The Invisible Ray (1936) is uncanny science fable of cosmic discovery and human downfall, a film that glows—sometimes literally—with the anxieties and ambitions of its era. Directed by Lambert Hillyer and anchored by Boris Karloff’s haunted intensity, it is a Universal horror that straddles the border between science fiction and Gothic tragedy, its plot pulsing with radioactive energy and the slow, inexorable unraveling of a man who dares to touch the stars.
Karloff is Dr. Janos Rukh, a reclusive scientist in the Carpathian mountains whose castle laboratory is a cathedral of obsession. With wild hair, a brooding gaze, and a touch of Poe in his ancestry, Rukh is a visionary outcast, convinced that a meteorite of unimaginable power—Radium X—fell to Earth millions of years ago. His wife, Diane (Frances Drake), is much younger and increasingly distant, while his blind mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) hovers with a mix of eerie devotion and psychic foreboding. When Rukh invites a group of skeptical colleagues—including the benevolent Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi, in a rare, warmly sympathetic role), Sir Francis and Lady Arabella Stevens (Walter Kingsford and Beulah Bondi), and the earnest Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton)—to witness his cosmic revelations, the film’s central conflict is set in motion.
The early scenes are a marvel of visual invention, with George Robinson’s (Dracula 1931, Dracula’s Daughter 1936, Son of Frankenstein 1939, Tower of London 1939, Tarantula! 1955) cinematography conjuring a world of towering, shadow-soaked sets and flickering laboratory lights. The planetarium sequence, where Rukh projects the Earth’s ancient past onto a swirling cosmic canvas, is a highlight of 1930s effects work—John P. Fulton’s technical wizardry gives the meteor’s journey a mythic grandeur, while the castle’s vertical lines and endless doorways evoke a sense of Gothic claustrophobia. The film’s score, composed by Franz Waxman, swells with drama and unease, weaving together motifs of wonder and impending doom.
The expedition to Africa, though marred by dated and regrettable depictions of “native” laborers, featured Black characters who are depicted as laborers exploited to carry equipment and supplies for the white scientific expedition into Africa. In real terms, these roles were typically assigned to Black actors, often in minor or uncredited parts. They were written in a way that reflected the racial and colonial attitudes of 1930s Hollywood.
All this shifts the film’s mood from chilly European gloom to feverish adventure. Here, Rukh, driven by a solitary madness, discovers the meteor and exposes himself to its radioactive core. The transformation is both physical and psychological: Karloff’s skin begins to glow with an unearthly light, and his touch becomes instantly lethal. The effect—achieved through painstaking work on the film negative—renders Rukh a living specter, a man marked by his own ambition.
Lugosi’s Dr. Benet, moved by compassion, concocts a daily antidote that keeps the poison at bay, but warns that madness will be the price if Rukh ever falters.
As the party returns to Europe, the narrative tightens into a noose. Rukh’s wife, now in love with Ronald Drake, leaves him, and his scientific triumph is stolen by the very colleagues he invited, at least in his fevered mind. Karloff charts Rukh’s descent with aching subtlety: at first, he is a man wounded by betrayal, then a specter stalking the streets of Paris, his glowing hands leaving death in their wake. The murders are marked by chilling ingenuity: a glowing handprint on the neck, a victim’s terror frozen in the cornea, a city gripped by invisible menace. All the while, Lugosi’s Benet uses Radium X to heal the blind, a counterpoint to Rukh’s spiral into destruction.
The film’s climax is a symphony of Gothic melodrama. Rukh, now a fugitive, fakes his own death and plots revenge against those he believes have wronged him. The statues of the Six Saints, looming over Paris, become his totems of vengeance, each destroyed as another victim falls. In the end, it is his mother, Violet Kemble Cooper, in a performance of otherworldly stateliness, who intervenes, destroying the antidote and forcing her son to confront the full consequences of his actions. Rukh, his body consumed by radiation, bursts into flame and throws himself from a window, a dying star collapsing under the weight of its own ambition.
The Invisible Ray is a film of striking contrasts: Karloff’s performance is both monstrous and mournful, his descent into madness rendered with a tragic inevitability. Lugosi, so often the villain, radiates warmth and decency, his Benet a beacon of hope in a world gone mad. Frances Drake’s Diane is torn between loyalty and love, her anguish palpable as she watches her husband’s transformation. The supporting cast—Bondi, Lawton, Kingsford—bring depth and humanity to roles that could easily have been overshadowed by spectacle.
