London After Midnight (1927)

User Rating:

7.0/10   

Director:

Tod Browning

Writers:

Tod Browning (story)
Waldemar Young (scenario)

Release Date:

17 December 1927 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | Horror

Tagline:

LON CHANEY in a great Scotland Yard Mystery

Plot:

The abandoned home of a wealthy man who supposedly committed suicide five years earlier is taken over by ghoulish figures - could they be vampires?

Plot Keywords:

Night | Butler | Inspector | Maid | Vampire

Cast

Lon Chaney	...	Professor Edward C. Burke
Marceline Day	...	Lucille Balfour
Henry B. Walthall	...	Sir.James Hamlin
Percy Williams	...	Williams, Balfour's Butler
Conrad Nagel	...	Arthur Hibbs
Polly Moran	...	Miss Smithson, the New Maid
Edna Tichenor	...	Luna, Bat Girl
Claude King	...	Roger Balfour
Andy MacLennan	...	Bat Girl's Assistant

Also Known As:

The Hypnotist (UK)

Runtime:

69 min (22 fps)

Country:

USA

Colour:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Sound Mix:

Silent

Certification:

USA:Unrated

Company:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)

Trivia:

Is on AFI's "Lost Films" list.

Quotes:

Luna, Bat Girl: Aw, stop kicking! We got more for doing this than we'd earn in a month at the theatre!

Movie Connections:

Referenced in Monster by Moonlight! The Immortal Saga of 'The Wolf Man' (1999) (V)

The Movie Patron's Warning

London After Midnight (1927)

This is not so much a review as an attack. And even then, the attack is not a hostile one. I'm not one to attack a movie without what I feel is a worthy reason. The only movies that even come to mind that I've attacked in writing are Bad Boys II and the recent Sex and the City movie, though that extends to the show as well. Personally, I found Bad Boys II offensive on nearly every conceivable level, so I attacked it. I despise the shameless embrace of materialism in Sex and the City. I think that show at one time was a satire, but just got too lazy to make the effort at cleverness, and instead wallowed gleefully it its shallow pool.

Those attacks were hostile. My reason for Attacking London After Midnight is not so much an attack on the film in and of itself, but an attack on the "reconstruction" of the film - the only way to see it today. The film opened to mixed reviews, yet was director Tod Brownings and Lon Chaney's most financially successful work. But then the only remaining print of the film was destroyed by fire in 1967. It's now on the AFI's lost films list, and has garnered something of an illustrious reputation and following. There are rumors that another print, fully intact exists, but this reconstruction is the only version available. It was reported as "the closest to the original version we'll see." Maybe that is so, maybe the rumors of an intact print are just that. Although many are grateful that this reconstruction exists to give them a glimpse at a lost film, when it comes down to it, this version is nothing that cannot be matched looking at a google image search, playing ominous music on windows media player, and reading from a transcript. What I'm trying to say is that this is nothing but an only kind of slick 45 minute power point presentation. It consists entirely of still photographs, panned and zoomed upon with intermittent title cards. Now, while I think this is a fairly ambitious and interesting attempt at a reconstruction, it's nevertheless just a summary from someone else's point of view, Rick Schmidlin's. He famously reconstructed Greed and Touch of Evil, and he did win an award for London After Midnight. It's my opinion though that while this is an admirable attempt, its also a misguided attempt. It's simply a curiosity project for those who have been waiting patiently to hear of a found copy of a movie that was by most accounts only mediocre. I can't make that judgment, because I still haven't seen the movie, just an elaborate photo summary of it.

Now this is not to say that still images cannot make films (lets face it, its just still images flickered through light 24 times a second), and I would direct you to my impressions of La Jetee. But La Jetee's style was Chris Marker's intent for his film, but it wasn't Tod Browning's intent for London After Midnight. Browning had his own style, and moved and shot with his camera in particular ways for particular reasons. By reducing his direction to static images removes him from director and replaces him as set photographer. In a way, it's almost a rape of the directors work. Not intentional, of course, though.

My "attack" is this: this reconstruction brings me no closer to having seen the film. I only have an idea of how it went. Sure I know a bit more about it and how it looked than before, but its just tantamount to preview research. Hence, no rating. Not zero stars, simply no rating, because, simply, I never got to see the real movie.

Was it a waste of 45 minutes? My time, yes. Your time? Depends on your predilections, I suppose. Maybe this is not so much an attack then as a warning or disclaimer akin to those found on hazardous products. If you expect a real view of a lost film, you're likely to be annoyed that you only get to glimpse through archives, and be left sour. That might not be good for your health.