London After Midnight

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.

"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.

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.

"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).

As of October 20, 2007, "London After Midnight" is a lost film - there is no known surviving footage. Hopefully, a print or portion will be discovered. Until then, TCM's 2002 reconstruction, by Rick Schmidlin, will have to suffice - it was created by referencing the original script and utilizing movie photograph stills. Robert Israel provided a representative musical score. Cheers to all involved!

Before viewing the restoration by Mr. Schmidlin, consider watching the other Tod Browning (director), Lon Cheney (actor), and Merritt B. Gerstad (cameraman) collaboration "The Unknown" (1927); it may provide the best indication of how "London After Midnight" might have looked on the motion picture screen. Then, see Browning's re-make "Mark of the Vampire" (1935); its script closely follows "London After Midnight", and it will help explain some story elements limited by the movie stills available.

I'm speculating the performances of Lon Chaney (as Prof. Edward Burke) and Henry B. Walthall (as Sir James Hamlin) were noteworthy, but the story disappointing. Conrad Nagel (as Arthur Hibbs) must have been very impressive; he would shortly co-star with none other than Greta Garbo, in 1928 and 1929 films. And, certainly, Marceline Day was lovely (as Lucille Balfour).

******* London After Midnight (12/3/27) Tod Browning ~ Lon Chaney, Henry B. Walthall, Conrad Nagel