Yet it is the film’s mood that lingers: the interplay of light and shadow, the pulse of Waxman’s score, the sense of a world trembling on the brink of discovery and disaster. The Invisible Ray is a cautionary tale about the perils of unchecked ambition, the seductive danger of forbidden knowledge, and the thin line between genius and madness. The film unfolds like a hush of horror poetry, its terrors whispered rather than shouted—an elegy of shadows and longing that invites true aficionados of classical horror to lean in closer, to savor the artistry hidden between each haunted frame. In Karloff’s glowing hands, it becomes a story not just of horror, but of heartbreak—a luminous tragedy that still casts its eerie glow across the history of horror/science fiction cinema.
THE WALKING DEAD 1936
Boris Karloff in The Walking Dead (1936): A Resurrection of Pathos and Menace
Michael Curtiz’s The Walking Dead (1936) is a film that hums with the eerie cadence of a funeral dirge—a story where justice, science, and vengeance collide in the shadowy intersection of life and death. At its heart is Boris Karloff, delivering a performance that transcends the macabre trappings of his role, transforming what could have been a simple horror flick into a melancholic meditation on mortality and morality.
The film opens on a web of corruption: John Ellman (Karloff), a wrongfully convicted pianist, is framed for murder by a gangster syndicate led by the slick, sadistic Nolan (Ricardo Cortez). Despite the efforts of Dr. Beaumont (Edmund Gwenn) and his colleague Dr. Evan (Warren Hull) to expose the conspiracy, despite last-minute attempts to clear his name, the witnesses come forward too late, and Ellman is led to the electric chair. Ellman is executed in a chilling, matter-of-fact electrocution sequence. But this is no end—it’s a beginning.
Beaumont, a scientist obsessed with reanimating the dead, revives Ellman’s corpse in a lab crackling with Tesla coils and existential dread. The resurrected Ellman staggers into a half-life, his soul tethered to a body that is neither fully alive nor dead. Haunted by fragmented memories and an uncanny ability to sense guilt, he begins stalking those responsible for his death. Yet this is no mindless monster: Karloff’s Ellman is a tragic avenger, his vengeance tempered by sorrow. The film crescendos in a rain-lashed climax where Ellman confronts his killers, not with violence, but with the unbearable weight of their own sins.
The Poetry of the Undead
Karloff, fresh off Frankenstein (1931) and The Mummy (1932), imbues Ellman with a vulnerability rarely seen in horror icons. His physicality—the slow, deliberate gait; the hands perpetually hovering as if unsure whether to caress or claw—suggests a man unmoored from his own existence. His face, gaunt and etched with sorrow, becomes a canvas for Curtiz’s camera: close-ups linger on Karloff’s eyes, which flicker with confusion, accusation, and a quiet plea for peace.
In the courtroom scene, as Ellman mutters, “I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.” Karloff layers the line with a childlike bewilderment that makes his fate all the more harrowing. Later, resurrected, his voice drops to a hollow rasp, every word sounding dredged from the grave. When he corners Nolan in the film’s climax, his quiet “You know… you know” is less a threat than a lament—a ghost weary of haunting.
Curtiz, better known for Casablanca (1942) and Mildred Pierce (1945), here channels his knack for taut storytelling into Gothic expressionism. The film’s pacing is relentless, its shadows deep and woven like a shadow to the soul and threaded with sorrow. Curtiz frames Ellman’s resurrection not as a triumph of science, but as a violation—a violation underscored by Hal Mohr’s cinematography, which bathes the lab in cold, clinical light, contrasting sharply with the velvety darkness of the outside world.
Curtiz’s use of Dutch angles in Ellman’s post-resurrection scenes amplifies the character’s disorientation, while the recurring motif – Ellman ascending to the execution chamber, descending into the lab- becomes a visual metaphor for his liminal state. The director’s background in pre-Code crime dramas bleeds into the film’s moral ambiguity: the real monsters here are the living, not the undead.
