Um Mitternacht

It's sad to say, I would probably not know much about this movie had it not been reconstructed. I did not know it was a lost "classic" (with mixed reviews). That's one of the reasons why I love projects like this so much, they help manifest the place in movie history some lost movies deserve. Another reason why I like projects like these, is that they give you the thrill of getting as close as possible to seeing something considered lost. Even though it's readily available, it feels somehow exclusive. (Oh, the vanity!) Even though they managed to piece the surviving stills and title cards together in an impressive coherent way, I still did struggle to follow the plot at times. Still, I prefer it over trying to recreate motion by editing the stills, as that can easily seem silly. I did figure out the plot by the end of it, and must say that I was not that impressed by it, but it has its charm. Playing with the ideas of vampires, hypnosis and murder is always fun, to some degree. The highlight to me was probably Cheney's make up. In the close up on some of the stills you can see how he achieved those eyes, for instance.

So, my high rating of this movie is not because of the inherit quality of the movie itself, but they enjoyment of watching a restoration of it.

Hey, wait!! Hold it a second, guys....how can a film unseen by the general public for 75 years get any User Ratings? Granted, there may be some seniors around who saw the film as children, but are they the ones rating this film on IMDb? Or, are these merely false ratings made by silent film fans based on the reputations of Chaney and Browning and the existence of some tantalizing surviving stills from the film?

I think we need a reality check here: this film is lost, folks, and it's going to stay lost. All efforts to flush a print out of hiding have failed, including those of Turner, who owns the rights and have the most to gain by the film's recovery. (TCM will broadcast a stills-only re-creation of the film in October '02. Translation? Even the rightful owners of the film have given up hope! Does this tell you anything?) And, yes, while someone may have a print in a private collection, or in their attic, etc., it's a real longshot.

Don't get me wrong; the loss of this film is lamentable in the extreme. (The loss of any film is lamentable. The loss of any SILENT film is most lamentable. The loss of any CHANEY film is truly awful. And, the loss of any Chaney film featuring the coolest vampire get-up EVER is unspeakably awful!!!) But, I believe film fans need to let go of this one and move on. The reputations of Chaney and Browning will survive without this film. I believe our energies would be better spent putting pressure on archives and film libraries to release their long-held treasures to the viewing public, as there is a huge amount of silent material that HAS survived, but which goes unseen by all but scholars and the privileged few.

I enjoyed the reconstruction, for what it was. Of course, its sound remake - MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935) - is a very good indication of what London AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927) must have looked like.

The plot is unbelievably contrived but let's not forget that the films adhere more to the style of 'old dark house' thrillers, then in vogue, than the typical 'vampire' film (that said, Chaney's vampire make-up is terrific and I'd love to see it in action!). It's interesting, however, to note how Browning was able to adapt himself with the times: in "London" the emphasis seems to be on grotesquerie (witness also Edna Tichenor's death-like pallor), since the archetype of the sub-genre during the Silent era was obviously NOSFERATU (1922); when MARK came along, Browning went for a more streamlined look - a suave Lugosi abetted by a sexy Carol Borland - spearheaded by his own landmark take on the Stoker classic! I also prefer the remake's change-of-setting (Hungary instead of London) and the blood-draining device to dispose of the victim (rather than the conventional 'suicide' of the original), thus giving credence - initially at least - to the vampires' presence in the film in the first place!

London After Midnight...the very mention of this lost film brings to mind all of the other outstanding performances of the greatest ACTOR that ever lived, Lon Chaney. It has been suggested by some that Lon was only an O.K. actor, and that he let his makeups do most of his acting for him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The talent of this man is immeasurable. Yes, his makeups helped to bring his characters to life, but it didn't define them. His ACTING inspired pity in Quasimodo, the Phantom, and others.

I hope someday London After Midnight does show up so Lon's detractors can eat their words. If you are unable to look beyond the greasepaint, putty, false teeth, and wigs, and see a truly remarkable characterization, the fault is yours, not his. Having seen every one of his films that survive, (nearly twenty) I can tell you that some of his most unforgettable roles used little or no makeup at all! Try watching Tell It To The Marines or The Penalty and see what you think...

Lon Chaney shall NEVER die! He will live in the hearts of his fans forever.

"London After Midnight" is one of those films that has sparked a lot of debate and discussion over the years.

In all likelihood, this movie will never be recovered but the reconstruction that was provided by "Turner Classic Movies," provides a good idea as to how the film looks.

Lon Chaney gives a truly frightening and un- nerving make-up job as the fake vampire. It is hard to judge how good a performance he gives but I'll wager it was very good - as he usually was.

This film was remade in 1935 as "Mark of the Vampire" (also directed by Tod Browning).