The Tower of London (1939)
The Tower of London is an interesting film, in that it is clearly a historical drama but in spite of this, it was marketed as a horror movie. This is mainly due to the presence of Boris Karloff who plays a club footed executioner. Universal studios were keen to focus upon his role and ensured he featured prominently on the theatrical posters, wielding an axe in a menacing fashion. The film does feature several ghoulish scenes set in the dungeons beneath the Tower of London but essentially this is just a competent retelling of Shakespeare’s Richard III. However, rather than adapt the bards prose, this film offers a more of a historically accurate narrative, as Richard of Gloucester claims the throne of England in 1483 by eliminating all other heirs. The movie embellishes the political intrigue by having Richard remove a figurine from a dollhouse resembling the throne room, every time he kills an enemy.
The Tower of London is an interesting film, in that it is clearly a historical drama but in spite of this, it was marketed as a horror movie. This is mainly due to the presence of Boris Karloff who plays a club footed executioner. Universal studios were keen to focus upon his role and ensured he featured prominently on the theatrical posters, wielding an axe in a menacing fashion. The film does feature several ghoulish scenes set in the dungeons beneath the Tower of London but essentially this is just a competent retelling of Shakespeare’s Richard III. However, rather than adapt the bards prose, this film offers a more of a historically accurate narrative, as Richard of Gloucester claims the throne of England in 1483 by eliminating all other heirs. The movie embellishes the political intrigue by having Richard remove a figurine from a dollhouse resembling the throne room, every time he kills an enemy.
The Tower of London is a well written and concise drama, which manages to expedite the historical plot without it feeling like a history lecture. Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone) exudes both charm and malevolence as he plots and schemes. He is assisted by executioner and assassin Mord (Boris Karloff) who idolises his master and facilitates his plans. Vincent Price has a suitably unctuous role as Duke of Clarence. The drinking contest between him and Richard is a delightful scene, which Price and Rathbone mainly ad libbed. The production values are good and the sets have a sense of period atmosphere. There are some brief scenes set in the torture chamber and although far from graphic, they are quite bleak and psychologically quite cruel. However, it should be noted that this is very much a case of the 15th century as interpreted by a Hollywood studio. Even the depiction of squalor is oddly stylised and sanitised.
When Boris Karloff made Son of Frankenstein he signed a deal with Universal to make an additional two feature films. His role in The Tower of London was written specifically for him by screenwriter Robert N. Lee. Although the part is somewhat limited within the scope of the story, Karloff certainly demonstrates his acting skills. During a scene in which Richard, Duke of Gloucester orders the murder of the twin nephews, Karloff brings a subtle degree of hesitation to his performance. He briefly pauses outside the room and reflects upon what he has been charged to do. A brief pang of guilt passes his face before being replaced with grim resolve. Sadly, the role of Mord is not as prominent as the studio inferred. My late Father remembered seeing this film in the cinema when he was ten and recalled that many in the audience expect the film to be a pure horror movie. Apparently in the screening he saw, there were chants of “ we want Boris” as viewers became bored with all the historical intrigue.
As well as being a period costume drama, The Tower of London was also provided a degree of wartime propaganda. The film starts with an opening title card that strives to clearly draw a parallel between Duke of Gloucester’s rise to power and that of Hitler in Germany. Another interesting aspect of the production are the battle scenes. Despite using quite a lot of extras, bad weather destroyed a lot of the props and so a lot of the action were shot at close quarters, giving them a very intimate quality. John Boorman used the same technique forty years later in Excalibur. The director Rowland V. Lee was also keen to maintain a degree of authenticity with the production and wished to use period music. Sadly this was disputed by the studio and so a lot of stock music from previous Universal films were used. All things considered, The Tower of London is an entertaining historical drama that deserves a reappraisal. It certainly makes for an interesting alternative perspective on these events, rather than a traditional adaptation of Shakespeare’s Richard III.
A Christmas Carol (1954)
This 1954 adaptation of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is a distinctly studio bound US television production. It was in fact the fourth episode of an anthology variety show called A Shower of Stars. Originally filmed and broadcast in colour, only black and white prints now survive. The production boasts a script by noted American playwright Maxwell Anderson. Due to the 48 minute running time (without commercial breaks) the narrative is heavily abridged and often it is only the story’s most basic themes which are dramatically interpreted. It stars Fredric March who plays Scrooge as a cool and indifferent man, rather than the usual shrill old miser. However, despite his presence his performance cannot save the production. Most of the other cast members are far from accomplished and at times their acting borders on the amateur.
This 1954 adaptation of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is a distinctly studio bound US television production. It was in fact the fourth episode of an anthology variety show called A Shower of Stars. Originally filmed and broadcast in colour, only black and white prints now survive. The production boasts a script by noted American playwright Maxwell Anderson. Due to the 48 minute running time (without commercial breaks) the narrative is heavily abridged and often it is only the story’s most basic themes which are dramatically interpreted. It stars Fredric March who plays Scrooge as a cool and indifferent man, rather than the usual shrill old miser. However, despite his presence his performance cannot save the production. Most of the other cast members are far from accomplished and at times their acting borders on the amateur.
Music and song plays an integral part of this version. Although not a full blown musical, there is an itinerant group of carol singers that seem to grow in size, who regularly regale the viewers with expository songs. Plus many characters sing at some point. Others do not. It’s all rather inconsistent and confusing. The songs are mainly designed to underpin the story's themes. At times they are used as a means to bridge scenes or expedite the story without an excess of dialogue. Unfortunately the songs, also written by Maxwell Anderson, are weak and superfluous. Some are actually annoying. However, the orchestral score and incidental music by the great Bernard Herrmann is striking. At times it has a very eerie and foreboding quality, with its use of strings and choir vocalisation. But alas, there’s far too little of it.
There are very few original ideas featured in this adaptation. The Spirit of Christmas Past and The Spirit of Christmas Present look like Scrooge’s lost love Belle and nephew respectively. This is because they are played by the same actors. I initially thought this was a visual conceit used for narrative reasons but it is more than likely due to the budgetary restrictions. The screenplay attempts to focus on Scrooge’s failed relationship as the main cause of his abhorrent nature. Unfortunately, it dwells a little too long upon the matter. There’s an excruciating song that Belle and Scrooge sing at Fezziwig’s Christmas party. The Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come is not even shown. Scrooge merely “looks within himself” and has a revelatory vision of a graveyard with both his and Tiny Tim’s names upon the tombstones. This proves sufficient shock therapy to reform Scrooge’s nature.
Despite the presence of quality actors such as Fredric March and Basil Rathbone who plays Marley’s Ghost, this is a rather poor adaptation which is actually quite hard to sit through. Rathbone, covered in cobwebs, rambles through the poorly condensed dialogue. “I come out of torment. I come to help your soul avoid eternal misery”. Well, not watching this particular adaptation is possibly a good place to start. The contract TV actors chew the low budget scenery and incessantly assail you with tedious and never ending songs. And then to utterly mitigate the underlying theme of poverty, Scrooge invites himself to Bob Cratchit’s meagre Christmas Dinner. It is as illogical as it is risible. Hence, there is precious little to recommend about this version of A Christmas Carol. I would only suggest watching it if you are a completionist or a consummate fan of the two main leads. Casual viewers should seek out a more competent adaptation.