Ricardo Cortez’s Nolan is all smirking malice, a gangster whose charm masks a rot within. His death scene—a frantic, sweaty unraveling—is a masterclass in comeuppance. Dr. Evan Beaumont, played by Edmund Gwenn, is introduced as a brilliant and ambitious scientist, eager to push the boundaries of medical science by experimenting with artificial organs and, ultimately, the reanimation of the dead. His scientific hubris is clear—he intervenes in the natural order by reviving John Ellman after his execution, driven by a desire to unlock the secrets of life and death and even to learn “secrets from beyond the grave.” Gwenn (later famous as Miracle on 34th Street’s Santa) brings gravitas to Dr. Beaumont, whose ambition is tempered by guilt. His final act of mercy toward Ellman adds a flicker of redemption. And finally, Marguerite Churchill as Nancy, the film’s moral compass, radiates a grounded warmth; her loyalty to Ellman anchors the story in empathy, and after reviving Ellman, Beaumont’s attitude shifts. He becomes conflicted and troubled by the moral and spiritual consequences of his actions. He is portrayed as well-meaning but ethically questionable, and a sense of guilt and responsibility increasingly overshadows his pursuit of knowledge for what he has done to Ellman. This is especially evident in the film’s final scenes, where Beaumont presses Ellman for revelations about the afterlife, only to be rebuffed with a warning to “leave the dead to their maker. The Lord our God is a jealous God.”
Hal Mohr, (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 1935, Phantom of the Opera 1943) an Oscar-winning cinematographer, paints the film in chiaroscuro strokes. The execution sequence is a study in starkness: Ellman’s silhouette against the electric chair, his face swallowed by shadows. Later, his resurrection is lit with an unearthly glow, Karloff’s pallid skin gleaming like marble under a full moon. Mohr’s camera lingers on empty corridors and rain-slicked streets, turning the world itself into a character—a silent witness to Ellman’s purgatory.
The Walking Deadis often overshadowed by Karloff’s Universal monster films, yet it remains a gem of 1930s horror. Its themes of wrongful conviction and scientific ethics feel eerily modern, while Karloff’s performance—a blend of tenderness and terror—redefines the zombie archetype decades before Romero. This is not a film about the horror of death, but the horror of being denied rest. In Ellman, Karloff gives us a martyr for the damned, a man whose second life is a curse, not a gift.
To watch The Walking Dead today is to witness a masterclass in how horror can be humane—a reminder that the genre’s greatest power lies not in the monsters we fear, but the corrupted humanity we cannot escape.
#86 Down, 64 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!
CODED CLASSIC HORROR THEORY “The Uncanny & The Other”
“Scenes of excessive brutality and gruesomeness must be cut to an absolute minimum.”
“As a cultural index, the pre-Code horror film gave a freer rein to psychic turmoil and social disorientation because it possessed a unique freedom from censorship… the Hays Office admits that under the Code it is powerless to take a stand on the subject of ‘gruesomeness.‘(Thomas Doherty)
Horror films in particular have made for a fascinating case study in the evolving perceptions of queer presence; queer-horror filmmakers and actors were often forced to lean into the trope of the “predatory queer” or the “monstrous queer” to claim some sense of power through visibility and blatant expressions of sexuality.- Essential Queer Horror Films by Jordan Crucciola-2018
Though Hollywood execs refused to show explicit queerness, they were willing to pay for scripts that dealt with characters that were social outcasts and sexually non-normative. The horror genre is perhaps the most iconic coded queer playground, which seems to have an affinity with homosexuality because of its apparatus of ‘otherizing’ and the inherent representation of difference. The horror genre crosses over boundaries that include transgressions between heterosexuality and queerness. The villain, fiend, or monster plays around with a variety of elements that, while usually separate, might merge male and female gender traits.
The horror film, in particular, found its place asserting a queer presence on screen. The narratives often embraced tropes of the “˜predatory queer’ or the “˜monstrous queer’ in order to declare themselves visible while cinematic queers were elbowed out of the way. Filmmakers had to maneuver their vision in imaginative ways to subvert the structure laid out for them by the Code.
