100 Scariest Movie Moments: #62 The Wolf Man

I don’t think The Wolf Man belongs on this list. That isn’t anything against the film itself. It’s enjoyable and entertaining, and as a Universal Monster fanboy, I love it. I can even see how, to people at the time, it might have been mildly frightening. However, it’s a Hayes Code film through and through. And as a result, even by the standards of its own day, it has nothing that could be considered the slightest bit “shocking” or “controversial.”

I feel that in order to underscore this point, I need to compare it to two other films on the list, Frankenstein and Cape Fear. (Naturally, both of these movies will have their own reviews in time). Frankenstein was released in 1931, before the Hayes Code was strictly enforced. And for that reason, it was able to flaunt some of the morals of the day. In fact, Frankenstein is particularly infamous for the line “In the name of God, now I know what it’s like to be God!” This line was so shocking to audiences of the 1930’s that it was cut from later re-releases, and thought lost for decades.

On the other hand, Cape Fear was a movie dealing with rape that used the Hayes Code to its advantage in creating fear. And for this reason, it is arguably more effective today than at the time of its release. While the villain, Max Cady, is clearly intended to be a rapist, no one ever says the word “rape.” But through the use of euphemisms we get the idea that these are people who recognized the thing Cady has done, as well as the thing he’s planning to do, as being so horrific that they can’t even give voice to the word.

However, The Wolf Man is neither of these. Instead, it’s a neuter. A fun, entertaining neuter to be sure, but a neuter nonetheless. It was produced by the Hollywood system and contains no material that isn’t entirely assembly-line. If anyone needs proof of this, consider the original script for the movie which dealt seriously with the possibility that Larry (Lon Chaney, Jr.), who was a mechanic hired to install a telescope rather than the heir to the estate, was not a werewolf, but simply delusional. If that film had been made instead, we would have only seen the Wolf Man through reflections from Larry’s perspective, something the executives couldn't allow.

Instead, the story we’re given is paint-by-numbers. Larry Talbot, the heir to an estate in some part of the UK (despite his complete lack of an accent... not that it matters, since all references to the estate being in Wales were removed, to avoid offending the Welsh with the suggestion that they believe in werewolves!), comes home after his brother dies, and is bitten by a Romani (simply called a “gypsy” in the film) named Bela (Bela Lugosi), who turned into a wolf (for some reason a four-legged one), causing Larry to become a (two-legged) Wolf Man himself. This eventually culminates with his own father (Claude Rains) beating him to death with a silver-headed cane. The villagers find his completely human body, and are appropriately confused by what happened. However, we as the viewers, have absolutely no question about what happened.

The closest thing we have to a serious challenge to the sensibilities of the viewers is a brief scene in which a Romani woman explains to a priest that deaths should be celebrated, since his own religion teaches that the dead go to a better place. However, even this feels calculated, as if to say “see, we can still shock you!” while not actually questioning or challenging any religious beliefs likely held by those in the audience.

I would say that both the first sequel (Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man), and the Benecio Del Toro remake do more to challenge the viewer. The former deals with Larry discovering that he’s actually immortal, (he can be revived under certain circumstances), and attempting to end his life forever. Sadly, that film was mutilated in the editing room to make the latter half almost so bad it’s good. The remake is at least appropriately shocking, even if it still takes quite a stretch to convince yourself that Larry is delusional.

At this point, you’re probably having trouble believing me when I say that I like the movie, but it’s completely true. I think Chaney gives a great performance. Not only here, but in every movie in which he played Larry Talbot (a role which he reprised four times). Claude Rains as Larry’s father also does an excellent job of portraying a loving but rational parent. And although Lugosi’s role is small, he’s still Lugosi, and he can elicit both fascination and sympathy, even when playing an ethnic stereotype.

That being said, please watch the movie, but don’t watch it expecting to be scared or challenged. I'm fairly certain they put it on the list solely to complete the Big Three of Universal Horror (Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Wolf Man). It has a place there, less so here.