Movie Review – Ghoul, The (1933)
Principal Cast : Boris Karloff, Cedric Hardwicke, Ernest Thesiger, Dorothy Hyson, Anthony Bushell, Kathleen Harrison, Harold Huth, DA Clarke-Smith, Ralph Richardson, Jack Raine, George Relph.
Synopsis: An Egyptologist returns from the dead to take revenge on those who have violated his tomb.
********
Made to capitalise on the zeitgeist of Britain’s seemingly insatiable curiosity with all things Ancient Egyptian, a holdover from the runaway popularity with the culture during the reign of Queen Victoria, the 1933 British adaptation of Frank King’s novel sees nascent horror star Boris Karloff in a rare non-Universal genre flick, playing an Egyptologist who decides to resurrect himself after death using a mysterious trinket recovered from the desert tombs of said exotic country. Helmed by American immigrant director T Hayes Hunter following his relocation to Britain, and distributed by Gaumont-British films, The Ghoul was a popular movie in its native UK but flopped at the US box-office. The fact the film taps into moody, fogbound London streets, shadowy Egyptian tombs and mythology, and a decadent, prurient taboo of bringing the dead back to life, The Ghoul has found itself with considerable cult appeal outside the more traditional US-made horror fare, and has a typically droll, overly melodramatic Boris Karloff turn as the titular monster.
The Ghoul is a classic British horror film starring Boris Karloff as Professor Henry Morlant, a fanatical Egyptologist who becomes obsessed with the idea of immortality. On his deathbed, Morlant believes that a sacred Egyptian jewel, the Eternal Light, has the power to bring him back from the dead if it is placed in his tomb. Before dying, he entrusts his loyal but scheming servant, Laing (Ernest Thesiger), with the task of ensuring the jewel is buried with him. However, Laing, along with Morlant’s lawyer Broughton (Cedric Hardwicke) and others, conspire to steal the jewel for their own gain. Meanwhile, Ralph Richardson plays Nigel Hartley, a mysterious clergyman who appears to have his own agenda regarding Morlant’s death. Betty Hargreaves (Dorothy Hyson), the love interest of Ralph Morlant (Anthony Bushell), Henry’s nephew, is drawn into the increasingly tense situation as various parties vie for control of the jewel. Unbeknownst to them, Morlant’s belief in the jewel’s power is not unfounded. When the jewel is stolen from his grave, the professor rises from the dead in a ghastly, zombie-like form to exact revenge on those who betrayed him.
The Ghoul trades a lot on several tropes of golden age Hollywood, notably the mix of occult rituals, ancient Egyptian curses, things that lurk in the shadows, and lots of fog. While the plot and the acting performances are largely fogettable – and some practically an affront to the profession of “acting”, director T Haynes Hunter’s visual style and sense of foreboding cannot be more understated. The director does his best with a pedestrian and trite screenplay from Roland Pertwee and John Hastings Turner, with clumsy dialogue and overly theatrical delivery stalling some of the more visceral horror tones from becoming truly electric. Some key set-pieces – a fogbound city street in which Dorothy Hyson’s Betty Harlon is assaulted by a mysterious figure, for example – are highly effective in terms of executing early century horror aesthetics, while the set design of the Morlant estate, from its sprawling grounds to vaulted interior, is given haunting malevolence thanks to cinematographer Gunther Krampf’s gorgeous photography. The lighting, set design and costuming are all evocative of the genre, deep blacks, muted greys and sinking shadows in every frame, and when the actors appear inside these varied settings there’s a genuine sense of danger. If only the script and performances were stronger.
Karloff is, as Karloff always is, a consummate horror icon, and his manifestation of the titular “ghoul” appearance upon the resurrection of Henry Morlant is at times the equal to that of anything in Tod Browning’s Dracula or Freaks. His sonorous voice is profoundly effective in conveying both menace and terror in equal portions, and despite a clunky script he’s arguably the star of the show and understands the material he’s working with. Although perhaps not as immediately iconic as Frankenstein or one of the other stable of classic literary monsters, his take as a ghoulish resurrected man conjures up various primal fears, enough to satisfy most classic film fans at least. The supporting cast are all underserved with nonsensical characters and plot mechanics that baffle, not the least being poor Anthony Bushell as the arrogant and uptight Ralph Morlant, Henry’s nephew. Bushell is given the task of turning an otherwise asshole character into some kind of hero to root for, which doesn’t work – not because Bushell is a poor actor, but rather the way the character is written and given some terrible beats within the story – while Dorothy Hyson attempts to personify the doe-eyed heroine, without much chop. Cedric Hardwicke and Ernest Thesiger have significant roles overall, and Thesiger, as the clubfooted manservant Laing, is particularly effective with his heavy-sunk eyes and corpse-like visage, is a fair visual ruse for the film in terms of who exactly the villain is.
There’s a hell of a lot to recommend about The Ghoul, from its tremendously gothic, expressionist style and effective camerawork. As a production the film wants for little to aide its quest to be terrifying for audiences of the period, and although some aspects have dated poorly over time the overall impact of what appears on the screen remains largely intact. What trips the film up is an often terribly contrived script and plot, with lines of dialogue no actor could deliver with a straight face to camera and make it meaningful, and as much as Hunter directs this one as hard as he absolutely can there’s a deficit of creativity behind the camera – on the printed page – that tugs at the high functioning reason centers of the brain. If this film came out yesterday I’d describe it as a “missed opportunity” to create something truly memorable, but given we’re rapidly approaching the film’s centenary I would have to suggest it’s a forgotten mini-classic, destined to remain a cult curiosity rather than a full-fledged member of the horror pantheon of the period. Genre fans should definitely check it out.
Who wrote this?