As Harry M. Benshoff explains in his book Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality in the Horror Film, “Immediately before and during the years of World War II, Universal Studio’s horror films began to employ a more humanistic depiction of their monsters,” and the films of Val Lewton, like Cat People, reflected “a growing awareness of homosexuality, homosexual communities, and the dynamics of homosexual oppression as it was played out in society and the military.”So even though Hollywood execs refused to show explicit queerness, during the first true horror boom in American cinema, they were willing to pay for stories about social outcasts and sexually nonnormative figures. Horror fans thus found themselves awash in some of the genre’s most iconic queer-coded characters of all time.
On a Greek Island, Boris Karloff plays Gen. Nikolas Pherides in Val Lewton/Mark Robsin’s Isle of the Dead 1945. Driven insane by the belief that Thea (Ellen Drew), who suffers from catalepsy, is the embodiment of an evil vampiric force, is a demon called a vorvolaka. Lewton drew on collective fears, and all his work had an undercurrent of queer panic and a decipherable sign of homophobia.
The Vorvolaka has beset the island with plague. Thea- “Laws can be wrong, and laws can be cruel, and the people who live only by the law are both wrong and cruel.”
The Pre-Code era was exploding with American horror films, that reflected the angst, social unrest, and emotional distress that audiences were feeling. Personified in films that used graphic metaphors to act as catharsis, the images were often filled with rage, as Thomas Doherty calls it ‘the quality of gruesomeness, cruelty and vengefulness’. Think of the angry mobs with their flaming torches who hunt down Frankenstein’s monster, eventually crucifying him like a sacrificial embodiment of their fury. James Whale’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 1931 was a smash hit for Universal. Other studios were trying to ride the wave of the awakening genre of the horror picture. Paramount released director Rouben Mamoulian’s adaption of the novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Scottish writer Robert Louis Stevenson, published in 1886. The film Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which was released in 1931, stars Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins. During the Pre-Code period, many horror films proposed grisly subject matter that would shock and mesmerize the audience. For example, actor/director Irving Pichel’s The Most Dangerous Game (1932) starring Joel McCrea, Leslie Banks, and Fay Wray.
In 1932 Michael Curtiz directed Doctor Xstarring Lionel Atwill who would become one of the leading mad scientists of the genre.
Michael Curtiz’s macabre horror/fantasy experiment of homosocial ‘men doing science’, crossing over into profane territories and embracing dreadful taboos!
All scenes below from Dr. X (1932).
Fay Wray is Atwill’s daughter who is the only woman surrounded by a group of scientific nonconformists.
The adaptation of Bram Stoker’s story of the Eastern European incubus was interpreted by Tod Browning in Dracula 1931, immortalized by Hungarian stage actor Bela Lugosi with his iconic cape and mesmerizing stare. While his nightly visitations were blood-driven and cinematically sexual in nature, there is a very homoerotic element to his influence over Renfield (Dwight Frye) and his gaze of gorgeous David Manners as John Harker.
Bela Lugosi looks down upon David Manners in a scene from the film ‘Dracula’, 1931. (Photo by Universal/Getty Images)
Robert Florey directed the macabre Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) based on a story by Edgar Allan Poe. And a film that has no connection to Poe’s story but in the name is one of the most transgressive, disturbing horror films rampant with vile taboos, such as necrophilia, incest, sadism, satanism, and flaying a man alive, is the unorthodox The Black Cat (1934). The film stars Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, one of four pictures they would do together. A pair of enemies who have a score to settle, ghosts of a past war, and stolen love all take place with the backdrop of a stylish Bauhaus set design and high-contrast lighting.
Paramount released Murders in the Zoo (1933) with Lionel Atwill, a sadistic owner of a zoo who uses wild animals to ravage and kill off any of his wife’s (Kathleen Burke) suitors. Kathleen Burke is well known as the panther girl in Erle C. Kenton’s horrifically disturbing Island of Lost Souls 1932, an adaptation of master fantasy writer H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau. Incidentally, Welles, Laughton, and wife Elsa Lanchester had been good friends earlier on, before the filming of Lost Souls. The film stars Charles Laughton as the unorthodox, depraved scientist who meddles with genetics and nature. He creates gruesome human/animals, torturing them with vivisection in his ‘house of pain.’ The film also stars Richard Arlen, Leila Hyams, and Bela Lugosi as The Sayer of the Law.
