L'Homme au masque de cire

Perhaps I've been lucky. I've only seen this film twice in the past 15 years, but both times were in 3D, the second time last night. The crowd just loved it, with a big round of applause at the end.

The paddle ball scene is a highlight, but the reprise of the paddle ball is even more hilarious. It's completely over the top, and helps to create the carnival atmosphere that makes the film so effective in a large group.

The really dramatic 3D effects in this film are played for laughs, and I think that's one of the keys to its overall success. Director André De Toth treats the gimmick as a gimmick, and doesn't try to get more out of it than that. Hitchcock, in "Dial M For Murder", tried to use the technology for dramatic effect, but that was a complete failure. The gimmick gets in the way of real drama. The attempted murder of Grace Kelly in "Dial M" is more shocking in 2D. In 3D, you're completely jolted out of your involvement in the scene when Grace's grasping hand comes lunging halfway out into the audience at you.

In "House of Wax", the effect found its real home, a melodramatic thriller, played by everyone with tongue firmly in cheek.

De Toth composes his shots really nicely, I think. There's some foregrounding of chandeliers and other props, but never too much. He mostly holds back on the effect until he can make the best use of it -- the paddle ball, the can-can dancer's round bottom, the bust of Charles Bronson at the end. There is one great 3D thrill, the shot where Bronson, playing Vincent Price's evil mute assistant, has to grapple with policeman Frank Lovejoy. Bronson appears to leap out of the audience and onto the screen; it's an unexpected moment, and a real treat.

"Professor" Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) is a sculptor who works in wax. He's living in New York City in the late 19th Century, and he's displaying his handiwork in a wax museum. When his partner, Matthew Burke (Roy Robert)--really his primary investor--balks at Jarrod's receipts and tries to talk him into moving in a more commercial direction, perhaps with a "Chamber of Horrors", Jarrod protests that he's creating meticulous works of art, not cheap sensationalism. Jarrod tries to interest a new investor, but when the prospect says he can't make a decision for a few months, Burke says he can't wait. He suggests torching the place and collecting the insurance money. When Jarrod refuses, Burke torches the museum anyway, and the two fight. Jarrod supposedly dies in the fire, leaving Burke to collect. However, when a mysterious, disfigured stranger shows up, the resolution may not be so simple.

The debate that Jarrod and Burke have in the opening scene of this remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) is particularly ironic in light of the film's history. House of Wax was made as a 3D film--a fact made more than obvious from the film's opening credits, which are presented in a font made to look like it is bursting forth from the screen.

In the early 1950s, movie theater box office receipts were down because of television. Film studios and movie theaters were looking for gimmicks that would make films seem more special. They were looking to do things that television couldn't do. According to film editor Rudi Fehr, "The House of Wax was made because the theaters were empty, people were staying home to watch television. In order to lure the audiences back to the theaters, Warner's came out with 3D." While this wasn't the first commercial 3D film--1952's Bwana Devil holds that honor, this was certainly one of the more popular ones.

Studio head Jack Warner told Fehr that he would have five weeks to edit the film after shooting was done. Fehr said they could get it done even quicker if director Andre De Toth would shoot the film in sequence. So Warner demanded just that, despite De Toth's protests. Shooting in sequence is unusual and can make the on-set crew's job much more difficult. But it certainly didn't negatively affect the performances or De Toth's direction, which are both outstanding despite a couple strangely truncated bits of exposition.

Like many 3D films, there are a few shots in House of Wax that might otherwise be inexplicable. The most prominent example here is a huckster who stands in front of the revamped House of Wax doing tricks with three paddleballs. We linger on him much longer than we normally would so that he can bounce the ball into our face. This shows part of the difficulty of 3D--it's difficult to reconcile the most impressive effects from the audience's perspective with narrative needs. Viewed now, in simple 2D on a television screen, the obligatory 3D shots of House of Wax play as quirky, campy curios. For me, that adds to the charm of the film.

Price has an unusual role here in that he plays a good portion of the film with disfigurement makeup, half-limping, hunched over, covered in bulky black cloaks in a manner that somewhat prefigures John Hurt's turn as John Merrick in The Elephant Man (1980). De Toth is excellent at building atmosphere, especially in the "external" shots, which frequently feel more like we're watching a version of the Jack the Ripper story set in London.

Most of the script by Crane Wilbur, based on a play by Charles Belden (which also served as the basis for 1933's Mystery of the Wax Museum, of course), is deliciously flagitious--degenerate in a more over the top manner than was usual for the period. The conflagration at the end of the opening is particularly unexpected and twisted, as is Jarrod's modus operandi throughout the film. It's only too bad that the self-enforced Hollywood "moral code" at the time could not have allowed for a more nihilistic ending. I for one was cheering on Jarrod and his assistant Igor, played by none other than Charles Bronson in one of his earlier roles, when he was still using "Charles Buchinsky".

