Um Mitternacht

To those who think that Chaney was just an OK actor, sadly have no clue what they are talking about. To make a statement such as he let his makeup do his acting also do not know that one of his most famous roles as the drill Sergeant in "Tell It To The Marines".The role earned him a honorary status among the Corp. So not only was Chaney a master of make-up, earning him the title of a man of a thousand faces, but also that of an exceptional actor with a range of emotions that could flash across his face that would later inspire the likes of Burt Lancaster to state "one of the most compelling and emotionally exhausting scenes I have ever seen an actor do." Lancaster was referring to the scene from "the Unknown" in which Chaney portrayed an armless knife thrower in love with a young Joan Crawford.

To say make up was his "gimmick",is ignorant at best, it was more of an extension of the man and the actor. For Chaney didn't limit himself to just one area, physically he performed acts that would later bring him a place in film history such as the con artist that fakes being crippled to be healed by a charlatan in the "Miracle Man." The scene had people swearing that Chaney was a contortionist or double jointed, when in fact it is more a credit to his acting skills. Also in the "Penalty", he actually had a harness that he wore to bind his legs behind him and tucked into leather stubs. The pain allowed him only to wear the harness for fifteen minutes at a shoot, but Chaney insisted no trick photography be used. In "The Unknown", he had his arms bound up in a harness as well, you only have to watch the film to see not only the weird twist the movie takes, but also Chaney's cleverness.

Lon Chaney died at the age of 47. It is ironic that his last movie was a "talkie", a remake of the silent classic "The Unholy Three" in which he did more than one voice. That of an old woman, a parrot and a ventriloquist. He proved to audiences that he was more than capable of transcending silent to sound.

At his death production was stopped at Hollywood to observe a moment of silence, the Marine Corp flew their flag at half staff. Wallace Berry flew over his funeral and dropped wreaths of flowers. He said, "Lon Chaney was the one man I knew who could walk with kings and not lose the common touch."

Personally, I'm grateful that the elegant B&W production stills survived in order that we can see what Tod Browning's production might have looked like had it not been destroyed by fire.

It also helps if you've seen Browning's remake of this same story called THE MARK OF THE VAMPIRE ('35) with its surprise ending being made much clearer than it is in this reconstruction where there is only one caption that even hints at what was going on with the theatrics.

I was captivated by the dark-haired beauty of MARCELINE DAY and appalled at the silent histrionics of CONRAD NAGEL who wore the same look of horror and disbelief in every shot. The ending was blunted without giving a full explanation for any of the doings, which is why seeing the '35 version is advisable for anyone who is still confused.

The '35 version had BELA LUGOSI, LIONEL ATWILL and LIONEL BARRYMORE in key roles and was extremely well worth viewing. This silent version, reconstructed with stills, appeared to be beautifully photographed with appropriately cobweb-covered interiors and intense B&W lighting for atmospheric effects.

Chaney's make-up appeared to be quite startling--for me it was even more so than his "Phantom" disguise--and his Inspector Burke seemed a very forceful creation judging from the intense finger waving stills.

Well done reconstruction except for the weak ending which missed making its point. The background score was fine.

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" is a combination mystery film and vampire movie. Lon Chaney plays dual roles--a detective as well as a crazed vampirey guy. Five years after a supposed suicide, weird ghouls move into the dead man's house--and the detective returns to investigate. At the end, the mystery is finally solved--though exactly how all this is proved is baffling--like there is either something missing or it just had a HUGE plot hole.

I won't give this film a numerical rating, as the film no longer exists--at least not in any known archive. Turner Classic Movies recently showed what purported to be "London After Midnight" and I saw it on a DVD with "The Unknown" but it was a strange reconstruction--a film that should have been left lost if you ask me. Using the original intertitles and LOTS of stills from the movie, they attempted to re-create the film--without any actual film! Now I am a die-hard lover of silents and especially love the films of Lon Chaney, but this sort of reconstruction is simply ridiculous. It just isn't THE original film nor is it even a truncated version--it's a bizarre attempt to recreate the film from nothing--totally bizarre. To give the film a sense of movement, the camera moves about the stills--but again, these are just stills! And so, the film is lifeless--with no more energy than simply reading the screenplay. I say with such re-creations it's best to just leave them alone and put your energy into piecing together films with PORTIONS missing--not the entire film! I've seen such re-creations (such as Frank Capra's "Lost Horizon") and since the missing portions are filled in with stills for only tiny portions, it's very acceptable. This one, in my opinion, was a HUGE mistake and not worth your time.

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.