In 1933, King Kong showed a giant ape grasping the half-naked object of his affection, with unmentionable connotations of bestiality between the ape and Fay Wray. With scenes of Wray writhing in his gigantic paws, he lusts after her until his desire kills him. It’s almost like fantasy noir: the object of your desire will ultimately kill you!
The 1930s and 1940s Fear the Queer Monsters:
Re-assessing the Hitchcock Touch; by Wieland Schwanebeck -As Rhona Berenstein asserts, the horror genre “provides a primary arena for sexualities and practices that fall outside the purview of patriarchal culture, and the subgeneric tropes of the unseen, the host and the haunted house.”
By the same token, Kendra Bean concludes that Mrs. Danvers is portrayed as “a wraith; a sexual predator who is out to make Mrs. de Winter her next victim.”
Queer characters in horror films during the early period, reveal similarities between Mrs. Danvers and the staging of earlier sapphic characters, such as Gloria Holdens’s well-known portrayal of Countess Marya Zaleska in Dracula’s Daughter 1936. Yet, similar to the self-discipline of Mrs. Danvers, Dracula’s Daughter remains a figure of primacy and pity Ellis Hanson argues Dracula’s Daughter presents “the possibilities of a queer Gothic” early on in Hollywood history, “rich in all the paradox and sexual indeterminacy the word queer and the word Gothic imply.
There was a revival of the horror craze during the period of WWII. The Hollywood studios, both major and ‘Poverty Row” like Monogram and Republic, realized that horror movies were a lucrative business. The studios began to revisit the genre, looking for not only fresh formulas but they resurrected the classic monsters, dropping them into new plots. They also envisioned uniting gangster films with horror films, and this homogenizing led to a ‘queering’ of the two styles that demonstrated phallocentric ( guns, scientific penetration) and homoerotic themes and images into a sub-genre.
Public awareness of homosexuality reached a new height during these years, primarily due to the new set of social conditions wrought by war. Slowly , the love that dare not speak its name was being spoken, albeit in ways almost always obscurantist, punitive and homophobic. The linkage of homosexuality with violence and disease remained strong. Monsters in the Closet -Harry Benshoff
Rhona Berenstein, in her insightful book Attack of the Leading Ladies points out that films featuring the mad scientist trope operate with the homosocial principle, which speaks of the homoeroticism of males working together in consort subverting science together as a group of men who hide behind their objectification -the female object of their gaze, are in fact, figures of objectification themselves. They are simultaneously homosocial, homoerotic, and homophobic in aspect; … potentially possessing an extra-normative commitment between the two men.
Mad Doctor movies are homosocial in nature. The Mad Doctor movie is a subgenre that, below the surface, glorifies intimate male camaraderie and male homosexuality, and by the close of the picture, society, the prevailing culture, must, in turn, annihilate that which is repressed. However, it is not exclusively a vehicle to express homosexuality through homosocial interactions. There is a component not only of male bonding, a world without women; the thrust is a synthesis of misogyny and patriarchal tyranny and oppression of women. Homosocial relationships between men in these science horrors show the man’s desire for connection to other men, even one created by his own hand.
According to (Twitchell) in his Dreadful Pleasures, and Attack of the Leading Ladies (Rona Berenstein) Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein in all three Universal pictures, was at least performing bisexuality. Whale’s 1933 Frankenstein might give way to the homosocial realm of the mad scientist trope of ‘homoerotic indulgence’ as these men exclude women from the pursuit of their fulfillment. Twitchell views the scientist’s fluid sexuality in order to examine the concept of a man controlling women’s primacy of giving birth. This might explain Dr. Frankenstein’s venture into unnatural reproduction. A process he wants to divert to himself without women’s exclusive right to motherhood. In the scene where he is as close to giving birth to a full-grown man, he seems to display sexual arousal when his creation comes to life. Henry Frankenstein provokes nature and defies his heterosexuality. As Whale was an openly gay director in Hollywood, it can be pondered whether he knew exactly what he was suggesting. Thesiger’s sexually ambiguous, or okay, not so ambiguous Dr. Pretorius, the mad scientist who pressures Henry Frankenstein to revitalize his experiments and create a mate for the monster. Pretorius is the scientist who insists Henry continue his creative efforts in Bride of Frankenstein. Vitto Russo called Thesiger, a “man who played the effete sissy”¦ with much verve and wit.”
