Thursday, January 11, 2024

THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON @ 70

A palaeontologist finds a bizarre claw like fossil while at a dig along the Amazon. Taking it to colleagues in the US, he returns with a team of experts, led by the qualified but corrupted by managerialism and greed boss of the institution. At first finding nothing, the team move operations further along, to a lagoon off the main flow and soon attract the attention of one of the owner of the claw's descendants. When the creature's stalking gets reversed all that managerial go and funding greed activate and soon it's a battle of wills to turn the gill man into a take home assignment. Who will win? 

The thing that might clue you into where this monster movie stands ethically happens right at the start. In a prologue about the formation of the universe there is an initial mention of a god creating the universe. That quote from Genesis is the last you'll hear of it. The narration goes on to deliver a superficial but accurate account of speciation. An early scene at a diving platform involves a female scientist telling the palaeontologist about the dangers of the bends. There are mentions of tectonic plate movement and discussions on the rights and wrongs of hauling a strange animal out of its habitat and others on whether that should be dead or alive. The first uttered statement of the film might have mentioned a god but, as Hamlet almost said, the rest is science.

And the science is not mad. The worst character here is Mark the boss who gets and goes mad with reputational lust and is driven to present the monster to the world and be nearly blinded in glory. The more restrained David is ready to consider the bigger picture and reach beyond his paranoid decade right into our own with his concerns about the ecosystem. As clunky as the dialogue can get and as overwrought the blocking, this creature feature sci-fi horror keeps to what it knows. 

Unfortunately, after that initial scene in which Kay explains the relationship between divers and water pressure, she doesn't get much more to do except sound off like a smoke alarm whenever the scaly danger appears. She does, however, get one of the most celebrated setpieces in all mid century genre when she goes for a dip in the lagoon and unwittingly performs a water ballet with out creature who has taken an instant shine to her. This is a breathtakingly beautiful sequence. A subsequent viewing will add the detail that the matching of water tank and location exterior is all but seamless.

One good reason for that is that the film was originally shot in 3D and projected to a very quirky cool set of audiences sporting sunglasses with different coloured lenses. I have never seen this presentation though I'm told that stereoscopic screenings have appeared in my lifetime. I will not miss the next one that I can get to. And there's something about that that should impress you. While you can pick out some moments filmed to capitalise on the 3D, before you know that it won't occur to you. Contrast almost every other 3D film you've seen or heard of in which things are meant to poke through the screen or lunge at the audience (Friday the 13th Part Three is a good example), flaunting the technology. The underwater scenes in this film are at base level dreamy and beautiful.

Another reason to give this oldie a good spin is the creature costume. Designed by the stylishly skilled Millicent Patrick the one-piece outfit is a marvel that neither creases with movement nor stretches like rubber. Patrick was until recently swept aside in the credits for the design in favour of Bud Westmore who led the makeup team and commissioned the practical creation of the suits (one for land and one for water). Not only is the costume pretty convincing even now (in 4K!) but the details work, the gills around the head breathe in a way that looks natural rather than mechanical. Until practical effects improved in the following decades and a handle was found on the CGI, this was the gold standard in monster costumes. It even allows emotion: a moment that always strikes me is the one when the creature scales the hull of the boat and angrily tears a piece of the structure off. The actor who did that, in those few seconds, kept the monster from being a thing with an immovable face.

There's the other thing. While the creature's wrath is meant to menace the sense that the expedition has invaded his home is palpable from the off. His wrath at their incursion and the effects of their self defence is vengeful but the threat of this, wherever it has originated, still makes him a figure of terror. A measure he resorts to in order to sabotage their progress is genuinely disturbing (no spoilers) when thought about.

This is one of the roundest of all the Universal monster movies, adding compassion to the intended terror. So, they lifted the creature's infatuation with the beautiful Julia Adams as Kay straight from King Kong but this was, after all, intended to sell tickets and popcorn first. Yes, the tongue trumpet use (blaaaaaare!) is overcooked, some of the performances uneven, and if the locals aren't quite iggrant natives they're not quite autonomous citizens, either. However, rather than have things to say to our time (which we should already know) it's both wondrous and shaming to see that such issues were concerns three score and ten years ago. Find it. See it.

No comments:

Post a Comment