananka is simply a variant constructed on the Egyptian “ankh”.

Ardeth Bay is a double joke. Boris Karloff had a slight lisp and a British accent which often turns “r” into something akin to “d”.As a result he often pronounced his first name as Bahdith. In pig Latin this becomes Ahdith Bay or Ardeth Bay. Ardeth Bay is also an anagram for “death by Ra”

Analysis of films for their subtextual meanings is not easy. Several approaches can be taken:

(a) the story is a metaphor for the subtext

(b) the story is an exemplar of the subtext.

One has to look at the text and see if there is information coded into it that would lead to some analysis of what is happening in the subtext. Typically, subtexts tend to fall in 4 categories:

Social structure which involves politics, power, gender and so on,

Science and technology

Religion

Psychological matters (usually sexual)

Often films will take o more than one of these subtexts as we have seen in films like Frankenstein.

Analytic techniques are found in literary and folkloric analysis:

One for of analysis is called “content analysis” where analysts look for anything that might be representative of the message. This can include names, objects or techniques used as symbols and so on.

Another kind of analysis is called “structural analysis” and was championed by Claude Levi-Straus, who maintains that people think in binary opposites so there are places in the story where there are opposites that need to be mediated in some way. These, according to Levi-Strauss, relieve cultural tensions. So he holds for example that the Greeks were concerned about a kind of one line descent – that is, a person was part of their father’s group, and not their mothers. As a result, his examination of the Oedipus story show a contrast between family names (Oedipus=swollen foot, while his father and grandfather’s names mean “lame” and “left sided”). These he contrasts with monsters in the story (e.g. the sphinx). He also sees people over reacting to one side of the family (Oedipus married his mother), while underrating the other side (Oedipus kills his father). These pairs of opposition lead him to conclude the Greeks worried about their lineality (line of descent) being reckoned from only one side of the family.

Mel Jacobs, like Levi Strauss deals largely with myth (i.e. stories which are believed true and sacred) and says “mythology is the repository for repressed tension. This says basically, the unmentionable becomes mentionable in myth. He points out that girl’s puberty rituals are discussed openly in Chinook culture (N.W. Coast US) and are the major rituals in the culture, but rarely if ever occur in the mythology. On the other hand, the practice of mother-in-law avoidance is never discussed in the culture but turns up regularly in the mythology.

The Prague School of Linguistics developed the idea that one calls attention to certain aspects of stories by building patterns and then breaking them where something significant happens. This technique is used to focus attention on certain parts of the stories.

THE FILM attempts to take supernatural story serious as was the case with Dracula. Accepts efficacy of Ancient Egyptian beliefs.

AFTER THE FILM

ACTING:

Karloff both restrained and powerful through self control.

Little body movement. Objection to being touched.

SOME MINOR PROBLEMS

Screen play went through many changes and many cuts and reorganizations in the post production stage.

PARALLELS WITH DRACULA

Both deal with supernatural character in pursuit of a woman, who are capable of drawing the women to them by supernatural means.

Both women have boy friends who try to assist them, and are usually unable to. Scenes with Helen pushing to “pretty up: very much like Minna getting prettied up

Both have 2 men after the woman. Certainly Frank in Mummy loves a deceased woman as does Imhotep. This makes a parallel between Imhotep and Frank

Both have amulets for protection (crucifix and Isis image). Put on door.

Both films have a “supernatural expert” who confronts the supernatural being. Van Helsing with a mirror Dr. Wilbur with a photograph. Both confrontations lead to the character “losing their cool”.

IN TERMS OF THE STORY

Links between Helen and Ankhesenamun:

Pan shot from him calling her name to us seeing her

Examination and parallels with Ankhesenamun’s and Helen’s mirrors etc.

PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING

Karl Freund, the director was the cinematographer on Dracula and Murder in the Rue Morgue. He worked a large number of films as a cinematographer and his background in this area is obvious. Much of the direction however, is in the script. Hard to know how much is Freund and how much was John L. Balderston. The camera work is very much that of Freund.

Moving camera and resultant slow pace links the style to a German sty;e of the 20’s in which Lingered on images that linger on images to create Stimmung: a sense of emotional or psychological atmosphere that hovers in the space about peope or objects. Action secondary to imprecise and unstated.

Freund allows the camera to tell the story regularly.

In the the opening scene, the contract between Norton and Camera pan across Cairo to Helen

Trips through the museum

FORESHADOWING

Lamp in first scene

Embalming basin in foreground, shadow of Nubian stirring

Shadows of Nubian on the wall.

MAKE-UP

Jack Pierce: great make up in close ups,

“the ancient blood”: the film comments on “blood” on several occasions (Frank asks Helen is she isn’t part Egyptian as does Ardeth Bay) which are indicators of blood (race) rather than ethnicity. The line discusses “the ancient blood” refers to the relationship between Imhotep and the Nubian and is also used to discuss the “blood” connection between Imhotep and Helen/Ankhesenamun

All this plus the difference in the camera work would imply that this is a significant aspect of the film.

There seem to be two main themes in the film. One deals with both obsession and lack of attainment, the other with cultural differences and a kind of longing for the past.

Both Frank and Ardeth Bey love an unattainable woman, although Imhotep/Bey is far more obsessive about it and it leads to problems.

Romantically looking at the past is dangerous. Notice the way the way the camera wanders through the museum (but) not through modern Western homes.

There is also a question about the two cultures, British and Egyptian. Note the way that Bey ignores the doctors hand when he goes to shake hands with him and Bey’s dislike of being touched.

The problems for Helen represent her being torn not only between two personalities but two times and cultures as well.

"The ancient Blood": indications of blood rather than ethnicity. The line discusses the relationship between Imhotep and the Nubian.

It is also used to disscuss the “blood” connection between Imhotep and Helen/Ankhesemun