George Zucco, like Lionel Atwill, often portrayed the unorthodox scientist who flirted with taboos. He plays mad scientist Dr. Alfred Morris in The Mad Ghoul (1943) As a university chemistry professor, he exploits medical student Ted Allison (David Bruce) with his experimental gas that transforms Ted into a malleable, yielding macabre ghoul, whom Morris directs to kill and remove the victim’s hearts using the serum to temporarily bring Ted back from his trance like death state. David Bruce’s character is represented as a ‘queer’ sort of young man. He is not quite masculine and is unable to get his girlfriend, Evelyn Ankers, to fall in love with him. As the Mad Ghoul, he becomes a monstrous queer.
In 1932, director Tod Browning’s Dracula based on Bram Stoker’s story of a fiendish vampire who in a sexually implicit way, violates his victims by penetrating them with his fangs. The story pushed the boundaries of storytelling, and there was an inherent subtext of ‘queer’ ravishment when he sucks the blood of Dwight Frye to make him his loyal servant.
In Jonathan Harker’s Journal, the protagonist recounts his impressions of his interaction with the vampire, Dracula “As the Count leaned over me and his hands touched me I could not repress a shudder. It may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me, which do what I would, I could not conceal.”For (Noël Carroll) the entry in his diary conveys revulsion by the Count’s closeness and offensive presence, which causes him to become sickened.
But it also could be read that Harker’s ‘shudder’ is not about his revulsion, but rather, an uncontrolled sexual response to the vampire’s looming over him, which could be interpreted not just as hunger for his ‘blood’ but an expression of repressed sexual desire and the fear it causes.
Horror movies have always pushed the boundaries of normalcy, by virtue of the fact that these films are inhabited by ‘monsters’, something ‘queerly’ different. And it is natural to observe two diverging responses to the impact of the horror genre and often, its persecution of what is ‘different’ and the source of what causes our anxiety.
Dracula may appear as the image of a man, but the count is far from human. While monsters in classical horror films are based on systems of maleness, they are split from being actual men. Although there are physical interactions and suggestive contact with the heroine, there isn’t the foundation of heterosexuality, but something quite deviant within their aggressively erotic encounters and/or assaults. The understanding of sexuality and the most narrow identifications that are assigned to varying orientations in a large sense is not translatable for the deeper layers of the monster and their relationship to their victims. In Hollywood, horror films can be seen as heterosexuality being invaded by an abhorrent outside force; inherent in the underlying message could be racism, classism, sexism, and gay panic. Though it can be interpreted as a landscape of heterosexuality that is in the full power of its universal presence, horror films are perfect platforms that can illustrate the collapse of heterosexuality and the subversion of sexuality.
The horror genre is a breeding ground for portrayals of the shattering of heterosexual power. This can be seen in Lambert Hillyer’s Dracula’s Daughter (1936) starring Gloria Holden as the sapphic vampire who lives in a New Village-type artist’s den, it signals her outsider status from domesticity and normalcy.
In White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi plays the eerily menacing Legendre. He turns men into lifeless workers who run the sugar mill. Legendre also begins to turn the plantation owner, Charles Beaumont (Robert Frazer), into one of his zombies. His motivation for his control over people is ambiguous, though there seems to be sexual reasoning for both the beautiful Madeline (Madge Bellamy) and Beaumont. In the scene where Beaumont is nearly paralyzed, Legendre’s control over his male victim parallels the sexual entrapment of the movie’s heroine.
MAD LOVE (1935) I have conquered science! Why can’t I conquer love?
Karl Freund’s Grand Guignol Mad Love (1935) shifts from gazing at the female to gazing at the male. Here the focus is on Peter Lorre in his American screen debut as Dr. Gogol, who has an obsession with Frances Drake as Yvonne Orlac an actress who works at Grand Guignol Theatre. To Gogol, she is the typified defenseless heroine whom he tries to lure away from her husband, Stephen (Colin Clive), using his knowledge of scientific alchemy.
