The Mystery of the Wax Museum

 

(1933) Directed by Michael Curtiz; Written by Don Mullaly and Carl Erickson; Based on “The Wax Works,” by Charles Belden; Starring: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Glenda Farrell, Frank McHugh, Allen Vincent and Gavin Gordon; Available on Blu-ray and DVD 

Rating: ****

“…It was kind of a beautiful feeling, because it was a wonderful gown, and it was a pleasure to just be still as possible, like a statue. And it was not eerie; it was a charming feeling...” – Fay Wray (on playing a wax statue) (archival interview from Blu-ray commentary) 

“My dear, why are you so pitifully afraid? Immortality has been the dream, the inspiration of mankind through the ages. And I am going to give you immortality!” – Ivan Igor (Lionel Atwill)

There’s something undeniably uncanny about wax figures, especially when they’re expertly done. Their mimicry of life can be so convincing that we may be prompted to wonder, “Is it a dummy or the real thing?” This premise has long fascinated and horrified filmmakers and audiences alike, toying with the idea that they might be more than they seem. Michael Curtiz’s follow-up to 1932’s Doctor X, The Mystery of the Wax Museum, was also filmed in two-strip Technicolor,* including much of the same crew as the previous movie, and once again pairing of Fay Wray with Lionel Atwill. Produced on a budget of $279,000, Curtiz, cast and crew worked extremely long hours under lighting that was five times the intensity required for black and white film stock, making the set unbearably hot. 

* Fun Fact #1: According to film preservationist Scott MacQueen, the movie was the last feature film made by Warner Brothers in the 2-color process, having fulfilled their contract with Technicolor.

Our story begins in London, circa 1921,* in Ivan Igor’s (Lionel Atwill) wax museum, where he proudly shows off his remarkably lifelike creations. To him, they’re more than just inanimate objects – he almost regards them as his children, especially the figure of Marie Antoinette (Fay Wray). As is often the case, however, art and finances don’t always mix, as evidenced by Igor’s business partner (Edwin Maxwell), who proposes the inelegant solution of torching the place to get the insurance money (apparently insurance investigators weren’t very picky in those days). Despite Igor’s ardent protests, the museum goes up in flames. Skip forward to present-day (well…uh, 1930s-era) New York City, where Igor is set to open a new wax museum. With his hands irreparably damaged from the fire, he can no longer create the figures himself, so he supervises (okay, browbeats) a team of sculptors to make his dream live again. Meanwhile, ace reporter Florence (Glenda Farrell)** is looking to get a scoop (any scoop) for New Year’s Day that will save her job from the chopping block. When she learns the city morgue is one corpse short (a young socialite who committed suicide), she begins to dig deeper into the mystery. Her investigation leads to a sneak peek at Igor’s menagerie, where something seems fishy – in particular, a Joan of Ark statue, which bears a remarkable resemblance to said socialite. Her roommate Charlotte (Fay Wray) happens to date one of Igor’s sculptors, Ralph (Allen Vincent), when a visit to his workplace catches the eye of Igor (Surprise! She’s a dead ringer for his long-lost, beloved Marie Antoinette). Charlotte innocently accepts his request to pose for him, unaware that a more sinister purpose lies in store for her. 

* Fun Fact #2: In the U.K., the caption indicating the time and place was removed, due to its association with a real fire that occurred at Madam Tussaud’s in 1925 London.

Although Fay Wray was billed above her, it’s really Glenda Farrell’s movie, as the go-getting reporter Florence,* who’s not afraid to poke her nose where it isn’t wanted. She shares an apartment with Charlotte (Wray), where we catch a glimpse of the dynamic between the two young women in a scene where they debate the relative virtues of marrying for love versus money. It’s a shame there weren’t more scenes with the two verbally sparring together, which could have been a movie in itself. Instead, we’re treated to some fun banter between Florence and her gruff editor Jim (Frank McHugh), proving she’s more than a match for any man. She’s not intimidated by a male-dominated world or being assertive when the situation demands it. As a result, it’s more than a bit disappointing when she ultimately sacrifices her career for financial security with a millionaire playboy. 

* Fun Fact #3: Farrell’s plucky character was the inspiration for ace reporter Lola “Torchy” Lane (also played by Farrell) in the 1937 movie The Adventurous Blonde, which in turn became the inspiration for Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel to create the character, Lois Lane.

