Londres après minuit

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.

"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.

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!

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."

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.