Though Gogol tries to become Yvonne’s master, his Galatea, there are critics who read the struggle between the two men as not just a rivalry for Yvonne’s love but Gogol’s desire for Stephen as well. Gogol is responsible for grafting new hands onto Stephen’s mangled body after a train crash. Mad Love could fit the criteria for the subgenre of science/horror films where the male gaze is diverted from the female object toward other men, in this case, what connected the two was the preservation of Stephen’s hands. Why, then, is it not possible that the focus could shift from Gogol’s attraction to Yvonne to the homosocial dynamics between Gogol as a doctor and his subject, Stephen?
Mad Lovepossesses some of the horror genre’s most tenacious performances of gender play. (Carol Clover) asks us to take a closer look at Freund’s film. It is less about the “suffering experienced by women, but at a deeper, more sustained level, it is dedicated to the unspeakable terrors endured by men.”
In a similar fashion to Waldo Lydecker’s (Laura) and Hardy Cathcart’s (The Dark Corner) pathology of objectifying Laura and Mari, Gogol worships Yvonne – his Galatea, with a measure of scopophilia that lies within his gaze upon the perfection of female beauty. To control and possess it. The pleasure is aroused by the mere indulgence of looking at her.
Gogol pays 75 francs to purchase the wax statue of Galatea. The seller remarks, “There’s queer people on the streets of Montmartre tonight.”
Gogol’s maid Francoise talks to the statue, “Whatever made him bring you here. There’s never been any woman in this house except maybe me… “I prefer live ones to dead ones.”
A Time Magazine review of Mad Love in 1933 notes this queer appeal directly, even comparing Lorre’s acting skills to those of another homosexual coded actor: I find the comment about their faces rude and insulting to both Lorre and Laughton, both of whom I am a tremendous fan.
Mad Love’s insane doctor is feminized throughout the film… In fact, the same reporter who noted Gogol’s sadism argues for his feminine demeanor: “Lorre, perfectly cast, uses the technique popularized by Charles Laughton of suggesting the most unspeakable obsessions by the roll of a protuberant eyeball, an almost feminine mildness of tone, an occasional quiver of thick lips set flat in his cretinous ellipsoidal face. This reviewer came closer than any other to articulate the subtext of mad doctor movies. He seems on the verge of noting that Lorre, Like Laughton is an effeminate madman obsessed by unspeakable homosocial desire.– Attack of the Leading Ladies: Gender Sexuality and Spectatorship in Classic Horror Cinema by Rhona Berenstein
Frances Drake’s heroine masquerades as a wife who deludes herself into believing that her husband is more masculine than he really is. Gogol has a curious empathy with Stephen, whom he touches frequently and prolonged. Although Gogol pursues the heroine, Yvonne, at the theater, forcing a kiss on her, his focus is primarily manipulating Stephen’s body, rejoining his hands and massaging them to stimulate life back into them. When he realizes that Stephen’s hands cannot be grafted back successfully to his wrists, he turns to another man, the hands of a knife thrower who was executed as a notorious murderer. Once Stephen recovers from the surgery, he can no longer continue as a concert pianist but does develop the desire to throw sharp knives.
On the surface the plot of Mad Loveappears to be a heterosexual obsession, the most unspoken context is the connection between Gogol and Stephen. “As is true of Frankenstein’s labor of love in Whale’s first film, Gogol sews men’s body parts together and the result is a monster of sorts. (Berenstein)
In the film’s climax, Yvonne hides in Gogol’s bedroom and pretends to be the wax statue of Galatea. When Gogol touches the statue, she lets out a scream. In a euphoric daze (as in the original story), he believes that he has the power to bring Galatea’s statue to life. Yvonne begs him to let her go as he tries to strangle her.
Stephen then rushes to his wife and holds her in his arms. With his eyes fixed on the offscreen space in which Gogol’s body lies, he croons: “My darling.” The homosocial desire is destroyed when Stephen murders Gogol who intones, “Each man kills the thing he loves”“” echoing on the soundtrack.
In the film’s closing moments, the secret desire is finally spoken out loud…Has Stephen killed the man he loves? Given that the phrase that Gogol mutters was written originally by Oscar Wilde, whose homosexuality scandalized the British social and legal system in 1895, reading the homosocial desire intoMad Love within the very last moments, we are left to decipher the suspended cues. We are left with Stephen’s gazing at Gogol’s face and his knifed body as he lay dying, he speaks the words, “˜My darling” while the camera frames the two men sharing that moment in the closing scene.