Although it's difficult to say whether Belden, Wilbur or De Toth intended a message or subtext, it's easy to read a number of interesting angles into the film. To begin, the use of the name "Igor" for the assistant suggests a number of twisted turnabouts on Dr. Frankenstein. Jarrod is even more depraved than the good doctor as he "creates death" out of life, in the service of art. At least it seems depraved if you're not an artist. If you are, you might simply note that one must suffer to be beautiful. That's more than just a flippant remark, as Jarrod suffers financially for beauty early in the film, and Cathy Gray (Carolyn Jones) suffers physically for beauty as she nearly suffocates herself to make herself thin. And of course there's the literal, sinister sense in which the artist makes others suffer to create his beauty. There are also very interesting subtexts available related to goals of realism in art, and of course, the ironic messages noted earlier in the beginning of the film, where we are debating aesthetics versus financial, or more material considerations.

Although House of Wax was popular at the box office in 1953, there was no shortage of critical devaluations of the film as a cheap gimmick, and no shortage of complaints about image quality and eyestrain when trying to view the film in 3D. 3D was only prominent for another year or so (to make periodic returns later, often for "number 3" films in series), but House of Wax is a much better film than it was given credit for at the time. It's not Vincent Price's best, but it's well worth viewing.

For me, House of Wax is a very good movie, but I am not sure if it is Price's best horror film. I did prefer the Corman-Price-Poe collaborations Pit and the Pendulum, The Raven, The Fall of the House of Usher and especially The Masque of the Red Death. The story occasionally loses bite and Phyllis Kirk is a rather bland female lead(though in all fairness her character is as well). Conversely, the Gothic sets look gorgeous and add a real sensual beauty to a lot of scenes. The photography is just as lavish. On the subject of visuals, I had the pleasure of watching House of Wax in 3D, I am not a fan of 3D and find it distracts from the film and doesn't focus on the story enough. In the case of House of Wax however, not only does the 3D look good, but it enhances the scares without making them gimmicky. Igor appearing to have leapt out of the audience was a standout. House of Wax is fine in 2D, but even better in 3D in my view, and I thought I'd never say that. The music is haunting and robust, the writing is sharp and the story is suspenseful and mostly exciting. There are some very effective scenes, such as the sight of the figure in the cloak, Jarrod chasing Sue down the alleyways(pure suspense and horror), the murders especially that of Jarrod's partner, the heart-breaking scene where Jarrod tries in vain to save his wax works and Sue strapped nude on the table in the climax. The wax works are very creepy as well. The pace is brisk and the direction handles the atmosphere very well. The performances are very good on the whole, Carolyn Jones went on to do better things but is interesting to see. Frank Lovejoy is great at just playing it straight, Reggie Rymal provides another of the 3D's finest moments with the paddle-ball and Charles Bronson is wonderfully creepy even without uttering a word. Best of all is Vincent Price in his first array into horror and for me still one of his best roles, his make-up is exceptional and he is very malevolent and sympathetic, a type of role that always saw him at his best. Looking at him also, you'd never guess that it was his first horror role, he looks as though he'd done it for years beforehand. In conclusion, a very good film and a great 3D experience. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Here's the film that put Vincent Price on the horror map and redefined his career. His wonderfully unhinged performance as Professor Jarod is one that you should not miss. Price chews up the scenery and has a great time doing it. It would have been great to see it in 3D but I don't even know if you can get 3D on home video. But don't let that stop you from checking this one out. There is also a fine supporting cast including Frank Lovejoy, Phyllis Kirk, and a very dasterly Roy Roberts. Price plays a scuplter who takes his work just a little too seriously, especially after Roberts sets his wax mueseum on fire with Vinnie in it. The rest of the film focusses on Price's revenge, as it were. Also check out a very young Carolyn Jones (the future Morticia Adams). Check it out, you won't be disappointed.

The House of Wax is a true horror classic! I saw it for the first time in 1953 at a local theatre in 3-D.

I have seen it many times since on video. It never ceases to entertain.

While watching it today I noticed something for the very first time: a most interesting anachronism.

This film takes place in old New York circa 1900. Every indoor scene has a gaslight in it, and the fire department responds with a horse-drawn wagon. Well, in one of the early scenes in the film Prof. Jarrod(Vincent Price)is conducting a prospective investor, Sidney Wallace(Paul Cavanagh), on a tour of his wax museum. There are gas lights everywhere. They arrive at an exhibit and Prof. Jarrod flips a wall switch, and presto the exhibit is illuminated in light. Somebody goofed!

If you've never seen The House of Wax, watch it. You'll love it.

One more interesting note. Dabbs Greer who plays Sergeant Jim Shane in this film also plays old Paul Edgecomb in the 1999 thriller The Green Mile.