Wray is charming as usual, in the role of Charlotte Duncan. As befits one of the original scream queens, there’s more than ample opportunity to exercise her lungs in a few scenes, but she’s more than just a pretty face. In contrast to Florence’s brash, take-no-prisoners approach, Charlotte is sensitive and demure, managing to look glamorous without being overbearing. Compared to her money-obsessed roommate, she’d rather spend her days with a starving artist. 

Top-billed Lionel Atwill is compelling as the tortured Ivan Igor. Atwill brings pathos to the role as a man who watched his life’s work go up in smoke and is subsequently forced to defer his craft to others, in an attempt to recreate what he lost. His motivation for revenge against his deceitful former business partner is relatable. Unfortunately, our sympathy for him goes off the rails when he resorts to body stealing and murder to achieve his ends. In his mind, it’s all for the love of his art – pesky things like morals and ethics need not apply.

Cinematographer Ray Rennahan, art director Anton Grot, and costume designer Orry-Kelly make the most of the limitations of the film stock’s predominately red/green palette,* allowing our minds to fill in the blanks for the missing colors. If anything, the two-strip process lends the movie a somewhat unworldly look, perfect for the ghoulish subject matter. Likewise, the set design adds a level of unreality to the mix, ideal for such an outlandish tale. One example is the impressive workroom, where Igor carries out his fiendish plans, with its massive steel beams bathed in green light and a giant vat of boiling wax. I can’t address the practicality of such a setup, but it’s sure great to look at. 

* Fun Fact #4: Due to the limitations of the format, photographing pure white objects/clothing was impractical. As a workaround, the filmmakers opted for off-white/beige, in place of white.

The Mystery of the Wax Museum is a contender for one of the most disturbing films from the 1930s. Seeing the wax figures* melt and collapse in the prologue is sheer nightmare fodder. Another sequence that must have made some audience members jump in their seats depicts a freshly embalmed corpse rising up with a loud sigh, giving a novice coroner the fright of his life. I can’t speak for the veracity* of the scene, but it’s undeniably creepy. A subsequent sequence when a sheet-covered body is lowered outside the morgue window prompted cries for its removal. The film fared far worse in some countries outside the U.S., with censors calling for substantial cuts or the film being banned outright. Another moment (which reportedly was too much for Fay Wray during the first take) was the big reveal of Lionel Atwill’s face makeup, by an uncredited Perc Westmore. 

* Fun Fact #5: Two to three extra heads were kept on hand for the primary wax figures, in case their heads melted under the intense lighting. 

** Fun Fact #6: According to one funeral director’s FAQs, bodies are “physically incapable” of sitting up. As far as sounds emanating from corpses, however, it’s possible for trapped air to pass through the vocal cords, creating a semblance of moaning (Sleep well, folks!).

While The Mystery of the Wax Museum wasn’t a favorite with most critics* or regional censors,** it went on to be a hit at the box office, earning a respectable $1.1 million. The theme of creepy wax figures or clay sculptures being more than they seem has been re-used, recycled, and regurgitated for more than a century. The Mystery of the Wax Museum was remade in the 1950s, in Eastmancolor and 3D, as House of Wax, starring Vincent Price in the Lionel Atwill role, and revived in the early 2000s, once again, as House of Wax (the less said about that version, the better) From Waxworks (1924), to Santo in the Wax Museum (1963), to Wax Mask (1996), one thing is for certain. We haven’t seen the last of this perpetually enduring (and blood-chilling) subject. 

* Fun Fact #7: Here’s a sampling of 1933 review quotes from the New York premiere at the Strand Theatre (Personally, I’m with the third quote):

·       “…it is an absurd and tedious film of the thriller-chiller school.” (American)

·       “…the result is too ghastly for comfort (Times)

·       “Director Michael Curtiz makes an obvious endeavor to keep audiences’ toes a-tingling. And how it succeeds!” (News)

·       “In spite of the intenseness on the macabre, it never achieves anything but a wax-like imitation of horror.” (Post) 

** Fun Fact #8: In the town of Hereford, England, the film was initially banned for being “a very objectionable film,” only to have the ban lifted a week later, although it could not be shown on Sundays.

 

Sources for this article: Blu-ray commentary by Scott MacQueen, head of preservation, UCLA Film & Television Archive; “Remembering Fay Wray” (interview with Wray’s daughter, Victoria Riskin); “New York Reviews,” The Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 21, 1933); “Hereford Film Ban,” Kinematograph Weekly (Sept. 14, 1933); “Hereford’s Second Thoughts,” Kinematograph Weekly (Sept. 21, 1933); “The Mystery of the Wax Museum,” by Scott MacQueen, American Cinematographer (April 1990)