The mad doctor narrative is particularly predisposed to homosocial impulses. “intense male homosocial desire as at once the most compulsory and the most prohibited of social bonds” – Epistemology of the Closet (Sedgwick)
Sedgwick investigated early fantasy/horror novels, Shelley’s Frankenstein 1818, Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1886, and Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau 1895. At the beginning of the 1930s, these stories centered around mad doctors who delved into unorthodox, profane explorations and were all adapted to the screen. All of these nefarious or scientific, inquisitive men cultivated secret experiments, challenging the laws of nature. What Sedgwick found was that the Gothic literary representations of men performing homosocial collaborations were ‘not socially sanctioned and shunned.’
It was considered a necessary narrative element as well as a monstrous possibility that threatened to subvert the status quo. The combination of these two attitudes is expressed in homosocial narratives- male bonding is both horrifying and guaranteed, entailing the simultaneous introjection and expulsion of femininity. (Sedgwick)
“My darling”…
James Whale was a gay auteur who often imbued his work intentionally or with the ‘intentional fallacy’ of a ‘queer’ sense of dark humor. This comical, campy absurdity was always on the edge of his vision of horror and subtle profanity. His picture The Invisible Man (1933), adapted from H.G. Wells’s story and starring Claude Rains, was classified as a horror film by the Code.
Dr. Jack Griffin (Rains), the antihero, is a frenzied scientist addicted to his formula as he seeks the ability to make himself invisible. His sanity begins to ‘vanish’ as his hunger for power, delusions of grandeur, and bursts of megalomania grow out of control. He plans on assassinating government officials, and he becomes more belligerent the longer he turns invisible. The idea that he displays radical ideas and runs around in the nude didn’t seem to arouse the censors; in 1933, a letter from James Wingate to Hays states, “highly fantastic and exotic [sic] vein, and presents no particular censorship difficulties.”
What’s interesting about the presentation of the story is that the coded gay leitmotifs were paraded out, right under the Code’s noses, and didn’t stir any indignation for its ‘queer’ humor.
Gloria Stuart and Claude Rains in James Whale’s The Invisible Man 1933
The Invisible Man perpetrates campy assaults on all the ‘normal’ people in his way, with intervals of sardonic cackles and golden wit and, at the same time, a menacing reflection of light and shadow. Claude Rains is a concealed jester who makes folly of his victims.
“An invisible man can rule the world. Nobody will see him come, nobody will see him go. He can hear every secret. He can rob, and wreck, and kill.” –Dr. Jack Griffin (The Invisible Man)
Claude Rains plays Dr. Jack Griffin, an outsider (a favorite of James Whale’s characters) who discovers the secret of invisibility, which changes him from a mild yet arrogant scientist into a maniacal killer. The film bears much of Whale’s campy sense of humor, with Griffin’s comic shenanigans abound until things turn dark and he becomes uncontrollably violent. “We’ll begin with a reign of terror, a few murders here and there, Murders of great men, Murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction. I might even wreck a train or two… just these fingers around a signalman’s throat, that’s all.”
According to Gary Morris (Bright Lights Film Journal), ‘The film demands crypto-faggot reading in poignant scenes such as the one where he reassures his ex-girlfriend, who begs him to hide from the authorities: “the whole worlds my hiding place. I can stand out there amongst them in the day or night and laugh at them.”
Though Griffin’s (Claude Rains) character is unseen at times, there are potent moments, when he is animated as he skips to the tune, “Here we go gathering nuts in May” flitting around like a fairy.
It is suggested that The Invisible Man is a metaphor for the way homosexuals are seen/not seen by society – as “effeminate, dangerous when naked, seeking a male partner in “crime,” tending to idolize his fiance rather than love her, and becoming ‘visible’ only when shot by the police…monitored by doctors, and heard regretting his sin against God (i.e., made into a statistic by the three primary forces oppressing queers: the law, the medical establishment, and religious orthodoxy” (Sedgwick)
The Invisble Man [undressing] “They’ve asked for it, the country bumpkins. This will give them a bit of a shock, something to write home about. A nice bedtime story for the kids, too, if they want it”
